Pismo Beach blocked homeowner from building on property. Now he’s won in court

A Pismo Beach homeowner claimed victory in court after the city attempted to block his plans to make changes to his property bordering Highway 101.

Over the past two years, Andrew Grow’s Shell Beach Road home has been the heart of the most recent battle in the city’s extensive legal history with the property.

The issue: a fight over whether Grow could build a water collection system on his property, which carries a complicated zoning history from previous legal disputes over exactly what can and cannot be built on the lot

The proposed rainwater collection system would occupy the northern end of Grow’s property, providing him with around 50,000 gallons of water each year for landscaping and fire suppression.

Grow also planned to make the water reserve available to firefighters servicing his part of Shell Beach, as the closest fire hydrant is nearly 1,500 feet from his property.

When Grow launched his lawsuit in September 2023, he said the city left him no choice after multiple requests to install his rainwater collection and storage system were denied by the Planning Commission and City Council.

“They made it out that I do not think that the zoning requirements apply to the property, and that I could build anything that I want there, which was, as far as I’m concerned, something that was pulled out of thin air,” Grow said.

Why did Pismo Beach deny property changes?

Even if the project penciled out as a sensible addition to the property, Grow had to contend with the property’s history of unique zoning and city involvement.

Before a shovel ever touched the ground on the Shell Beach Road property, it was the subject of a series of lawsuits by original property owner Stan Bell, who alleged that the city had denied him all reasonable economic use of the property.

Those lawsuits eventually led to the lot being zoned as Open Space-1 — a unique type of zoning that designates areas for preservation of resources, recreation and sensitive ecosystems.

The next subsequent owner, Mike Spangler, was able to get the city’s approval to build a home and driveway on the lot in 2003, but was unable to remedy the lot’s unique zoning.

Spangler took Pismo Beach to court in 2015 when the city shut off utilities to his home and began fining him $500 a day after he refused to sign the open-space easement and withdraw his applications for zoning changes. That would have prevented him from developing any land beyond the area agreed upon with the city.

At the time, the city claimed this was part of the original conditional use permit to build a home.

Spangler ultimately won his lawsuit, with San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Dodie Harman ruling in 2016 that the fines were an attempt to “bully Spangler into recording an open-space easement.”

Harman did not rule on the constitutionality of the open-space easement, however, which remained in place once Spangler died in 2016 and the property was sold to Grow.

It was that lack of clarity on the open-space easement that led to Grow’s lawsuit; while the city contended that the water tanks would expand the lot coverage, Grow argued that these claims were unfounded — and was eventually proved correct in court.

Why did lawsuit go in homeowner’s favor?

Grow’s lawsuit asked San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Craig Van Rooyen to settle the interpretation of the open space easement agreement permanently.

In its defense, the city argued that Grow interpreted the easement agreement as an excuse to “treat the ‘developed area’ as a regulation-free zone” where any and all development are allowed by right, and further argued that he was trying to get a “blanket approval of future development,” according to the adopted tentative ruling.

It also said the existing improvements to the property’s “developed area” are a non-conforming use that cannot be expanded.

In response, the court said the city had overstated the nature of Grow’s request and said the existing improvements to the area are not out of line with the standards of the easement agreement.

Van Rooyen denied the city’s motion for judgment, and said Grow is “entitled to a declaration that the Lot Coverage Requirement does not apply to projects set within the ‘developed area’ delineated in the Easement Agreement.”

Grow said the judge’s decision doesn’t change his property’s zoning, but rather clarifies where the space that can be developed ends on the lot, finding that development on the existing developed space cannot be denied based on lot coverage alone.

The city of Pismo Beach declined to comment on the lawsuit.

With the court’s backing, Grow said he expects to meet the city in court again sometime soon to settle the denial of his permits and is looking forward to getting his project underway.

“I don’t have any plans per se, other than just maintaining the property and keeping it looking nice,” Grow said. “It’s the gateway to the north end of Shell Beach.”