1021 N. Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Ten21 Harbor was developer Leo Pustilnikov's builder's remedy proposal for 1021 N. Harbor Drive in Redondo Beach, the site of the SEA Lab educational facility, across the street from the AES power plant site. The applicant was New Commune DTLA LLC. The property is zoned Coastal Commercial (CC-4) under the city's certified local coastal program, which restricts the zone to public access uses, coastal-related commercial recreation and services for recreational boating and fishing; housing is neither permitted nor conditionally permitted. New Commune filed an SB 330 preliminary application on July 21, 2022 for 30 condominiums, six of them for lower-income households, and 7,124 square feet of commercial space. HCD found the city's housing element compliant on September 1, 2022. The formal application, filed November 10, 2022, described a 142,557-square-foot building with 35 units, seven of them for lower-income households, and 8,614 square feet of commercial space. On December 7, 2022 the community development director rejected it as incomplete, said the builder's remedy did not apply, and said housing on the site would require general plan, coastal program and zoning amendments. The City Council unanimously upheld the rejection on February 7, 2023 (Resolution CC-2302-023), and New Commune sued on February 14, 2023. On February 8, 2024, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant found that the city had no compliant housing element when the preliminary application was filed and that its refusal was a disapproval under the Housing Accountability Act, but denied the petition because the project did not conform to the coastal program. In April 2024 two suits over Pustilnikov's One Redondo power plant project were stayed pending the appeal. In a separate New Commune suit, the Court of Appeal ruled on October 10, 2025 that the city's housing element did not substantially comply with state law, and the California Supreme Court declined review. On July 30, 2026 another division of the Court of Appeal affirmed the Ten21 judgment in a published opinion. Citing the 2025 ruling, it said the city had no compliant housing element when the project was submitted, assumed without deciding that the builder's remedy applied, and held that the Coastal Act required the city to deny the project under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(3). The city still listed the case as existing litigation in its October 20, 2026 closed session; no further ruling has been reported.
Ask a question to begin.
Press Enter to send · Switch personas to start a new conversation
New Commune DTLA LLC files an SB 330 preliminary application for 30 condominiums, six for lower-income households, on coastal commercial land where housing is not allowed.
Superior Court rulingSix weeks after the preliminary application, HCD finds the housing element the council adopted on July 5, 2022 in full compliance.
Superior Court rulingThe application describes a 142,557-square-foot building with 35 units, seven for lower-income households, and 8,614 square feet of commercial space.
Superior Court rulingThe community development director rejects the application as incomplete. Housing on the site, she says, would need general plan, coastal program and zoning amendments.
Superior Court rulingThe council adopts Resolution CC-2302-023 denying the developer's appeal.
Superior Court rulingNew Commune petitions Los Angeles County Superior Court (case 23STCP00426) to compel the city to process and approve the project.
Superior Court rulingJudge James C. Chalfant finds the builder's remedy available but denies the petition because the project does not conform to the certified local coastal program.
Easy ReaderIn a separate New Commune suit (B336042), the court holds that the city's overlay zoning did not meet state housing element law.
Court of AppealAssuming the builder's remedy applied, the court holds that the Coastal Act required denial under Gov. Code 65589.5(d)(3).
Court of AppealArgued on appeal that a builder's remedy project in the coastal zone should have to meet only the Coastal Act's core, specific and objective Chapter 3 policies. The court called that standard "unworkable."
No public statement found. In court, New Commune argued that the builder's remedy entitled the project to approval because the city had no compliant housing element when the July 21, 2022 preliminary application was filed, and that the Housing Accountability Act and the Coastal Act must be harmonized.
Its Dec. 7, 2022 notice said housing on the site would require general plan, coastal program and zoning amendments. In court it argued that it had not denied the project because the application was incomplete, and that the Housing Accountability Act does not relieve it of the Coastal Act.
The resolution upheld the director's determination that the application was incomplete and could not be processed, because the proposed residential use does not comply with the certified local coastal program and the coastal zoning ordinance.
"We are grateful that Judge Chalfant correctly ruled that the city is obligated to comply with the California Coastal Act." (statement, February 2024)
"Nothing in the Coastal Act authorizes the City to issue a CDP that is non-compliant with the LCP and Coastal Ordinance." Denied the petition on Feb. 8, 2024 while finding the builder's remedy available.
"We conclude the City's disapproval was required under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(3)." (published opinion, July 30, 2026)
The city refused to treat the application as a builder's remedy project, arguing that its housing element already complied. The trial court rejected that argument but upheld the refusal under the Coastal Act, and on July 30, 2026 the Court of Appeal affirmed, assuming the builder's remedy applied.
The community development director deemed the application incomplete for lacking general plan, coastal program and zoning amendment requests, and the council upheld that on Feb. 7, 2023. The trial court treated the refusal as a disapproval under the Housing Accountability Act and upheld it on coastal grounds.
Each row is a dated action by a deciding body, taken from the minutes, agenda packet, video, or ruling linked in the source column.
| Date | Body | Action | Vote | Staff recommendation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| December 7, 2022 | Staff | deemed application incomplete The community development director rejected the formal application as incomplete and declined to process it. | — | Unknown | Superior Court ruling |
| February 7, 2023 | City Council | appeal rejected Unanimously adopted Resolution CC-2302-023 upholding the director's rejection; the tally was not reported. | — | Unknown | Superior Court ruling |
| February 14, 2023 | Court | lawsuit filed New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County Superior Court case 23STCP00426. | — | Unknown | Superior Court ruling |
| February 8, 2024 | Court | ruling issued Judge James C. Chalfant denied the petition, holding that the project had to conform to the certified local coastal program. | — | Unknown | Easy Reader |
| July 30, 2026 | Court | ruling issued The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, affirmed the judgment in a published opinion (B337897). | — | Unknown | Court of Appeal |