|
130 Dardenelle is located towards the back of the Vallemar Valley on a ridge spur between the North & South Fork of Calera Creek.
On May 18th 1905 J. Downey Harvey, J.A Folger (Folger’s coffee), and Horace Pillsbury incorporated the Ocean Shore Railroad based on the solid expectation of a continued boom in population and prosperity.
On July 15th 1907 in cooperation with the Ocean Shore Railroad, Mary Tobin and C.B. Smith subdivided the Vallemar Valley for purpose of selling residential lots.
On August 8, 1944 North Coast County Water District was created.
On March 6, 1958 Harold and Anna Wolf sold this residential property to North Coast County (NCCW) for the installation of wooden water tank.
On August 8, 1983 Pacifica council members Curry, Murray, Loeb, and Mayor Warden sponsored a ballot initiative to rezone the property to PF+ (public facility). The initiative also added the clause that any future zoning change will require a vote of the people.
In the late 90’s early 00’s NCCW decommissioned the tank and declared it surplus. NCCW repeatedly offer the property to other utility companies, school districts, and to the City of Pacifica for a possible park. Pacifica declined the offer again in 2005 for this property for any use, including a park.
On August 29, 2006 I purchased this property from NCCW through an open public auction process.
On October 24, 2007 I submitted plans to develop a modest 2 story home on a blighted previously graded lot that was originally a residential lot in a residential neighborhood.
Why are you proposing a house? Why not build
another water tank or just leave it a blighted, sandbagged, concrete field?
No utility company wants to use this property surrounded by residential homes for a public utility use. They have all been notified, as required by law.
Leaving the property as is; detracts from the neighborhood, lowers property value, has unsupported grading cuts, brings in a minimal property tax for Pacifica, and returns no economical benefits on my investment.
Building a modest sized home on this lot, addressing the unsupported grading cuts, will greatly benefit the neighbor hood, increase property revenue on this site and neighboring sites, and will benefit me.
I am proposing a single family home in a neighborhood of single family homes.
What about the zoning of PF+?
There are several methods that Pacifica has to grant the permit to build one home on this site.
1) Pacifica can text amend the PF (public facility) to conditionally allow residential construction of one home on a PF zoned property if there are no other economically feasible uses for the property.
2) Pacifica can initiate and support a ballot measure to rezone this property back to residential.
3) Pacifica can rezone the property without a ballot measure. The current zoning is unconstitutional since it deprives a property owner of all economic use of the property.
4) I am sure that the city could also think of several other ways to process this permit.
Why should Pacifica help this greedy developer?
North Coast Water is a public entity that is owned by the citizens of Pacifica. The Citizens are already enjoying the proceeds from the sale of this property.
I am proposing a win / win solution. There are no losers to this proposal. This property is currently paved, fenced and sand bagged and therefore not a home or food source to wild animals.
I am proposing a single family home in a neighborhood of single family homes.
I have lived in Pacifica since 1968 and have always been a strong positive contributor to the community. I recently volunteered a large amount of time and money to structurally repair and install a new roof on Pacifica’s historical Little Brown Church. I have volunteered work and equipment to the facelift on Pacifica’s pump house at Linda Mar Beach across from Denny’s. I volunteered replacing a 40 foot skylight and 20 foots skylight on Pacifica’s Co-Op nursery school. I volunteered providing the electrical system needed for the construction of Pacifica’s Friendship Park. I have volunteered through the resource center for providing wheelchair ramps for people to regain access to their garden. This is a partial list of activities that shows I am not the stereotypical greedy developer.
I care deeply for this community.
What’s next?
Pacifica staff and council have the choice to work with me on this project with everyone winning, or initiate a costly legal battle that is costly to everyone.
I can be reached on my cell at anytime at (650) 766-6316
What is your legal strategy?
The ability to regulate land derives from the police power of government to regulate for the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The government’s ability to so regulate is, however, limited by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” If a land use regulation becomes so unduly restrictive that it causes a “taking” of a landowner’s property, just compensation must be paid.
The PF zoning does not benefit health, safety, and the welfare of its citizens, it does the opposite. The PF zoning is clearly unduly restrictive and qualifies as a taking under the 5th amendment.