Status Update of the Pacific Beach ‘Turquoise Tower’

City Still Pushing for Answers While NFABC Closely Monitors Situation

From Neighbors for a Better California Board

The proposed 23-story Turquoise Tower project in Pacific Beach remains under review as the city continues to press the developer for additional documentation. On September 24, the City Planning Department issued its second round of questions to the developer.

A project of this size and complexity typically goes through at least six full cycles of questions and responses between the city and the developer before any approvals are considered, so Turquoise Tower is still in the very early stages of review and remains far from final approval.

These cycle reports are one of the tools the city uses to clarify issues directly with the developer. They focus on technical and code-related questions about the project’s design and incentives and do not yet include reviews of public safety, traffic, or other community impacts.

Although the Pacific Beach Planning Group had also requested this information, those requests were not fulfilled. NFABC had to retain legal counsel to obtain the city’s cycle report and supporting documentation through a Public Records Act (PRA) request, underscoring how limited public access has become under the state’s new ministerial housing laws.

City staff believe the developer’s claim of 8.47 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is not supported. FAR, or Floor Area Ratio, is a planning measurement that compares the total floor area of a building to the size of the lot it is built on. A higher FAR means more square footage, greater mass, and increased building height. Based on current plans, city staff estimate the allowable FAR for this site is closer to 4.5, which would permit significantly less bulk and height than the developer is seeking. NFABC’s own review of the developer’s plans suggests that, when all claimed bonuses are included, the total FAR developers are requesting could reach between 12.9 and 14.8, far above what current zoning allows.

The developer also argues the project should receive automatic ministerial approval under state law because it is two-thirds residential.

Ministerial approval means the project could bypass public hearings, city council votes, and most discretionary reviews. If classified as ministerial, city staff would be required to approve the project as long as it meets basic objective standards, leaving little or no opportunity for public input or appeal.

The developer’s submittal from last year includes two sets of calculations: one for “occupied area,” which refers to residential and visitor accommodations, and another for the “whole project,” which includes parking. The occupied area calculation shows only 52 percent of the space as residential and 48 percent as visitor accommodations, falling short of the two-thirds residential threshold required under SB 436 to qualify for ministerial processing. To reach that ratio, the developer counts the entire parking garage as residential space, an interpretation city staff strongly dispute. When the parking garage is included, the total project shows 67 percent residential, just enough to claim eligibility under the law.

According to documents obtained through NFABC’s attorney via a Public Records Act request, on September 24 the City Planning Department issued a formal recheck notice asking for clarification on several claimed incentives and bonuses. The developer is relying on AB 1287 and SB 436, along with local city incentives, to justify the project’s height and density.

City planners are not convinced the project qualifies for these bonuses and have requested additional information on three key issues:

• Three-Bedroom Bonus: The developer is requesting a ten percent increase in the total number of units based on the inclusion of larger family units. The city questions whether the project includes enough three-bedroom units to qualify for this bonus.

• Structured Parking Bonus: The developer is seeking a 1.0 FAR incentive for a structured parking garage design that does not currently meet the city’s criteria for that incentive.

• Parking in the Front of the Property: City code prohibits parking in the front portion of a lot. The developer denies that this occurs, but earlier plans showed parking in that area, prompting the city to request clarification.

The city has not signed off on the requested bonuses, the building’s overall size, or its permit classification. NFABC continues to monitor the review closely and will respond if the city is pressured to approve the project without full documentation or proper verification.

NFABC believes that transparency is essential at every stage of the development review process. When projects of this scale move forward without full public access to information, trust is eroded and accountability suffers. We will continue pressing for clear documentation, open communication between the city and the public, and full disclosure of how state housing laws are being applied at the local level. The community deserves a transparent, fact-based process before any project of this magnitude and scale is allowed to proceed.

Your support is essential to our ongoing efforts, especially given we had to pay an attorney to obtain critical records through a Public Records Act request. These costs are necessary to ensure transparency and hold both the city and the developer accountable as the Turquoise Tower project moves through its early review stages. Every donation helps NFABC continue monitoring the process, analyzing technical documents, challenging unsupported claims about density and incentives, and advocating for a fair, fact-based review that prioritizes community input and public safety. With your help, we can keep pressing for full disclosure and protect the integrity of local planning decisions.

Thank you for your continued support,

NFABC Board