17-0516_SOUTH COAST INVESTORS II, LLC_D2_Correspondence 3Carmen Moreno
Subject: FW : D2 -Plaza Banderas Development Agreement
From: Steve Oedekerk
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:36PM
To: Maria Morris; Ben Siegel
Subject: D2 -Plaza Banderas Development Agreement
Maria, please include the following in the public record. Thank you .
5/16/2017
First and foremost, it seems like yet another San Juan City credibility hit if the City Council is comfortable awarding a
development agreement extension for a hotel project, when that project's owner himself is at the same time suing the
City over a hotel project.
The Plaza Banderas hotel was used as the basis to process the Inn at the Mission Hotel, which directly after its approval ,
and the hotel project owner's failure in appeal to rescind the approval of the Kimpton Hotel, he then pulled his
applications for the Inn at the Mission Hotel. The Inn at the Mission approval could have moved forward to completion
but instead was pu ll ed by the ow ner hims elf.
One can surmise in this that as that individual's intent was to challenge the Kimpton Hotel project's approval and CEQA
in court, that in turn he did not want to be vulnerable to the same action from another party. Basically, he wanted to
dish out this type of bullet, while not having to be measured by the same set of standards.
Since that time :
1. A lawsuit was filed by the Plaza Banderas Hotel project owner against the City of San Juan Capistrano and the
owners of the Kimpton Hotel project.
2. A failed attempt was made to block the demo permit for the Kimpton Hotel Project.
3. A concocted story regarding Judge Egan and his dormer windows that was perpetuated again and again even
though completely fictitious.
4 . A questionable lack of participation with the City in the simple process of ADA compliant sidewalks and
crosswalk that just "happens" to create a log in the road for the Kimpton project's forward movement.
So how does the 2011 Plaza Banderas Development Agreement enter into all of this? A renewal continues the tract of
holding onto certain exclusions and protective mechanisms so that the Banderas project owner can continue to attack
downtown property owners while not being held to the same set of standards. Then be completely free to keep hitting
hard and often.
The thought that the development agreement simply assists in that owner processing the Plaza Banderas hotel forward
is nearly laughable to all, as he's already pulled the Inn at the Mission hotel which in reality is much closer to the hotel
that he actually wants to build .
If you do decide to approve the extension, I truly hope that you remember than this development agreement is for the
entitled Plaza Banderas, not the Inn at the Mission, which has a complete reorganization of buildings, footprints, larger
overall, vastly larger hotel building, altered parking, and like-wise went through a full City planning process to final
approval. That he then pulled the applications for.
If there is not a current intent t o actually build the Plaza Band eras, which the de ve lopment agreement is specifically laid
out for, then one must question if this is providing the goal of creating a work-around to avoid the City plann ing process ,
1
while actually greatly changing the approved Plaza Banderas, growing it further in size, etc., etc. And all within a
continued package of allowing the Banderas owner to freely continue his attacking steps and methods on the Kimpton
Hotel project while being held to his own personal set of reduced standards and rules.
The Plaza Banderas Hotel owner should be required to not only live by the same set of rules as everyone else in the
downtown, but also by his own words spoken in regards to size, setbacks and relation to historic buildings in the
downtown. The development agreement, plain and simple, is being used to skirt these issues so he will not be
subject to even his own statements.
In the Playhouse property bidding process, the owner of the Plaza Banderas entitlement was just warning the City of the
danger of General Plan Amendments, while at the same time asking for an extension of his project directly across the
street that is a Genera l Plan Amendment, and one that he has previous ly submitted even larger than its approved
entitlemen t. He's concerned with the height of other resident's projects while at the same time asking for an extension
of his p~oject which has the tallest height of any proposed de velopment in the City. The individual hypocrisies,
especially in regard to historic neighboring buildings, are nearly endless.
I ask that you closely consider this decision and its ancillary impacts to others like myself in the downtown, that have
proven to follow City instruction and play by the rules. And that you also consider the danger of awarding the behaviors
of lawsuits and leveraging, and the repetitive nature of like actions that decision would surely bring and perpetuate into
our City's future. Thank you,
Steve Oedekerk
2