of where i believe we have jurisdictions under the lease. i may agree that they could have sublet, but i believe that the violation is under the lease with the tenant, and i will elaborate further on all of the provisions because i have reviewed the lease carefully. i have made notes on all of the areas where i think that smoking components are primary, and one other that i believe may be in violation at this time. >> commissioners, is there any other comments on this item? okay. if there's any new information that needs to be brought back to the commission's attention, we'll definitely look forward to it. >> i will say in response to commissioner makras'

statements, we are looking at this carefully from our own city attorney. we do not believe that we have a violation, but that doesn't mean that a second set of eyes -- another person at the county attorney's office is pouring over this. >> commissioner adams? >> phil, eddie, thank you for the presentation. and to the community, thank you for coming out. this is the place we need to talk out about these issues, and i'm glad to hear for and against your true feelings. as i said eddie, you're doing a great job. but to the public, please keep coming out, hammering. we want to know what you have to say. we want you to know that we're listening, and we want you to know that we hope there's some way this can be resolved. >> okay. again, commissioners, any other comments? is everybody -- thank you, phil. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. item 13-a, informational

presentation on the port's five-year financial plan for fiscal years 2019-2020 through 2023 and 2024. >> good evening, commissioners, director forbes. i'm megan wallace, finance director for the port. the city and county of san francisco is required to prepare a five-year financial forecast every other fiscal year, and this forecast needs to look at expenditures, revenues, and for any year that reflects a shortfall, the city needs to develop solutions and proposals to improve that shortfall. i'm here today to present on

the port's five-year financial forecast for fiscal years 20 2019-20 to 2023-24 and to receive your criticism and feedback. i'll actually be back on february 12 to approve this item. today, i'm going to go over the city's outlook briefly, go over our financial overload, including our base, low, and high levels, and some of our strategic considerations to take into mind. first looking at the city's outlook, the five-year financial plan was actually released this past friday, on january 4. while the city continues to forecast strong economic growth, because we're in the ninth year of expansion in this -- in this economic period, there is a concern that

that growth is actually starting to slow, so the forecast for revenue generation is starting to ease on the citywide outlook. additionally, by looking at expenditures, there's some major hindrances by the citywide cost. first, as you can see, outlined here for employee benefits are extremely high, with 19% average growth for pension contributions, 6% average for retirement, retired and current employee health care. and then, like the city, the port is actually following assumptions or c.p.i. growth for personnel and nonpersonnel costs. but at the citywide level, unfortunately, the expenditure growth is significantly higher than -- than revenue generation, so for the general funds, there is forecasted shortfalls for each fiscal year. keeping this in mind, the

mayor's really wanted to keep a focus on equity and accountability for current focus. the effort to try to address these structural issues is being addressed through a variety of things, from generating for revenues, looking at citywide costs and departmental costs and a very fund amountal element of this piece is looking at employee costs, so trying to figure out how to address the growth in pension and health care. so for the port's financial outlook, i ended up taking the citywide assumptions for personnel and nonpersonnel costs. you can see -- so these inflation rates of 19% for pensions, 6% for health care costs, and c.p.i. for nonpersonnel costs, these were all taken into accounts in the port's pace case, so this is what we think will most likely

happen. and we assumed moderate revenue growth at 2.5% and really looked closely at projected revenue generation from new leases, development projects, efforts on the maritime front, particularly with cargo and crews. and then, i looked at a low case and assumed we might hit another economic downturn and considered 2% revenue jebration, impacts to our rents, assuming if the economy were to take a hit, fewer people would be coming out to the waterfront and our tenants wouldn't do as well, therefore, we would not do as well, and more limited growth on revenue initiatives related to crews and cargo. the high case, on the other hand, assumes that we would continue to yield higher rates of revenue growth, so assuming an average of 3% annually, that our lease and development initiatives, which come across in the best cases, that we

would do as well as we think we feasibly could in this five-year period, and that crews and cargo particularly would also show some -- would really bear some good fruit. so this chart, i hope helps give a good outlook. as you can see, we are showing surpluses in each scenario for each fiscal year. so i'm happy to be here today to say that i don't need to propose solutions for problems that we're facing. and then, even on top of that good news, the green line here indicates our prior five-year financial forecast, and you can see that even the low case scenario in red is turning out better than our prior base case scenario in our prior forecast. and so when it comes to capital, this is also a very good story. what this start represents is

our projected capital spending in all three scenarios, base, low, and high, and compares that projected capital investment with two key metrics. first, our deappreciation rates, so on average, we're projecting $20 million of deappreciation of port assets. we're meeting that in every fiscal year. the less good new is our ten-year capital plan, which you'll hear about next, projects very high renewal needs for the infrastructure. if we were to keep up with our current forecast, that would average 61.5 million in spending for capital. we're not quite there, but we're doing much better, and we'll just keep working at it. so i just want to go in a little bit to the key elements of renew projection and

operating expenditure projection in the base case. the really great news is that in the base case, we're projecting that we'll hit the $125 million target in operating revenues by the third year of the financial plan, really developing new sources of revenue that are diverse has been -- is a critical piece to meeting this target. development projects, new leasing opportunities, we are going to be coming forward with a proposal for a cruise fee increase, our passenger facility charge. it's a great partnership with carnival cruise lines will certainly help, and cargo expansion in the southern waterfront. as you can see, this is an extremely diverse pie. this represents the different areas that are contribute bein our revenue growth, and it's a wonderful array of all of the things that the port commission has helped guide the port on

over several -- as long as i've been at the port, seven years, while we're all counting. so on the operating expenditure growth, you can see that personnel really is driving port costs, as well -- you know, we're aligned with the city message. the cost of personnel is significant. really, together, while salaries are definitely contributors to this group, and work orders, those are actually projected to grow at -- at c.p.i., so we're assuming 3% inflation. also significant, but it's really -- the port relies on other city departments to provide services. they're just a large component of our budget, and therefore, we naturally reflect growth in

that cost line. this chart is intended to help explain a bit more about why -- why we're forecasting strong capital investments. so this is showing trends year over year in the different types of operating expenses. as you can see, the capital budget is represented through yellow portions of this bar, and the reason why we have that -- have money to make those investments is because of the areas in green, which represent our annual surpluses. so it -- this is a pairing of expenses compared to revenues. the green represents that net income that we're generating year over year, so in the 2019 base, that surplus is then invested in capital in 2020, and the 2020 surplus is invested in 2021, and so forth.

so we're hitting -- hitting these high targets of 125 million and ever growing through the end of the forecast is really generating a significantly positive outcome in terms of capital. on the not-so-positive news, if we were to hit an economic downturn and face this low case scenario, we still aren't projecting deficits, but we would expect to see impacts to our percentage rents as we did during the last economic slowdown. our leases would be delayed, we would expect more vacancies, and for cruise and cargo, we would expect to have fewer agreements fall in place, particularly for cargo, and cruise, we would foresee lower passenger demand. and then, this results in 24

million average capital spending, which is still quite good, compared to prior years. for the high case, if we're really maximizing our potential, the real story here is more around continuing enhancements of revenues, where we would expect to get higher revenues from the new leasing and development initiatives under way, and if we would expect car go could generate additional deals at pier 94 and really, the story around cruise comes down to not only the increase to our passenger facility charge, but also how the port is able to adapt to new castle air quality regulations that will require us to plug in ships at shoreside power. so the high case actually assumes that the new regulations coming from the state would allow us to have five additional nonshoreside power equipped cruise calls. and then for ongoing

expenditure controls, we would assume that we would not be hiring additional personnel during those more difficult times and we would continue to just invest any surpluses in capital. so in the high case, we would have 30 million in average capital investments. so in talking, i really just want to talk about our strategic considerations. i think when you look at this list, it feels a lot like reviewing our strategic plan. it's all about stability. how do we continue to be a strong, stable port, you know, in the highs or the lows as we move forward? and i think continuing to deepen our revenue base is stop number one, just knowing as we continue to diversefy and create new revenue streams, those are things that not only will protect us during an economic downturn. if you have that diversity, then maybe some areas of our

portfolio will weaken while others will stay stronger, therefore protecting us in an economic downturn. and then, in the meantime, having that diversity and that deep bench of revenues will allow us to have more capital and further improve our credit rating, which we all like. focusing on product delivery, i think all of this comes into the port's ability to actually deliver on our projects. as elaine mentioned earlier -- i'm sorry. as director forbes stated earlier, as we have these higher level of capital budgets, we need to be able to actually deliver these projects, and so the port's streld -- we'-- developed -- we looking at different ways of structuring our contracts that

can enable more effective delivery. and then, more leveraging special use districts, i think that we are becoming more and more comfortable with our infrastructure financing districts and planning districts, so we'll continue to look for opportunities to utilize those additional revenue streams, and staff will look at our fiscal policies. that's the final point, that we have really good policies in place between our operating reserve and our capital policy, but there's probably more we can do. and over this next year in particular, we're going to take another look. it's been a while since we've brushed them off, so we just want to make sure we're doing everything we can to position ourselves -- position ourselves for the highs and the lows. so thank you, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on

this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner woo ho. >> okay. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. i think every year, this presentation becomes clear and good, and i think the trend lines are great, and i really appreciate. th but i do have some questions. on the pensions, the 19%, and you said the mayor's office wants to figure out ways how to cut down -- and pensions have been on the mayor's agenda for many years, even before this current mayor, and i don't know if there's anything being done to figure out changes in the pensions so the costs can come down. i don't know if it's just you put 19% across the board or you look at your specific population -- actually, we have the requirement board expert over here who probably knows this in detail, whether you

apply it to your demographics so that's just a 19% across the board so you look at your demographic in age and you understand your actual pension allocation or whatever is going to be more flexible than the standard 19%. so that's one question, whether you do that. and then, i guess, my sense is in looking at your presentation, that your revenue line moves more variably between the three scenarios, and your costs move less so because they're more fixed. so in all three scenarios, the only thing, maybe you don't add staff. that's about it. that's the only variable that i can find. >> in the low case, that is the primary variable. >> yes, and so there's no other areas. in the corporate world, one is more aggressive to figure out how to make your costs more variable. and then, the interim -- what i didn't quite understand, in the

interim dip, and we saw this before, and you improved upon it this time, where we showed the green line going down, i guess -- let's see what that slide was. no, not this one. it's the one i should have -- oh, it's on the first page. it actually -- you know, you do have the -- and now, you projected it's not going down as much -- yeah, this one. and it's now -- you've -- it looks like if you look at the new columns, it's smoothed out, but now, you've moved it to 20-gs 20 -- well, on the low scenario, it's fiscal year '21. but maybe you can explain how that dip goes down so much more, and it's pushed down from your previous forecast. >> yeah. so can i answer your questions

last to first? >> yeah. i have more questions -- no, no. go ahead because i know you won't remember all of them. >> okay. great. so for this chart, i did average out fiscal year 21-22. i averaged it out over the last two years because the prior plan ended in fiscal year 21 and 22, but i wanted to still give a reference of what that would look like through the end of this financial plan. so those aren't -- 22-23 and 23-24 are averages. they're not actually from the prior plan. i don't want to say made up numbers. it's a place holder. so the reason why you see that dip from 19-20 to 20-21 and then back up is really a result of how we had to adapt to the capital plan in the prior plan. so one thing we don't actually have to do here, but we have

done historically is we designated operating revenue to capital, and so when you have to meet that 20 or 25% requirement as you're absorbing some of those resources, that would have otherwise supported operating. so -- and this is net operating revenue, as well, so i think what you're seeing is that we are expensed coming in to support that designation to capital that creates that deficit in that fiscal year, so we ended up having a much more of a -- kind of an up and down forecast in the prior five-year financial plan because we were adjusting for different requirements of the capital policy. >> megan, isn't the -- also a factor, the one-time sources we know about in 2019-20, and not having certainty going forward,

so we're counting in that -- i think in that first year, we have all the one-time sources that are known. this is something that we always struggle with, these one-time sources that we know of and how to project them going forward in the unknown. >> right. well, and it turns out we always have some one-time sources, which help with revenue. generally, these sources -- what i'm trying to get at, with your sources, even in the low scenario, it's conservative, so it's more conservative than -- i guess -- >> yeah. >> when you set a low case, you set a percentage rents, but what was your vacancy assumption. >> what i did was just adjusted down the revenue growth. >> so you just said all your tenants would not do as well so we would not do as well. >> that's right. and then in terms of commercial rents, our rate of growth would be reduced to 2% instead of

2.5%. >> okay. >> so that was just one way of going about what could very well be a higher vacancy rate. i just chose one variable to bring down and ease that rate of increase. so it's not an outright drop in the same way that the percentage rents was in this forecast where i reduced it by 10% -- >> okay. >> -- by the second year. >> i'll just ask two more questions and yield the floor to others. one in the orton, we heard that the yield doubled, but the rent forecast doubled. how does that impact you in this forecast. >> okay. so the beauty is i don't see the cost in this forecast, i only see the revenue? so in this chart, it's the operating revenue growth pie chart. you can see that 20th street historic core contributes 15%, so in the right -- middle right

piece, 20th street historic core is 15% of that growth. by the fifth year, i'm assuming the $2.1 million income from -- from that area -- from those leases. >> i did see that, and that suggests to me the sooner we get these projects on stream, you can see the significance of what they do in terms of revenue growth. >> yeah. it significantly helped this forecast? these revenues were not assumed in the prior forecast. some of these revenues did exist, and we did have back lands, for example. pier 48, and the impacts of mission rock, all of these, we had some assumptions built in, but the true one is the orton project. >> okay. last question is you mentioned in the base case, your revenue reaches 125 million. if i look at the charts on the

high case, what does the revenue reach? >> so let's see...so in between 2021 and 2022 is when we hit the 125 million. by 2022, we're forecasting 128 million, so exceeding the goal, so it's about a $3 million increase compared to the base case. >> and the final year is 134,733, so 135 million. >> well, i'm expecting you're going to beat that. >> now, it's on record. >> so let's just go on record. >> okay. >> and actually -- >> that's the expectation. >> and i don't want to skip your question about pension. just to clarify, 19% is an

average. i just say that for the simplicity of the presentation, but for the financial forecast, we actually use the city's only increases which range anywhere from 20% growth and actually reduces down to 15% growth by the fifth year, so it's not -- it's not an average across. the advantage of using the city's assumption is the controller's office is really in the weeds on understanding what the pension requirements are going to be, so that's actually an area where we're wholly reliant on the city to come up with these larger solutions, either through labor negotiations, additional charter amendments to address pension needs, otherwise, our only control is around hiring. >> okay. and in terms of your own population base, which we don't really customize this forecast to what our population would

be, when you do your analysis, do you see the forecast is less than will average age of the city or higher? >> we actually do that. we get a report from the department of human resources that shows the average age in the workforce, years to eligible retirement, and we are older and closer to retirement than the average city department. >> okay. so the average cost is quite real. >> people like to work here and stay. >> okay. i field the floor. >> thank you. >> commissioner makras. >> just a couple things on the pension stuff that may be helpful. if the pension is 19, i'd just like to call out the employment benefit in the program is a much larger number, so that's how you should look at pension and benefits. it's wages plus the package, and the package is really set

by the city, and i don't believe age has anything to do with it. you don't pay more into the pension fund because of your age. it's all blended out, and it's averaged out by your pay. and my estimate is it's going to stay at the 40% or the thereabouts for a long time. that's just my observation, but there's no real actual number out there, the 40% number. >> yeah -- no, i understand. >> so i have two questions. on your base case assumptions, on your key assumptions, i'm going to call out two things. item f is your rsi sites, walk me through where you think we're going to bring that much money on the table for something that hasn't been brought to us yet in such a short period of time. >> so the key sites that i looked at and categorized as

r.f.i. included pier 23, 19, and 38. a -- 19, 29, and 38. pier 29, i projected out it would be used for event space. for piers 23 and 19, the assumption in the base case was that both of those would be used for interim rents just for storage, so one of our lower parameter rates at 80% leasing. and by the fifth year, one of those sites, and i happen to just plug in pier 19, we assumed, would actually be vacated from that storage leasing and be prepared for a development site. and pier 38, throughout, we actually assumed light storage, which just generates about

$50,000 a year. so it's really piers 19 and 23 where we generate good money in that interim period. and the irony is we actually make more off of those sites in the base case than in the high case, because in the high case we assume we would be able to vacate pier 19 by the fourth year, and we would vacate pier 23 by the fifth year. so all-in-all, we probably lose up wards of $5 million from those two sites in the window, but the tradeoff is we would be developing a long-term solution for those facilities. >> i understand. i was just wondering how we could hit that target for 2020. it' it's aggressive, but i like being impressed.

>> noted. >> under item number 11, you have a large jump in revenue from 2021 to 2022, and then, it jumps up the next year, you know, relatively large. walk me through why you think the rent is going to go up 60 or 70% in that business operation between those two years. >> so the first two years really reflects leasing during the time of construction whereas the following three years represent completion of the project, and then, establishment of a solid revenue stream. as far as the jump between the third and fourth years, i think that really is -- since i don't have it broken-down quite as much detail for myself, i would assume it's a partial year in that third year, something to that effect. >> great. thank you. that concludes my questions. >> thank you. commissioner adams? >> megan, you're lucky.

i wish you were up first. do the fireworks last, and everybody would still be here. president brandon doesn't like us. >> we're all relaxed now, right? >> couple questions. i want to go back to what doreen and victor were saying. [inaudible] >> yeah. >> okay. [inaudible] >> yeah. >> couple other things. with the tariffs that the president has, i know it's probably not -- i don't know if it'll affect the port of san francisco, but in the larger ports, we're being affected by soybeans and other things. china has stopped buying soybeans from us, and are going to other countries. are these tariffs, at some point, could they hurt or bottom line? i mean, say the economy goes -- >> possibly. >> maybe it's too early to tell. >> yeah. i think it's a very good question, and auto imports and exports in particular could be affected by tariffs, and we

have a lot of auto customers at pier 80, and it is possible it could be affected. >> it's still growth, it just might be modified growth. >> okay. second, you said shoreside power, and that's going to allow us to have 30 more carnival cruise ships come in, something like that? >> let me explain that a little bit. we're expecting the card would take effect in fiscal year 20-21, it's midyear. we're expecting to have an increase of 30 cruise calls from carnival. once card takes effect, we're actually forecasting a dip, a reduction of 20 cruise calls,

so assuming we're still maintaining that carnival business, but for those nonshoreside power clipped ships, we would have to reject 20 calls. this forecast -- so we would have -- the forecast has a nice climb right up front, and then, it drops down as c.a.r.b. takes effect, but thankfully, it appears as though our customers are going to have shoreside power. >> thank you. >> megan, thank you so much for a detailed report in the lightness of the hour, and the fact that i'm losing commissioners. >> i have just one because i won't be at the february

meeting. on the event, the cruise ship events, are we happy with the amount of special events in the cruise ship terminal? do we think metro is on track or are they behind what we think they might be? >> i think they are very happy with it. i actually dropped in a special section in the report just on special events because i knew that this was an important topic, and i think that basically he feels like we're meeting our, you know, basically capacity at special events, given that we're having to alter events from cruise ships being in. we're very happy. thank you. >> okay. >> great. >> clerk: items 13-b, informational presentation on the port's ten-year capital plan for fiscal year

2019-2020-2028 to 2028 to 2029. [please stand by]

. >> we're targeting our available funds to strategic projects to generate revenue and securing external sources of revenue to keep growing the pie. and we see those successes in many instances here for example with the orton project that's reduced our capital need by $78 million in this project. similarly, the alcatraz project is bringing in additional money, $34 million of enhancements to that site, so improve its capital value. not going through all of these, but to touch on a few others, through the waterfront land use plan update, we've really gained clarity and flexibility on our management districts.

>> we are we also see again

some strategic -- [inaudible] >> we also update cost estimates, so as we get better estimates in developing our capital improvement program, those numbers are reflected here. and most significantly, really, at this time, with the passage of time, like the rest of the city, we escalate costs to reflect the increasing costs of doing work in san francisco. the city's capital planning committee sets a rate after doing an analysis, and we follow their same rates. so for the past two years, this show reflects escalates of 5.75 and 6%, respectively. on the other side of the equation, we have enhancements, and this category isn't always completely intuitive. the city capital planning committee makes sure that a facility is left in better than its original state. we're making it better than it

originally was, it shows up under enhancements. the others here are development projects as well as the conditional seismic which is really a category of potential costs that could occur if change of use or major expansion of a structure on a pier occurred. and similarly here, we've seen a number go from 1.8 billion to 1.9 billion, from work completed, the orton reduced our seismic need. updated cost estimates, as well as the passage of time. so you see the seawall cost go down because seawall work will have been completed from the prior two plans to the time we reach this plan, so that leaves us with a $3.5 billion total need. now we turn to looking at the funding sources that we have projected in the continue-year period. we're -- ten-year period.

we're forecasting $4.7 billion funding needed. if you look at the blue, you'll see port sources, which go primarily to state of good repair, and in green, we see the external sources, which while significant push goes to enhancement, they also play a significant role in our ability to perform state of good repair. breaking thousands down further, we see they're made up of port capital as well as the tenant improvements. on the external sources, ten t tenant -- public improvements, and mixed in with grants. putting all of those together, how close do we come to being able to fund that? we anticipate funding 48% of that total need in a ten-year

period, and then a portion of that funding, which is really only a potential need, which leaves us with a $1.2 billion need unfunded in this plan, which is primarily a state of good repair needs, and that mostly inspires us to keep striving and keep working those strategies to narrow the gap. so i just want to circle back to those three strategies briefly. as we look at the chart below, this really reflects this port's commitment at the commission's guidance to keep dedicating funding to capital, and so we see in the gray bars the annual capital budget. generally increasing over time and having bumps as we get one-time sources, so it goes up, not smoothly, but up consistently, and we see the designation to capital, as well, going up, and as we just heard from megan, really thinking about the years past this plan. right now, it looks good, that we will be able to continue this trend in dedicating more to capital and narrowing our

gap. we also continue to target available funds to strategic projects. as we move into preparing our next capital budget and capital improvement program, director forbes is pushing us to evaluate our criteria and making sure we're being strategic about our investment decisions, and we're trying to secure external sources of funding for capital needs. megan already touched on the special use districts and our increased ability to use those to help really expand the pie of sources available for projects, so we've seen new subareas of infrastructure financing districts setup for pier 70, quarter front and mission rock this year. another piece that will hopefully help shape the capital plan has been the

embarcadero. as we are able to advance those, we hope to see development projects in some instances that cannee address that need and address state of good repair and bring in new enhancements and new use and life to the waterfront, and that would be reflected in future plans. time for questions. >> thank you very much. commissioner woo ho. i'm just going to ask, so on the seawall, we've identified what we have from the bond, but we have not identified what the long-term capital need is in total yet on this plan. >> that is true. we talk about the long-term potential up to $5 billion need in the narrative section but have not set that number.

>> i think that timing and thinking of that will -- >> we will, it will be good for us to know in the next ten years, because we do need to get a better fix on what that number is.

[please stand by]. >> -- but i can't say how long that $5 billion is going to take, how long, so if we knew the number for the next five years, and the number for the next ten years, it would help to explain because i do think we get asked that question in terms of being able to answer the question. and what most of the questions are, what sources are you looking at, and obviously we say state and federal, but -- but i think that we know that the port's not going to generate $5 billion. we raise so much visibility about the issue, so now, we get asked about it all the time. so now, we are a victim of our own success. >> we will get more answers for you. in planning out for the space, we will get many more answers for you. we're still in an exploratory

phase with the multihazard risk assessment, when we have those results, we'll have much more definition on where we're headed. >> i just want to say on that, we're making progress in terms of trying to show the change from year to year, and that we are making progress and we're hopefully getting more operating surplus, but it's still slow going, but at least the number is -- at least it's not -- except for the seawall side, it's not getting far worse. >> that's right. >> the seawall is the big kahuna there. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner adams? >> no. >> you're good? >> yeah. >> thank you so much for this presentation. you did a wonderful job. i look forward to the item next month. >> clerk: item 14-a, request adoption of protest and appeal process for personal wireless service facilities, site permits, resolution number

1903. >> good evening, commissioners. chief harbor engineer. i can be very brief. i have a really great slide deck, but the commission reports in front of you, what i'm asking here today is for the commission to adopt a protest and appeal process for personal wireless service facility site permits. the port uses the substantive provisions of the city's public works code in issuing certain types of encroachment permits, including permits for personal wireless service facility sites, and rights of way under port jurisdiction. article 25 of the city's public works code establishes permit procedures for personal wireless sites including a protest and appeal procedure. the port would like to develop a clear and equivalent process to that use by public works.

>> if you could flip forward, rod, to the proposed port procedure just so the commission can look at the chart to aid in questions, thank you. >> yeah. so this is the port process that we have developed -- or it follows the port -- the procedure that is -- has been developed and used by public works. the only differences are in the red dashed box and the red process boxes where we are going to -- we'd like to substitute the chief harbor engineer for the director of public works as the decision maker on the initial protest, and if the protest is then appealed -- or the decision is appealed, we would like to use the port building code review board instead of the city board

of appeals to decide the action. >> okay. could i ask a question? >> we need a motion -- are you done with your presentation in. >> -- your presentation? >> yes. >> okay. can i get a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? no? okay. >> okay. so you have to take me back to help me understand exactly what personal wireless service facilities means. does this mean, you know, a company wants to put something in separate. we're not talking about the at&ts or verizons or whatever. >> this is actually the verizons or the at&ts. >> oh, it is. >> yeah. so in the 4-g cellular network

that we have, it's typically pretty good size installations. the reason why we're in front of you now is there are a couple of permits that we're dealing with that closed some holes in the carrier's network. you can see in the boxes -- in the photos on the right show the difference between what the antenna looks like and the pole without the antenna. >> okay. >> and i have a -- let's see -- >> all right. and then, my only other question, looking at future technology, when 5-g comes, is it going to be hardware wise similar or is it going to be something different? >> this is going to be -- my understanding is that 5-g will utilize many devices like this.

it's going to be a lot of smaller devices and not big antennas, so it's good for the port to own a process so we can hear process and appeals kind of contained within the port jurisdiction. >> okay. no more questions. >> commissioner adams? >> i'm fine. >> thank you for the presentation, the very brief presentation. so why would there be an appeal? >> well, the -- say you're in an apartment or you're living in your house, and this is a -- an antenna that's stuck, and it actually blocks your view. you should be able to protest that installation. the federal communications act or there's a communications act limits what you can appeal or what you can protest. they don't allow local

jurisdictions to hear protests on radio frequency health effects. they've already set those guidelines, but if it's blocking your view or -- basically, it's blocking your view, i believe. >> have we had any? >> no, we have not. >> okay. >> but with the advent of 5-g, i feel like this can come up. >> okay. all in favor? [voting] >> resolution 1908 have been approved. >> item 14-b, new business. [please stand by]

. >> clerk: and item 16 is adjournment. >> i make a motion that we adjourn in the memory of mike denman and florestine johnson. >> so moved. >> that was the motion? >> second. >> oh, second, sorry. all in favor [voting] >> we are adjourned.

. >> president cook: welcome. glad you're here. this is the regular meeting of the board of education of the san francisco unified school district. this is january 29, 2019. this meeting is now called to order. miss casco, roll call, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll cal [roll call] >> clerk: thank you. >> president cook: thank you. tonight, we start this meeting in honor of the great american activist, ella baker, who said we who believe in freedom cannot rent