TURQUOISE TOWER RESOURCE CENTER
The proposed development commonly known as Turquoise Tower is officially identified in City of San Diego records as Project Vela. This Resource Center brings together public documents, legal filings, City correspondence, and educational resources to help the public understand the proposal and the California laws governing its review.
Project Overview
Project Vela (Turquoise Tower) is a proposed 23-story mixed-use development located at 954–980 Turquoise Street in North Pacific Beach near the La Jolla border.
Key Elements of the Proposal
74 residential units, including 10 affordable units.
139 visitor accommodation units (hotel rooms).
A request for streamlined ministerial (“by-right”) approval under California housing laws.
State housing incentives and waivers tied to the project’s affordable units, which the developer argues allow substantially greater height, density, and scale than local zoning would otherwise permit.
If approved as proposed, the development would become one of the tallest buildings in San Diego’s coastal zone. The proposal has generated significant public discussion regarding coastal development, affordability, infrastructure capacity, wildfire evacuation, public process, and the application of California housing laws.
LATEST UPDATE
July 30, 2026
Congressman Scott Peters Urges the City to Deny the Current Turquoise Tower Application
Congressman Scott Peters has written to Mayor Todd Gloria urging the City of San Diego to deny the current Project Vela application and fight to prevent the Turquoise Tower from being built at its proposed height.
His letter cites the project’s scale, the constraints of Turquoise Street, evacuation and infrastructure concerns, and the community’s longstanding support for the 30-foot coastal height limit.
Project Review Remains Ongoing
Project Vela (Turquoise Tower) remains under review by the City of San Diego. No final decision has been made regarding the project’s requested height, density, state and local housing incentives, or waivers.
In late June 2026, NFABC received additional Public Records Act documents that provide additional insight into the City’s ongoing review. The records show that important technical and legal questions remain unresolved, including density calculations, fire protection, stormwater management, and the legal basis for requested state law waivers.
NFABC continues to review these documents and will update this Resource Center as additional information becomes available.
Project Timeline
The timeline below highlights major milestones in the review of Project Vela (Turquoise Tower). Supporting documents and additional resources will be added as they become available.
March 2024 – Developer submits SB 330 Preliminary Application: The developer submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application, which it later argued vested the project under the development standards in effect at that time. This filing became a central issue in the project’s legal and administrative review.
October 28, 2024 – City Issues First Plan Review Letter: The City issued its first comprehensive review comments, identifying numerous technical issues requiring additional information and revisions. These comments initiated the formal review process and identified questions involving density calculations, project compliance, infrastructure, and other development standards.
November 19, 2024 – NFABC Letter to California Housing & Community Development (HCD): Requested state review of legal issues surrounding the City’s processing of Project Vela.
November 21, 2024 – Pacific Beach Planning Group Letter: Responded to the City’s October 28 review letter, challenged the project’s base density calculations, questioned the use of state housing incentives and waivers, and documented broad community concerns.
December 12, 2024 – HCD Letter to the City: HCD responded to the City’s position, raising additional questions about how California housing laws should be applied.
February 14, 2025 – Pacific Beach Planning Group Letter to Mayor Gloria and City Staff: Reiterated that the project’s base density calculations were incorrect and requested further review.
July 19, 2025 – NFABC Community Rally and Site Walk: More than 500 community members attended a public rally and walked to the proposed site. Speakers included residents, local business owners, and community leaders who expressed concerns regarding the project’s height, scale, infrastructure impacts, public safety, affordability, and the City’s review process.
October 23, 2025 – Developer “Deemed Approved” Letter: The developer asserted that the City had delayed long enough and argued that California housing laws required approval of the project.
December 11, 2025 – Pacific Beach Planning Group Letter to DSD Assistant Director Keely Halsey: Explained why Project Vela should not qualify for ministerial (“by-right”) approval and challenged the City’s legal interpretation.
December 23, 2025 – City Response to Developer: The City rejected the developer’s “deemed approved” claim and confirmed that additional review remained necessary.
January 20, 2026 – NFABC Letter to DSD Director Elyse Lowe: Outlined why the project should not be processed ministerially, challenged density calculations, and requested stricter review of health, safety, infrastructure, and affordability issues.
March 25, 2026 – NFABC Formal Comment Letter: Submitted detailed comments addressing CEQA review, density calculations, fire protection, stormwater management, and the legal basis for requested state law waivers.
Late June 2026 – Additional Public Records Obtained: NFABC received new City documents revealing that significant technical and legal questions remain unresolved, including density calculations, fire protection, stormwater management, and requested housing law waivers.
July 2026 - Congressman Scott Peters Urges City Action: Congressman Peters wrote to Mayor Todd Gloria urging the City of San Diego to deny the current Turquoise Tower application and fight to prevent the project from being built at its proposed height. His letter cited the project’s scale, evacuation and infrastructure concerns, and the community’s longstanding support for the 30-foot coastal height limit.
Current Status: City review continues. No final approval has been issued. NFABC continues to analyze newly released records and will post updates as additional information becomes available.
Responsible Redevelopment is Already Happening on Turquoise Street
The discussion surrounding Turquoise Tower is not about whether housing or redevelopment should occur on Turquoise Street.
Redevelopment is already happening along this corridor. Recent projects have added new homes, modernized older properties, and demonstrated that additional housing can be built at a scale that is generally consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Examples of recent redevelopment along Turquoise Street include 891 Turquoise Street, 910 Turquoise Street, and the 711–723 Turquoise Street project. All are located near the proposed Turquoise Tower site.
These projects demonstrate that redevelopment and additional housing are already occurring on Turquoise Street. The question is not whether to build. The question is what kind of redevelopment is appropriate for this location.
NFABC supports responsible redevelopment that adds housing while respecting neighborhood scale, protecting coastal planning principles, considering infrastructure capacity, and maintaining public confidence in the approval process.
Project Vela proposes something fundamentally different: a 23-story, 238-foot tower with residential units, visitor accommodation units, commercial space, and multiple parking levels. That scale is unlike the recent redevelopment already occurring along Turquoise Street.
This is why NFABC believes the community deserves a serious conversation about scale, lawful process, infrastructure, and what responsible coastal redevelopment should look like.
How California Housing Laws Made the Turquoise Tower Possible
The Turquoise Tower (Project Vela) would not be possible under local zoning alone. The developer relies on several California state housing laws that it argues allow substantially greater height, density, incentives, and waivers beyond what local rules would otherwise permit. These laws are central to the City’s review and are discussed throughout the public record.
SB 330 – Housing Crisis Act
The developer submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application in March 2024 and later argued that this filing vested the project under the development standards in effect at that time.
State Density Bonus Law – Government Code § 65915
State Density Bonus Law allows qualifying projects that include affordable housing to seek additional density, incentives, concessions, and waivers from certain local development standards.
AB 1287 (2023)
AB 1287 expanded Density Bonus Law provisions and is part of the legal framework the developer cites in seeking additional incentives, concessions, and waivers.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
The Housing Accountability Act limits a city’s ability to deny or reduce qualifying housing projects unless specific legal findings can be made. The developer’s legal correspondence references this framework.
Ministerial Approval / “By-Right” Processing
A major issue in the City’s review is whether Project Vela qualifies for ministerial approval rather than discretionary review. Ministerial approval generally limits public hearings and discretionary decision-making.
CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is central to the dispute because the level of environmental review may depend on whether the project is processed ministerially or discretionarily.
A more detailed explanation of these laws, including links to statutes and related project documents, will be added to this Resource Center.
Help Support This Work
NFABC is an all-volunteer organization. Every dollar donated goes directly toward protecting our community through public records requests, legal analysis, technical review, and public education. No board members or volunteers receive compensation.
Your support helps ensure that the community has access to independent information, technical analysis, and meaningful public participation throughout the City's review process.
Help Ensure an Independent Review of the Turquoise Tower Proposal
Donate Today
What You Can Do
Sign up for Action Alerts
Educate others about how the system is being gamed.
Push state legislators to fix the burden-of-proof problem in Density Bonus Law.
Write to your City Councilmember
Ask the Following Questions:
Why is the City approving commercial hotels under housing law?
Why is DSD silent on basic public questions?
Why is ministerial approval being used for high-rise projects?
Join our Legislative Committee
Demand reform:
No density bonuses on commercial hotel projects
No ministerial rubber-stamping for high-rises
Shift the burden of proof back to developers
Require transparency from city departments.