Pacific Beach Turquoise Tower Battle: What It Means

The Turquoise Tower Project: What's Being Proposed

The Turquoise Tower project targets a 0.67-acre site at 970 Turquoise Street, where developer Kalonymus has contracted to purchase parcels at 954, 960, and 980 Turquoise Street. According to reports from NBC San Diego, these properties currently house a shuttered bar, the French Gourmet restaurant and bakery, and a liquor store.

The $185 million proposal calls for a 22 to 23-story mixed-use development featuring:

• 139 hotel rooms spanning 9 floors
• 74 residential apartment units on remaining floors
• 10 affordable units (5 very low income, 5 moderate income)
• Ground-floor commercial shops
• Total height: 238-239 feet—nearly eight times the 30-foot coastal height limit

The project sits just blocks from the Pacific Ocean, squarely within San Diego's Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone. This zone, established by voter-approved Proposition D in 1972, prevents buildings over 30 feet west of Interstate 5. According to OB Rag, San Diego voters approved Proposition D by 63.06% citywide, with Ocean Beach and Pacific Beach supporting it by 80%.

The Developer's Controversial Strategy: Density Bonus Exploitation

Kalonymus is leveraging California's Density Bonus Law—originally designed to encourage affordable housing—to circumvent local height restrictions. By including just 10 affordable units out of 74 total apartments (13.5%), the developer claims eligibility for multiple density bonuses and waivers that would:

1. Waive the voter-approved 30-foot height limit
2. Multiply commercial space by more than 1,500% beyond local zoning
3. Claim "Transit Priority Area" bonuses despite being in a car-dependent area
4. Bypass standard development review processes

The project's structure has raised red flags across California. Senator Catherine Blakespear noted that "the deficiency in present law has come to light with a mixed-use housing project proposed for the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego in which the commercial space exceeded local zoning by more than 1,500%."

San Diego Council President Joe LaCava described the project as "so unusual, and it was so aggressive in its interpretation of state law," according to multiple news reports.

The Transit Priority Area Controversy

One of the most disputed aspects involves the developer's claim that the site qualifies as a "Transit Priority Area." California's density bonus law provides unlimited density increases for projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop. However, community members point out that the nearest transit consists of infrequent bus service—not the high-frequency rail or trolley service the law intended to encourage.

Hotel vs. Housing: The Commercial Space Problem

Of the project's total floor space, 139 units are designated as hotel rooms versus just 74 apartments. Critics argue this represents a primarily commercial development masquerading as affordable housing to exploit density bonus benefits.

This concern prompted SB 92, sponsored by Senator Blakespear, which requires developers to devote two-thirds of floor space to residential housing and limits commercial space increases to 2.5 times local zoning. The law, signed by Governor Newsom, takes effect January 1, 2026—but doesn't apply to already-proposed projects like the Turquoise Tower.

The "Automatic Approval" Claim: Developer Pressure Tactics

As 2026 began, the legal battle entered a new phase. According to Pacific Beach Town Council President Charlie Nieto, "the developer, Kalonymus, has attempted to strongarm the city into immediately approving its permits."

The developer now argues the project must be considered "automatically approved" because the city allegedly failed to meet review deadlines prescribed by state law meant to ensure speedy project review. This aggressive tactic has alarmed both community members and city officials.

However, city policy adviser Christopher Ackerman-Avila expressed optimism: "We have options" to challenge the automatic approval claim. According to California's Department of Housing and Community Development, the city can reject density bonus requests if officials prove through evidence that "the incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions" for affordable units.

The city's review remains in early stages. As of September 2024, the City Planning Department issued its second round of questions to the developer—only the second of usually six or more review cycles. City planners are pressing for clarification on whether the developer's requests under AB 1287, SB 436, and local incentives actually qualify.

Community Opposition: A United Front

The Turquoise Tower has galvanized unprecedented community resistance across multiple San Diego neighborhoods.

Pacific Beach Town Council and Planning Group

Pacific Beach Town Council President Charlie Nieto, beginning his fourth year leading the council in 2026, has made opposing the tower a central focus. "I fully anticipate a legal battle in the near future to stop this once and for all," Nieto stated.

In December 2025, the Pacific Beach Planning Group sent a formal letter to the city claiming errors in base zone density calculations. According to Union-Tribune reporting, the letter argues "the density incentive applied is incorrect and should not have been used." The Planning Group expects a city response and correction by early January 2026.

Neighbors for a Better California

Marcella Bothwell, chair of the Pacific Beach Planning Group, formed a new organization called Neighbors for a Better California to lead opposition efforts. The group has characterized the project as "the poster child of unintended consequences" of state density bonus law.

Over 500 neighbors gathered in Pacific Beach to protest the tower and similar out-of-scale developments. Bothwell has presented concerns to multiple neighboring community groups, including:

• La Jolla Shores Association
• La Jolla Community Planning Association
• Bird Rock Community Council
• La Jolla Parks & Beaches board
• La Jolla Town Council

All have expressed opposition or concern about the development, worried that similar projects could come to their neighborhoods.

Elected Officials Join the Fight

At a January 15, 2025 Pacific Beach Town Council meeting, representatives from multiple elected officials declared opposition:

• U.S. Representative Scott Peters
• County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer
• San Diego City Council President Joe LaCava
• San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria (through policy advisers)

Mayor Gloria sponsored both AB 87 and SB 92 to prevent future projects like the Turquoise Tower.

Legislative Response: AB 87 and SB 92

The Turquoise Tower controversy has directly shaped California housing law.

Assembly Bill 87 (Assemblymember Tasha Boerner)

AB 87 makes State Density Bonus Law benefits inapplicable to hotel portions of mixed-use projects. Assemblymember Boerner stated that AB 87 is "a direct response to Project Vela" (another name for the Turquoise Tower).

The bill clarifies that density bonus law does not require jurisdictions to grant incentives, concessions, or waivers to hotels, motels, or other transient lodging (other than residential hotels) as part of mixed-use projects. Governor Newsom signed the legislation, which ensures "Density Bonus Law is used primarily on building residential units instead of high-rise hotels," according to FOX 5 San Diego.

The Assembly passed AB 87 with a remarkable 54-0 vote, demonstrating bipartisan consensus that the Turquoise Tower represents density bonus abuse.

Senate Bill 92 (Senator Catherine Blakespear)

SB 92, also signed into law by Governor Newsom and effective January 1, 2026, requires:

1. Two-thirds of floor space must be devoted to residential housing to qualify for density bonus exemptions
2. Commercial space increases limited to 2.5 times local zoning allowances

Senator Blakespear explained: "SB 92 will ensure the density bonus law is being used how it was originally intended, to encourage developers to add significant affordable housing to their mixed-use projects."

Both laws were directly sponsored by the City of San Diego and supported by U.S. Representative Scott Peters and Council President Joe LaCava. However, neither applies retroactively to the Turquoise Tower, which was proposed before the laws took effect.

Impact on Pacific Beach Property Values

The uncertainty surrounding the Turquoise Tower has created measurable impacts on Pacific Beach's real estate market, particularly for properties near the proposed site.

Current Pacific Beach Market Conditions

According to Rocket Homes market data, Pacific Beach median home prices reached $1,403,333 as of July 2025, representing a 6.1% year-over-year increase. The neighborhood's low-rise, beach-community character has historically supported these premium values.

How High-Rise Development Affects Nearby Properties

The relationship between height limits and property values is complex. According to Pacific Beach Builder, "The height limit generally supports property values by preserving the low-rise, beach-community character that makes Pacific Beach desirable, though it also constrains what can be built."

If the Turquoise Tower sets a precedent for high-rise development, it could lead to gradual neighborhood transformation, potentially driving up property values and rental prices over time while displacing long-term residents and changing community character.

Construction Impact on Property Values

Research on construction-related impacts shows significant effects on nearby property values:

• Noise Pollution Impact: According to research cited by Collateral Analytics, construction noise from heavy machinery can reach 120-130 decibels. Studies show traffic and construction noise can reduce property values by 5-12% in rising markets.
• Polish Research Findings: A detailed study found railway noise caused a 1.79% decrease in apartment value per decibel above 55 dB, while road noise caused a 0.12% drop per decibel.
• Buyer Psychology: According to HomeLight research, noise pollution is one of the top reasons buyers walk away from properties.

For a 23-story tower, construction could last 18-24 months, creating prolonged noise, dust, traffic disruption, and street closures that could depress nearby property values during the construction period.

Properties Most at Risk

Homes within a 2-3 block radius of 970 Turquoise Street face the highest uncertainty:

• Direct sight lines to the proposed tower
• Shadow impacts from a 239-foot structure
• Construction disruption during the building phase
• Parking and traffic changes during and after construction
• Precedent concerns about additional high-rises

Why Homeowners Are Considering Selling Now

The legal uncertainty has created a wave of motivated sellers in Pacific Beach, particularly near the Turquoise Street site. Several factors drive this trend:

Legal Timeline Uncertainty

Pacific Beach Town Council President Nieto anticipates "a legal battle in the near future," but the timeline remains unclear. Legal challenges could take:

• 6-12 months for initial court rulings
• 2-3 years for appeals processes
• Unknown duration for final resolution

Homeowners facing years of uncertainty often prefer to sell before legal outcomes are determined.

Construction Disruption Concerns

If the project proceeds, construction of a 23-story tower would create:

• 18-24 months of heavy construction noise (120+ decibels)
• Daily traffic disruption from construction vehicles
• Street parking elimination for staging areas
• Dust and debris affecting nearby properties
• Utility disruptions during infrastructure work

Many homeowners prefer to avoid these impacts entirely by selling before construction begins.

Property Value Protection

Selling before legal resolution offers several advantages:

1. Current market values: Pacific Beach median prices remain strong at $1.4 million
2. Avoiding construction-related depreciation: 5-12% value drops during active construction
3. Eliminating uncertainty discount: Buyers may demand lower prices for properties near pending developments
4. Preserving equity: Selling at peak values before potential market shifts

The Cash Buyer Advantage for Uncertain Times

When facing development uncertainty, traditional home sales face significant challenges:

• Buyer hesitation: Conventional buyers may avoid properties near controversial developments
• Appraisal issues: Lenders may require discounts for pending construction impacts
• Extended timelines: Uncertainty often lengthens time on market
• Financing complications: Banks may be reluctant to approve loans near major construction sites

Cash buyers offer distinct advantages in these situations:

Understanding California's Density Bonus Law

To understand the Turquoise Tower controversy, it's essential to grasp how California's Density Bonus Law works and how developers exploit it.

How Density Bonus Law Works

Enacted in 1979, California's Density Bonus Law allows developers to exceed standard density requirements if affordable housing is included. The law was designed to encourage affordable unit construction during California's housing crisis.

Eligibility Requirements:

Cities must grant density bonuses to projects containing:

• At least 5% of units restricted to very low-income residents
• At least 10% restricted to lower-income residents
• At least 10% of for-sale units restricted to moderate-income residents
• 100% affordable projects (with maximum 20% moderate income)
• At least 10% for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons
• At least 20% for low-income college students

Density Bonus Amounts:

• Up to 50% density increase for most qualifying projects
• Up to 80% density increase for 100% affordable projects
• Unlimited density for projects within one-half mile of major transit stops

Additional Benefits:

• Reduced parking requirements
• Concessions and waivers to development standards
• Exemptions from local zoning restrictions
• Waivers of voter-approved initiatives (like height limits)

According to San Diego County planning documents, developers who meet state law requirements are entitled to receive density bonuses "as a matter of right"—meaning cities have limited ability to deny them.

How the Turquoise Tower Exploits These Provisions

The Turquoise Tower demonstrates how developers can manipulate well-intentioned affordable housing law:

1. Minimal affordable housing: Just 10 units out of 213 total (4.7%)
2. Hotel-dominated project: 139 hotel rooms dwarf 74 apartments
3. Commercial space explosion: 1,500% increase beyond local zoning
4. Questionable transit claims: Using infrequent bus service to claim unlimited density
5. Voter initiative override: Circumventing 30-foot height limit approved by 80% of Pacific Beach voters

What AB 87 and SB 92 Change

The new laws close critical loopholes:

AB 87 (effective 2026):

• Density bonus benefits don't apply to hotel/motel portions of mixed-use projects
• Only residential housing qualifies for incentives and waivers
• Prevents developers from using 10 affordable apartments to justify 139-room hotels

SB 92 (effective January 1, 2026):

• Two-thirds minimum residential floor space requirement
• Commercial space limited to 2.5x local zoning (blocks 1,500% increases)
• Ensures projects are genuinely housing-focused, not commercial developments with token affordable units

These changes would have blocked the Turquoise Tower had they been in effect when the project was proposed.

What Happens Next: Legal Battle Timeline

As 2026 unfolds, several key developments will determine the Turquoise Tower's fate:

Immediate Timeline (January-March 2026)

City Response to Density Calculation Errors: The Pacific Beach Planning Group expects the city to respond to its December letter about base zone density calculation errors by early January 2026.

Additional Review Cycles: The city must complete at least four more review cycles, each potentially taking 30-90 days, questioning the developer's bonus eligibility.

Developer Response: Kalonymus must provide evidence that each incentive "results in identifiable and actual cost reductions" for affordable housing, as required by state law.

Mid-Year Developments (April-August 2026)

Potential City Denial: If the city determines bonuses don't genuinely serve affordable housing, officials could deny the project or negotiate significantly reduced height (potentially 90 feet instead of 239 feet).

Developer Legal Action: If denied, Kalonymus will likely file lawsuits claiming automatic approval or density bonus entitlement violations.

Community Legal Intervention: Neighbors for a Better California and other groups may join legal proceedings to defend the city's denial.

Long-Term Resolution (2027-2028)

Court Proceedings: Legal battles typically require 12-18 months for initial rulings, with potential appeals extending timelines another 12-24 months.

Precedent-Setting Decision: The case could establish important legal precedents about:

• Whether "automatic approval" claims succeed when cities miss deadlines
• How strictly courts interpret density bonus qualification requirements
• Whether voter-approved height limits retain any protection under state law
• What constitutes legitimate "transit priority area" designation

Final Outcome: By late 2027 or 2028, courts will likely determine whether the project proceeds, proceeds in modified form, or is permanently blocked.

Broader Implications for San Diego Neighborhoods

The Turquoise Tower battle extends far beyond Pacific Beach.

Other Neighborhoods Watching Closely

Community groups in La Jolla, Bird Rock, Ocean Beach, Mission Beach, Sunset Cliffs, and Point Loma have all expressed concern about similar projects coming to their neighborhoods. If the Turquoise Tower succeeds, it establishes a blueprint for developers to circumvent height limits and zoning restrictions throughout San Diego's coastal zone.

Impact on Coastal Height Limit

The 30-foot coastal height limit, approved by 63% of San Diego voters in 1972, faces its greatest threat. According to OB Rag, California's Department of Housing and Community Development has stated that voter-enacted limitations are "void" when they conflict with State Density Bonus Law.

This interpretation fundamentally challenges local control over neighborhood character.

The Precedent Problem

If Turquoise Tower proceeds:

1. Developers across San Diego will replicate the strategy
2. Coastal communities will face similar 200+ foot towers
3. Voter-approved protections become meaningless
4. Affordable housing law becomes a tool for luxury development
5. Community character in beach neighborhoods transforms irreversibly

Why This Matters for All San Diego Homeowners

Even homeowners far from Pacific Beach should pay attention:

• Property value stability: Dramatic neighborhood changes create market uncertainty
• Local control erosion: What happens in Pacific Beach affects citywide planning authority
• Development pattern shifts: Success here encourages aggressive projects elsewhere
• Infrastructure strain: 200+ unit towers stress parking, traffic, utilities, and services in areas designed for low-density development

Service Areas Affected: Where Cash Buyers Are Helping Homeowners Exit

The Turquoise Tower uncertainty has created motivated sellers across multiple San Diego neighborhoods. If the project sets legal precedent, density bonus exploitation could spread throughout the region, affecting property values from coastal areas to inland communities. Here's how the battle impacts neighborhoods across San Diego County:

Pacific Beach (92109)

Properties within 2-3 blocks of 970 Turquoise Street face the most direct impact. Homeowners on Turquoise Street, Diamond Street, Emerald Street, Garnet Avenue (near iconic Crystal Pier), and surrounding blocks are evaluating exit strategies before legal resolution. Pacific Beach's median home price of $1.4 million makes this coastal community particularly vulnerable to construction-related depreciation.

La Jolla and Bird Rock (92037)

The proposed tower sits near the La Jolla border, particularly the Bird Rock neighborhood. Residents worry about precedent effects and similar projects potentially coming to La Jolla Shores, La Jolla Village, and Bird Rock commercial corridors. The proximity to landmarks like La Jolla Cove and Torrey Pines makes these areas prime targets for developers seeking to exploit density bonuses in high-value coastal markets.

Mission Beach (92109)

Another coastal neighborhood with strict height limits under Proposition D, Mission Beach residents recognize that if Pacific Beach's protections fall, their community could be next. Properties along Mission Boulevard and Oceanfront Walk could face similar developer pressure, threatening the beachfront character that defines this narrow barrier island community.

Ocean Beach (92107)

Ocean Beach voted 80% in favor of Proposition D's 30-foot height limit. The community has already seen preliminary projects testing the limits. Homeowners along Newport Avenue, Bacon Street, and Abbott Street are watching the Turquoise Tower battle closely, knowing their bohemian beach community could face similar high-rise proposals.

Point Loma and Sunset Cliffs (92106)

These coastal communities also fall within the height limit zone. Properties near commercial corridors along Voltaire Street, Rosecrans Street, and Sunset Cliffs Boulevard could face similar development pressure if the Turquoise Tower establishes favorable precedent. The peninsula's ocean views and coastal character make it attractive for aggressive density bonus projects.

Downtown Neighborhoods: East Village, Little Italy, Banker's Hill (92101)

Downtown San Diego's urban neighborhoods near Petco Park and the Gaslamp Quarter face different but related risks. East Village's ongoing redevelopment, Little Italy's commercial corridors, and Banker's Hill's historic districts could all see developers claiming transit priority area status to justify unlimited density. The precedent set by Turquoise Tower's exploitation of minimal affordable units could accelerate gentrification and displacement in these transitioning neighborhoods.

Central San Diego: North Park, South Park, Hillcrest, University Heights, Normal Heights (92104, 92103, 92116)

These walkable urban neighborhoods near Balboa Park have already experienced density bonus projects along transit corridors. North Park's 30th Street corridor, South Park's commercial district, Hillcrest's vibrant business areas, University Heights' vintage neighborhoods, and Normal Heights' Adams Avenue could all face increased development pressure if the Turquoise Tower strategy succeeds. Homeowners in these areas are monitoring the legal battle closely, knowing similar projects could transform neighborhood character.

Golden Hill and City Heights (92102, 92105)

Golden Hill's historic Victorian homes near downtown and City Heights' diverse, transit-oriented neighborhoods could become targets for density bonus exploitation. Both areas offer developers lower land costs than coastal neighborhoods while still claiming transit priority area benefits. The Turquoise Tower precedent could accelerate displacement in these working-class communities where affordable housing is already scarce.

Mid-City Neighborhoods: Clairemont, Bay Park, Linda Vista (92111, 92117)

Clairemont's established subdivisions, Bay Park's family-friendly streets, and Linda Vista's affordable housing stock represent San Diego's suburban interior. While these neighborhoods lack the coastal height limit protections, they could still face density bonus projects claiming transit proximity along major corridors like Clairemont Drive and Linda Vista Road. The Turquoise Tower strategy of using minimal affordable units to override local zoning could bring high-density projects to areas designed for single-family homes.

Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa, Serra Mesa (92108, 92123)

Mission Valley's commercial corridors along Interstate 8 and Friars Road, Kearny Mesa's office parks and residential areas, and Serra Mesa's middle-class neighborhoods all face potential density bonus exploitation. Mission Valley in particular, with trolley access and major transit connections, could see aggressive projects claiming unlimited density. The Turquoise Tower precedent threatens to transform these areas from moderate-density commercial zones to high-rise districts.

Eastern Neighborhoods: El Cerrito, Rolando, College Area, Allied Gardens, Del Cerro, San Carlos (92115, 92120)

San Diego's eastern neighborhoods—El Cerrito, Rolando, College Area (near San Diego State University), Allied Gardens, Del Cerro, and San Carlos—represent established family communities with single-family homes and local commercial districts. While geographically distant from Pacific Beach, these neighborhoods watch the Turquoise Tower battle knowing that density bonus exploitation isn't limited to coastal areas. College Area in particular, with its proximity to SDSU and transit connections, could face similar projects claiming educational institution transit benefits. Homeowners in these 92115 and 92120 ZIP codes understand that if developers can override 80% voter-approved height limits in Pacific Beach, no local zoning protection is safe.

Regional Impact: All 29 Service Areas

The Turquoise Tower legal battle affects San Diego's entire housing market, from coastal communities protected by Proposition D to inland neighborhoods served by transit corridors. Whether you own property in Pacific Beach's 92109, La Jolla's 92037, downtown's 92101, or eastern areas like 92115, the precedent set by this case will determine whether local communities retain any control over neighborhood character and development scale.

Professional cash home buyers in San Diego understand these development dynamics across all 29 service areas and can help homeowners navigate uncertainty with quick, fair offers that eliminate financing contingencies and close in as little as 7-14 days, regardless of location or pending development concerns.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Articles