In New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (2026) __Cal.App.5th__ (No. B337897), the Second District held that the Builder’s Remedy under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code, § 65589.5) did not permit an affordable housing project on a coastal site designated for non-residential public access and recreational uses. The court rejected the developer’s attempt to “harmonize” the HAA with the Coastal Act, concluding the city was required to deny the project because no feasible method existed for compliance with the zoning in the city’s local coastal program (LCP).
Key Takeaways
- The Builder’s Remedy does not allow housing on a coastal site zoned for nonresidential uses where no feasible method exists for the project to comply with the Coastal Act.
- The Builder’s Remedy may overcome inconsistencies with coastal zoning standards, but not with a site’s certified coastal use designation.
- Conversely, where a coastal site is zoned for residential use, the Builder’s Remedy limits denial based on technical nonconformities with coastal development standards.
Background
In July 2022, New Commune DTLA, LLC (Developer) applied to the City of Redondo Beach for a permit to develop Ten21 Harbor, a 30-unit condominium project with six affordable units, on a coastal site zoned for public access and recreation. Because the city’s housing element had not yet been certified as “compliant” by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Developer invoked the “Builder’s Remedy” under the HAA.
HCD certified the city’s housing element in September 2022. The city subsequently declined to process Developer’s application because the project proposed uses that are prohibited by the city’s certified LCP, absent amendments to the general plan, LCP, or zoning.
After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, the Developer sought a writ compelling the City to approve the project. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that although the Builder’s Remedy applied, it could not override the Coastal Act or the city’s certified LCP.
Appellate Decision
The Second District affirmed. Although the Builder’s Remedy applied, the court rejected Developer’s attempt to harmonize the HAA and Coastal Act because it would require local governments to assess uncertified coastal land uses for compliance with the Coastal Act. Because no feasible method existed for the project to comply with the Coastal Act, the city was required to deny it.
- Developer’s Proposed Harmonization: The court rejected the Developer’s argument that the HAA required approval unless the city made written findings that was necessary to comply with objective Coastal Act resource-protection policies. Because those policies were not objective, the Developer’s approach would improperly require local governments to determine whether housing projects comply with coastal protection policies—a task reserved for the Coastal Commission.
- The Coastal Act Required the City’s Disapproval: The court explained that the city’s certified LCP embodies Coastal Act policies and limits coastal development permit (CDP) approvals to conforming uses. Because the Coastal Commission had certified the site only for public access and recreation, the city could not approve an uncertified residential use without further certification by the Commission. The city was therefore required to deny the project. The court distinguished cases involving technical nonconformities with development standards, where the underlying residential use had already been certified.
- Feasible Method to Comply with State Law: The court found that the record supported the City’s finding that there was no “feasible” method that would allow the project to comply with the Coastal Act without rendering it unaffordable. Although the city advised Developer that residential use required an LCP amendment, Developer never pursued one. Without an amendment application or other input, the city had no basis to assess legal or economic feasibility. Analogizing to CEQA’s alternatives analysis requirement, the court concluded the Developer’s refusal to pursue the amendment process left the city without a feasible means of achieving Coastal Act compliance.