Novi v. City of Pacifica

Opinion

KING, J.

In this case we hold that land-use ordinances precluding uses that would be detrimental to the “general welfare” and precluding developments that would be “monotonous” in design and external appearance are not unconstitutionally vague. Sam Novi appeals from a judgment in favor of the City of Pacifica in Novi’s action to compel the city to issue use and site development permits for the construction of a condominium project. We affirm the judgment.

On March 31, 1980, Novi applied to the city for a permit to construct a 48-unit condominium project on approximately 2.3 acres near Highway 1 in Pacifica. The project was to consist of eight 4-story buildings.

The city planning commission certified a negative declaration (declaring the lack of a need for an environmental impact report) on July 2, 1980. The negative declaration required seven mitigation measures. The first mitigation measure was “Reduction of project density to achieve: at random building placement, reduction in grading and the use of retaining walls, avoidance of the linear monotony and massive bulky appearance and the achievement of a small scale village atmosphere characteristic of Pacifica.”

Novi did not comply with the first mitigation measure. At a planning commission hearing held on August 18, 1980, Novi asserted that “[mjajor alteration in building design to lower the profile, reduce density and bulk, is too costly . . . .” A developer involved in the project, Renan Dominguez, testified, “We cannot comply with the mitigation of reducing the density and still live with the project.” Dominguez stated that a “small village atmosphere” as stated in the negative declaration “means a two-story building and we cannot live with a two-story building on this site.”

Instead, Novi submitted a revised set of plans in March 1981, calling for two connected four-story buildings containing 24 units each. At a planning commission hearing on April 20, 1981, Novi asserted that “[rjandom placement of the buildings on the site is not economically feasible nor practical because of the topography of the site . . . .” Dominguez asserted that “[tjo further reduce the number of units . . . would substantially increase the cost per unit in proportion to the number reduced . . . .” Dominguez promoted the revised plans as “a compromise to satisfy the mitigations” required by the negative declaration.

[681]