Laserfiche WebLink
9.B. - Page 15 <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 /> 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 /> Residential Lodging <br /> (units) Office (sf) Retail (sf) (rooms) <br /> Entitled 1,239 311,040 19,824 0 <br /> Proposed* 175 489,214 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 500,000 00,000 O <br /> Et <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 /> 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 /> Page 3 of 9 <br />