The bottom two blocks of lower State Street have been a festering construction site for so long that even city planners assigned to focus on the area can’t remember when it’s been otherwise. Ten years ago, this stretch of real estate seemed destined to become upscale Ritz-Carlton time-share condos known as La Entrada. But that scheme-approved by the City Council and Coastal Commission-burst as developer Bill Levy was forced to declare bankruptcy in 2006. Two weeks ago, the bankers who foreclosed on Levy, Mountain Funding, submitted revised plans for City Hall’s approval. Mountain Funding officials insist the new plans could be built, because unlike Levy’s proposal, they make financial sense even in today’s real estate market: In place of 62 time-share condos would be 114 hotel rooms and seven time-shares.
The bed taxes offered by the hotel rooms make the new deal more lucrative for cash-strapped Santa Barbara. And by building the main parking garage underground, they’ve been able to chop one story off the height of everything but the California Hotel, which will remain at its current 60-foot height. This, they contend, will be kinder to the mountain views than previous plans.
The $120 million question is whether the new plans “substantially conform” to the plans approved by the City Council back in 2001. If not, the project is dead in the water. The authority to make this decision lies with just one man: city planning czar Paul Casey. Already Casey and several city councilmembers have been barraged by a blistering campaign from Tony Romasanta, who owns the adjoining Harbor View Hotel. Romasanta contends City Hall should pull the plug on La Entrada and execute what he calls “a clean kill” on what he terms “a black hole.” Romasanta charged that Casey and the City Council have allowed Levy and Mountain Funding foot-dragging maneuvers under the pretext of securing financing and keeping permits alive past their expiration dates. But financing will never arrive, Romasanta asserted, because the project is so encumbered by debt that it can’t be financially viable. Meanwhile, he complained, one of the most-visited parts of town exists in a state of blight.
(Technically and legally, there is no debt on the project. When Levy declared bankruptcy in 2006 and his lender Mountain Funding took over the project, the bankruptcy judge recognized the $30 million that Levy owed them as Mountain Funding’s “payment.” On the books, that wiped the slate clean. But as a practical matter Mountain Funding has sought to recoup much of that lost $30 million when structuring deals with prospective investors and partners. That “ghost debt” has haunted such negotiations and to date, no deal has been consumated.)
This is not the first time Romasanta has gone on such a rampage, just the most intense. Among other things, he’s now demanding that Casey be fired. By yanking the permits that have kept the project artificially alive, Romasanta projected the value of the hole in the ground by State and Mason streets will plummet. City Hall could buy the land cheaply and create a municipal parking lot big enough to service the train depot for when commuter rail becomes a reality.
Casey said he understands exasperation over the delays, but cautioned that he can’t order banks or investors in the project to bring it to life. Even facing down the wrath of Romasanta, Casey has maintained a sense of humor, refusing to call the excavation site a hole. “I prefer to call it a ‘depression’ of sorts, an ‘excavation,’” he said. Casey declined to discuss Romasanta’s objectives, suggesting both he and City Hall could be sued for what’s known as “inverse condemnation” if he did. Casey acknowledged he probably has the legal grounds to pull the plug on Mountain Funding and withstand any legal challenge. “It’s a discretionary call,” he said. “The real question is ‘What’s good enough?’ And I don’t know.”
For the time being, Mountain Funding -which has yet to demonstrate it’s able to deliver on the latest plans-is hoping that the “guaranteed” promise of a completed parking garage might be enough. Casey is not sure that would be sufficient or how such a guarantee might be enforced. It’s been 10 years since the original La Entrada plans were first approved, so Casey feels comfortable taking time to decide. He plans to submit the revised designs to the Planning Commission in September, then, and after hearing the commissioners’ recommendations, decide.
This article has been amended since its original posting to clarify the project's debt situation.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Sounds like Mr. Romasanta has a bit of a conflict of interest here. Any plans for a ritz-carlton-type hotel would surely force him to spend money to improve his own hotel. what a terrible, terrible thing competition is. welcome to the free market economy, Mr. Romasanta.
sbdude (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sbdude, you've obviously never set foot in the Harbor View.
And Romasanta upgraded it a few years back, and is nicely positioned for present or future competition.
binky (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone ever noticed the persistent puddle on Castillo at the 101 underpass? Or the big pond that occasionally forms under Garden @ 101? How much water do you think will accumulate in the underground parking structure of the newly proposed plan??.. which is closer to the big blue ocean subterranean reach than Castillo @ 101, and Garden @ 101! Methinks the leather and comfy stuffing in those seats in all those Benz, Beemers, and Jags will smell mighty bad after they get a good dose of *ick* after having parked down there. It makes me laugh, tee hee, when people with more money than sense propose something really stupid, like an underground parking garage in an area with a high water table.
theresathefarmer (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
.Not many Mayoral Candidate quotes in this article
Hot potato !
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not that big of an engineering issue to put a waterproof barrier around the subterranean levels. New techniques such as cutter-soil-mixing make it pretty straightforward. That in combination with a French drain around the perimeter make it so there is no groundwater "shadow" issues either.
ventdiver (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
La Entrada should be turned into developable lots based on the historical size of shops and commercial properties in Santa Barbara dating back to when State Street was developed with storefronts. No single developer should have control but rather individual commercial interests should tender proposals for each lot of interest. During a brief revenue process, the City can decide which proposals should be accepted. When a commercial enterprise is eventually sold or closed, just like boat slips in the harbor, the lot goes back on the open market. No other plan could have as strong a chance to result in real character, reflecting the true nature of the city and its citizens.
emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2009 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So embarassing to have lower State be so ugly. And will there ever be a day when we get rid of that hideous scummy crrek view? How can people eat when they look out to that? It's disgusting.
Osolaplaya (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The traffic lane constriction down to a single lane in each direction has never made sense to me . Hopefully if this albatross goes back for a redesign , that component of the plan can be nixxed .
geeber (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
* These projects are supposed to have a time limit after which the approval expires. In this case, the time limit appears to have been ignored.
* It has never made sense to me why the City does not require a bond from major project developers to insure that, in case of something causing the original owner to be unable to complete the project, there would be funding to complete it or return the site to original condition. Imagine how bad lower State would look if the frame was up but a weathered beat up frame was left there for years...
art (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Osolaplaya, that "scummy crrek [sic] view" is a result of natural creek/ocean processes. That they interfere with your sensibilities while you dine is your problem, not Mother Nature's.
This whole idiocy should be rejected and the heart of SB returned to local businesses. We don't need any more motel rooms in that area.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I disagree with SezMe. A GOOD HOTEL would be a boon to this area, for bed taxes, aesthetics, etc. It IS a hole, an embarrassing hole. And hotel rooms - in the main - seem more useful to the city than a bunch of expensive "time shares." But it better have a good bar with a view of the ocean... yeah, think about that.
maximum (anonymous profile)
August 9, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)