Developer sues Costa Mesa, residents group

Deirdre Newman

Two months after the City Council approved a rehearing for a

controversial, downtown condominium project, the developer has sued

the city and the citizens’ group that fought for the rehearing.

Rutter Development filed the lawsuit against the city and Costa

Mesa Citizens for Responsible Growth late Friday afternoon, mainly

claiming the rehearing was granted illegally without the required

presentation of new evidence.

The project calls for Rutter to build four four-story buildings in

the parking lot of the property that now hosts the Spanish

mission-style 1901 Newport building.

The request for the rehearing from the citizens’ group and

Councilman Allan Mansoor took the council three meetings to reach a

decision on. The rehearing was approved June 2. The issue was delayed

again when it was continued from the July 21 council meeting to allow

staff and the environmental consultants more time to prepare the

final environmental report to reflect Rutter’s revisions to the site

plan.

On Monday, the council was set to rehear the issue.

Councilwoman Libby Cowan said she empathizes with Rutter because

of how long the process has dragged on, but she doesn’t totally

support the claims in the lawsuit.

“I think it’s their attempt to move their project forward,” Cowan

said. “I certainly understand from their perspective what they’re

saying. I don’t know that I fully agree with their claim.”

David Eadie, president of Rutter Development, did not return calls

for comment.

Robin Leffler, who has been representing the citizens’ group at

the hearings, said she considered the lawsuit a scare tactic.

“We’re not scared anymore,” Leffler said. “That lasted for about a

minute. My husband and I talked about it and said, ‘We do not know

what’s going on here, but we will not be bullied.’”

She said the group presented myriad new information to justify the

rehearing. The council voted 3 to 2 to approve the rehearing in June

based on new information and lack of clarification on shade and

shadow issues. Monahan and Councilman Mike Scheafer dissented.

The council had planned to vote on five aspects of the project on

Monday, including a final environmental report and a final master

plan. Instead, after a closed session with acting City Atty. Tom

Wood, the council voted to continue the rehearing without taking any

public comment.

The final environmental report is evidence of new information,

Mansoor said.

“I find it ironic that [Eadie’s] asking for our approval of the

project and then he turns around and sues us,” Mansoor said.

The lawsuit also claims that the first time the request for

rehearing was heard, it should have been considered a “failed” motion

when the vote resulted in a 2-2 deadlock.

Rutter is asking the court to void the council’s granting of the

rehearing and to reinstate the council’s previous approval.