pages: PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 21 | structures require a certain size to be workable, and that 17,000 square feet may accommodate 43 extra spaces. The new complex did not sit on a large site. She noted that the operator, Kyle Connor, was not a large corporate entity, and was an independent operator; he knows the community and the residents. She noted that this theater never did have the 2,200 seats that had been discussed. She noted that the $25 million price tag included the $10 million for acquisition and seismic upgrades and stabilization to meet Code requirement. Another $10 million of public money would go into the parking structure, which had been identified by PSBA as being a priority for the business association and downtown. She noted that a shade analysis would be performed; she did not believe it would cast a shadow onto Santa Clara Street because of the location of Long's. Staff would follow up on that item at the next meeting. She noted that other retail uses, such as restaurants, already provided patrons on the street; those patrons would be drawn to the theater as well. She did not expect the theater to be patronized by all new people, and that there would be some crossover trips. Mr. Piziali understood that there was concern in the City about this project, but that he had not been approached by anyone who has expressed that opinion. He emphasized that this project has been discussed for five years, starting with the Downtown Visioning Process. He noted that he listened very carefully to people in the City about this and other projects. Vice President Cook believed it was important to take into account all the comments throughout the process. She noted that she had been Chair of the Visioning Process, was on the EDC six years ago, and knew how important this project has been over the years to enliven downtown. She acknowledged this was not the perfect project on the perfect site. She stated that the people working for the City had the City's best interests in mind. She wanted to make it clear throughout the process that full restoration of the historic theater had not been possible, and had stated that on the record in the past. Ms. McNamara noted that her concerns were regarding the financial nature of the restoration. She noted that the City budget was in a critical state right now, and questioned whether this was the time to spend the money on the restoration of the historic theater. Ms. Little advised that the project used tax increment dollars, as well as Section 108 dollars, neither of which can be used to pay for services, salaries, or overhead. She added that they were economic development dollars that were specifically intended to create new revenues in communities. She noted that they could be used in other capital interest projects within a certain period of time, but could not be used for fire, police, or social services. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Little stated that it was not the case that the only choices were to build a seven-screen theater or to tear it down. Ms. Little stated that staff went through six public meetings about setting the ultimate design criteria regarding what would be dealt with, to identify the major issues for Planning Board Minutes Page 21 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |