little bit more for each year. further years out, you will see more revenue coming in. the economy has slowed down, so we are not seeing a lot of projects move forward. we are assuming most projects will choose to participate, so those that move forward are paying a small knot in the beginning and the balance further years out. it gives a sense of what kinds of questions we're trying to answer and how we can think about moving that infrastructure side at forward. i wanted to talk a little bit about for each plan, there has been a lot of progress on one of the parks that was identified in the plan.

this was a map and you can see this big park that was identified. that item was before the bad and and kind agreement for 333 harrison, which is being developed by emerald sons. we've done a lot of work to figure out how to move that project forward. there is an infrastructure financed district that will help to fund the balance of that park and we believe it will start construction sometime in late 2012. the other project we see coming are seven streetscape improvements associated with 45 lansing and the construction of the guy plays park. this is the star of today, which

everyone is going to think it's because i worked on it so much. but the hayes street to way project is very surprising because it's one of those ideas that came out of the plan that was community-driven. also it was the first project we have worked together to identify as a priority and before. it was also a super low-cost project, which is unusual. that is not the case for most of the project. in the market octavia plan, and going to focus on that area. there's a lot of work happening. these maps show the expendituress the projects.

what we building with impact the money? you can see some work on market street and some work on some major intersections along market and a bicycle lane work. this is what we are programming impact fee money for. but a lot more work is happening with non-revenue -- non-impact the money revenue. bill little orange pies -- if it was a full circle, that means the impact the money is paying for 100% of the project. there is no case where impact fee is running the entire project. this says helping us think creatively about how to take the impact the money and stretch it along with other public sources.

the big projects are the haight street project which we got a major grant for and pedestrian improvements along market street. balboa park, this is the example of the -- of what is the back of the report. there are a lot of projects identified and the revenue is quite small. in balboa park, we have differed a lot of the work until more detail transportation planning is completed. we are doing more work to figure out how to resolve the bart station and a major changes from the community around light rail. finally, eastern neighborhoods, we anticipate the largest amount of impact many feet from and not the largest project are hoping to fund is the folsom st. scape

improvement. i don't want to steal the thunder from the presentation from the end of february, but this gives a good overview of what we are trying to do with revisiting folsom st.. that was identified as a priority project. we anticipate a large about the impact fee revenue and on the open side, a lot of revenue on folsom park, which i know you have heard a lot from. we are only using the impact fees to fund 30%. the report talks about a number of the grants we have secured to balance these things out. we hope to use this tool ie eastern neighborhoods and we're doing some work on that as well.

a resolution was passed import of the expenditure -- in support of the expenditure. i circled an addendum to the table that adds a note articulating some of the specific ideas around pedestrian improvement. the second report is the development impact the report required as part of article 4 of the planning code. this was drafted by the comptroller's office and you saw it last year as well. the new thing the sheer is an accounting of fees that were deferred and there is a table on page 2 that shows how much fees were deferred as opposed to collected. that is a topic we will hear more about. 4: last night asking for a reporting of the

effectiveness of this program in terms of stimulating development. i believe the board of supervisors asked for an informational hearing on the same item. i would like to draw that table to your attention. the last item is our annual 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 approvesubject 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 [te