- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Developers Breathe New Life Into La Entrada Project
After years of inactivity, a bankruptcy and an all-but-forgotten lot on some of Santa Barbara’s best real estate, plans are bubbling just below the surface at the city Planning Department: La Entrada is back.
And its backers are hoping to wow the public with a new approach to the property’s previously approved plans for the long-vacant area.
In 2001, the city approved plans for a project proposed by developer Bill Levy for 62 timeshare condominiums. To finance the project, Levy took out a $25 million land loan from financiers Mountain Funding Santa Barbara LLC. The project, as approved, turned out to be financially unsustainable for Levy, and he declared bankruptcy in 2006.
Mountain Funding acquired the property through bankruptcy court in March 2007, and it submitted revised plans earlier this summer.
The group has been looking at various designs for the past 18 months and settled on one that would utilize ground retail space in an open-air plaza as well as hotel rooms. It has been working with the city for the past nine months, looking over the new plan.
The result is a 123-key hotel, and nine of the units have the option of becoming timeshares. In addition, the plans include about 19,300 square feet of commercial store space and 243 parking spaces, including a 120-space public parking garage underground that reduced the building height.
Just about everyone can agree that something needs to happen on the property’s three parcels, but what the city will approve for the lots remains to be seen.
It now has to be proven that the project can substantially conform to plans made by Levy, including all of the environmental requirements.
Mountain Funding development consultant Ray Wicken maintains that the project not only conforms to the older project requirements, but improves on them.
“It was way overdesigned and bad for the city,” Wicken said of the original project.
He said the new proposed plan is 25,000 square feet less than the original project, and the footprints and elevations on two of the sites are the same as previously approved plans. If the project goes forward, the likely outcome would be selling the ground lease in a joint venture with a major hotel chain. The bed taxes from the hotel alone could be a boon for city revenue, he said.
While the economy still struggles and investors for the project remain hesitant, plans for the underground parking garage are going forward.
Wicken maintains that things such as traffic trips taken by visitors to the center will remain the same as Levy’s plans.
“This is clearly in the best interest of the city,” he said. “The issue is not whether this is a better project.”
But not everyone agrees.
Tony Romasanta, owner of the nearby Harbor View Inn, is scathing about Mountain Funding and Wicken, calling him an “out-of-town developer who couldn’t care less about us.”
He called the former project “magnificent,” and the result of dozens of community meetings.
“The developer is a lender who foreclosed and wiped out local investors,” Romasanta said. “This project is nothing like what the community approved.”
For Romasanta, it’s one of two options: follow through and build Levy’s plans on the property, or turn the lot into a city parking lot for high-speed rail commuters at the nearby train station.
Romasanta sees Levy as the victim in the situation, a developer who fell for predatory lending. “He was wiped out by a bigger shark,” he said.
Wicken said his group has suffered from the consequences of Levy’s unwieldy plans. “We made a bad loan and we got burned,” he said.
He maintains that his group didn’t come into the project as a developer, and that it has spent a lot of money trying to propose a project that will work for the city.
Determining how well the design will work is up to Paul Casey, the city’s community development director.
What’s left is a substantial conformance determination, or SCD, which basically means that the blueprints of the project Mountain Funding is proposing will have to conform to all of the environmental and building standards that Levy put forward. Casey said the city has policies and procedures that go along with an SCD, and they’re in the process of being evaluated now.
Approval rests with Casey, even though the Planning Commission is expected to look at the project and hear public comment in early October.
Casey said it’s not a unilateral decision, however, and that if the Planning Commission determines the project doesn’t conform to previous plans, he’ll consider that.
Levy carried out his project deadlines and worked to get approval for a building permit and pay fees, including a $1 million mitigation fee for the California Hotel, placed as a condition of approval by the Coastal Commission for the loss of low-cost accommodations since the hotel was going to be converted to timeshares.
“In the building world, that’s a big deal,” Casey said. “It presents a very strong legal entitlement.”
After starting construction of the three parcels, construction has slowed considerably. “No one’s really happy with that,” said Casey, adding that multiple projects around town have turned sluggish because funding has all but dried up.
“It’s something you never saw before this economic crisis,” he said.
Casey said that writing off the project all together could present “a real legal risk” to the city.
“This one is a tough one,” he said.
— Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 08.31.09 @ 10:01 PM
While we knew that this presentation was due up soon for City review, Lara Cooper here is the first to have an article about The Project Formerly Known as La Entrada.
The new proponent-developer-investor needs to show us the money to believe this revived project will go anywhere, but the City really has few options: either trust this new plan to be fiscally solvent, or get nothing as the status quo. Not good either way.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 05:41 AM
Building luxury hotels while closing parks? Nice.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 07:22 AM
Notice how from the picture the buildings block the mountain views. These towers and that big brown box are too tall.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 07:35 AM
Hey, just what we need.. Another huge project near the water front to obscure the views of the ocean and the mountains. It will improve all of our lives by getting more tourists congesting our streets and freeways. I guess that all is well as long as we get more bed taxes togive our already over paid city employees another raise and benefit increase.
Maybe someone will also build a real large aquarium, so that we can draw even MORE tourists, congestion, smog and trash to our faux Spanish town AND THEN we can give our fine employees another raise as well.
What a GREAT Idea !
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 08:06 AM
More orange tile roofs, and arched entryways. *yawn* How refreshing. SB is just one wall to wall continuous tile roof building. It must be extremely boring being an architect in this city.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 08:35 AM
It would be interesting to know what the landholders have been paying in property taxes all these empty years, while the property has been protected by Proposition 13.
Why on earth would you rely on “bed taxes,” instead of simply taxing those who own California’s land, in proportion to the value of their holdings.
And that lot would have been developed years ago and contributing to the life of the community, instead of sitting waiting.
Permitting the owner of the land to pay tiny taxes while collecting substantial land rent is a dumb way to conduct yourselves. Traditional in California, maybe. Required under Prop 13, yup. Dumb, very! The landrent collector reaps what all the rest of you are sowing. What a deal!
Guest what? His gain does not come out of thin air. It DOES affect all the rest of you. You must pay sales taxes, and wage taxes, and tourists, who I assume play a vital role in the economy, pay “bed taxes” while that generous landholder—whether a local or an absentee, pockets gains he didn’t earn, didn’t create.
Get smart! Fix this system!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 08:39 AM
This is reduculous. The world has changed exponentially since this project was approved. Send them back through the process. We need a full EIR. We can’t leave this up to the same bunch of staff and decission makers who put us in this situation in the first place.
Furthermore, shouldn’t we wait until the election is over and let the new mayor and council decide? They are the ones who will have to live with this.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 08:58 AM
3,2,1 bring on the building height and obstructed view trolls…
It looks like a good plan to me. It is certainly nicer than a parking lot and anything will be better than the empty lot at the center of a dead zone that sits there now.
Also, did I miss something? Parking for “High Speed Rail”? We can’t even get a commuter rail from Santa Barbara to Ventura, since when are we getting a high speed rail?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 09:11 AM
The brown building (taller than the new ones) is the old Lyon storage building at 3 stories, built in the 1930’s. It’s been there for a lot longer than the building height limiters have been alive, is shorter than the new building height limits on measure B and has never before been mentioned as blocking views. Soooooo, the complaints here are bogus, factory produced and designed to fool an unsuspecting public into believing that anything “built” will be too tall and too big. Get the picture? SEPV can have its members crank out all the lies and distortions it wants, but the truth will prevail.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 09:11 AM
Since when is a private hotel is competing with public funds for public parks?
The brown building in the background of the illustration is a building that already exists. Duh.
The city staff who get paid are delivering the services that the same whiners complain about. The government shrinkage argument is not working.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 09:15 AM
Mountain Funding’s Ray Wicken makes it sounds like his company is a victim of circumstances. I believe that Mountain fully expected to take over the project development. After all, their own website claims their company is an “opportunistic” investor/developer.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 09:17 AM
Did i miss something, closing parks? It looks to me like there is a public plaza going in, where there is an empty dirt lot currently. And wouldn’t that “big brown box” blocking the mountain views be the existing building that has been there for decades that nobody cared about before?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 09:28 AM
“Romasanta sees Levy as the victim in the situation, a developer who fell for predatory lending. “He was wiped out by a bigger shark,” he said.”
I think there are quite a few around here that might take exception to the above statement. However, it appears that even Romasanta is saying that Levy is a shark, albeit a smaller one than the lenders.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 10:21 AM
I don’t know… The rendering shown here looks great! I must say. I’ pretty much anti-large-scale development, but this place looks wonderful. The design is a lot like the main shopping center in Brentwood, CA, with the open courtyard in the front. It is kind of like a resort.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 10:51 AM
A little mental exercise. The older Lyon building in the background is 1920’s technology, built as a “poured in place” concrete structure with little in the way of architectural amenities. In short this is an ugly building that was meant to be surrounded by other buildings of like stature. Because of the “low rise” mentality of the city many buildings such as this one are now monuments to our cities brain dead comatose philosophy toward architecture. The new structures proposed are much more beautiful, but unfortunately they are too short to hide the old monstrosity behind them. The same thing goes for the newly rebuilt Granada Theater with the same old “poured in Place” concrete structure with few architectural amenities to hide its bulk and size. It will be an eyesore for the next 90 years thanks to the short sighted, one size fits all mentality of the building height limiters.
This is not an argument for growth, high rises or housing, but rather for a much saner policy for urban development than the current one, the word “no”
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 10:55 AM
I hope all the “no build” and “I have to see the mountains from every place in Santa Barbara” folks stay away from the places I am sure they argued against building just like they are with this project. I hope they never shop at Costco. I hope the never attend a charity event at the Doubletree Resort or enjoy an outdoor concert at the Chase Palm Park. They probably wish that the Wharf was never built or feel that SBCC blocks too much of the mountain views. This new project look great, better than what is already approved, and will be a benefit to the city and residents.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 11:19 AM
Ah, love those crocodile tears from Tony Romasanta.
As the ever scheming multi-millionaire Hope Ranch developer who did the stealth expansion of his own Harbor View motel while constantly diverting public attention to the pumped-up controversies of the Entrada development, his warnings and laments are hilarious.
Everyone connected with Hole in the Ground #2 probably has hands that need a good washing.
That includes City officials from the time, who had visions of visitor tax sugar plums
dancing in their heads, as they threw due diligence to the wind, and shoved the Big Ugly forward, time after time, no matter how many deadlines were missed, or how many City guidelines were waived or amended.
Scary, that so many of that misguided team are still visible and active in City affairs.
Their continued heft and presence in land use issues really helped fuel the City’s
ballot Measure B, to restrict big, tall, bad development, and remove more backroom
dealing “flexibility” from the hands of the City’s big backroom dealers.
Will the new Entrada developer come up with something smaller, smarter, more
“Santa Barbara” and more profitable than former owners and funders?
Let’s hope so. Romasanta’s anxiety aside, nothing makes this area look cheesier than those big, puddle-strewn, years old, holes in the ground.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 11:47 AM
Romasanta should be quiet. He’s lucky Levy’s project was going through planning at the same time his was. How did he get his view-blocking eyesore of a hotel through?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 05:11 PM
How’s are the Miramar and El Encanto project coming along? another hotel? Baccara, Canary, Biltmore are ghost towns, dumb idea, period. These guys are just looking to unload this project on the next suckers.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 05:11 PM
This new design looks better than the old timeshare design but it’s still TOO BIG because Levy’s design was grossly out of proportion and character to begin with (so much for all those workshops/public input). Underground parking? More like submerged underground parking. Can’t even begin to imagine the problems they’ll have with salt water intrusion so close to the beach. Only providing 243 parking spaces for the hotel/commercial property? I’m sure the surrounding neighborhoods will love the overspill on their streets. Lets see, 243 minus 123 spaces for hotel guests equals 120 spaces above plus the parking below of 120 (or are those “included” in that initial 243?)... either way that’s only 240 parking spots leftover for staff and shoppers or zero parking spots leftover depending on you read the story.
“The result is a 123-key hotel, and nine of the units have the option of becoming timeshares. In addition, the plans include about 19,300 square feet of commercial store space and 243 parking spaces, including a 120-space public parking garage underground that reduced the building height.”
Please scale down the size like the majority of people requested way back when, throw out the narrowing of State Street (I know of no one who supports that part at all— we don’t need a bottleneck at our most popular tourist corner) and then hope our economy isn’t saturated with more tourism and tacky retail stores.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 05:17 PM
Remember folks , the wonderful project previously approved by the city includes closure of a traffic lane in each direction . Great ! More cars stuck in traffic on State St. idling ( emitting ) , hotrodders revving engines , and lowriders rattling windows with their boom speakers . Thank you S.B Planning Dept.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 05:45 PM
Say what? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black Tony! I’ll donate $100 to the SB Foundation if you can get anyone, other than family, that feels sorry for poor little Billy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 06:35 PM
Per what Santa Barbara, the new Disneyland wrote on 09.01.09 @ 07:35 AM:
Well said, my feelings exactly.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 09:34 PM
What is it with this city, the redesign is smaller than what was approved and still is if they get funding. Its been a vacant pit that does nothing for the city at the moment and people are whining? Sure tax dollars and jobs we dont need them I wish Mtn. Funding would do the approved plans and then people will be why didnt we take the better deal…
It would be nicer if it had just stayed the California and Hot Spots hadnt had to close for all those years but lets be real its a improvement. Its already been shown most of the comments here have no idea as they keep pointing to the storage building as not in sync with the neighborhood yet its been there all along.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 10:42 PM
Stop the special treatment of this applicant. If this were just about any other project, staff would have killed it years ago. Moving dirt around it’s keeping an approval alive. I’d like to see something built there but this is ridiculous. If I fell on hard times while building my house city staff wouldn’t have bent over backwards for me to make sure I had a permit when I got back on my feet. Let’s not practice situational ethics here it will come back to bit us.
Additionally, could someone tell me how long an EIR’s finding are relevant? Seems to me the impacts could be a lot different now. Maybe it might play in Mountain Funding’s favor? Who knows but I think it should be something that is given great consideration.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 02:03 AM
“...It (Mountain Funding)has been working with the city for the past nine months, looking over the new plan….” (Nine months? behind closed doors? What happened to public process?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 11:38 AM
The same people opposed to this project are the same people who think it is perfectly acceptable to have homeless running ramped and parking their RV’s all over, IN THIS SAME AREA! I guess those have more “character and charm” than this project, lol.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 12:27 PM
Conflict of Interest?
How is it possible that the architecture firm who’s founding partner has garnered the La Entrada project is also married to the sister of the city community development director, yes the one assigned to make a final decision to move the project forward.
Likewise a planning commissioner is also a partner at the aforementioned firm.
The firm has a history of project acquisition that has led to projects like the notorious overbuild of Chapala-One. The fact that the two bodies chosen to approve the project both have ties to this firm worries me.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 01:27 PM
Conflict of Interest?
How is it possible that the architecture firm who’s founding partner has garnered the La Entrada project is also married to the sister of the city community development director, yes the one assigned to make a final decision to move the project forward.
Likewise a planning commissioner is also a partner at the aforementioned firm.
The firm has a history of project acquisition that has led to projects like the notorious overbuild of Chapala-One. The fact that the two bodies chosen to approve the project both have ties to this firm worries me.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 09:04 PM
What great news. Entrada is the entrance to our city. This looks like a huge improvement. Tony owns a hotel near by and is afraid of the competition. Saying Levy was a good guy and the bank that loaned him $40 million is bad is such a shocking statement. Levy bilked millions of dollars out of investors and the bank. Levy actions were criminal and now someone is trying to fix a hole in the ground and improve tax revenue. Lets get on with it.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.05.09 @ 01:41 PM
Just a note:
This project requires a Coastal Development Permit. The current CDP would have to be modified for this proposed plan. That would require a vote of the City Council.
Last month Judge Tom Anderle ruled, in the Venoco Carpinteria slant drilling issue, that the approval of a project’s CDP can be submitted to the voters in a ballot inititive.
This project’s CDP can be denied by the voters through the ballot inititive process. There is no way a smart person would invest in this project since the majority of voters, at this moment in history, would vote for a ballot measure denying the project a CDP.
Mountian Funding has a huge mountian to climb to get this project built.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.06.09 @ 07:30 PM
Tom, you make that sound like good news. I’m I reading you wrong and if not then why good?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.07.09 @ 02:40 PM
I think all the wantabees that hold up the Miramar and any other project should fess up the money buy it an build what you want. Then all will be perfect, it only took Fess Parker 15 years to do his project and i have to say it is much better than Hobo Jungle. As far as the views what LOCAL goes there in the summer or any time for that matter, get over it…......Go to Mobby Dick in January and Febuary it’s never busy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.09.09 @ 01:36 PM
To AN50,
My comment is neither good or bad. I am stating what I believe is a relevent fact. The CDP for this project can be revoked or denied by a ballot measure. Should not potential investors in this project be informed of that fact? If the CDP for this project is denied or recinded the project is dead and the investors are wiped out.
I am taking no stand supporting or opposing this project.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Authorities Locate SBCC Student Reported Missing
His mother had asked for the public's help finding her 20-year-old 'special needs' son
Red Flag Warning Canceled; Wind Advisory Still in Effect
Sunny skies are expected to give way to some clouds over the weekend
Santa Barbara Breaks Record With High of 86 Degrees
Previous mark for May 23 was 82, set in 1949, according to the National Weather Service
Santa Maria Man Facing Child Molestation Charges
Victim reports being sexually abused over a period of time by the suspect
Police Seek Public’s Help Identifying Suspect in Retail Thefts
Surveillance photo shows person wanted in connection with thefts at two Santa Barbara stores
Weather: A Few Clouds 52.0º
Search Noozhawk »
