the goal. in 6 kansas city neighborhoods found in only 10 percent of the residents subscribe to google's fiber service. by contrast, 42 percent of the residents surveyed in nearby higher and middle neighborhoods signed on to google fiber. so i think really what i'm getting at here is i just want to be cautious that we don't use lafco staff to look at something that could be potentially not reaching a goal that staff really got at as to, you know, the purpose and spirit behind why we would support undergrounding. supervisor tang requested we look into long-term master plan, alternative funding sources, establishing city policies and implementation of the program. and so, you know, in pre-viewing mr. fried's work

plan today to collect data that's already available, to update older documents where new information exists and include any new research that reveals options that may not have been thought of yet, i want to just be cautious that we're not getting into a wide scope that we are looking at what's already been done, that we want to look at areas where other city agencies, what the time mighting for limiting scope. and i think that undergrounding project may be different, you know, using lafco staff, for instance, when we

looked at (inaudible) or how elected officials are elected during, you know, if between election cycles or something like that where we're not touching on something that the board of supervisors or even other city agencies are doing so we're filling a gap for research that's not done any other place. so given the time sensitivity and priority of clean power sf and being available to do other research where other agencies are not called in, i would just request the support from colleagues to direct staff to limit scope and i'm not sure if we should adjust the timeline, but i would like to make sure we limit the scope to, you know, a certain number of hours or also limit the scope of work so that

we're not getting into doing other agencies' work. and i'm not sure, i'll ask you, mr. freed, for comments on that and maybe the scope is limited enough as you've set it out but i just want to make sure that we're setting priorities. >> sure. as far as limiting work, i mean, you will direct me as to what you want to limit me to. i don't think that the scope of work that i've laid out is actually all that broad. there's a heck of a lot more that could be done on this. one of the things i do want to do is because there are different agencies and different people looking at stuff trying to pull all that together so it's in one basic catalog of information instead of a little bit here and a little bit there. one of the things lafco is notorious for doing is doing work that other departments aren't doing, i'm not saying the departments aren't necessarily doing their jobs in this particular case because i

haven't done the research into it, but one of the things we can do is help bring it together. i don't see myself spending a whole lot of time on this. i don't necessarily know if i would want to limit myself based on number of hours worked, my first priority as i've said is cca so this will be when there's gaps like right now for the next couple of weeks everyone else is going to be looking at the cca report so i could work on it then. but once the comments come in i will be looking at it to make sure the comments are addressed and the ones that weren't, why we're not addressing them. i am sensitive to the cc apt and this is more of a filling in based on the request of this body with some other work but making sure cca is my priority which is in i'm only giving the next meeting as to what i will actually guarantee to report on and not guaranteing anything further out than that.

i don't know if that answers all of your question or not. >> it does, but also i think, you know, i understand that we are doing, next, the work of, you know, the puc has not done on cca what i would just be concerned about is i know that legislation that supervisor david chiu recently passed on first

reading in the board of supervisors on tuesday had to do with dig once. so has some work already been done or, you know, is it too late to -- well, it's not too late -- to make amendments on the second reading than to piggyback for supervisor tang to partner with supervisor chiu's office. >> i think what supervisor chiu is

doing are two completely different things. the undergrounding of utilities, fiber is a separate issue. we can have the discussion on the fiber side of what we're looking at, but the nonfiber side, that is all done by pg&e, they control that process and the city doesn't actually do that work. we ask them questions, i know the citizens have some questions about what's going on with undergrounding and what the costs really are and no one's dug deep into it and lafco has that ability to dig deep into the pg&e numbers of what's going on and trying to make sure that the numbers that say it costs x number of dollars to do is really the cost for san francisco to do the process. the dig once was my personal thought process if there's ways to save money by digging once we could piggyback on what supervisor -- that would be done at the board level. all i would do is come back and say, yes, there are costs that can be saved by digging once. if we combined let's say sf puc's sewer and water, if it saves us money what my report at that point would say we should have the city and pg&e should partner together and that's where the report ends. it doesn't get into any more detail than that, saying these two should be partnered because there's clearly a cost savings for both sides to do that. i at that -- i end at that point and it's up to the city and pg&e to go forward from that point. >> i will yield the floor. >> i'm really excited about this, i was just in the sunset talking to folks about undergrounding last

night. one of the things we talked about were community business districts and the ability for community business districts to help in the funding of undergrounding so i know that sometimes we look at finance options through bonding and a number of other vehicles and taxes and so on and so forth, but i definitely would appreciate it if time permits to explore the possibility of contributions from community business districts because that's a tax and you are familiar with how those things are formed and whether or not those districts have the ability to commit funding toward something of this nature or using it as leverage in order to finance it in order to pay down

the debt and how that kind of works would be helpful if time permits based on your timeline or if it's something we should probably look at after the report is completed. i don't know, but i just wanted to throw that out there because i think it's a real viable option. >> the quick response, there is an option, a way right now through the cpuc where an individual block or group of blocks can combine together and pay for the undergrounding themselves if they so desire. and so a business district you could potentially create one of those types of districts over a business district and then those businesses would pay for the undergrounding within their area. now, if they wanted to go out and help pay for something that was just outside that thing and we could also find ways i'm sure we can incorporate looking into how that potentially works, that shouldn't be much more than is currently in the system. >> commissioner mar. >> i wanted to thank you for the scope that you provided. i think it's very limited and i think it feels like it fits within our broader goals. i have some similar concerns as commissioner crews that it doesn't pull anything away from our primary goal of clean power sf and cca work. i also share commissioner crews' i think focus and hope that it's really

looking at how vulnerable communities could benefit from undergrounding as opposed to just affluent home owners in key areas that wanted to maximize their property values by not having the wires above them. so my hope is that there is some focus on equity that if we're going to spend the huge amount of money to underground that it's going to infrastructure and other means that really help vulnerable seniors, low income people and working families and not just affluent home owners. and i'm just being as blunt as i can about where i see some of the advocacy around undergrounding coming from, but my hope, like commissioner crews and others, is really looking at how we not get fooled by google or big telecom companies that claim to want to close the digital divide but we need to look carefully if that's exactly what they're doing and then looking at the wall street journal online article that commissioner crews gave us, it

really does look like from the surveys of the 6 low income neighborhoods in kansas city, it's ironic we're against kansas city in this world series game coming up tonight, but it's clear the six low income neighborhoods they looked at that there's very little participation because of the $300 activation fee. there's only a tiny fraction compared to the higher income neighborhoods in kansas city. so i think commission crews shared what is a good insight about being careful when it's the telecom companies or google saying they want us to help close this digital divide. i'm grateful to the members of this lafco committee, i think they are committed to bringing more into our neighborhoods and it's a pleasure to serve with them on this body. >> commissioner lindo >> follow-up on commissioner

mar, i think he has some great points. i'd like if possible for you to take a look and let us know if this is even within the realm of the scope -- to identify what limitations the city can put on this underground space. you said it's not necessarily the city who would be doing this but it would be perhaps pg&e and if there is any legislation, if there's perhaps around the country that limits how and what is used underground and what i'm getting to is, one of the issues here is there's a $300 activation here or there's a $75 a month fee for high speed inder net that many of these low income communities cannot afford. if we want to see true equity can the sure assure there is true equity through the

process of this undergrounding. >> you brought up an interesting question and point around the article that commissioner crews gave around earlier today. if the general public is interested it's over there -- stand over there so you can get a copy of it if you so desire. it deals with an area that i had not intended touching on, which is an actual business of how do you actually hook the people up? what we were looking at, at least what my understanding was, we were looking at this report purely from a how do we get the stuff done underground, what occurs after you hook everything up, that's a completely different business model, that to me was going to be a completely different issue that i was not going to be touching in this report. you might remember when we talked about this at the last meeting i had brought up the concept perhaps that there would be a phase ii to this concept of we do the undergrounding, figure out what it takes to get the undergrounding where it needs to be and if there was interest and

desire from this body i could pick up potentially the next step which would be how do you create a business model per se of getting the internet actually into physical people's homes and getting them hooked up. that was not part of what i was looking at because based on last meeting's discussion it seemed the group did not want me to go that way. if there is a change in heart on that i do need to know because that would be a much different work plan and i would have to put some serious thought into whether i personally have the skill set to create a business model for the city. i think that would require an outside consultant coming in and that would require a budget that i do not have at this time. >> i think less than a business model but what legal effects can we have in this space underground. is there authority from the board or the puc to affect how businesses can utilize these public spaces. >> i get what you are saying. like what limitations does the city

right now control, could the city stop someone from putting something underground if they so desire to. is that what you're looking for? >> or they say you can't use it unless certain requirements are met such as having 20 percent used by low income communities, whatever it may be that the board decides but is there authority to do that? is there precedent? >> that right now i would consider outside what i was looking at but you today will decide what i am looking at. if you decide you want me to, i will include that in the work. we were only looking at how to put things under the ground, not what happens after they are undergrounded. >> commissioner crews. >> thank you. i just wanted to clarify that i wasn't saying to look at the high speed as the only goal

or even to incorporate that as (inaudible) looking at, i don't know, feasibility if that makes sense, but what i was saying was i think we approved the undergrounding research based on our interests in closing the digital divide and so when i saw information about closing the digital divide in another city it just alerted me to, you know, think about the spirit in which we were looking at undergrounding. that's all i have to say on that. >> i would like to -- part of the looking at undergrounding and trying to figure out how we expand the undergrounding to low income communities, part of what the costs are in that stuff. part of it is figuring out where do we have it and what does it cost. how do we get the basic fiber out to the neighborhood but once connecting it out to the basic

homes and what the costs are, that was not something i was intending to do. more the basic undergrounding, what they call off the street to those things and how do we connect to the house would be something done separately later. my current game plan but feel free to add that in if you so desire, i will add it into my work plan. >> thank you, commissioner lindo >> i think i like your plan and if we can focus on what you provided us today and if there is enough report, this report 2.0, if you will, can really hammer in on those issues if we so choose. >> okay, thank you. there are no other comments from the commissioners at this time so i am going to open this item up to public comment. are there any member s of the public who's like to speak on this item at this

time, please step forward. >> bruce wolf on behalf of my myself. i'm a little -- more than a little, i'm very concerned about the discussion that just happened. lafco had spent considerable amount of time on community broad band after the earth link debacle it spent money on very expensive moneys that proved to be very factual, presented ample project plans, a three-phase plan to bring fiber to the premises but starting with just the hub, okay, and then so you go from a hub out to the neighborhoods and then into the homes. and it was a three-phase plan, they priced it all out. it's there in your data base. you have it. we had quite a lot of discussion with a lot of people about that. there are a number of technologists and

community members that are very now reactivated on this issue. i would say also i would check for a report with department of technology as to how many low income people and facilities and housing are already getting high speed -- city high speed access either through fiber to those premises like valencia gardens or through some sort of wireless point to point where fiber can be brought. there's a lot more to talk about on this, but i would say i would not limit it and the idea is to focus on not just fiber but also electric and anything else that needs to come with it. there's a lot of information around in the eminent domain of conduit that is not being used that the city

can commander and also dark fiber that many of us have been stone walled on this, especially by the board who now decides --. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hi, eric brooks again with san francisco green party and local grass roots organization our city. bruce and i are both also members of the public net coalition which helped avoid the earth link google did he debacle with the help of lafco avoiding that potential monopoly problem that wouldn't have been good for service. i just want to expand on the last point bruce made, which is that we don't want to low ball this because it could impact electricity service and community choice segregation. a lot of

this could be (inaudible) so this could affect the ability to lay conduit for those type of things and then what i would ask the commissioners to do is look not at kansas city , which was privatized and clearly nonsense, look at chattanooga, look at the gig, look that up. chattanooga is getting a gigabyte or higher speeds to customers in their city for very low prices because they created a city-wide public owned, city owned broad band network over the entire city. so what mr. wolf was talking about was that we need what we need people like jason to do and studies like this to do is look at a way to use the undergrounding opportunities to build out an entire public network of conduit and

fiber so that -- and dovetail that with the ammiano study that was done that's on your records because it was done for lafco and figure out how best to do a public city-wide network for broad band communications that is accessible to all citizens in the city and can include --. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, jed holtman, speaking as a san francisco resident just to quickly speak to commissioner lindo's point which mr. brooks basically just touched on. the foremost way to make sure that you can set, the board of supervisors or that a policy board of san francisco could set policy over how those lines are being used is of course if they are managed and controlled by the public instead of by private corporation x with private corporation x you basically have to get that into the franchise agreement or the

lease agreement and we know that those are not necessarily the most public processes ever and then once that's in there, that's in there for 20 years, 50 years, a hundred years, whatever they signed away your rights for. the san francisco resident who has lived here for 15 years and thought we definitely were going to have public broad band by now, i would support the goal of this sdudy but also support the eventual looking into the issues that you raised and how we can try to ensure that low income communities do have access to these resources. thanks. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> i'm randell brubaker part of the steering committee of the san francisco commission on underground utilities which jason mentioned earlier.

i'm pleased lafco is looking at this subject and where we're coming from. our coalition exists essentially because we, in looking at the subject of undergrounding starting back about two years ago, understood that in order to broaden the cost both over time and over geographically, that actually can be done by a city government taking charge of the whole process and san diego is a prime example of that. the other thing that is constantly on our mind is half of san francisco is already underground. does it make sense that the city would do half and then stop? >> thank you, are there any other members of the public who would like to give public testimony at this

time? seeing none, public comment is closed. are there any final comments from the commissioners or mr. fried? okay -- oh, there you go, commissioner crews. >> thank you. i really appreciate the comments from the member s of the public. i think that, you know, i wonder if there was some miscommunication just in my comments. i just want to be clear that the undergrounding that we're discussing and the work plan that we're discussing actually has to do with undergrounding of utilities but it was with closing the digital divide in mind. so the work plan as it stands i don't think -- and mr. fried, you can just clarify for us today, does not include a broad band

plan for san francisco and so, you know, certainly if we were to look at a later time on a report of that nature then that would be the time to really delve into it. i guess what i worry is that we're stepping into something that we may want to limit scope initially and then expand later in the future. and so that would just be my final comments based on those from the public and i appreciate you all coming out to speak on that today. thank you. >> to address your question to me, commissioner, i think i agree with you. i think the impression i had gotten was that we were looking at

undergrounding and while we were looking at how do we underground all of our utilities, str a way to look at how to expand the fiber network within the city. that was my understanding of what i was given last month, where step 1 would end and then if that was done we could look at step 2, as a member of the public mentioned already, there are those studies that are out there already, they probably need to have their numbers outdated because they are now a few years old and you would need to update the business side of it, but that's a completely different issue of what we were looking at of just how much does it cost to expand the system and while we're looking at how much does it cost to expand our utilities and how much does it cost to expand the dark fiber from the city at the same time. that's where to me step 1 was going to end and we could come back and have a discussion if so desired at looking at step 2 on the utility side as well as the fiber side which at that point i think really does veer into two different directions but as far as getting stuff underground where it needs to be at some future point, that was what i was going to look at for now. >> before we make a motion i just wanted to make a few comments.

i definitely appreciate just the general overview of what our plan is. this is a very complicated thing and i know that there has been efforts in the past, i think we talked about it in our last lafco meeting about undergrounding and how we had moved forward and the funding source and how funding was not sufficient to support the demand of course and money ran out and now we are trying to revisit this situation and try to figure out what the appropriate direction, what are the appropriate tools for funding, what are the appropriate places to look at, you know, in our neighborhoods and where should we start. i mean how -- there's so many questions we could ask to put together a comprehensive report that would allow us the proprait direction on how we move forward but i do think it is important to take this first step in the right direction towards

developing, you know, just a basic plan of action and then if there are things that we believe should be added or should be expanded upon at a later date we should do that. i do agree with member s of the public who feel that we should look at things that already exist and add those appropriately so towards -- if they are useful, if the data is useful, using that data to somehow help us get to a comprehensive plan but i don't think this road map is going to be sufficient for what we are proposing to do and so i definitely think there will be additional steps in the future, especially, and i appreciate the article that commissioner crews has provided us with because ultimately, yes, we want our neighborhoods beautiful, yes, we want to underground utilities, but we don't want to limit access to those neighborhoods

who need access to what we plan to underground. and i want to make sure that that divide does not take place as a result of our efforts. so, with that, are there any other comments or is there commissioner mar. >> yeah, i just wanted to add i'd like the studies that eric brooks and bruce wolf referenced, if you could make sure that we have access to them. and i'm supportive of moving forward with the scope as you have outlined as a first step and i really appreciate commissioners lindo and crews participation in this. >> thank you. so is there a motion to move this item forward with positive recommendation? okay, by miss crews. commissioner crews. >> madam chair, there's no action on this item. >> it says for clarity of discussion and possible action so i want to, i think that it's appropriate for