Landmark back at the Park Theatre? Landmark back at the Park Theatre? (February 25, 2004)

** Owner Howard Crittenden seeks city's help in bringing back the movies.

By Rebecca Wallace

Almanac Staff Writer

In 2002, Park Theatre owner Howard Crittenden closed the venerable Menlo Park movie house, evicting Landmark Theatres in search of a new tenant who could pay the "market rent." The recession, though, kept that hope from becoming reality.

On March 2, Mr. Crittenden plans to come before the Menlo Park City Council with a Landmark official to see what the council thinks about his idea for bringing the movies back.

After Mr. Crittenden wrote an opinion piece in the Almanac last fall seeking residents' views on two options for the building, the flood of e-mails "overwhelmingly" supported an idea to have Landmark come back and run the 700-seat, single-screen theater as a two-screen theater, said Paul Bendix, a spokesman for Mr. Crittenden.

Another option Mr. Crittenden put on the table, a dinner theater with second-run movies, was less popular, Mr. Bendix said.

"Some (people who wrote e-mails) remembered the Park from when they were kids in the area. Almost everyone had nothing but praise for Landmark," Mr. Bendix said.

But everything has its price.

Mr. Crittenden says that reopening the theater will present the same challenges for him that a theater operation at that site did before -- below-market-rate rent and scarce parking -- and therefore he's seeking help from the city.

"The community needs to decide how much the reopened Park would contribute to its economic or cultural life -- and if it wants to provide incentives that will ensure the theater's long-range operation," he wrote in the Almanac last fall.

One way the city could make the project worthwhile for him is by granting transferable development rights, he wrote.

For example, if Mr. Crittenden had the right to build a structure of a specific size on the Park lot, but decided not to build to the maximum size, he could put a deed restriction on the lot banning any owner of the lot from expanding the building. He could then "transfer" his unused capacity by selling it to another property owner.

Mr. Crittenden could transfer his development rights even if he did not build a new structure in place of the theater, City Attorney Bill McClure said. In theory, it could yield him an economic benefit while preserving the Park.

City planners say it would be unlikely that anything could be built on the site in addition to the theater because the parking is so limited.

Transferable development rights have never been used in Menlo Park and would require the council to pass a new ordinance, Mr. McClure said. Theoretically, he said, the rights could be sold at any price, "whatever the market will bear."

Councilwoman Mickie Winkler, at least, could prove a hard sell. She told the Almanac that she'd be willing to discuss the idea of transferable development rights in the Park's case, but would be reluctant to allow them.

Ms. Winkler said transferable rights could be appropriate for a project with "a clear public benefit," such as a new parking structure, but she isn't comfortable using them for a private project.

"The city would be, in effect, promoting an operation that competes with other private undertakings," she said. "I don't want to put the Aquarius (Theatre in Palo Alto) out of business because the city is indirectly subsidizing another business."

The March 2 council hearing is scheduled as an informal study session; therefore, no formal action can be taken. It's tentatively set to begin at 6 p.m. in the Burgess Recreation Center.

Michael Collier, Landmark's district manager for Northern California, plans to attend the meeting and said Landmark is "very interested" in returning to the Park.

Mr. Crittenden took down the Park's sign after the theater closed, but has said the sign is "safe." Mr. McClure has said it was improper to remove the sign without a historical assessment of the building, and that such an assessment must be done if the structure is significantly redeveloped.
Obstacles for Red Ink

Meanwhile, as its future is being discussed, the Park has taken on a gloomy look, with its ticket booth full of trash and newspapers, and its only visitors fat leaves skittering around in the February wind.

It appears to be less than hospitable for the nomadic artists from Red Ink Studios, who had hoped to occupy the theater on an interim basis until a new permanent tenant could be found.

Mr. Crittenden had given the group permission to temporarily use the theater as an exhibition and work area, and the city's Planning Commission gave a unanimous thumbs-up last August. But the Red Ink artists hit several roadblocks when trying to work out the logistics.

"The building is old and they have to do a lot," senior planner Tracy Cramer said.

Required renovations would include upgrading the electrical system and making the bathrooms wheelchair-accessible, said Linda Hughes, who manages the studios. She said the requirements are "not ridiculous," but could be out of the question for a group that simply uses vacant space on a temporary basis.

Red Ink now has studio space in San Jose's Santana Row area and may soon have another spot in San Francisco, Ms. Hughes said.

"We still want to work with Menlo Park," she said, but added, "It's very, very frustrating. We've had a lot of walking tours of the place but nothing has come of it."

E-mail a friend a link to this story.