Pismo Beach loses another property rights battle
March 31, 2025

View of water tanks from Highway 101
By KAREN VELIE
Pismo Beach has lost its latest battle in a decades-long war over control of a residential property that sits between Highway 101 and Shell Beach Road.
A San Luis Obispo Superior Court judge on March 21 rejected the city’s argument that the homeowner’s plan to place a rainwater collection system on the 2.5 acre parcel was banned because it is a nonconforming use. The determination will likely cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars for attorney fees and court costs.
Even though the property owner has changed, the ongoing battle over what is permitted on the land that sits near the Cliffs Hotel and Spa appears never ending.
In 2002, Mike Spangler purchased the vacant property and built his dream home. Spangler then began submitting plans to the city seeking to build several additional homes on the property.
More than a decade after he bought the property, the city asked Spangler to sign a deed restriction that would preserve the remaining portions of his property as open space. Spangler refused to sign the agreement.
The city asserted the land was classified as open space when Spangler purchased the property, and that Spangler had agreed to the restrictions. Spangler refused to sign the deed arguing it was overly restrictive.
The city then ordered Spangler to withdraw his development plans and sign the deed restriction or face $500 a day in fines while the city shut off his utilities.
A judge ruled the city had to turn Spangler’s utilities back on and set aside the fines.
The City of Pismo Beach and Spangler then entered into a settlement agreement in 2016 that included the city paying Spangler $100,000 and both parties recording a permanent easement establishing the boundaries of the open space on the property and future property rights.
Spangler, and any future owners, where permitted to use an allocated 27,000 square feet of the property for “residential uses including buildings, parking, landscaping, gardening, outdoor living and other uses.”
In 2022, the current owner of the Shell Beach Road property, Andrew Grow, applied for a permit for a rainwater collection system. Not long after Grow purchased the property, a fire jumped Highway 101 and encroached onto his land. Firefighters used water from Grow’s hose to fill their water tanks to fight the blaze.

Rendering of Grow’s proposal
Grow plans to install the rainwater collection system and 10 water tanks for use for fire suppression and other outdoor water needs.
The city rejected his proposal saying his rainwater collection proposal wasn’t compliant with the general and local coastal plans.
On Sept. 15, 2023, Grow filed a lawsuit against the city arguing the project is permitted within the “developed area.”
In its defense, the city argued that Grow was seeking to “treat the ‘developed area’ as a regulation-free zone such that any improvements consistent with the underlying zoning are allowed by right.”
San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Craig van Rooyen did not agree.
“The city’s argument is incongruous and ignores the authority under which it could impose the condition,” according to Judge van Rooyen’s ruling.
The city also argued “Grow’s position constitutes a ‘blanket approval of future development’ which contravenes the rule that a government may not bargain away its right to exercise its police power in the future.”
Once again, the judge did not agree with the city’s assertion. Judge van Rooyen found the city “overstated the nature of Grow’s request.”
City officials have repeatedly voiced concerns that Grow is seeking the rainwater storage system with plans to apply for further development of the property, which Grow finds to be a baseless argument.
“They’ve treated me very poorly,” Grow said. “I think it is because they have raw wounds from Spangler. I am bearing the brunt of it.”
The comments below represent the opinion of the writer and do not represent the views or policies of CalCoastNews.com. Please address the Policies, events and arguments, not the person. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling is not. Comment Guidelines