more than 1 million square feet for the small-cap and about 2.6 million for the large cap. looking even further down the road, and assuming all of the pre-application cases are approved, and this probably will not happen until at the very earliest, the next allocation cycle, we do still see notable excess capacity. over 1 million square feet would remain in the small cap, and 700,000 square feet in a large. let's move now to the last part of your update today, particular projects of note. i will zoom through these with as much speed as possible, so if you are curious and would like more information, please just say so. despite the current situation with the economy, commissioners, in the past year-and-a-half or so, the city has approved more than 2 million square feet of office space. as you can see, this project are

really scattered throughout the northeast part of the city, frankly, and beyond. treasure island, mission bay, south of market, the downtown core. in your most recent resolution relating to the annual limit, you asked that we as a staff follow-up on a handful of specific projects that appeared to be enacted, and look at those with an eye towards holding. here are two of them. market street would have constructed a new office space at fort st. behind the old navy. this project had an 18-month time when that concluded in 2002. we reached out to the project sponsor who confirmed that the project is no longer active, and as such, the project has been relinquished. 120 howard street, which is the vertical addition to an office

building on spear, is now actually under construction. so that is now off of your revocation radar. here are another two projects of particular note, both in the transbay area, both very old allocations, and both which you will hear about. both were called out in 2009 as being an active, and as far as we can tell, 48, and 525 howard continue to remain inactive. putting aside the projects we have just mentioned, these projects are the only office allocations that are in excess of their 18-month timeline. for the most part, they are not substantially over that limit, but unless they are questioning with respect to their conditions of approval in the planning could. the department has received updates from some project

sponsors, indicating that despite being slowed by the current state of the economy, both projects are in fact moving forward. barry last slide here -- 350 bush, 500 kind -- these are two connected project located between montgomery and current street. together, they account for about 400,000 gross square feet of office space. as requested in the commission's most recent policy statement, we will hear an informational update from the project sponsor as part of this item in just a minute. so, commissioners, that is where your annual limit program stands. thank you for allowing me to take up so much of your time. of course, happy to answer some of your questions now, or if you would rather, we could wait to hear from the project's sponsors first. commissioner olague: i think we can hear from the project at this time. i cannot see any names of at the moment.

does it have to be called? i think we will hear from the project sponsors at this time. >> good afternoon. we represent lincoln properties, who since september 2007, is the owner of an untitled site. they go together. fairly complicated situation. for our purposes, i think it is important to note that the activity that has occurred, which is, i think, what you are interested in -- commissioner olague: was called into the record? >> [inaudible] >> as i understand it, this particular item as part of your informational presentation. separate line items. commissioner olague: yes, that

is fine. >> as i mentioned, the property was acquired as an untitled side by lincoln properties and its partner in september 2007. lincoln is a developer. builds buildings. they bought and tired site. the market, as you recall, was roaring around pretty well at the end of 2007. immediately after that, my firm was brought on. we paid the affordable housing fees of $5,153,000 in change and paid the affordable housing fees on pine street, paid back in september right after buying the properties with the intent to get going and build those properties out. we acquired all of the remaining tbr that needed to be required

-- acquired, and importantly, from my point of view, although the entitlements were complete, the deal with the recreation and park commission to allow for the expansion of what is st. mary's park, which is part of the complicated way in which these two projects were related, have not been completed and turned out to be an extraordinary effort, but we undertook to engage with rec and park and the board of supervisors that we got a deal done to expand st. mary's park at 500 pine street, all with the idea that soon after that, we would be able to proceed to build those projects. site permits were submitted, and they have been submitted or submitted after we acquired, but not cold, and heller was engaged to complete the construction drawings. then the market tanked, for lack

of a better term. nobody was building anything. by 2008, the middle of 2008, it was obvious that we were not going to be able to proceed to build the building at the time, even if we had wanted to. there was no financing available, and attendance, and no reason to proceed. nevertheless, since that date, we pursued actively and seriously the gsa lease that you 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, l