Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego

Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego

Opinion

 [**272] HALLER, Acting P. J.—Bankers Hill 150 and Bankers Hill/Park West Community Association (collectively, the Association) appeal the judgment entered after the trial court denied their petition for writ of mandate challenging a decision by the City of San Diego (City) to approve a development application for the 6th & Olive project (the Project), a 20-story mixed-use building with a total of 204 dwelling units in the Bankers Hill neighborhood near downtown San Diego.

Generally, [***2]  the Association believes the Project is inconsistent with the neighborhood because it is too dense, too tall, and too close to the street. The Association contends the City abused its discretion in approving the Project because it was inconsistent with development standards and policies set forth in the City's “General Plan” and the “Uptown Community Plan,” which govern development in the Project's neighborhood. More specifically, it asserts the building's design improperly obstructs views, fails to complement neighboring Balboa Park, and towers over adjacent smaller-scale buildings. The Association asserts that the City could not reasonably approve the Project given its inconsistencies with the standards for development in the community.

CA(1)(1) In making its arguments, the Association sidesteps a critical factor in the City's decisionmaking process: the application of a state law known as the Density Bonus Law. (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.) ] The Density Bonus [*763]  Law incentivizes the construction of affordable housing by allowing  [**273]  a developer to add additional housing units to a project beyond the zoned capacity and secure other “incentives” in exchange for a commitment from the developer to include deed-restricted affordable [***3]  units in the project. When a developer meets the requirements of the Density Bonus Law, a local government is obligated to permit increased building density, grant incentives, and waive any conflicting local development standards unless certain limited exceptions apply.

Here, the Project qualified for the benefits of the Density Bonus Law and the evidence does not support any of the limited exceptions to its application. Because the City was obligated to waive those standards if they conflicted with the Project's design, the Association's claim that the Project conflicts with certain development standards does not establish a basis for denying the Project.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.