For months, San Diego coastal residents have urged direct communication and action from the city on a 239-foot, 22-story residential-commercial building proposed for 970 Turquoise St. in north Pacific Beach, not far from La Jolla’s southern boundary.
Representatives of the Pacific Beach Planning Group have been making connections since the fall with Mayor Todd Gloria’s office and held their latest meeting Jan. 17, placing emphasis on the project’s “base units” and advocating a traffic study of nearby “feeder streets,” according to Marcella Bothwell, chairwoman of the PB Planning Group.
Gloria has voiced opposition to the Turquoise Street proposal, which is using incentives and waivers available under California’s housing density bonus law to reach its planned height, far exceeding San Diego’s 30-foot limit for new buildings in coastal areas that city voters approved in 1972.
Bothwell was ed at the meeting by three fellow Planning Group — Charlie Nieto, Karl Rand and John Terrell. Each also is on the board of Neighbors for a Better California, a San Diego-based group that Bothwell also chairs and has taken a leading role in fighting the high-rise project, which opponents have labeled the “Turquoise Tower.”
Bothwell called the 45-minute meeting “productive” and said one of the local leaders’ primary objectives was to re-emphasize their belief that developer Kalonymus LLC’s calculation for the base units is being incorrectly applied, per the city municipal code and the local community plan.
The base zone allows for 31 residential units, but the 213-unit Turquoise development would feature 74, not counting 139 units described as “visitor accommodations,” or hotel rooms. Kalonymus is leaning on available bonuses to accomplish the additional units.
It has said it plans to use the visitor units as market-rate apartments. The ground floor would include shops.
The project sets aside five, or 16%, of the 31 base residential units for very-low-income households. The developer also is setting aside five, or another 16%, of those units for moderate-income households. As such, the project is eligible for two 50% bonuses, one for each of the subsidized unit types. It also is eligible for an 11-unit local density bonus because it includes three-bedroom units.
California’s density bonus law — ed in 1979 and repeatedly amended over the years — provides incentives and waivers for developers to build residential units considered affordable for lower-income households. It also allows developers to include commercial uses in their projects to supplement their residential components.
Bothwell plans to ask the PB Planning Group to send a letter requesting that the city investigate the base unit aspect of the Turquoise project. Her group also told the mayor’s office that it would like a traffic study of streets near the site, starting with La Jolla Boulevard and extending through Turquoise Street and Foothill Boulevard.
One of the group’s biggest issues with the plan, Bothwell said, is the capacity for fire, water and sewage services for it.
Kalonymus says the project would address a critical need for housing in San Diego and points out that 10 of the units are designated for lower incomes. But opponents believe it would ruin the community character, create more traffic congestion and serve as a precedent for more high-rises that eclipse the coastal height limit, all without adequately addressing affordable housing.
David Rolland, deputy director of communications for Gloria, said “it’s a priority for the mayor’s office to maintain an open line of communication with community leaders regarding the status of this project.”
“One thing we can take away is that the city is looking at this in a very detailed way as far as the ministerial permit [which does not require City Council approval],” Bothwell said. “And we greatly appreciate how the city is handling it.” She noted it could be a slow process.
The state Department of Housing and Community Development has said the state density bonus law can supersede local restrictions, including voter-approved initiatives such as the 30-foot coastal height limit.
However, in the Turquoise case, HCD sent a “technical assistance” letter in December stating that San Diego could deny the project by proving that some or all of the developer’s requested bonuses, waivers and incentives are not necessary to create the 10 affordable housing units.
State Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas), whose 38th District includes Pacific Beach and La Jolla, introduced a bill Jan. 22 intended to amend the density bonus law to prohibit developers from benefiting from it when building projects that “don’t include significant amounts of housing.”
The legislation, Senate Bill 92, “requires developers to devote two-thirds of the floor space of their projects to residential housing in order to qualify for exemptions … from local restrictions,” Blakespear said.
“In a state desperate for more affordable housing options, we need to do better, and that’s why this bill sets the bar higher,” she added.
Blakespear’s office said Gloria sponsored SB 92.
Neighbors for a Better San Diego, which recently consolidated its efforts with San Diegans for Responsible Planning, has made its presence known at community meetings and several events, including the La Jolla and Pacific Beach Christmastime parades.
Bothwell has spoken before the La Jolla Community Planning Association, La Jolla Town Council, Bird Rock Community Council and several other groups to try to get them to the fight against the Turquoise proposal. All have expressed for the cause.
Bothwell and Neighbors for a Better California said that, while they appreciate Blakespear’s new bill, they believe it needs stricter affordability requirements.
Bothwell also said the organization plans to raise funds for a statewide poll about local control to help provide guidance on whether a statewide ballot initiative or constitutional amendment may be necessary.
Assembly Bill 1287 by Assemblyman David Alvarez (D-San Diego) served as an expansion of the state density bonus law and was approved by the Assembly on a 76-1 vote in September 2023.
“That is an incredibly hard hill to go up,” Bothwell said. “I don’t know that we can change that many Assembly ’ [minds] to actually get the result we want, so we may have to go directly to the people.”
“This [Turquoise project] is just so egregious,” she added. “Some [future proposals] might not be as bad, but they’ll still be a high-rise. So we’re going to have to keep fighting this fight.”
Neighbors for a Better California plans to distribute yard signs and pamphlets to potential donors across the coast. The first batch of signs is scheduled to be released Saturday, Feb. 1, at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5151 Fanuel St., Pacific Beach. ♦
