Development Regulations for 130 Dardenelle
 

 

Bart Hechtman,


I am currently proposing a single family home in Pacifica on a site previously owned by the water district, used for a water tank site.
 

Since my parcel is currently zoned PF+/ HPD. (PF=Public Facility,+ means any rezoning requires a public vote, HPD = hillside preservation district) 
 

HPD requires any development to be rezone to PD (planned development).
 

The “+” prohibits any rezone without a public vote ( California initiative process)
 

Since there is no allowable development without the initiative process I believe this is a regulatory taking.

 

If this was not a regulatory taking, I can argue there could not be a regulatory taking since everyone has the initiative process available to them.

 

I am currently in the application process for a site development permit in Pacifica.  

 

My plans have been deemed complete, exempt from CEQA, and waiting to be scheduled for the planning commission. 

 

I expect my project to pass with the condition of a future zoning change and general plan amendment.

 

I do not want to go through the initiative process due to expense, time, work, & risk of not passing.
 

Council members, planning commissioners, and neighbors are very supportive of this project.

 

I am looking for alternatives to the initiative process such as judicial remedies or administrative solutions.

 

I would like to hire you for a consultation to explore options.


David Blackman
David Blackman Construction Inc
 (650) 766-6316 cell

 

General Plan

The general Plan designation is Utilities ("A designation indicating the location of the existing public utilities, such as water tanks, serving the City.") This is all the general plan speaks about my property.

The Initiative process can not be applied to a particular parcel of land.

 The plus component of 130 Dardenelle was imposed by a 1983 initiative. The California appeals courts have specifically stated “the people may not use an initiative to discriminate against a particular parcel of land.” Arnel Development Company v. City of Costa Mesa

 The Arnel court also states that an initiative is invalid if it lacks a substantial and reasonable relationship to the public welfare. The plus component can be challenged because it does not benefit health, safety, and the welfare of its citizens.

Limitation of Police Powers and our Constitution 

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.”

 In 2005 The United States Supreme Court once again reaffirmed that just compensation for a regulatory taking must be paid if regulations deprive a landowner of all economically beneficial use of land.

 The PF+ zoning does not benefit health, safety, and the welfare of its citizens. The PF zoning, the + component and combination with hillside preservation is clearly unduly restrictive and qualifies as a taking under the 5th amendment.