tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 29, 2018 5:00am-6:01am PST
we want projects going forward where the upfront cost to improve the facility requires rent to the port. there are revenues in that building one way shape or form through leasing the site or through gifts or capital fund-raising the group is able to get. those balance out. that bubble is easy to understand. the public trust i want to delph into. these are the six objectives the port staff drafted. four did you embarcadero only. that is in recognition of the nationally recognized district. the objectives we are trying to meet some more than others. are inside the pier.
public uses as well as maritime uses inside the pier and on the aprons. historic preservation we have to have. seismic and the co-existing where they can andy pending on the type of maritime use we need revenue uses to support the previous bubble, the financial fees build bubble. we need revenues from these piers to use in other piers that don't have the ability or the harbor fund to support essentially. this rfi is about getting partners. the robe we -- reason we need partners we can't do this all ourselves. the rfi is the first step to
identify the partners and we identify more partners through r.f.p. rfi was on the streets for three months. we worked hard to get outside of the typical solicitation outreach to do additional outreach. we had a lot of website activity. we did online sessions where respondents could watch a powerpoint online and interact via chat. we did in person presentations, open houses, 260 people signed up to continue to hear from us. i am sorry or you are welcome, i am not sure but thank you for staying with us through the process. the bottom left-hand corner 2600 views of the rfi document. 2600 views. we are happy. thank you for coming amanda and
great work. we are still interacting with the public. this is not over by any means. this is closing the responses time period. today our continuous interaction with the public. they can view the responses and can provide very brief survey form we put forward to ask for feedback on the categories of uses we heard about thus far. we are closing on january 31st. we have received 125 rye responses so far. >> what is in the 52rfi responses? >> to give you a flavor what you will see on the website if you download these. first, we have a diversity of tenant type. we asked them to self identify as one who would take a whole pier or a portion. it does not require 100 or 150 conveyor feet. if i had a small space i would
do one thing and larger space another thing. a third, a third, a third of those uses. less than a third for the combination users. then we have partners. several have expertise to benefit the planning process and outreach or the architecture that sort of thing to provide an opportunity to submit responses as well. >> after getting the 52 responses, we as staff went through too put them into nine categories to see the forest through the trees what we received. in order of number every responses fitting each category, i want to give you a little flavor of the types every responses for those who didn't have the opportunity to read the materials. knowledge transfer they are mission driven organizations.
they focus on identifying small innovation tenants that would benefit from co-located with one another. education that provide music training for youth pray youer is the type of thing that came through the biggest. there were nine in this category. live performance entertainment. we received miniature golf, escape rooms, gondola rides, installation of the san francisco past, present and future. exhibition space was live performance entertainment. food and beverage. homemade pasta, specialized you japanese food. we would develop a market. under museum and cultural, seven
responses. quite a number of types of museums included. african-american art and history. women's museum, flexible event space. little i want to mention under waterfronts i won't go into that that was planning how we could integrate spaces and public ground improvements. you have to look at that to understand. under recreation swimming, basketball, tennis, running and future sports, which is sort of things to do with games and robotics. those types of membership organizations or nonprofits. artists spaces including associated retails, art studios where they make arts or crafts. retail to sell those things.
maritime excursion. dinner cruises, charters, transportation opportunities where they would like to have private transportation through the water to different parts of the bay. we had two mixed use that included hotel componentses. they were aware of prop h to allow hotels over water. the proposals were put in to note hotel uses megan rate sufficient -- may then generate the revenue. that is our weekend of reading the 52 responses. they could rank these one as one or 12 to 13 or one through 12 to 13. in the aggregate the top five facilities you are one pier 29,
two, pier 19, three, 38, four 28 and five is the ago building. a couple observations. two of the top are in the north one is at the ag building. we looked at these. that is interesting. another way to look at the different categories that like different pier locations. when we look at the top five rankings, something interesting arose. all of the facilities were mentioned in the top five except for pier 35. that was the one pier not in the top five perhaps of the existing use that has time associated where respondents had to only envision response in 10 years. that pier did not receive rankings in the top five. i want to mention among the top five several were open house piers.
pier 38, ag building and they were to have the respondents look at those. that is interesting as well. pier 29, 38, 1923 are vacant piers or where we are doing piers where we are working on the facilities. that is interesting opportunity sites for that reason. the final item in terms of summarizing responses are economics. respondents were asked to provide range of rental ratings they would fay for use they -- they would pay for use they were contemplating the capital investment for the space they were proposing. this was not required. it is interesting to note less than a third provided the information. it depends on the deal which we understand. it is interesting that the average rent specified $30 per
square foot per year is similar to the rental rate with the feasibility analysis. we were in that range when the consultant was trying to have the figure. it was 0 to $75 per square foot with the highest for small use. the capital investment had a large range for master tenants anticipating 7 to $50 million and smaller 2 to $9 million in investment. these are very small numbers every responses. this was nonbinding. we wouldn't macon conclusions but i it is instructive the numbers they were able to put forward through the rfi form. >> where are we going? today is an informational report. we want to hear from you and the
public. we will do more of these in different forums. we anticipate a report similar to the one i am giving you to advisory groups. we are closing the surveys. we will be closing on january 31st. staff will put together the rp -- r.f.p. session in february. when we discuss it with you we will take the r.f.p. criteria if we have concurrence. we will take it to the advisory groups, that is part of the waterfront land use plan and consulting with them with the anticipated action back at the port. if it is in the cards we anticipate it coming in the later spring of 2019. i am so excited to stop talking
and hear from all of you. >> thank you. beth. do you want to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am from a group calmed san francisco for sports -- called san francisco for sporters and recreation. i lived in the city for 20 years. i have had numerous jobs and girlfriends, the one constant has been the facility called the san francisco tennis called. that is slated to be demolished. we are very much looking forward to finding it a new home. tennis is a sport of a lifetime there. are people of all ages that enjoyed that facility to date, and with the current we heard
about climate change earlier. we all experienced smoke over the last little while. we need more indoor recreational facilities in san francisco,ticly this time -- particularly this time of year. people need places to exercise and i hope that pier 29 for the embarcadero tennis center and other recreational uses will be considered seriously. these are both public as well as revenue generating needs outlined in the request for information. specifically, the organizations like the san francisco police and fire department have organized fundraisers, guns and hoses for tennis players in those departments and numerous other public uses from colleges,
schools and others that will benefit. we hope you will again support recreation use of pier 29. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? come on up. i am steve jamison. i am adding to what seth said. in a short time maybe paint a grand picture and also some nitty-gritty aspects of it. we see this as a potential great opportunity to year pier 29 in a matter that attracts national attention for creativity, public access, various components within it which i will outline.
the basis of it would be a 12 state-of-the-art indoor tennis courts. supported by members who pay for the right to use that. those courts would also and this is important continue to be availed to youngsters who have financial needs and can't get equipment, can't get lessons and all of that. we do that now and will continue to do it. this is the best i can do for a prop. it is a tennis advantage which is one of the nations great organizations for bringing tennis to disadvantaged kids. i am on the advisory board, and the work they do over the years has allowed kids not only to get access to playing tennis, but
the social component of what that means. sports is a good teacher. the environment you are this is so positive. also, proper for kids. it teaches kids about character using tennis. it is based on the ucla coach john wood din's ideas for athletics. this would be an ongoing part of it. also, we would like to consider an indoor gallery museum featuring tennis legends from northern california and california. billie jean king, brad gilbert. great destination spot museum with the cafe overlooking the bay. resident in the city would have
access to the various elements within this facility including yoga, fitness and spinning that exists at the san francisco tennis club. the combination supported with paying members and allowing such great public access would be a sensable if it is done right at -- sensable if it is done right sensational use of one of the piers. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> it looks like the tennis crowd is here in force. it is one of the reasons we are here is because it is a real
exciting prospect to have an indoor tennis facility. it fits the bubbles that rebecca was talking about. there is a serious san francisco base real estate developer behind it, alexander real estate developer. and the serious operator of clubs, bay club, both of which are serious about producing revenue. they are committed to mixing that with the public facing aspects to this that is port wants and people developing this want. i would add this is a unique opportunity to put something that doesn't exist in the country, indoor facility in such a spectacular location would be quite amazing. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissione
commissioners, i am alice walker. i was chair of the land use portion of that. i want to thank you again for allowing this process to go forward. i went to the earlier meeting where these proposals were sort of vetted, had the first vetting in front of the public, and it was like a cocktail party or meet up. there was so much energy and enthusiasm. just enthusiasm in the room, and so many new ideas that i am hoping they really gave life to the public comment that we received during the working group meetings. it was really gratifying to hear that. i am hoping some of them really will make it through the process. i realize financial feasibility
is difficult on some of them. i think there is some rich resources for possible pop up uses as you go through development process using the piers on short term basis to activate and create interest in the way pier 70 did on their project. thank you. >> any other public comment? come on up. >> thank you, commissioners. i am executive director. i want to say i think it is a terrific process, the whole waterfronts land use review, and rebecca's work and terrific team. the only thing that was submitted as an idea, and i want to draw one point to the most important that i think. that is this ferry building which is complicated.
i understand it has just sold. we have ferryboat issues, everything. this is the historic spiritual gateway of our city. i would hope that careful consideration be given to not making any more short term 30 year bets but to pause and look at what is the greater good at this time in this life, 21st century for the second generation of the greatness of this city. thanks very much. >> thank you. i am stuart morton. in addition to the working group as well. we had in the land use
discussions good comments with use of hotels in the historic piers. which we know there was a ballot initiative in 1990. we have a different category this time. we have the historic district, that means anything done in that district has to go by the standards of the secretary of interior's qualifications. i am glad there were two proposals in the 52 that were hotels. that is terrific. we were told in the urban working group, urban use that we shouldn't talk about this. we got skill muched. there -- quell muched. there were two members that got their work. there is good support for hotel use. it has to be done properly, but
it is a good category for big bucks. we need that. this is good long-term usage. as simon indicated that is important. thank you. >> thank you. thanks for sharing your time. i want to follow up on what the proceeding gentlemen and the woman before him development for pop-up and reflection for the future of the port. i am the submitting organization. what we see as potential for this as well as opening up the public access to the pier sites is to create for permits and
funds to instigate and introduce a sieve vick engagement process by the different pier sites. some wouldn't require huge investment. we can creativity on the waterfront and introduce a sieve vick dialogue about what the future could be and what citizens want to see and harness some digital technology for community engagement that are being developed. bringing people to the waterfront in a more dynamic way and -- evaluating what they are putting forward that needs to happen for long-term redevelopment process. i want to reiterate what some people said already is something we agree with. i would love to pursue that
conversation forward as the commission. >> can you please state your name. johanna hoffman. sorry about that. >> any other public comment? >> thank you for having the meeting today at 3:15 p.m. i had to turn my head around to, you know, put me in the place here. i am diane washington. thank you for having the time for the rf i's. i am a teacherrered educator. i started out as an nanny. i ended up with an ma in education and inter disciplinary studies. i come to you today. i want to make known what my
entry on the 12a category. it is called the san francisco international house of prayer for children, tweens and teens. i have work with the unified school district and pentagon. there is a great freed for young people to know how to pray and for those that know how to pray. it is something we don't talk about every days specially in the field of education. we separate that and wonder why we verhaveschool shootings. they know how to pray better than moist people. i feel like san francisco very much a melting pot. i have been on the task force in
the pass when i was a grad student. i did see a lot of changes. we had entered children into areas where they could step out and pray the way they want to bray you. this may be generic. there is no outline right now. i don't have the time for that. i would like to say why we need the international house of prayer to promote and provoke hope. it also per pep waits hopefulness -- perpetuates hopefulness and allows the children to be who they are. in this place on the pier that i would envision the parents would have to bring children up to you 19. they would have to come in withh the parent. the protocol would be for the young people to have their own
project there, program, how they would worship. it would be set out through the congregation in silicone valley where i have been a member and been able to witness and surveillance the projects they have there. they would be stewarts there. the benefit of this is that it would help children to recognize there is success in any failure. they don't know that right now. that is why we have a lot of cutting going on. thank you very much. >> is there any other public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have a couple of historical
items here. carry to all five bay counties. resolutions from the harbor commissioners, chief electrician stanton to infala noise maker. -- install a noise maker. that was on october 14, 1918. nothing more was noticed. these are from the chronicle, by the way. january 14, 1919. more noise promised from harbor siren. the noisy siren installed on the roof of the ferry building will be sounded twice daily 8:00 in the morning to give the workmen notice to begin the day you have labor. it will remind them it is time
to lay you have for lunch at 12:00. at 5:00 p.m. it will give one ordering the mechanics to quit. the harbor commissioner says the siren gives the tone too far down the scale and he wants more noise. that is from the chronicle in january 14, 1919. now, i couldn't pinpoint the exact date of actual installation. according to rock better brian a chronicle writer in the mid century, i know myself it was on the first sound from the siren was at 5:00 p.m. on decembe december 31st, 1918. in other words new year's eve. they hoped to have the sirens ready for the end of world war i
when germany surrendered, but the timing wasn't quite right on that. now, that was all a sad day. 1972. the siren was silenced and dismantled or deported. it was replaced by the bells that we have today. furthermore, i was a resident of telegraph hill for 35, 36 years enjoying the sound of the sirens at 8, 12, 4:30 p.m. it was always interesting to see at 8:00 in the morning before i went to school the longshoremen would gather in front of the great portals on the piers and at 8:00 the siren
would sound and the porttal doors would come up and all those standing for 15, 20, 30 minutes poured into the pier to do the work of loading and unloading the ships. >> thank you so much. >> it was authentic san francisco which you can't duplicate today. that sound. i don't know if it could be heard all over the bay. i doubt it. you could hear it all over the downtown part of the city. sir, sir, sir your time is up. >> it was a great thing. >> sir, sir. >> more noise promised. it was a loud siren. you could over hear it in world war ii in the bombing. it was the same whaling sound. thank you very much. >> thank you, thank you.
is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner gilman. >> commissioner gilman: rebecca and the team, we want to thank you for the outreach for working with the citizens advisory committee to get the rfi out. i have a couple questions. this 52 responses. i didn't read them all carefully. i flipped through them. they were well-done. they were from professional development groups and some were from average citizens or individuals with a concept. i was curious how you will make a decision in pier 29 is the
most popular. how did you staff and advisory council work using pier 29 as a example of what we would rpp out? how do we get from here to an r.f.p. process. >> great question you can play that new card one more month. >> we started this conversation -- you are right. the range every responses reflect the different places people are coming from. we said at every single rfi we are not ranking anybody or using these to select any particular concept we anticipate putting r.f.p.s out to specific peers. we will look for criteria that are guided by what you tell us, our advisory group tells us.
we had an open house where you members of the public were invited. we are talking but the criteria and what it is. we want an active recreation use. that could be one criteria. another one could be we serve these members of the public. bring us a response that serves a different member of the public. we haven't talked that if we look at the nine categories we are doing this for number 7. you come to us in the category and make it work with revenue generating issues and bring us your smarts. we don't know. that is why we are coming early to talk through criteria. is it important to this commission we select a category or ex number of piers and come
with a strategy that is successful and serves different members of the public. that is what we are talking through at this point. to hear what gets excitement. which ones see potential to have have more than one type of use in the pier. you they can't combine with one another. that is what we are weeding through. that is not -- we are early in the process at this point. >> i guess my other question. when we get to the r.f.p. moment, i want to make sure misseemings are right. it would be on financial flexibility with long-term leasing with the port?
>> absolutely. >> do we know the average capital investment? >> who are we going to attract. >> very good question setting it. what ballpark are we in? as part of the rfi process many said give me a cost estimate. we did point them to the cost estimates done for pier 19 and 38. those costs estimated for the full rehabilitation and corn shell work not including extensive improvements were $9 million for 19 and 125 for pier 38. that was the paul park to retrofit the entire pier.
>> commissioner crack has. >> commissioner makras: -- commissioner makras. >> commissioner makras: you said it is scheduled for march or april of 2019. your previous answer suggested you are not bringing up all of the piers. what do you envision? do you envision two piers at a time over a year, five years? give me an idea how you see the request going on the street? >> for myself we haven't brought this yet. i think we were thinking of a palette. we want one, two, three that we can handle from a capacity standpoint. if there is interest in more we are talking about expanding staff capacity. that is sort of like how the
port with manage more. how would the advisory group and members of the public react to more piers? i don't have a distinct answer for you now. we are considering a small number and large number and phased in overtime. >> you shared the light industrial use. walk me through an example how that would work. >> how we would contract for that? >> what do you see as light industrial, does pdr apply? >> this is not an analysis where we came up with the intermediate lease. it says 30 year lease.
potentially higher use upstairs. a seismic joint behind the bull you can head so it is safe. the back of the pier is more basic structural repairs. we haven't talk recalled about that. we talked about a port led way where we would you do that with the pier in good shape. we do an r.f.p. for the front of the boat. we do the leasing where we lease the back ourselves. second model is an r.f.p. for the pier but noting the limitation would be targeting to ward the smaller expenditure us that i explained earlier with supervisor gilman. that is the strategies for the
piers not on the r.f.p. what are we doing? one option is the intermediate type of leasing. >> does the court have a position for pdr? >> certainly. we have the m-2 zones that doesn't include the pdr. we have tents engaged in that. >> what if they wanted to come up and do a pop-up. walk me through how the court would handle -- the port would handle that. >> you are creating the interest out there. >> creating our own demand. >> good afternoon. mike martin. as we came up two months ago with interim leasing. we talked about pop ups to activate the should is.
the bulkheads we look at as a special event. we could have someone come in up to 6 months. you can pop the outreach plan is to get out to the people through the rfi if they want to see those activities it brings them. we think it is a great opportunity as was suggested earlier. >> that concludes it. >> commissioner adams. >> vice president adams: great presentation. you have a way to bring people out, i tell you. today was the first i had ever heard of this tennis club down at pier 29. i had never heard of that. that is unique what they were talking about. are we talking about private partnership to help us with the
piers because i had a conversation with an executive from carnival cruise line here we had dinner. he was talking about pier 35. we need shore power. they are talking about wanting to up the cruise ships 30% coming into the port of san francisco. my goal is to see over a million passengers a year. we need money for shore power and we have these other piers. what do you see as going and where we need to go? as we start taking the piers one or two at a time. we can't do them all because we are a small port. i think it is a great opportunity. we have a renaissance in the port. the way we develop the port is very thoughtful. i am sure through are partners to partner with us and make this port more fabulous than it is
now. what do you think it is going to take? having a working group, we got to hear from them and from the community. they gave us direction. what do you think we need to do one pier at a time or two at a time or certain piers. commissioner gilman said pier 29 is so popular. how do we really use that to springboard off other piers? >> i have a couple thoughts. the different needs in the capital plan. shore side power. we can use the r.f.p. to deliver it to us in two ways. rent from the piers, long-term lease. ask for construction of infrastructure required for some other purpose we don't have
capital in our plan to pay for that. the r.f.p. could deliver. we want to think collab berratively. what are the items we want to deliver that they could deliver as part of the broader capital they are brings to rehab stated. you brought up one ever the items on the list. in terms of delivery of multiple piers we are going to look at staff capacity and we want to be cognizant of which piers are selected but also aware we provided pier conditions for 19 and 38 in some detail but not every single pier. we have to rely on our own knowledge. we have engineers under the pier periodically. when we come forward we will
consider the rfi that ranked number one. we have to bring that to each pier. we know 38 and 19 and we can apply that to other piers. whatever we put forward to you, we want a high percentage of them to come to fruition. pier 29 is very popular. i am not saying it is number o one. in terms of benefits to the port and if it can be a successful endeavor. >> one other thing. we have helen on the historical commission. i was hoping she would speak about that on the historical commission four the city of san francisco because of the historical importance of the
piers. some of these piers are over 100 years old and goes back to the formation of the waterfront and the longshoremen and it goes back. as we move forward i see a lot of new history and a song that could be written about the new waterfronts. i want to say thank you. >> i think this is an exciting opportunity with a lot of interest, and i think it will be great to see what we actually do. i look forward to it. your team has a lot of work to do. i look forward to your report with the strategy. there is a lot of interest. we have figure out 30 and 32.
>> we have to get the money. >> thank you so much. >> commissioners, item 12b is off the calendar for the next meeting. 13 a request approval of the amendments with the san francisco bay railroad relating to the rail operations to extend the term of each agreement until december 31, 2033. one is l14397 the transfer facility to adjust rent including the participation in a sale. two an amended and restated equipment lease 14502 up two
highway co-motives including the port's new grant funded locomotive for monthly lease payments and require an amendment to pitch baseline repair project at its cost. >> good afternoon. the maritime division requesting approval of amendments to three agreements relating to the port rail operations. the port's rail operations which take place the southern waterfronts have been operated for over 20 years. san francisco bay railroad took the asset and re-ignited operations creating a revenue source and providing services to the port. fpr has been in good standing. strong engagement while
operating the key mare time asset. as i stated rail operations are in three separate agreements between the port and the operator. first, intermodal container transfer facility lease ictf is themaster lease with the payment function to the port to a pro rail car fee. next the rail agreement is a license giving the operator the right to operate on the track in the premises. railroad is responsible for maintenance. the locomotive lease. leases two port-owned locomotives. the ictf lease was aed in 2017. it has five years on the term.
the rail agreement and locomotive lease expire at the end of this year. in february of 2017, the port commissioner approved the amendment extending the term for five years. at this time the port partnered on a propject -- project to add 2002 track in the rail yard. to handle the increased projects including the new warriors chase arena. take other terms include raising railcar fee 25% permitting a an annual guarantee of $250,000 and adding increase of 3% to both the railcar fee and annual guarantee. at the time of this amendment both parties agree to not extend the agreement or lease, both having two more years of term.
this was due to the time sensitivity to accommodate the upcoming projects. the port was working on grand opportunitying. all three worry negotiated for a term of extension in the future. that has brought us to today. the proposed amendments to the three rail agreements. the amendments have updated business terms. all three agreements will have a 15 year term and are coul five r mutual option for extension. ictf lease will require sfbr to perform baseline track improvement with coast up to $500,000.
upgrading the track to begin the term. the railcar fee is subject to 20% for all railcars above 3,000. this allows the port to participate in any years with above average volumes. port's participation will increase in 10% to 15%. rail agreement will continue all inspection and maintenance responsibilities at the cost of the operator. operator will provide monthly tractrack inspection. they can request $20,000 in a given year. they have approval rights to grant these credits. any rent credits will be from revenues above 50% of the
minimum guarantee. it including the low emegs locomotive. sfpr will bay the increased payment of $36,000 annual lead for this locomotive. the current became is 1 there are for the active locomotives. sfpr will be responsible four the grant requirements for the new locomotives. this 15 year term aligns with the 15 years of expected operational use for the new locomotive. since sfpr has taken over operation the port has had consistent revenue from rail. as shown in the graph there is steady growth. it is shipping contaminated
sales to out of state landfills. they take 20,000 truck us off the bay area freeways and bring -- bridges. this ensures through the agreement the guaranteed revenue from rail operations for a minimum of 15 years. san francisco bay >> reporter: san francisco bay railroad has the strategy. they promote more efficient transportation in san francisco and the greater bay by taking 20,000 trips off the local roadways. sfpr continues to push best practices and green technology. looking back to when they converted the locomotives to buy
yodiesel and the low emission locomotive. they continue the support of green technologies by utilizing a herd of goats. they have recently completed a landscaping plan which includes the experience down cargo way. sfpr employs 40 locals from san francisco, many of which are district 10 residents. actively engaged in the advisory groups. both the southern waterfronts advisory and merit time commerce have issued letters of strong support and continue the rail operations in the southern waterfronts. the san francisco chamber has issued a letter of support for this extension.
inconclusion thi this is a picte of the locomotive which we hope will arrive in the next few weeks. i am available for questions. >> so moved. >> there is public comment. ellen. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am ellen, co-chair of maritime commerce advisory committee. i am excited to be here to talk about maritime and historic. i am focusing on expressly maritime right now. i think you know that the maritime commerce advisory committee is made of port tenants and community members with a keen and compelling interest in a thriving maritime port and waterfronts. we want to remind the commission that is future health of the
maritime activity at the port is linked to you freight rail service. a sustainable healthy rail service. therefore, m.c.a. c, and we wrote a letter to express our strong support for the green locomotive you purchased that is absolutely fantastic. i remember working on that with the support of the bay area air quality management district as well as we are certainly supportive of the 15 year lease extension and related agreements. one you have the things that brendon mentioned which i am particularly favorable towards is that the railroad and david has demonstrated a stellar commitment to the environment,
environmental sustainability with equipment and we mentioned i have seen the landscaping that has happened. his local hires, commitment to the neighborhood has been absolutely stellar. those are th the kind of tenante need, particularly the investment that he has made in the operation of the railroad. we definitely have to shout that out. you know, finally, i am amazed. it is important for the port to fall on their sword for freight rail because what is a port without a railroad to keep our connection to the national rail grid. there was a port commissioner on the peninsula joint rail board
at one time. there was a commissioner that was looking at the region and advocating and promoting freight rail. we don't have a port commissioner any more. it is an appointee. this is something we fought more about. we need more promotion on why we need joint rail and passenger service. caltrain is committed but we have to keep up advocacy for freight rail. thank you very much. >> any other public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner makras. >> commissioner makras: i support the motion on the table. i wanted to see the economics of the low emission locomotive. we purchased that, right, the city purchased it? >> correct it was $1.8 million.