process of indexing fees. the last couple of pages show the 2012 the rates. every year, we will inflate the impact fees to account for additional cost of construction. we notify project sponsors and do the work on our side so the new fee rates can be effective on january 1. i appreciate your time and attention to this. way and we are doing a lot of planning, development catches up, we will have a clear path to moving infrastructure projects forward. we are here for questions. thank you. president miguel: i have one card for public comment. >> it dear commissioners, i am

dan murphy, a principal with urban redevelopment and mayoral appointee representing at showplace square. i am a strong advocate for area plan and plantation and it is not that vein that i want to bring something to your attention today. as it relates to the eastern neighborhoods area plants, there exists a significant impediments to plan implementation that currently have for the foreseeable future restrict the market's ability to implement desirable new developments envisioned by the plans as well as the needed public infrastructure required to support it. as i understand it, staff is in the process of preparing that eastern neighborhood monitoring reports which will be presented to the commission in february. i suggest the commission take that opportunity to seek input from city staff and members of

the general public on existing and unintended and pediments that to date restrict the implementation of the various plans that so many of us worked so hard to put into place a little over three years ago. addressing these impediments will undoubtedly help the needed capital investment required to achieve the plans desired outcomes such as enhanced their bread quality, job creation, the construction of needed public infrastructure, all of which will provide the city with needed it economy. president miguel: is there additional public comment? commissioner borden: i would like to thank the staff for this report. i wanted to ask the last speaker -- you mentioned impediments'

but your letter did not talk about the impediments or unintended consequences. i did not know if you have an opinion on what those were or if you have an opinion in general. >> i have observed a number of them as a land use professional and did my work with the cac. commissioner borden: you brought this to our attention and i am eager to know what they are. >> i am the mayoral appointee representing showplace square. the community adopted an open space plan as part of an appendix to the area plan. there is an open space network envisioned for showplace square, some of which runs through the pdr district. the area plan includes various land-use policies which in

addition a certain type of development in that area. i'm working on a parcel right now that is a key one in that area. unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a tool in the zoning code to implement the vision laid out in the area plan. i view that as an impediment. u>> not to put you on the spot - what in the zoning code is missing in that particular instance? >> that area plan for the showplace area envisioned the non-residential portion as an appropriate location for knowledge sector employment.

unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a tool in the zoning code that supports development that would address that specific land-use objectives. the appropriate time -- staff mentioned they would be back in a month to talk about these for neighborhood monitoring reports. that would be better for more to get into more detailed discussion. commissioner borden: thank you. i do want to make sure -- i was watching the board and sawfm call for a hearing on the program. i noticed in some areas like the infrastructure feet, the

affordable housing fee -- in some areas it has been a greater issue than others. i cannot remember if they can defer -- it all of the fees? i can't remember? >> the rules vary by plan area. you can defer up to 80% of your feet. the affordable housing fee was always collected at occupancy, so that's why it shows up as an anomaly. the program sunsets in may, there is a question about whether it's meaningful to its purpose.

commissioner borden: so these are projects that are underway and we can anticipate getting that fees in a win -- in a year or so? >> currently, we projected someone gets their site permit, maybe in two or three years, depending on the size of the project, we get the balance of the impact fee. >> thank you. we can move forward up to item number 12. this is wireless communications facility psyching guidelines. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm from the planning department. the department is seeking to

widen the telecommunications citing guidelines and the supplement to the guidelines. the amendment would require an additional sample requirements for conditional use applications. the requirement would be a coverage in capacity data evaluation to be performed by a third-party evaluator. similar to the current requirement for the board of public health to evaluate radiofrequency a mission reports submitted as part of the application process. in december, the board of appeals heard the case about 20 -- of larkin street and mission street wireless communications conditional use authorizations approved by this commission. the appeals challenged the accuracy of the data, maps, and conclusions submitted by at&t. supervisor we recommend the uses be approved subject to a

condition that requires an independent evaluation and determine the mat and data submitted by at&t are indeed accurate. the board moved the planning commission adopt the condition as a standard procedure for all wireless conditional use applications. therefore, the department, and in consultation with supervisor wiener recommends you amend the guidelines to include an independent evaluation to it conditional use applications the battle requirements. rather than an evaluation for the operation as a condition of approval board has been adopted and you have been adopting as part of your condition as approval for the most recent conditional use authorizations you have heard. we would like to amend the language submitted in the resolution. the intent was to generate a

list of qualified engineers licensed by the state of california for service providers from which to select one. therefore, the language to be added to the conditional use checklist should read coverage and capacity data evaluation, an independent evaluation of bat data and conclusions about service coverage and capacity submitted by the wireless service provider, selected from a list provided by the planning department. the resolution said recognize the correspondences received since the draft was issued last week. it should read the department has received several correspondences and support of

the resolution recommending clarity and or modifications. those correspondents requested that independent evaluations consider significanucgztóu gap t intrusive means an alternative site analysis expansion. the russian hill community association and other members of the community would like the independent evaluator to make a determination of a significant gap and the determination of the proposed location is the least intrusive means by which the significant gap would be covered. in consultation with the city attorney's office, we recommend the commission avoid imposing a new standard for criteria by which we evaluate telecommunications service conditional use applications. it is an undefined term the

courts have chosen to use. we should continue to apply our conditional use standards and the criteria established in the wireless guidelines. section 303 of the planning code requires finding of necessity or desire ability and compatibility. this commission has to find a -- has defined it -- we also feel the least intrusive means is adequately addressed by the wireless guidelines preference schedule. through its alternative site analysis which has been expanded to include preference five sites in addition to preference six and seven locations as the least

desirable. staff through submitted a plan to include alternative site analyses for all preferences, one through seven. they would like to add that scope of work to the independent evaluator for their determination, if adequate or not. bbc we do not feel expanding the analysis is necessary as they are the most preferred locations and do not include residential units unless they are co-location site. the site analysis is not entirely a function of a lecture about -- electrical engineering. finally, we're seeking your advice on pipeline projects and how to process those. if you choose to adopt the

recommendation of the board of supervisors, we are seeking your advice on whether or not the policy should be adopted retroactively, as you have been applying the condition as anyone to the conditional use authorizations or whether or not we should hold off with the applications requiring these the middle for future applications. with that, i am available for questions and recommend you adopt as amended. president miguel: is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon president and members of the planning commission. i am the chair housing and zoning for the russian hill community association and we are the reason you are considering this application.

we appealed your approval of the conditional use on two projects to the board of supervisors and the board of supervisors approved a conditional use that but the condition of an independent evaluator on the two projects. both of the community groups hired outside independent experts to review at&t's submission and support of its conclusion for the board presentation. those outside experts determined the information at&t submitted in its application was been sufficient to make a determination. this is probably true of all carriers -- when the community met with at&t in the planning

department, supervisor wiener was clear that the intent of his condition was to ensure the broadest evaluation permitted under federal law. that is what we are requesting. we submitted a brief to the planning department and that brief basically supports in part what was mentioned and that is necessary, desirable in terms of location, size, and intensity, all the criteria under the planning code, at&t needs to use the same approach, which is basically saying there is a significant gap and this is

the least intrusive means in terms of locality and technology. the addendum constricts the intent of the condition that was imposed and we're asking you to do two things. ensure the policies and procedures the planning department developed are open to public comment and review. that's the only way we're going to have a true, clear transparent, and a credible condition. if not, this condition is no more than what you have already gone before you. thank you.

>> good afternoon president and commissioners. i'm the vice president for the college of liberal association and adhere to represent members of the improve my club. we would like to request the scope of the independent evaluators analysis be extended to the wireless carriers claims regarding alternative locations, both technical and physical location. that carriers have existing sites nearby and an engineer's analysis is required to determine whether these can be upgraded to provide coverage and capacity instead of just installing entirely new sites at a different location. we would also like to request the fcc report submitted with the application be reviewed by the independent evaluators. in our case, we hired an

independent evaluator and what he reviewed the reports, the application for the conditional use, there were more antennas in the application due to the location of the antenna, and that is more accessible to the general public, including possible exposure to public workers. no medicaid -- no mitigating measures were included to be in the guidelines. there is no way we can assess a affirmation provided is correct. it requires a technical person or expert in the field to act -- to assess the bullet -- to

assess the below it -- to assess the validity of the claims. >> of her -- i am here to make sure this is done in a public forum. it's essential that this be reviewed by their public to be credible and these look at the legal brief prepared by a team of lawyers and it brings into all the legal precedents that are stated by at&t.

president miguel: is there additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. i'm with the outside counsel for verizon wireless. we had some proposed minor modification to staff's proposal. verizon supports a third party review of the information we think this will be beneficial to you and the department. i'm glad to see the department is making the change. we suggested in addition to the resolution requires the department to prepare that list updated annually with input from interested parties which would include not only wireless providers but the neighborhood groups.

the second change we proposed was essentially the information is the information already required under the check list under paragraph be for wireless providers to show the service area definition. we suggest there be a cross reference the evaluator look at that information and we don't create a different category of information provided by staff. we [unintelligible] with respect to a significant gap, it's unrelated to what an engineer would do can say whether it is a gap or

whether it is -- it's not an engineering decision and with respect to least intrusive means, are less guidelines, the premier definition in terms of the preference system -- [tone] i can answer any questions you have. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with at&t external affairs. having gone through the appeals the board of supervisors on your decisions and having fully agreed to the condition supervisor wiener put forth on those appeals, i want to think the department staff for coming up very quickly with what we think is a good direction in terms of trying to come up with

the standard, the process, rather quickly. i think the department's staff for doing that. we have a couple of concerns and want to address the addition scott weaner put out for the record. both went up on appeal and at&t willingly agreed to the condition scott wenner proposed. i want to make sure we understand the condition and that in the event the applicant is able to demonstrate to an independent evaluator that the applicants' own data support the accuracy of the data and conclusions about service coverage and capacity submitted by the applicant during this appeal, but a conditional use is supported as set forth in the planning commission's motion. the resolution before this commission today to add data

evaluation to the checklist appropriately check this language and that dollar is to let there is no broader interpretation being sought by this condition as we interpret it so i just wanted to put that out there. second, as jonas has indicated, we have a concern that if there is only one evaluator, i've the evaluator is overloaded or on vacation or we run into a problem where we incur substantial delay -- as you know, we tried diligently and the planning department staff does to work these three within 150 days as federally mandated. i want to think the planning department staff and thank you for considering this resolution and we support it. president miguel: is there an

additional public comment on this item? if not, public comments is closed. commissioner antonini: much of our discussion centers often around whether the maps are accurate. if we have an evaluation, that's one less thing to be questioned and might make more -- but make for a more expeditious process. this is a process that is somewhat cumbersome and it is something that has got to be done anyway. it's like when we had television antennas, we put antennas on the roof to take -- to pick up the television and we did not have to go through permitting process for every antenna we put up. the same with how many telephone poles local utility was going to put on the road to run their lines.

these are professional decisions that have to be made. i have a question for the representative from at&t. there have been some suggestions by members of the public about including this alternate site search analysis which i don't think it's part of this and don't feel it is necessary. >> there is an existing requirement for us to do alternative sites analysis on preferences 537. we do them as carriers because we look for the best sites within the search range. maybe you want to address -- not to put you on the spot, but i think it is covered. >>commissioner antonini: maya

understanding is this is not included in here. the carriers are obliged to do alternative site analysis, but to have the>u evaluator have to do that sounds like a lot more expense and work. >> it would be evaluating whether it be alternative site analysis is accurate. we tried to transpose the language as it was read into the record. >> we have to begin with one step at a time and not make the process more burdensome. nobody wants to put up a site -- nobody wants to pick the worst side when others are available.

i don't know if this has to be part of the motion, but there should be a list of evaluators by the city. is that included already? >> , yes. i read that into the record. commissioner antonini: then i would think it is fine. >> we're also seeking your advice on how to handle pipeline projects. commissioner antonini: thank you for reminding me of that. what we have been doing is ok. we approve a process and ask them to go and have this after the fact. if it turns out it wasn't, we by have to look at that again or