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, the projected hotel owners next door and working with them. and of course, as well as their negotiations regarding the labor contract. looking this over, viewing it in light of the very detailed comments that were made regarding the medical cannabis dispensary at the other end of mission street last week, i see no great differences in the

objections that have come up or the legal requirements and solutions that have occurred. i think they're very analogous, and i would move to take the art and approve with conditions. commissioner antonini: i would like to ask the gentleman who is representing property owners and the area, if he could come forward and answer questions. i know the, time was short and any more detail on what the objections of the neighbors and neighboring property owners were to this mcd. >> the objections are the following. right across the street from the proposed location, there is an apartment building that has 116 units. many of the residence there have

young kids, teenagers, so forth and so on. those young people go to school, they come back, take the bus. and they get off the bus and go across the street to that apartment building. i went and i met with recreation on sixth street. mr. crawford told me this does not apply because they have programs for other students. we want only the creation, the establishment for young teenagers. now, i talk to them, the director of this, yesterday. i met with him a couple weeks ago, and they have to programs for teens, one from 2:00 until

6:00 in the evening, and saturday from 10:00 until 2:00. are we going to expose our teenagers to marijuana? why don't we take what san jose has been going through now? they have been giving licenses, and now they cannot control it. i just drove by two places on mission street between 8:00 and at 9:00, and they sell marijuana, they are licensed, everything is fine. why do we need another three blocks away from that place? commissioner antonini: thank you, sir, that answers my questions. >> i have many other notes. if you look at the petition we submit it to you and the letters

that came from some of the business owners and employees in that area, it is a disaster. thank you very much. commissioner antonini: i understand you are saying there is a business center that deals with young adults under 18 across the street? that is what you are saying? >> yes. commissioner antonini: okay, thank you, sir. maybe i could ask staff some questions. it staff, i think we went over the exhaustive list of the various programs and why they did not comply. did you take into consideration the particular one? >> yes, the one he is speaking of at sixth street is the behania community center. they have programs for youth. they have programs for people of all ages. they're not primarily serving persons under 18 years of age, and that is the criteria. commissioner antonini: okay,

thank you, mr. crawford. i just have a few thoughts. the all the different installations we have approved, this is probably one of the best organized and best run. unfortunately, we are a little bound as the commission by what the supervisors has set as a criteria. that does not include clustering, although most everything else we take into consideration clustering of liquor stores, formula retail, clustering of almost anything. it seems sort of the inconsistent we do not consider clustering on these, although we're not supposed to do that. i did a look at the map. between the streets, this will be the 11th medical cannabis dispensary. that is quite a few in the small

area. i realize balls are such that there are places where the could be placed or cited, -- i realize there are laws where they could be placed or cited, but there is such a huge demand for medical cannabis in such a small area that we need so many of these. again, while this is probably one of the better ones, it is like the ones who are their first get approval. i would be in favor of getting rid of some of the others that are not operating as well as some of the other proper operations as this is. some of the early ones were approved to allow smoking on site. some of the things that we do not usually allow. i am a little reticent to approve another one until we find a way to get rid of some of the ones that are problem. but i don't think that is within our tool kit right now. president olague: commissioner

moore? commissioner moore: i think we consider the existing rules. we cannot challenge that might require reconsideration. some of the supervisors, i think they are all aware of our questions. however, this particular project, with the guidance of supervisor kim, met all of the remaining questions. i think there responded well to the challenge to for their reach out, including we are well aware that all the notification was done to the neighbors in a timely manner. many of them showed up last week. i think you for sticking with us but to elevate this to the approval project. i support commissioner miguel's motion for approval. commissioner sugaya: i think if the commission feels that

clustering and other possible effects or whatever from approving these dispensaries is a huge issue, then i think we need to be more aggressive with the board of supervisors. you have to realize that one of the main reasons, i think, that clustering happens is because of the with the current legislation has been set up. and that is because it cannot be within 1,000 feet of certain kinds of institutional establishments. if you place that on the map, which the department has, there are not a lot of places that you could locate a marijuana dispensary. so what happens, i think, the people who want to legitimately start one that start to look at locations, and based on the criteria that has been established, you do end up in the downtown area along polk

street and the locations we're finding applications coming to was located in. we had one case where there was say whole available in the sunset, and was an application available for that that commission approved, but that was overturned at the board of appeals. but that was one of the few areas on the west side of town that a dispensary even could apply for. anyway, i think that if we are concerned about it, we need to be more aggressive through staff to the board. president olague: i know that it came out before. commissioner fong raised it. maybe we could draft an official request. could we do so, requesting, i don't know, that the board of supervisors look at these

different issues? and to reconsider? i am not sure how we would phrase it or draft it, but we need to put forth an official request instead of just babbling among ourselves, hoping somehow the message gets to the second floor. we have long supported this issue. i think there have only been two dispensaries we have denied. the first one, and then the 1 and north beach. i think the first one was unanimous, but the second was not. given the current rules, we fully support, i also think there is a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding, and still a lot of fear around medical cannabis dispensary is, when really it is a medical use and people have to have certain