Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 of 9 <br /> <br />Project Address Status Housing Units Office SF Retail SF <br />2421 Broadway Entitled 0 2,249 0 <br />201 Marshall Entitled 116 0 0 <br />2114 Broadway Entitled 0 8,791 1,749 <br />950 Middlefield Entitled 0 300,000 5,100 <br />145 Monroe Entitled 305 0 0 <br />601 Main St Entitled 196 0 2,975 <br />439 Fuller Entitled 133 0 0 <br />525 Middlefield Entitled 471 0 10,000 <br />735 Brewster Entitled 18 0 0 <br />103 Wilson Proposed 175 0 0 <br />2075 Broadway Proposed 0 175,000 5,000 <br />601 Marshall Proposed 0 128,875 7,625 <br />550 Allerton Proposed 0 69,846 0 <br />815 Hamilton* Proposed 0 54,743 12,308 <br />30 California Proposed 0 60,750 0 <br />* The numbers for this project reflect the fact that the applicant submitted a letter stating <br />that they will be expanding the size of their original application <br /> <br />Maximum Allowable Development Status <br />The following chart summarizes the total entitled and proposed development numbers <br />as they relate to the MAD limitations. There is significant residential, retail and lodging <br />allocations remaining, however the MAD office allocation would be exceeded if all the <br />projects currently under review received a building permit. A more detailed table, which <br />breaks down entitled, proposed and removed square footage on a project by project <br />basis is attached to this report. <br /> <br /> <br />Residential <br />(units) Office (sf) Retail (sf) <br />Lodging <br />(rooms) <br />Entitled 1,239 311,040 19,824 0 <br />Proposed* 175 489,214 0 24,933 0 <br />Removed (Entitled & <br />Proposed) (29) (125,322) (44,800) 0 <br />Total 1,387 674,932 (43) 0 <br />Maximum Allowable <br />Development 2,500 500,000 100,000 200 <br />MAD Balance* 1,155 (174,932) 100,043 0 <br />Table Notes: (1) All “proposed” numbers are rough numbers, as the applications are <br />currently under review and may be revised during the review process. (2) The proposed <br />retail “removed” numbers include the proposed removal of a gym. <br /> <br />Issues Needing Clarity <br />Given that it appears that DTPP office allocation maximum will be reached, the DTPP <br />would be more effectively implemented by Council providing direction in two key <br />9.C. - Page 3