them already will d t be aggressive and saying we need to find the solution to get the conduit laid it's not enough whatever department a says off i'm sorry, i see an obstacle. >> i can tell you we're aware and we're going to challenge every assertion of the costs and every concern i understand your presidential you at this point none of those depends are going to be proelz are not values concerns but we can mitigate those. >> i'm not saying their frivolous concerns we have to concern how do we solve that

concern so the two points in that regard or one i think that the mayor's office has a huge rule in to play here i see mr. xhaup we designated the mayor's office i hope they'll play a role and i guess the second point to you wonder if it's i'm sorry president chiu is there a reporting requirement here if there recent a periodic reporting requirement where the department of item has to report to the mayor and the board of supervisors on a quarterly basis hear all the basic hear the opportunities we had and the

opportunity we took and declined and here's the opportunities we took but the other departments objected. >> 50i8d to entertain an amendment. >> is that not good enough. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney that's adequate i've got the gist. >> to the presentation of d t what they said thanks and yes or had another objection in terms of the moving forward. >> we'll draft that after the meeting. >> i'm sorry one other thing in terms of the 9 hundred feet i think so that if you have a small project you might not want to also do this but there's a

cost involved i get that i i'm wondering why the 9 hundred feet as opposed to why another measure of feet and in terms of the department works the range of projects what percentage of road projects are going to come in under 9 hundred and what's the possibility to piecemeal that by bringing up the 2 thousand foot and defining it not having to accept any conduit sir, do you want to - >> thank you very much for that. >> thank you, supervisors jerry department of public works streets and mapping

thank you, supervisors a valid question actually what i can tell you with use and as supervisor chiu and my colleague mentioned the eye of the gi s based you know as the tool we would like to forecast those jobs out for the next 5 years 3 categories large and medium and small-scale as president chiu mentioned roughly that's 3 small city blocks in essence have the department of technology join in and a layer of proposed work they would to see happy as the the layer is folded increase in the 5 year plan see where the cooperation exists on the short ribbons the

9 hundred foot deltas we would like to have the multiple lengths streamed together its cost efficient for the department of technology and ends up terrorism where there's connectivity and where there's porm a bunch of conduit that's paved over with no use and needs to be dig up again to give you numbers if i may briefly on the small-scale the total utility excavation permits that are greener one thousand feet he pulled the date data for one thousand feet as of 2014 there was 2 hundred and 79 so small in scale overall when you consider that.

>> every or under a thousand. >> we used a thousand so those are under a thousand so the 9 hundred square feet wourn ones. >> 2 hundred and 79. >> out of how many. >> i don't have the total number of projects but i can give you a synoptic of some scale penguin has 27 thousand approved permits currently in and around the city of san francisco. >> so that 2 hundred and 79 i assume that is when they trench in 10 feet to repair one thing. >> up to 9 hundred you're looking on an average of approximately 2 hundred and 79 out of about 5 percent. >> 5 percent. >> okay do you have any more obviously none of us are

concerned with the micro ones but how many in 95 or 6 or 9 hundred. >> i can pull. >> i would be curious to get a breakdown range and how the issue the environmental protectional agency's piece milling question and okay. >> so how many are going to do 2 thousand feet of roadwork and not deal with the conduits so break it down into 4 or 5 hundred foot projects. >> right so that's when the department of public works if we change a specific disruptions we want to avoid like for example, if we were doing that on market street not to impact traffic as

a result of but other than that we're curious why i want to raise someone like it and discourage it my position i'm responsible for the moratorium that falls into my wheel house we probe when developers or contractors come in with those types of requests we actually understand the justification. >> right now it seems like i'm wondering if it makes sense that the department of public works were to have the ability to prevent that kind of gaming and i'm not sailg it's going to happen you never know and then i mean one possibility to reduce the 9 hundred feet i don't know what is magic about 9 hundred feet is it a significance.

>> we were looking for a general consensus not based on connectivity if it's going to be left open for a short city blocks not conducive to a standard that seems like it is fair. >> ongoing again, i don't know what the right number is this is not going out as a committee report i want to report this to get the data i've requested and understand the controls that dpw has in place to prevent piece male and female there could be market street information but i'll hope for 4 or 5 straight projects on market street maybe denver invites that to not have

disruption so each one is 5 hundred feet. >> that's where the partnering with dpw when it comes to fruition do you guys have the materials to do that or another part of the city that is conducive like a ribbon project and where that comes in so that's where the coordination between the departments. >> okay. so i'd like to get it data sometime this week and two other questions one is what happens if d t self-respond within 7 days perhaps what's the consequences. >> if i may with using it we used to have that process before

we implemented the gshgsz i s tool we relied open responses and nonresponsive was there's no desire to add in that particular area where envisit does the notice of intent actually moves up the chain of command within the agency when we don't hear a response by the time so basically, it's excavated to our aspire if you're not responding in time. >> in terms of this specific ordinance bus it requires d t to respond in 7 days. >> it requires d t to verify i'm not sure you want to intaesht. >> part of the change in the

approach is that the assumption at the end they'll have to do the design with the investigation we've published and so because there is concern originally that the you know utilities won't know what they're getting and have to design the market around the proposal from d t that's meant to address that issue so the verification is to look at the information you've included there so i think the - butt but if we don't do that that conduit won't be included and so that will show up in on report that we proposed you'll know there you'd

be able to ask. >> i'd prefer it not included. >> that's a check. >> so in terms of the i presume that d t will want to say yes or no and not let the 7 days lapse i know that the department may not be as resource full as it needs i want to make sure we don't have the 7 days turn around i understand putting a time limit i would make it next week discussion of 7 days is the right amount of time i don't want to lose opportunities because someone is on vacation sanitation or the wires get crossed and all of a sudden we've lost a lengthy stretch maybe 10 blocks being done and 10 blocks of conduit i'd like to

have those those are important legislation i'm happy it's coming forward i want to get all the details or the and we'll write a response and the other things i neglected to bring up this legislation like in the past was the credential cost piece that rather than sharing the entire cost of the trench our piece it will be the cost by adding the conduit it constrains the cost in terms of the participation. >> that makes sense and my final question for d t open the amendment proposes giving d t the power to increase the 9 hundred to a higher number would

is there a reason that d t wants to increase that to a higher number? average the overall concern of having a lot of stranded conduit we require people to put in in a piece meal fashion we have a cohort system that's the only concern if you prefer to keep it at the 9 hundred feet that will be - >> not overtly concerned with the conduit i appreciate that explanation thank you i also want to clarify some language if the determination by d t they're going to participate with the assumption gits indicts it's going to having happen if it's negative you they'll notify

the - i also know there are a couple of city representatives from eric from the puc and our chief innovation officer my comments you want to make. >> thank you aaron with the manager the any public comment? this has been a long conversation going on for years that the city and we've participated the in conversations with the d t to try to move this along our challengers are co-locating the infrastructure with the water utilities both water and sewer and had conversations with the d t and appreciate the legislation allows the department to work together to figure out how best to advance the goals of the city >> i appreciate and i need to you know is i'm told what i

mentioned i respect the puc they've been presented with challenges around street projects and recently had to resend a really problematic registration it makes it very, very hard to do projects in the street it requires to remove expensive infrastructure and again, it wasn't enough of let's get it done sort of impetus it is being worked on now can you reassure me the puc is going to have a can do attitude about let's get the conduit we need it in the street the more conduit in the street the better. >> even in the time i've been at the puc over the last 1 and a

half years almost 2 i've seen this progress i know i actually participated in the conversation to try to figure out how to make it happen and shown e spoken with the limp we understand there is a way to guarantee go forward and there's concerns and issues but we're having 0 those conversations to novice and discuss and problem solve with d t. >> i'd like to get the assurance indirectly from mr. kelly about that we'll have significant challenges with the puc around some of the pedestrian safety consortiums i know that people are trying and hopeful that will work out but i have past concerns i appreciate

it thank you and let me ask are there any other department representatives and let me thank the sfmta as well as the utilities and telecom that applied for permits and i also let me also take a moment to echo supervisor wiener's concerns i've been frustrated how to move forward with the fiberoptic strategy and the dark color strategy and many of you have heard me sigh this it behoves our city if we're truly a 21st century city to hopefully someday be a leader but hopefully with the

implementation of our policy we'll start moving in the right direction mr. chair public comment. >> one public comment card for excuse me. two for items 4 and 5 one aaron brooks for both mr. brooks. >> good afternoon airbnb brooks our city and specifically today making sure to represent the public in the coalition which back in the mid 2000s we pushed forward the brbd study and were the coalition that stopped our entire wire fabric from being owned owe google and architectureing we would have

had a monopoly service in san francisco thing i want to thank the two of you supervisors for moving forward this forward i found in the language city owned this is vital we do this like the fiber we built out is owned and controlled by the city of san francisco and that we build anti a fiber brbd network to the city as quickly as possible and viewers watching this look at the chatting nothing a gig exhausting nothing k h a t n u g a deals with the 1010 issue of getting over a gigabyte of

assess speed on the build out ftc is moving to get control of the internet we need to build this out quickly and get over the hurdles that supervisor wiener was talking about so we can get the economic boom that chatting nothing is xefrg to happen in san francisco in the next two years. >> thank you mr. brooks any additional public comment on items four or five come forward. >> i realize it is essential is not into san francisco i want to spend a night i i mean, we have a term executive directors see

congressional leaders congressional representatives legislators petitioner of students altogether see above the service of leg age. >> is there any additional public comment four or five seeing none, public comment is closed. >> president chiu. >> i have a number of amendments to ask the competent to adapt and hopefully for consideration next week. >> so in terms of the amendments president chiu has offered i mean, i'll support them subject to more information from the departments to see if we need to tweak any of those amendments but subject to it that request i'll support them today colleagues we'll take that without objection. >> i also want to clarify

supervisor wiener made an additional amendment. >> i almost forgot by my own amendment we'll take that without objection. the amendment is adapted and mr. gibner those are not subjective. >> right. >> can i have a motion to forward item 4 to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> and to continue with to the call of the chair once upon a time . >> having you have two items and can you my apologies madam clerk call item 7 and 8. >> item 7 is an ordinance

amending the planning code with the roll call and item 8 to expand the intense formula retail controls. >> at the request of the author to entertain a motion to continue tosto october 27th any public comment on those seeing none, public comment is closed supervisor cohen can you have a motion to continue items 7 and 8 to october 27th. >> yes. >> we'll take that without objection. madam clerk madam clerk, any other business before this committee? >> there's no further business. >> thank you we're adjourned