are probably aware of that recently -- last week, i think, landed in their existing space, which is the hines space. there are hundreds of millions of dollars spent in the architectural, and in the first round of the gsa lease, we were the chosen building. there was a protest, they backed off. until last week, we thought we had a chance to win that lease, which would have gotten a building built, in my view, and it would have been good for the san francisco economy. i am sure that you are also aware -- could i get the overhead? that is the site, 350 bush. which if you drive by, now sits out there vacant.

it requires support, care, it requires us to continue to take care of that landmark asset until we can build the building, which is here, which will support that exchange building for the ages. so we have been continuing to do that and will continue to do that until we can finally build this building. the lastly, john, who is the lincoln property representative is here and can answer questions, but we have been pursuing all kinds of resources out in the absence of institutional financing in the u.s. i have something that is a little off topic, but i thought i would show it to you anyway because it is something our office generated. it is an internal chart that shows you the dates of the receipts of the prop m

allocation against the dates that construction actually started, and then the status of the buildings that were built. all of these buildings have actually been built. but 560 mission, and i credit hines with this, they actually got the entitlement and built the building in the same cycle, and they are the only ones on that list that were able to do that. the rest of them range from 17 months to 98 months. president olague: thank you. >> you are welcome. president olague: opening up for public comment at this time. >> sue hester, i appreciate the

staff report, and i appreciate the recognition that one of the effects of prop m was to even out the boom bust cycles. that is one of the problems in san francisco. we have a boom or bust economy. we had it in housing, we had in the early 1980's when sfrg was forcing this on a very unwilling planning department. that is interesting to hear these updates. i would be interested in getting a copy of that chart you were just shown. but at some point, we have to recognize that we still have office development problems. we have shifted the location. when the downtown plan was it thought through all those many

years, the guiding downtown buildings, the assumption was we were going to shift the office development segment to the immediate area south of market. when i say immediate, i mean the market to howard street. now if you look at where the offices are being developed, particularly the smaller buildings, their way far away from market street, -- they are way far away from market street. bart was the rationale. the increased capacity downtown and the increased capacity for the office development was bart. it was muni, but there was a bigot recognition that the work force was going to live outside -- but there was a big recognition that the work force was going to live outside of san francisco. we have incredible development,

way out of the bart service and wait out of muni, and we have not solve the transit and of this. as the dot com boom still happen did north mission, looked at the addresses on small-cap products. look at the addresses deep south of market. we don't have a transit system that functions at the level the city was making assumptions when we allocated office buildings. we're going to get people out of cars, and that part has fallen by the wayside. that is the responsibility of the planning department to talk about. you need to say, hey, there are a lot of people coming out, but you cannot get to the t east/west, because there is no

transit sections. thank you. president olague: is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: remember the 1980's and remember prop m, and while it did many things that are beneficial, the one that really got the attention was the office space allocation. there are some who oppose the argument that propped m, the office space allocation, killed the growth in the financial district that had been quite robust at that time. other people say, well, the economic cycle is what really terminated the growth at that time. it was not the limit on how much you could build per year. however, there was a limit, because we were building a lot per year. at the whole theory behind the bay area, or we finally did regional planning, we said

downtown office space should be in san francisco. we built the bart system, and this was a contributor to the suburbanization of a lot of office space. when the cycle came back and they began building office space, they build a lot of office space in the east bay and other places that are not accessible to transit as is downtown san francisco, and it has certainly caused a lot of sprawl and bad things. there was a desire for broader floor plates and other things that we probably could have addressed in some of our areas of the city. i am not saying this was the wrong thing, but there is a feeling that it did have a negative effect on growth at that time. as you know, there is a special provision and ring can't fill --

in rincon hill which only get 12 months, which is very short, unrealistically so. i think 18 months does not make a lot of sense based on what we have seen. most of the projects, by the time to go through the entitlement process, unfortunately the economic cycles have passed and it is not until the next cycle that it's built. there could be some thought for that time to be longer, or if we don't increase that time, we have to take that into consideration. if there is active work being done by the sponsors. the final thing was, as we see, there is lots and lots of available office space presently. even though we are going to consider some that have not move forward at all, i don't see any harm with those as they come

forward. but if there is any activity at all or any desire at all for private sponsors to move forward in the future, we should continue these entitlements in most instances. finally, as we noticed on that chart that was presented, a very high percentage of what was approved was actually built. it was not built immediately, but over the course of 10 years, most of it was built. a small percentage of projects did not get built. commissioner moore: i appreciate the update. i think that clearly demonstrates that prop m and a good downtown plan is a tool to keep the city viable, free of vacancies, and always pushing for development and the movement when necessary. i also believe the discussion and explanation of the entitlements keep us fresh,

allow us to monitor developments, but continued to keep the backlog of space available, updated, and plentiful. the question i would have is, when we are reusing buildings, is that an amount of office space that will be counted against this, or is this existing space that falls under adaptive free use? i am curious, because we have a large surplus of possible building is ready for adaptation. >> in broad terms, the office allocation process applied to the establishment of a new office space. i cannot speak with specifics on the furniture mart, but the building already includes a legal pre-existing office space.

the conversion of it or leasing to a new tenant is not something that falls under prop m. however, the conversion of a warehouse to office space would come under the prop m cap and come to you under allocation. commissioner moore: then we are really not short of space. since adaptive reuse and green technology is a desirable concepts for many, i think we need to be proactive and green and all that we do. i appreciate mr. rubin that showing us the cyclical nature of the completed buildings. extending entitlements, particular to those developers to have a proven record of having delivered buildings even after they have asked for a

temporary delay. i think of that is a transparent way of dealing with the sometimes difficult issues. president olague: thank you. secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. we can move forward on the calendar. case no. 7, 201 1.0506b. >> commissioners, good afternoon. dan snyder with the commission staff. 48 tehama street is a service parking lot, with an plummet to construct a new building containing 49,300 square feet of office space, along with three full-floor residential units on the top three floors of the building. at the office allocation and other approvals were granted in

2001, and the 18 month construction project timeline expired in march of 2003. commissioners, no building permits were ever sought to execute this project. moreover, the department is not aware of any efforts to move that product forward to completion. to the contrary, there were efforts and it 2005 and 2006 to rhee entitle the project as entirely residential. we have seen applications and building permit applications filed. that put 63 dwelling units into the same envelope as the entitled office building. these applications were also abandoned. commissioners, in keeping with your policy for an active office allocations, because of the land of time that has passed and the expiration of the 18-month construction commencement window, because of the efforts to position this away from

office use and because of the complete absence of any effort to move forward with the office project, we are recommending that you vote today to revoke the office allocation for this the to the project. and before your time, and i am happy to answer your questions. this -- thank you for your time, and i am happy to answer your questions. president olague: project sponsor? it is not present. any public comment? seeing none, commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i move to support the department's recommendation to revoke. commissioner borden: second. secretary avery: on the motion for revocation -- [roll-call vote] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously. you are now on item number eight, case number 2011.0503b,

524 howard street. >> good afternoon. before you today is one additional and final item related to a previous office allocation granted to an office development project located at 524 howard street. it was approved in 1989 as a 23- story building with two of thousands were feet of office space and 45,000 square feet of retail space -- with 200,000 feet of office space and 45,000 square feet of retail space. product received a site permit, but the sponsor did not pursue any building permits or agenda and the project has been inactive since 2007. on march 24 of this year, staff presented to the commission a history of office allocations to the project. at that time, the commission requested that staff scheduled this future hearing to consider revocation.

under planning code section 321, products that have received office allocation but i have not begun construction within 18 months are subject to revocation. the allocation is not automatically revoked until the commission seeks such an action at a public hearing. to date, the sponsor has not made diligent good faith efforts to proceed with the development of the property. the property is an important centrally located site that is good for intense office or residential use, but it appears the presently entitled project will come to fruition. staff recommends the commission revoked the previously approved of this allocation for the project. aside from the not normal mail notification to the product sponsor, -- aside from the normal mail metafiction to the project sponsor, i notified them by phone but have not received any formal written correspondence from the property owner or their representative.

since 2005, the site has been used as a service parking lot as an interim use. the commission approved operating this lot an additional two years. the action you might take the day regarding the surface parking lot or the office publication is not related and has no bearing on the previous authorization for extending the parking lot. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? is not present. public comment? >> sue hester. i had a case across the street, 543 howard st., about six years ago. you have these long entitlements that are just sitting there. it has an effect on neighbors. because people keep thinking

there is going to be something happening. and i also had dealing with 48 tehama, but did not have as big an impact. the 524 howard street is a very visible site as you come off the freeway onto howard street at the transbay terminal. it did have a negative effect on the people across the street and the owners kicked out the entire building. that building has been since changed, 543 howard. but the department's staff has sat on this 22 years. i was at the original approval hearing in 1989. that is a long time. i was at the approval hearing in 1999. and here i am with it being buried, effectively, the approval. i would just say, in sensitive

areas, and this area is pretty sensitive. this is transbay. people should not sit on things 20 years and the department should not sit on things 20 years. the history of me sending e-mail asking you to schedule this is lengthy. it probably goes back seven, eight years. i diseases that -- i appreciated being calendared now. thank you very much and that you for correction. president olague: any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: your report is so clear, i move that we support the department recommendation for revocation. vice president miguel: second. secretary avery: on the motion for revocation -- [roll-call vote]

secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. the project has been revoked. commissioners, you are on item number nine, 2010.1118dd, 952 mission street. >> this is a request to develop a medical cannabis dispensary at 952 commissions -- 952 mission street. the site will be the second such location for grass roots, which is at a facility at 1077 posts street for 10 years. the project is subject to d.r. request filed by the developer of the proposed hotel at 942 mission street next to the site, but the d.r. requestor no longer object to the project and has withdrawn his objection.

the department investigated the possibility that a community clubhouse or neighborhood center that primarily serve persons under 18 is located within 1,000 feet of the project site and to examine the possible concentration of mcd's in the vicinity. the department has investigated several sites in the vicinity and confirms no community clubhouse or neighborhood center that primarily serves persons under 18 is located within 1,000 feet of the project site. while concerns have been expressed about the potential overconcentration of mcd's in the area, there is only one other facility within a quarter mile and only two more facilities within a half mile of the project site. on june 1, staff attended a meeting organized by district 6 supervisor kim to gather information and hear concerns.

it was attended by two supervisor aids and representatives from the planning and health department. the product sponsor -- the project sponsor and the committee center. they discussed the review and approval process and reviewed max of cannabis dispensary is in district 6 and citywide. they discussed concerns of security improvements in the area. at the department recommended that the department take discretionary review, as long as it advances the policies of the general plan, and grassroots has run a successful mcd in the polk street corridor for over five years. i am available for questions. thank you very much. commissioner moore: -- president olague: thank you, a project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners.

grass roots has taken steps to address all the concerns raised by this commission. we worked with planning to further check the neighborhood in a sure there were no restrictive uses or conflicting uses, and we looked specifically and generally at the businesses that were identified by this commission at the hearing. we determined that with mr. crawford there was no conflicting uses in existence. we also met with the director to learn about their service and program, it goes ourselves and our business to them. after a nice, informative meeting with the director, she indicated she did not see any conflict with us being there and did not oppose our project. we also met with the supervises legislative aides at a meeting. there was no opposition present at the meeting. we toward our facility to discuss their plans in detail. supervisor came to not indicate they would oppose our project in

any way. we spoke with supervisor ross mirkarimi about the product and clustering issue. after looking at our project, he did not see any problems with clustering and he supports our product. finally, we met with the hotel developers next door, the adjacent property. i am glad to say that we reached agreement with them after having a sit down. we agreed we would take steps so we would not jeopardize their financing, and we would help them in their construction by leasing are back parking lot to them for the placement of their crane during the construction project. other objects. other items of interest, grass roots has decided to move forward with unionizing our workers. it will be the first dispensary in sunset francisco -- it will be the first dispensary and san francisco to have unionized workers. and we also intend to explore the possibility of leasing out

the 25 _ foot space immediately adjacent to ours -- 2500 sq. ft. space immediately adjacent to ours. if you have any other questions, i like to take the opportunity to answer them. president olague: not at this time, thinking. i like to open it up for public comment. we're going to limit public, at to 1 minute, as we have heard this previously. all of the answers we had have been answered by our department. so there is always the option of signing up to show support, which we did previously, but will limit the time on the public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a special project, committee, and local court a better for the local 5.

alert to bring your attention to one of the more important aspects of this very important item before you today. that is employment. $19 per hour is the starting pay for people who are going to work in this regulated industry, and it will tap out at $45 per hour. keep in mind, $19 per hour is about 80% higher than the minimum wage requirement in san francisco. in addition, please keep in mind that medical cannabis is an industry that needs regulation, and the local 5 will bring regulation to the industry and san francisco. there will be law enforcement, regulation and terms of what could be done, what needs to be done in terms of what happens in the housing of all of the medical dispensaries. president olague: thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for allowing me to say a couple things in opposition to having this dispenser rate in the middle -- of having this dispensary in the middle of mission street. i own a building a couple doors from the proposed, and i have a couple points to make. one, there was no notice on the proposed location for a meeting like this. i had to call mr. crawford a few times, and then finally yesterday he told me about the time of this meeting. we have submitted to mr. crawford, and i hope all of you have this petition objecting to this store, signed by many of the business owners, employees,

and property owners on that block. president olague: thank you, sir. >> yes, this is a 1-way street. president olague: we may ask you for additional questioning. secretary avery: sir, your time is up, and the commission may call you back. >> hello. my name is brianj i am at a workers' resource center. we all well known for our 30- year history serving the employment law and human rights needs of the working poor and san francisco and also from the national labor community summit that we organize it regularly in san francisco. we have bent out reaching and

monitoring the medical cannabis in the street in san francisco. we are very pleased about the jobs and the economy and the revenue bringing it to the city. we are particularly pleased with grass roots. they have shown particular interest in the community affairs and supporting the community, and we are big supporters of the regulation, the taxing, and the revenue that this new emerging legal industry is bringing to san francisco and the state of california. on behalf of our community-based organization, i would like to support the grass roots dispensary. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public, disclosed. commissioner miguel? commissioner moore: -- vice president miguel: out like to commend the project sponsor, getting together with the hotel owners