Pacific Beach 23-story Turquoise Tower development sparking legal battle over automatic approval claims and density bonus law abuse

Pacific Beach's 23-Story Turquoise Tower Sparks Legal Battle - Developer Claims 'Automatic Approval'

A Los Angeles-based developer is attempting to force San Diego's hand on one of the most controversial high-rise projects in Pacific Beach history, claiming the city missed a state-mandated approval deadline that should trigger automatic permits for a 23-story tower. The claim by Kalonymus LLC has ignited fierce opposition from Pacific Beach residents and planning groups, who are challenging fundamental density calculations they say violate the community's height restrictions and zoning standards.

Breaking Development: The Automatic Approval Claim

In December 2025, Kalonymus LLC escalated its 23-story Turquoise Tower project by claiming the development should be "automatically approved" because San Diego allegedly missed a state deadline under AB 130, designed to expedite housing approvals. According to the developer's legal argument, the city's failure to meet this deadline triggers automatic approval provisions that would require immediate issuance of building permits for the 238-foot mixed-use tower at 970 Turquoise Street.

The city vehemently disputes this characterization. Richard Berg, a city spokesperson, stated that project delays stem from the developer's own actions: "This project has required several rounds of corrections to meet compliance with applicable building codes." City officials note that Kalonymus submitted incomplete or incorrect plans multiple times, necessitating multiple correction cycles before approval could proceed.

Pacific Beach Town Council President Charlie Nieto described the developer's tactics bluntly: "The developer, Kalonymus, has attempted to strongarm the city into immediately approving its permits." The community response has been unified opposition. "The community has continued to stand as a united front in opposition to this blatant example of density bonus abuse," Nieto added, predicting prolonged legal battles ahead.

Under California's streamlined ministerial approval process, if a local agency misses review deadlines (60-90 days for projects under 150 units, 180 days for larger projects), the project can be automatically deemed to meet requirements. However, this provision typically applies when cities fail to act on complete, code-compliant applications—not when developers submit deficient plans requiring corrections.

Project Details: Mixed-Use Tower That Exploits Density Loopholes

The Turquoise Tower represents a stark example of how developers can manipulate California's density bonus law to build projects far exceeding local zoning. The proposed development includes 74 residential units (with only 5 very-low-income units and 5 moderate-income units) plus 139 hotel rooms spread across 23 stories totaling 239 feet—nearly eight times higher than Pacific Beach's 30-foot coastal height limit.

The $185 million project relies on stacking multiple density bonuses to transform what should be a 31-unit building under base zoning into a 213-unit mixed-use tower. Kalonymus is invoking two state density bonuses and two city density bonuses to justify the dramatic increase. Most controversially, the developer plans to rent the 139 hotel rooms as market-rate apartments, exploiting what legislators now call a "loophole" in the law.

Assembly Bill 1287, authored by Assemblymember David Alvarez and effective January 1, 2024, amended state law to grant developers an additional 50% density bonus for middle-income units. This "double bonus" mechanism allows projects that already received maximum density increases to stack another 50% on top. For example, a 100-unit base project allocating 15% to very-low-income units receives a 50% bonus (150 units total), but under AB 1287, adding 15% moderate-income units grants another 50% bonus—resulting in 200 units total.

The Turquoise Tower's commercial space exceeds local zoning by more than 1,500%, according to Senator Catherine Blakespear, who introduced SB 92 specifically to prevent such projects. This new legislation, signed by Governor Newsom and effective January 1, 2026, limits developers to increasing commercial floor space to no more than 2.5 times local zoning allowances. Critically, SB 92 explicitly does not apply to projects already proposed—including the Turquoise Tower—meaning the developer may be grandfathered under the old rules.

Pacific Beach Planning Group Challenges Density Calculations

The Pacific Beach Planning Group has mounted a technical challenge to the project's fundamental density calculations, claiming the city made errors that should disqualify the entire development. Chair Marcella Bothwell stated the group sent letters claiming "errors in how the base zone density calculation is being figured for the project" and that the density incentive applied was "incorrect and should not have been used."

The planning group requested city corrections by early January 2026, setting up a critical showdown over whether the project's legal foundation is sound. If the base density was miscalculated, all subsequent density bonuses built on that faulty foundation would collapse.

Community planning groups play an advisory but influential role in San Diego's development review process. Established by Council Policy 600-24, these groups review proposed developments for compliance with adopted community plans and forward recommendations to the Development Services Department. While their recommendations aren't binding, planning groups can identify technical deficiencies that force developers back to the drawing board.

City staff encourages developers to contact planning committees early in the process and work cooperatively throughout project review. Providing early feedback "makes the group's issues known during the time when most project changes are occurring and avoids placing the group in a position of requesting a delay in a project's schedule," according to city guidelines. The Turquoise Tower's confrontational approach stands in stark contrast to this recommended engagement strategy.

The Chalcifica Project: Another Density Bonus Flashpoint

Pacific Beach faces a second major density controversy with the Chalcifica project, a 136-unit ADU development at Pacifica Drive and Bluffside Avenue that has become a legal battleground over ADU bonus density laws. The project includes six three-story buildings with more than 130 one-bedroom units and just 70 parking spaces—raising fierce community opposition over traffic, parking, and inappropriate density.

In December 2025, a judge ordered San Diego to stop processing permits for Chalcifica, issuing a preliminary injunction that requires city officials to halt all approvals until the city determines how to properly analyze the project's impacts. The lawsuit, filed by Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach, argues the city's process for approving developments under its bonus ADU incentive program violates state law.

The Chalcifica site holds cultural significance as a well-known Kumeyaay coastal village location, adding heritage preservation concerns to the opposition. Residents raised urgent concerns about traffic congestion, noting the intersection is already bottlenecked during rush hour and that 136 additional units could bring over 130 cars to a neighborhood with limited access points.

Crucially, Chalcifica remains "grandfathered" under the city's previous ADU Bonus Density Law rules, even though the city has since reduced the scope of ADU bonuses following community outcry. This grandfathering creates a two-tier system where projects submitted before August 2025 may qualify for more generous bonuses than newer applications, incentivizing developers to rush applications before regulatory changes take effect.

Understanding California's Evolving Density Bonus Framework

For Pacific Beach builders and developers, understanding which density bonus rules apply to your project is critical for feasibility analysis and community relations. California's density bonus law has undergone rapid changes that create distinct categories of "grandfathered" versus "new rules" projects.

Projects that submitted applications before January 1, 2024 operate under pre-AB 1287 rules, while those filed after benefit from the enhanced double-density bonus mechanism. Under traditional density bonus law, projects allocating 15% of units to very-low-income households receive a 50% density increase. AB 1287 allows an additional 50% bonus if developers also include moderate-income units—potentially doubling allowable density.

However, the California Department of Housing and Community Development has clarified that the two additional density bonus options are NOT stackable, contradicting some developers' interpretations that bonuses could be combined indefinitely. Projects must choose one additional bonus pathway, not multiple.

For mixed-use projects with commercial components, SB 92's January 1, 2026 effective date creates another dividing line. Projects proposed before this date may exploit the "hotel loophole" by building extensive commercial space (like the Turquoise Tower's 139 hotel rooms) that far exceeds local zoning. Projects proposed after January 1, 2026 face a hard cap of 2.5 times local commercial zoning and cannot receive density bonus benefits for transient lodging components.

ADU bonus programs add another layer of complexity. San Diego County and various cities have implemented AB 1033, which allows ADUs to be sold separately from primary homes via condominium conversion. Effective August 22, 2025 in San Diego, this creates new financial incentives for ADU development but also triggers enhanced community scrutiny of mega-ADU projects like Chalcifica.

The lesson for builders: application timing determines which regulatory framework governs your project, with dramatic implications for feasible density and community opposition levels.

Timeline Risks: How Opposition Extends Approval Processes

The Turquoise Tower and Chalcifica projects demonstrate how community opposition transforms "streamlined" ministerial approvals into multi-year legal battles. Projects invoking density bonus law theoretically receive expedited ministerial approval without discretionary review—but this assumes code compliance and community acceptance.

Charlie Nieto's prediction of "legal battles in the near future" for the Turquoise Tower reflects the reality that controversial mega-projects face 6-18 month delays minimum, often extending to years when litigation is involved. The Chalcifica preliminary injunction, issued in December 2025, freezes all permit processing indefinitely pending resolution of state law compliance questions.

For developers, these delays carry substantial costs:

Financing Costs: Construction loans and investor commitments typically have time limits. Extended approval battles increase carrying costs and risk losing financing.

Market Risk: Multi-year delays expose projects to market shifts. If housing demand softens or construction costs spike during litigation, project feasibility can evaporate.

Regulatory Risk: New laws like SB 92 can pass during prolonged approval processes, potentially applying retroactively or creating new compliance requirements.

Community Relations: Confrontational approaches like Kalonymus's "automatic approval" pressure tactics galvanize opposition and ensure maximum resistance at every stage.

Projects that align with community plans and engage planning groups early can complete review in 6-12 months. Controversial projects fighting communities face multi-year timelines with uncertain outcomes. For Pacific Beach specifically, the 1972 Proposition D establishing the 30-foot coastal height limit passed with 64% voter support (80% in Pacific Beach itself), reflecting deep community commitment to height restrictions that density bonus projects directly challenge.

Lessons for Coastal San Diego Builders

The Turquoise Tower and Chalcifica controversies offer critical lessons for builders planning projects in Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Mission Beach, Bird Rock, and other coastal San Diego communities:

1. Community-Scale Projects Face Less Resistance

Projects that respect neighborhood character and scale—even when using density bonuses—encounter far less opposition than mega-developments. A 4-6 unit ADU project or a 12-unit infill building that stays within general height expectations will navigate planning group review smoothly. The 23-story Turquoise Tower's 239-foot height in a 30-foot zone guarantees maximum opposition.

2. Early Planning Group Engagement Is Essential

City guidelines explicitly encourage early contact with Community Planning Groups. Presenting preliminary plans to the Pacific Beach Planning Group, La Jolla Community Planning Association, or Mission Beach Town Council before formal submission allows incorporating feedback during design phases when changes are inexpensive. The Turquoise Tower's confrontational approach—submitting plans without community input then claiming automatic approval—ensures litigation.

3. Density Bonus Does Not Equal Carte Blanche

Developers sometimes assume state density bonus law overrides all local regulations and community input. While density bonuses do waive certain local restrictions, projects must still comply with building codes, demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity, and align with community plan objectives. The Pacific Beach Planning Group's density calculation challenge shows that even "ministerial" approvals can be unwound if base assumptions are incorrect.

4. Grandfathered Status Requires Proper Documentation

With rapid regulatory changes (AB 1287 in January 2024, SB 92 in January 2026, ADU bonus reductions in August 2025), builders must meticulously document application dates and vested rights. Projects claiming grandfathered status under older, more generous rules will face enhanced scrutiny. Ensure preliminary applications under SB 330/SB 8 are properly filed to lock in development standards.

5. Mixed-Use Projects Attract Maximum Scrutiny

The Turquoise Tower's hotel room component—exploiting the commercial loophole SB 92 now closes—demonstrates that mixed-use projects blending residential and commercial uses face compounded opposition. Communities already suspicious of density manipulation become especially hostile when commercial components dramatically exceed zoning.

6. Cultural and Environmental Sensitivity Matters

The Chalcifica project's location on a Kumeyaay village site shows that projects affecting cultural resources or environmentally sensitive areas face additional legal vulnerabilities beyond standard land use challenges. Coastal areas like Pacific Beach, La Jolla, and Mission Beach trigger California Coastal Act requirements and potential California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review even for "ministerial" projects.

7. Transparency Beats Confrontation

The stark contrast between Kalonymus's aggressive "automatic approval" claims and recommended collaborative approaches highlights a strategic choice builders face. Transparent engagement builds trust and identifies issues early. Confrontational tactics guarantee litigation, community mobilization, and political intervention—as evidenced by San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria's statement that the Turquoise Tower "does not align with state or city policies intended to build more affordable homes."

What to Expect in Pacific Beach Development Through 2026

As 2026 progresses, several developments will shape Pacific Beach's regulatory landscape:

Legislative Changes: SB 92's January 1, 2026 effective date closes the mixed-use commercial loophole but doesn't apply to already-proposed projects like the Turquoise Tower. State Senator Catherine Blakespear may introduce additional legislation to strengthen community plan protections.

Legal Precedents: Court rulings on the Chalcifica preliminary injunction and potential Turquoise Tower litigation will establish precedents for density bonus interpretation, base density calculations, and the scope of ministerial approval.

City Policy Revisions: San Diego's Development Services Department faces pressure to clarify density calculation methodologies and ADU bonus program requirements following planning group complaints about transparency and access to project records.

Community Plan Updates: Pacific Beach's community plan may undergo amendments to provide clearer guidance on acceptable density levels, height transitions, and infrastructure capacity constraints.

Political Pressure: With Mayor Todd Gloria calling for state legislation to close density bonus "loopholes" and City Council President Joe LaCava supporting SB 92, political momentum favors stricter density bonus limitations and enhanced community plan protections.

For builders, this evolving landscape means that projects submitted in early 2026 face different rules than those submitted in late 2026 or 2027. Staying current with regulatory changes and maintaining positive community relationships will be essential for successful project completion.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the Turquoise Tower developer really force automatic approval if the city missed a deadline?

California's streamlined ministerial approval process does include automatic approval provisions if cities miss statutory deadlines (typically 60-180 days depending on project size). However, this automatic approval applies when cities fail to act on complete, code-compliant applications. San Diego disputes that the deadline was missed, noting the developer submitted incomplete plans requiring multiple correction cycles. Courts will likely need to determine whether the city's requests for corrections were legitimate or delaying tactics, and whether the developer's application was sufficiently complete to trigger deadline protections.

How does California's density bonus law allow a 23-story tower in a 30-foot height zone?

California's density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) requires cities to grant density increases and waive development standards—including height limits—when developers include affordable housing units. AB 1287, effective January 2024, enhanced this by allowing a "double bonus" where projects can receive an additional 50% density increase by including both very-low-income and moderate-income units. The Turquoise Tower stacks multiple state and city bonuses to increase from 31 base units to 213 total units, using these bonuses to claim height limit waivers. However, the Pacific Beach Planning Group challenges whether the base density calculation was correct, which could invalidate all subsequent bonuses.

What is the difference between grandfathered projects and those under new SB 92 rules?

SB 92, effective January 1, 2026, closes the "hotel loophole" by limiting commercial floor space in mixed-use density bonus projects to 2.5 times local zoning and excluding transient lodging from density bonus benefits. However, SB 92 explicitly does not apply to projects already proposed before its effective date. The Turquoise Tower, proposed in 2024, is grandfathered under old rules allowing its 139 hotel rooms and 1,500%+ commercial space excess. Projects submitted after January 1, 2026 cannot exploit this loophole and face much stricter commercial component limitations.

How can builders avoid the community opposition that the Turquoise Tower and Chalcifica projects face?

San Diego city guidelines recommend early engagement with Community Planning Groups before formal application submission. Present preliminary plans to groups like the Pacific Beach Planning Group or La Jolla Community Planning Association during design phases when incorporating feedback is inexpensive. Keep projects at a scale consistent with neighborhood character—even when using density bonuses, staying relatively close to existing heights and densities reduces opposition. Provide genuine affordable housing rather than minimal set-asides designed to maximize market-rate units. Be transparent about project details and impacts rather than relying on legal technicalities like automatic approval claims. Community-aligned projects complete review in 6-12 months; confrontational mega-developments face multi-year legal battles.

What role do Community Planning Groups actually play in the approval process?

Community Planning Groups, established by San Diego Council Policy 600-24, review developments for compliance with adopted community plans and forward recommendations to the Development Services Department. While their recommendations are advisory rather than binding, planning groups can identify technical deficiencies, code violations, and community plan conflicts that force developers back to the drawing board. The Pacific Beach Planning Group's challenge to the Turquoise Tower's density calculations demonstrates their ability to uncover substantive legal issues. More importantly, planning group opposition often signals broader community resistance that can lead to lawsuits, political intervention, and prolonged approval battles—making their early support strategically valuable even if not legally required.

Can ADUs be sold separately from the main house in Pacific Beach?

Yes, as of August 22, 2025, San Diego allows ADUs to be sold separately from primary homes via condominium conversion under AB 1033. However, this separate sale option is not automatic—property owners must go through a condominium conversion process meeting specific conditions. AB 1033 removed the state-level restriction but allows individual cities to set local rules. The separate sale option creates new financial opportunities for ADU development but has also triggered community concerns about mega-ADU projects like Chalcifica that exploit ADU bonus programs to build apartment-complex-scale developments in residential neighborhoods.

What is Pacific Beach's 30-foot coastal height limit and can it be overridden?

In 1972, San Diego voters passed Proposition D (Ordinance No. 10960), establishing that "no building or addition to a building shall be constructed with a height in excess of thirty feet within the Coastal Zone of the City of San Diego" (defined as areas west of I-5, excluding downtown). The measure passed with 64% citywide support and 80% support in Pacific Beach itself. State density bonus law can override this local height limit through waivers granted when developers include affordable housing. However, the dramatic scale of projects like the 239-foot Turquoise Tower—nearly eight times the height limit—has prompted legislative action (SB 92) and community organizing to establish guardrails preventing extreme height waiver abuse.

How long do controversial development projects typically take to get approved in Pacific Beach?

Community-aligned projects that engage planning groups early and respect neighborhood scale typically complete review in 6-12 months. Controversial mega-developments like the Turquoise Tower and Chalcifica face minimum 6-18 month delays, often extending to multiple years when litigation is involved. The Chalcifica preliminary injunction issued in December 2025 freezes all permit processing indefinitely pending legal resolution. The Turquoise Tower, first proposed in 2024, remains in early review stages as of January 2026 with Pacific Beach Town Council predicting extended legal battles ahead. For builders, timeline risk is a critical feasibility factor—prolonged battles increase financing costs, expose projects to market shifts, and create regulatory risk if new laws pass during approval processes.

What are the most important dates for density bonus law changes affecting San Diego projects?

January 1, 2024: AB 1287 took effect, allowing "double bonus" density increases for projects including both very-low-income and moderate-income units. August 22, 2025: San Diego implemented AB 1033 allowing separate ADU sales via condominium conversion; city also reduced ADU bonus program scope. January 1, 2026: SB 92 took effect, closing the "hotel loophole" by capping commercial space at 2.5x local zoning and excluding transient lodging from density bonus benefits (does not apply to already-proposed projects). Application dates relative to these milestones determine which rules govern your project, with grandfathered projects operating under more lenient standards than new applications.

Should Pacific Beach builders still use density bonus law given the community backlash?

Density bonus law remains a valuable tool for Pacific Beach builders when used appropriately. Projects that provide genuine affordable housing, maintain reasonable scale relative to neighborhood character, and engage communities early can successfully use density bonuses without triggering opposition. The backlash targets mega-developments that exploit loopholes to build projects with minimal affordable units (the Turquoise Tower has only 10 affordable units out of 213 total) at extreme scales (23 stories in a 30-foot zone). A thoughtfully designed 6-8 unit building using a modest density bonus to include 2-3 affordable units, presented early to the Pacific Beach Planning Group with transparency about community benefits, will face minimal resistance. The key is distinguishing between using density bonus to enable appropriate affordable housing versus abusing density bonus to maximize luxury development profits.

Conclusion

The Turquoise Tower and Chalcifica projects represent pivotal battles that will shape coastal San Diego development for years to come. As Los Angeles developer Kalonymus pressures the city with automatic approval claims and Pacific Beach residents mobilize legal challenges, 2026 promises to clarify the boundaries of California's density bonus law and the extent to which communities can protect neighborhood character against mega-development.

For builders and developers working in Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Mission Beach, Bird Rock, Tourmaline Surfing Park, and surrounding coastal areas, the lessons are clear: community engagement beats confrontation, appropriate scale reduces opposition, transparency builds trust, and regulatory timing determines project feasibility. The rapid evolution of density bonus law—with AB 1287's double bonus in 2024, ADU bonus changes in 2025, and SB 92's commercial restrictions in 2026—creates a complex landscape where expert guidance and early planning are essential.

Pacific Beach Builder specializes in navigating these exact challenges, helping developers design projects that satisfy both regulatory requirements and community expectations. Whether you're planning an ADU project, considering density bonus opportunities, or evaluating a larger multifamily development, our deep knowledge of local planning groups, recent case precedents, and evolving state laws ensures your project moves forward efficiently.

The Turquoise Tower saga demonstrates what happens when developers prioritize legal technicalities over community relationships. Don't let your project become the next cautionary tale—contact Pacific Beach Builder for a density bonus feasibility consultation and community engagement strategy that positions your development for success rather than years of litigation.

Contact Pacific Beach Builder for a free density bonus feasibility consultation:

Phone: +1-858-290-1842
Website: pacificbeachbuilder.com
Email: info@pacificbeachbuilder.com