Stepping up the fight against projects like the controversial 22-story residential-commercial building proposed for Turquoise Street in Pacific Beach just south of La Jolla, state Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) introduced a bill Jan. 22 intended to amend the state’s density bonus law, which is being used to enable that project to reach 239 feet tall.
The legislation, Senate Bill 92, would prohibit developers from benefiting from the density bonus law when building projects that “don’t include significant amounts of housing,” according to a statement issued by Blakespear’s office.
“The legislation 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,” the statement said.
The proposal by developer Kalonymus LLC would build 213 units over first-floor retail space at 970 Turquoise St. The building’s height — which far exceeds San Diego’s 30-foot height limit for new buildings in coastal areas that city voters approved in 1972 — has resulted in it being labeled the “Turquoise Tower” by many area residents.
The project has been met with strong criticism at community gatherings and on social media and has galvanized many residents along the coast to oppose it, saying 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.
Kalonymus says it believes the project would meet a need for housing in San Diego and says 10 of the units are designated for very-low- to middle-income households.
“This is a locally designed project that’s backed by people who believe in San Diego and want to create the new generation of homes that our city needs,” Matt Awbrey, a spokesman for Kalonymus, previously told the La Jolla Light.
Awbrey did not immediately respond to the Light’s request for comment about Blakespear’s bill.
Marcella Bothwell, who chairs the Pacific Beach Planning Group and Neighbors for a Better California — both leading opponents of the project — said in a statement that “we appreciate the bill [Blakespear] introduced. However, more needs to be done.”
California’s density bonus law — ed in 1979 and repeatedly amended over the years, most recently in 2024 — 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, according to Blakespear’s office.
The state Department of Housing and Community Development has said the state 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 the city of San Diego could deny the project “by making a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that the [density bonus] incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing.”
In other words, the city must prove that some or all of the developer’s requested bonuses, waivers and incentives are not necessary to create the project’s 10 affordable housing units.
Blakespear, whose 38th District includes Pacific Beach and La Jolla, already had publicly expressed opposition to the Turquoise project and said in the Jan. 22 statement that “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. In a state desperate for more affordable housing options, we need to do better, and that’s why this bill sets the bar higher.”
San Diego-based Neighbors for a Better California said Jan. 23 that it doesn’t think the bill sets the bar high enough.
The group noted that the Pacific Beach plan includes only five units deemed affordable for very low incomes.
“Disappointingly, SB 92 doesn’t require higher percentages of affordable housing,” said Neighbors for a Better California board member Karen Ventimiglia. “It focuses on housing overall but lacks stricter affordability rules.”
An editorial on the group’s website says “This bill still relies on the same outdated, low thresholds: only 10-20% of units in a project need to qualify as VLI (very low income), LI (low income) or MI (moderate income).”
Also at issue for opponents of the project is that a large portion — 139 units — is described as “visitor accommodations,” or hotel rooms, rather than apartments, though the developer says it plans to use those units as market-rate apartments. The plan also includes 311 parking spaces.
“The idea behind the density bonus law is to add meaningful housing throughout California, not as an afterthought to luxury hotel developments,” Blakespear said.
Her new legislation aims to align the state’s density bonus law with its Housing ability Act, another law that gives developers incentives to build affordable housing.
Blakespear’s office said SB 92 is sponsored by San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, who has voiced opposition to the Pacific Beach proposal.
“This legislation addresses a critical gap in our state’s density bonus law, ensuring that development projects contribute significantly to creating more homes for Californians,” Gloria said in the statement. “By requiring a meaningful portion of projects to focus on residential space, we’re taking a major step toward building the affordable housing San Diego and our state urgently need.”
But Neighbors for a Better California says requiring more residential space doesn’t necessarily help low- and middle-income families who are priced out of the market. “There’s no guarantee these units will be affordable for those who need them most,” according to the group’s editorial.
San Diego City Council President Joe LaCava, whose District 1 includes La Jolla and Pacific Beach, also has expressed opposition to the Turquoise development and said “the state’s density bonus law must be used to build affordable homes, not creating absurd high-rise hotels that ignore the goal of housing legislation. Sen. Blakespear’s legislation will result in actual affordable units and end predatory development that evades the spirit of affordable housing laws.”
U.S. Rep. Scott Peters (D-La Jolla), another opponent of the project, said “The original density bonus law was designed to provide more affordable housing to a state that badly needs it, but laws with the right intentions sometimes must be tweaked to achieve the desired outcome. I thank Sen. Blakespear for taking the lead so the twisted legal interpretation underlying a particular project in the district I represent can’t be used again.” ♦
