pages: PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-06-25 | 9 | President Lynch cautioned against using terms such as high-end and low-end retail establishments, and cited the success of Panda Express, and the fact that Yan Can Cook restaurants are no longer open. He clarified that some individuals would refer to Panda Express as high-end, and that some individuals would refer to Panda Express food as low-end. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding other examples of this kind of retail mix, Mr. Sullivan noted that the hybrid center was a new concept. Typically, the large format will bring the entertainment to the center of the development, and building out. In this case, Fifth Street would be the entertainment district with the larger format behind it. He cited the Irvine Spectrum Center, as well as downtown Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill. President Lynch believed it was important to be flexible, and that it was a slippery slope when referring to "high-end" or "low-end." Mr. Thomas noted that the phrase "high end" was in the staff report and inappropriate. He noted that City Council required a retail leasing strategy before moving forward, which was the plan brought to the EDC for their review and approval. They also had to meet regularly with the Executive Director of the Community Improvement Commission to ensure that when they move through with their leasing, they would be in compliance with that plan and the City's goals. Vice President Cook expressed concern that there were no midblock crossings to the College of Alameda, and to the future residential area along the north side, on Mitchell. Mr. Sulivan noted that there were pedestrian crossings in six locations along Fifth Street. He noted that there were three opportunities for pedestrian crossings along Mitchell. Vice President Cook believed that the east-west entry along the south side of Building A should remain a street, which should feel like something besides a service entry. Vice President Cook believed that Building D seemed to be significantly longer than the other buildings, and inquired why it was designed that way. Mr. Sulivan noted that they were considering splitting that building, depending on the leasing situation; he noted that square footages would be increased in other areas to accommodate that change. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the north-south road option, Mr. Thomas replied that they were in good shape regarding the road between Buildings G and F, the sidewalks on both sides of E and D. He believed that the applicants were willing to add a sidewalk on the southern side of that third east-west road between C and D. Regarding the north-south road in front of Building A, he suggested that the Board ask the team to make the statement regarding the Board's concerns about the design. Board member Cunningham suggested that the pedestrian pathway on the side of Building A be given more width to make it a inviting space. Page 9 of 13 | PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf |