|
News on the Turquoise Tower Development: On Wednesday night, the PB Planning Group obtained an Dec. 23, 2025, San Diego Development Service Department (DSD) letter sent to the Turquoise Tower (Project Vela) applicant saying the project cannot be approved yet. DSD says the submitted plans are still inconsistent and unclear, especially about how many units are housing versus ‘visitor accommodation.’ Based on the information provided, DSD states the units appear to function as residential dwelling units, which affects the allowable unit count and any requests for incentives or waivers. DSD is requiring a clearer, fact-based re-submittal before review can proceed. Here is a synopsis of what DSD said in the December 23, 2025 letter to the Developer and our interpretation of ‘Why it matters’ in no particular order of concern. All are important. To read the full letter please click to the Home page: NFABC website: Dec. 23, 2025 letter DSD said: “The project cannot be approved at this time.” Why it matters: The City is requiring additional corrections and information before review can move forward. DSD said: “The permitting process is iterative.” And: “Where the plans lack necessary information or contain errors… staff has provided comments regarding the corrections that are needed.” Why it matters: Items can only be approved when the submitted materials clearly demonstrate compliance. DSD said: “Various issues remain unresolved due to noncompliance… including those that safeguard health and safety, as well as due to insufficient or conflicting information.” Why it matters: The letter identifies unresolved items tied to both safety-related requirements and inconsistent documentation. DSD said: “Insufficient and conflicting information has… frustrated the City’s ability to make a determination as to the applicant’s requests for incentives and waivers under State Density Bonus Law (DBL).” Why it matters: Incentives and waivers depend on accurate, consistent project information. DSD said: “Whether this project is eligible to use DBL… requires… a fact-specific analysis…” And: “staff has not had sufficient factual information to determine whether the request to use DBL as proposed is appropriate.” Why it matters: The City is saying it cannot complete the DBL analysis on the current record. DSD said: “the height presented throughout the first several cycles was not stated in accordance with the applicable rules for calculation and measurement.” Why it matters: Height is a core input that affects review and any requested incentives. DSD said: “Statements regarding floor area ratio (FAR) have been and remain inaccurate.” Why it matters: FAR is another core input that affects what the project is asking to build. DSD said: “the plans still contain inconsistent information about which units will be used for residential versus commercial purposes… It is critical for basic project review.” Why it matters: The City is saying it cannot do basic review without clarity on how the units will be used. DSD said: “the plans assign… ‘visitor accommodation’… to refer to 139… units” and “‘dwelling unit’… to refer to… 75 units.” And: “the label the applicant uses does not establish the use as a matter of fact.” Why it matters: The City is saying labels are not enough; the City must determine use based on facts. DSD said: “Therefore, the application presents a project that contains significantly more units than are allowed under local and state law.” And: “The applicant may revise its project… or demonstrate how the non-residential units would in fact be used for visitors.” Why it matters: DSD is requiring the next submittal to either fit within the limits discussed or clearly document visitor-serving use. DSD said: “The applicant’s strategy is to call the units commercial for some purposes and residential for other purposes, but the City needs clarity…” And: “In its next resubmittal, the applicant needs to choose which is accurate…” Why it matters: The City is requiring internal consistency in the next submission.
|
