construction clos to close touts portion of the program. in terms of budget, we're in a slower burn than we had been. we committed $2.1 billion and expanded it to $2.09 billion. that was about delta 6.7 in expenditures and 4.7 in committed over the last month. mostly attributed to the extended period to address the close out as well as capture some of the latter trade packages that are coming to closure or maturity. in terms of forecast, e.a.c. remains the same. there are no new risk to factor

or new facts. issues you have the paving are clearly in the realm of warranty and should not impact e.a.c. we are from the process reviewing the history of those matters to ensure we get the facts and understand the root causes of those issues. in terms of contingency use, it's little bit of a slow burn. we've had some light draws. mostly as i mentioned, the latter packages. the ercs and the low voltage systems that are wrapping up now and drawing down on some of the contingency.

little bit of changes with d.b.i. in terms of their code code interpretation. i want to remind or refresh on the contract close out status and methodology. close out process involves these main bullet points. we need to be in receipt of the warranties. the punch list must be completed and accepted commissioning and training systems completed and then full and final close out change orders for all the

various trade packages associated with webcor's work. in terms how we're progressing through that, i think the work to complete list is a few thousand items. many which are accomplished by wewebcor. we're starting to close out the punch list items. in summary fashion, where we stand in terms of the 42-43 trade packages associated with the project, we're at cusp closing out 10 trade packages. we're just buttoning up the full and final closeout change order resog watever remaining issues with webcor and the associated trade package subcontractor. seven trade packages will be nearly the same position.

however, their activity is being protracted by the girder issue. 14 trade packages are not quite at the same level of readiness as the first 10 that i mentioned. they're still chasing warranties or finishing up punch lists. they're nearing a closeout position but not quite there yet. then the remaining 11 trade packages we anticipate will be mired in some of the claim issues that had been run. we'll get into that more in closed session. that's pretty much it. just wanted to underscore that we haven't lost sight of

closeout despite having to address the surprise of the beam condition. with that, i or dennis can address questions you may have. >> i have two questions for dennis or mark. the first is i understand that with regard to first street, we've so far not found anything of concern the level of testing it will be different from fremont. maybe this premature to be expecting an answer for. do we expect that whatever the design solution is for fremont street, we'll be applying to first street regardless of the fact that we've not as of yet, identified any problems with first treat? >> i think it's premature to say that. i think very important element that we'll find out soon is those core samples. that's a very important element that will play into the matrix of solutions.

we're not there yet. i wouldn't assume the same will be applied. will be what's felt -- the needed redundancy of first street. we're not there yet. >> okay. then the second question really following on director hursh's earlier comment, i know you made reference to the load path, there were loads that when this happened were distributed in places that were not anticipated and not designed for us. i'm glad to hear that you're looking at that. it's a large structure with many other structural elements not impacted by this. we only found this fremont street issue si certain issue. to director hursh's point. it's important we're focusing we

know there's a problem. could you talk about to what extent we're evaluating the rest of the facility, structural and nonstructural to provide the team, the board and public, the confidence that it's not just this one thing that we happen to find but that everything else is okay or if there are other issues we need to address? >> director reiskin. we're working on that. we'll make an effort to independent any other location -- inspect any other locations in the building. we want to see what the cause is. there's structural analysis done on design team for the building. really to find out what other locations we need to explore, we need to wait for the findings. >> director reiskin: my point we only know of this issue because some astute workers happen to

find it, well could have passed the ability of anyone to determine. we're very fortunate on that point. with the process now put in place, we can address this specific issue and any related issues based on how the load shifted. my point wasn't related to what we found with this beam. it's other things -- i think given that we found this just by chance, i think, begs the question, what other things might there be in the building that we should be looking at, to make sure there's nothing else missed. >> you mean other things related to this? correct. >> we can go back and develop a

strategy. ron mentioned some reports so that we're making sure they are done. closeout process make sure everything was done to plan. >> director reiskin: this issue, i think this is what director hursh's point was, puts at stake the credibility of the whole program or the whole project. to overcome that, we do need some level of review of the whole facility. to make sure -- i have high level of confidence such a review would find that the facility is in good shape. i think having that review undertaken will be important in order to restore the credibility of the facility. >> without question. i think as we go through reviewing the history of what

transpired and look at the qaqc documents, i think some data will emerge to give us a guiding light to follow as we look at the entire facility in terms of priority of what should we look at first and to what depth. i suspect or anticipate that the findings that we'll have from looking at the history and the data that we have, whether to be steel related or otherwise in terms how the qaqc program played out, let the facts lead us through this. without question, we do have to review our facility. we just want to create a framework that's prioritized and focus in the right place in the

right order. >> director reiskin: that's good to hear. it will be helpful to memorialize that review in the conclusions of it in some sort of document or deliverable so that we and the public have kind of a seal of approval that not only did we address this beam issue but we've reviewed the rest of the facility and it's good to go. >> very good. >> i like to piggy back on director reiskin. i'm hearing, the board has suggested and prior meetings, there's two concurrent paths. absolutely need to focus on the repair and the analytics now. i don't want to see us get caught where through this process, the repairs are made but our operators saying i'm still not comfortable with the building. that we're not -- we have a building still not being used.

that's what i heard director hursh suggest. the second path that has to be done concurrently since many of us here in the beginning, i like to hear a pier review panel on , report to us about the engineering work and design by thornton thomas as well as pier review panel two at m.t.c. looking back on the engineering and the design of the facility. to be able to come to us and public and say, everything was designed according to code, right safety factors, all that stuff. so the issue can be isolate on

qaqc or mill work. it leaves one part of the question open about the engineering. was it done right? is it appropriate where all the things observed? both need to happen concurrently so we don't get caught the repairs are done and the operators are not comfortable yet operating. >> i appreciate the director support of my recommendation. i apologize for being the new kid on the the block. i would suggest it needs to be agendized. we would like that report to come back. just to make it clear, we're currently carrying over 14,000 people a day to a temporary temper terminal. a bus operator have to explain why it's safe to come back. that should be the goal of this study is for us to be able to in plain language, explain to the customers and employees why it's

safe and why we're comfortable going back in the facility. i appreciate your support. i would ask it be an agenda item for this group. >> one other comment. can you go to that slide about next steps that you had prior to updating us on the budget? my understanding where the process now is everybody is kind of on board looking at l.p.i.'s work and there's a meeting come up when they report their findings. that includes everybody. webcor obayashi, skanska. what isn't in here what happens if that group doesn't necessarily agree with l.p.i.'s finding and wants to do additional testing. is that another threes to do

additional testing. we go ahead without them doing the testing? >> that was what -- the peer review panel want some initial reports. we'll know next wednesday. we'll have a meeting. we're meet acing at the l.p.i. . we'll know at that point if requiring additional testing. we'll figure out if that's parallel or if that hold up the process. it depends on the type of testing. it maybe just clarifying testing more than anything. it depends on what the test is. >> i imagine the expectations. here we are and here's the report, not everyone may agree with the report's finding.

we need to make sure it gets done right. >> let me clarify, we're not going to go into the findings phase until all the parties are satisfied and all the testing has been completed. that's what dennis was alluding to. our goal is to have consensus and also to have conclusive results. we need to know the cause. we need to have consensus with the cause and have peer review of the cause to implement the proper fix and follow up on other exploratory investigations >> on your trade group package, clarification, this is a big project that's gone on for a long time in the construction phase. have we closed out any of the

early trade groups? are they all carried to this point? >> i think the first wave is among the ten that i suggested. >> no one has been closed out yet? the excavation and shoring? >> there's a number of internal issues between the seven and webcor working out. the first 10 are the two a i mentioned and they are truly at the point of handing to web webr to hand to the sub to sign on the line full final done gone. i'm anticipating that next report, we got those in the books. >> thank you. >> would you mind putting that slide back up? last time we talked about the scope of this m.t.c.-led peer

review. could you confirm the very last slide that the m.t.c. peer review scope is not just to advise on the fix -- sorry, the one you had up earlier with the next steps. sorry. it says m.t.c. peer provincial o implement the fix. the last bullet should be flipped with the open of the facility. >> i think we're anticipating. it is safe now as it is with the temporary shoring. identified a core issue and the

more broader investigation may -- we'll let the experts guide us whether it's before or after in terms of priority. trying to balance out opening versus what -- there will be some things that are looked at more for comfort without answering to caters. we're anticipating some of that follow-up work to roll out. >> are we comfortable with that directors? >> my feeling is, there are safety issues. it's what you need in order to feel that it's okay to be in the facility. there maybe issues that this peer review or broader review would look at that safety issues that don't have to be on the critical path opening the facility. we still want to look at to get that full clean bill of health for the facility. i don't have concern that we'll

be green lighted to open up the facility if there's lingering safety questions. it will be -- what we don't want to do is put kind of nonsafety issues or other issues that we still maybe interested in on the critical path and delay unnecessarily delay opening of the facility. as long as we parse those outs what are the safety issues before opening, versus maybe other issues that we still want to address but don't need to delay the opening, i will be comfortable. >> that's what i meant. those were the indicator its a are safety issues and there are indication need to take a deeper look. there are things we may want to look at that have no problem. we want to revisit. fast the distinction i'm drawing. other than safety issues or if

the agency want to articulate specifics that they are concerned about, that is another guide post that would help us navigate it. it's one thing to go into four city blocks looking for something not knowing what we're looking for and another thing to have a guide post. that's what we're trying to do is establish a prioritized guide post to navigate through this investigation. >> director sesay: on the contract closeout, to what extinct does the fix process that we're g the closeout process? >> it depends on the root cause. indication is a warrenty issue and will be outside. there are ripple effects a we're taking now during the peer

review. minimal at best. every indication is a warranty issue. part of the repercussions squarely in that camp >> director sesay: i know we'll be reviewing how the process has impacted the project. i think it will be helpful if -- i'm expecting we're tracking all these additional resources a has been deployed. i like to see a budget specifically addressing this fix. it will be nice to separate the two. the expectation is potentially it's warranty but it will be nice it know what that cost is. >> for those things that we're implementing, everything is ear

parkepark -- ear earmarked. some of them have webcor has advanced a couple in terms of request to draw down contingencies which is inappropriate drawdown and ahasbeen deny end. >> director sesay: i want to ensure a you have all the resources you need financially at least to get through this process. >> next board meeting, we're tallying up costs. this board meeting we present to you the impacts powering forward. i do want to clarify one item to

director her point, we will not open the building until we ensure that the building is sound. we think we can do that in parallel. assure the board and director hursh as well, we will not open the facility. >> following up on director gee's question on the analysis and steps taken on the testing, i'm glad there's good collaboration in the process of everybody working together towards get to the right answer. you might get to the finger pointing stage. everybody on the same page to this point of a entire process? >> there have been an amazing amount of effort behind to get to this sampling and testing

procedure. yes, we have 100% commitment on all sides now. that was a finalized at the project team last week before we really got into the testing. everyone is on the same page at this point for testing as well too. it's been an incredibly important element to that to make sure we got everyone on. the next step will be when you get this failure analysis, getting everyone on the same page for the design. we're starting to develop a process already with options and then having -- it's been a full team effort as we look to the next steps as well too as an effort to make sure there's not an outlier. it does change things. >> step by step process. we get information and as we

learn, we hope the end result is the public is confident we're doing the right thing to reopen the facility to meet everybody's concerns. >> thank you. >> that concludes that item. item assessment i seven is the s advisory committee update. >> good morning chair nuru, directors. my chair of tjpa citizens advisory committee. my comments are focused on the following area. our meeting opened with executive director providing update on the passage of the resolution. calling for them to suspend funding agreement with the tjpa

for the downtown extension, 30% design part one until the following conditions were met. san francisco city office conducts evaluation of the management. , the staff performs a review of all alternativeoversigh -- altet and governance models. results of both efforts are presented to the sfcta board. a passionate discussion ensued among the c.a.c. members. there were three areas of concern of the resolution. the first were costs. assuming full funding can be

secured along the critical path of phase two and any delays moving forward with phase two in this case, 30% will result to increased escalation. at this time estimated approximately $17 million a month. second, missed opportunities to obtain commitments of federal and state funding for phase two and third, until completion of the dtx and caltran and high speed rail will utilize forth -- fourth and king with caltran electrification delivered in 2022 and high speed rail in 2027. the nation and neighborhood window be handle to anticipated volumes of passengers, residents, workers and visitors with major infrastructure and station improvements. this is problematic. based on these concerns, the c.a.c. members would have

preferred that the design activities continue with the conditions outline outlined in e c.t.a. resolution being met. the c.a.c. members understand and respect the unanimous decision by the sfcta commissionerrings this is an appropriate action by those responsible for good governance and oversight of the scale. with this as the backdrop, the c.a.c. relates the following. the evaluation and review by the comptroller office in sfcta's staff be conducted with sense of urgency. chair peskin mentioned he expect this review could be completed within a handful of months. second, we recommend that informational updates be provided to both the sfcta

commission and the tjpa board on a regular basis. possiblyevery 4 to 6 weeks. based upon the updates, that the earliest time possible, when the commission and board are assured the intent of the resolution's conditions have been met, make the appropriate changes if any, recommended by either the sfcta staff or comptroller's office then lift the funding expense and restart the work of the 30% design for phase two. second, we moved on to the staff report. we were pleased to hear that the project team is making the finishing touches to the supplemental e.i.s. and e.i.r. we look for a presentation in our next c.a.c. meeting.

as far as the update, we again want to thank the project team for their diligent work to this point and appreciate the thorough update on the work progressing to identify the root cause of the fissures in the steel beams specifics the process to extract the samples testing to be done by the l.p.i. labs. we also appreciate the precautions used not to jump to any speculation of root cause, associated fix as well as not speculating on when the transit centre will be open. it is appropriate to wait until the necessary information is available so make an informed forecast. we were pleased to see the closeout project is continuing to move forward.

last, feedback on the retail update. i want to prep my comments that we ran out of time at the meeting. we didn't get the full update. we are pleased to they are there continues to be high level of interest to leasing in the centre and services that will be available. with that said, we do have concerns with the timing of finalizing the leases. as its forecasted, 26 leases are to be signed by year-end. only ten has been executed. there's still six weeks before the end of the year. using this information as a reference point, we have concerns of potential impacts on forecasted revenue generation from these leases to cover forecasted portion of o.n.m. cost. we did not have time to discuss this in detail, this may not be the case. we look forward to hearing more

about this at our next c.a.c. meeting. in addition we'll provide recommendations at our next meeting focused on potential refinement of the information in the presentation integrating the timing of the signed leases, tenant buildouts with forecasted baseline versus actual revenue generation and o.n.m. expenses. thank you for this update and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you for conveying c.a.c. and wish for this review to happen expeditiously. that is our intent as well. >> next item. >> item eight is public comment an opportunity for members of the public to address matter not on the calendar. we have jim patrick.

>> thank you board. jim patrick, from patrick company here in san francisco. two issues. i was sorely disappointed when we delayed this funding to continue. right now we have zero funding and for the d.e.x. and it stopped. period. i was particularly disappointed in our supervisor, ms. kim, member of this board, who had a chance to defend what was going on in this organization at the meeting said zero and voted to delay it. i don't know where she is today or whether she's still on the board. it was terrible. i was embarrassed. number two, there's an article out, which i like to share and distribute to you, it came this morning. sure we can do it about tunnel under san francisco. the notion is, he and mr. vinny hoff can have some good ideas.

we have little down time now. we should challenge them and take them up. i encourage the board to say, hey, if they got some great ideas, let's sit down. we want to listen. they got a lot of money. i don't know. you know as much as i do. i suggest we pass this on to the board for your reading. that's off the internet i saw this morning. thank you. >> thank you. >> that concludes members of the public. moving into red eregular calendar. >> i'll present this item to you. this is $510,000 cost to

reimbursement man m.t.c. for the >> this money will come from the program reserve. we intend to capture the cost later on when the results are out. we know what caused the fissures. >> i like to moved item. >> members of the public wanting

to comment on the item. [roll call] item nine is approved. >> item ten is authorizing executive director for lease agreement. >> good morning directors. tjpa facility manager. i update today will focus on retail leasing update. i'll present one lease for approval and provide a tenant approval schedule overview. i'm going to focus on the signed

leases metric, similar to last month's report, the numbers do not reflect a slow down in interest or activity. rather they reflect a slowing in the amount of decision-making and negotiating time. lincoln is reporting that a general increase in construction costs potentially means higher out of pocket cost for the tenant. as such, the care and decision-making in particular. for the small business owners targeted. we are revisiting the per formas developed over a-year-old ago. you will see one of the upcoming slides we are still doing well as compared to pro forma. steady stream of lease will continue as demonstrated on this next slide. this slide is illustrative.

we are showing the ground level. it is a snapshot indicating the level of activity in multiple interest in many of the spaces with the red indicating the serious interest. callers keeps this tracking and it is updated as conditions change. the second floor have multiple interests. these maps are reviewed and discussed with the tjpa on a weekly basis. today, the tjpa is presenting one lease for board approval. charlie's philly steaks. we are happy to present this one, the owner expressed interest in the transit centre very early on. this is a local minority owned

business run by experienced proprietors who have another location in brentwood, california that they've been running since 2007. even though it is just 971 square feet, it is coming before the board because it is a 15-year lease. the deal is 15 years to provide additional revenue to cover above pro forma tenant improvement cost. the deal ends up reasonably with overall net proceeds of $142,000 over the life of the transaction. the additional tenant improvements will be applied to electrical work, drains, etcetera. therefore, the recommendation is if the board approves this transaction. this slide provides a financial picture of the lease transactions. the top box is for the leases

executed thus far and compares actual to pro forma. it outlines rents and the estimated build out cost. the rents are exceeding pro forma by 8.5 million and buildout cost by $2.7 million. the middle box includes charlie deal. estimated buildout cost are under pro forma $2.3 million. this is the lease summary to date including charleys there were two board-approved leases that have not yet been executed. one backed out due to design issues. the other one is wrapping up negotiations and expected to be completed soon.

however, the total executed leases includes two that within the director's authority. the number of spaces ends up being the same. finally, this slide is to indicate estimated construction time frames and at what point the space maybe occupied. the blue bar demonstrates the original assumed construction and occupancy time frames outlined in the 2017 merchandising plan. the merchandising plan included estimates based on the location of the spaces. as you can see, the most remarkable is the second floor. that concludes my report. any questions? >> i had a question. in the writeup, there was a lot

of discussion about the net present value in the report that you had. it was referenced here what we seem to have having in trying to assess whether these are good deals or bad deals. we had the original pro forma which was based on a 10-year lease assumption. lot of the leases have these 15-year terms. what we're seeing is we're making up for lost revenue by adding extra five years to the lease term. if you look at it from $1.6 million over ten years, that will be about $2.5 million total over a 15-year term, we're getting about $2.2 million. some of the sam thing happening on other side tenant improvement. how can we get better information some of the reports that give us a sense how we're doing on a year by year basis? it feels like we're falling behind the pro forma.

>> win we do the net present value analysis, we also have the lincoln team taking a look at the aggregate. we're actually -- we're doing well. i can include that in my future reporting. right now all i'm doing is giving you the raw number. i can include that in future reporting so that's clear for you. >> it looks like this is the overalling a gayleall aggregate. >> the net present value is intended to have the apples to apples comparisons if it's

10-year lease or 15-year lease. taking into tenant improvement allowance. it's not shown here. as i said earlier, when lincoln looks at individual deal, they're looking at the aggregate number. the net present value numbers are consistent with the pro forma and the aggregate. >> maybe we can have offline conversation about it. >> i understand your question, by adding five more years you're bringing more revenue. you're looking at 10 to 10 or 15 to 15 plus present value. >> that present value will be higher than the 10-year value. it's more interesting in terms of budgeting, how are we doing

orthe ten years? >> we'll look at that. usually if you have a 15-year lease versus 10-year lease, the 15-year lease gross less per month. >> the additional revenue is also capture the higher t.i. costs. that's why the net present value is a key number. you need it to do apples to apples comparison. >> okay. >> any other questions? >> move for approval. >> second. >> any members of the public wanting to comment on the item. [roll call]

call your next item. >> item 11 is resolution of appreciation for greg harper. >> directors, director harper is here as well. this is a resolution to thank director harper for his service on the tjpa board. he was one of the founding members of the tjpa board in 2001. he was on the board from 2001 to 2007. he decided to come back in 2018. i want to thank you very much for your service on the board. >> i do have the last two senses to say. you know i couldn't resist. actually three. regarding where we are on the building, there is an important thing that has to be done with

respect to what director lipkin alluded to, which is we've got a document that everybody is on the same page. that has to be really established because we need to maximize the value of what's being discovered. we don't want to go through all of this and then in the course of litigation, have to essentially justify that this is really good stuff. this is the answer. we want to avoid that. i know that's the first thing. the second one with respect to the secondary things, everybody is concerned about, once you find out what the root cause is, there's a who that comes to that. once you get the who, then you can can find out where else who was working in the building. that will be some first step into trying to check out other

aspects of the building. there are two levels of who. there's the direct actor and then there's a possibility that there was a supervising overseeing who that may have caught something or should have caught something early. who is that? where elsewhere they doing their overseeing work. you knew i had to do that. i wanted to say, i really appreciate the recognition because i love this project. you don't start 17 years ago and stick with it without loving it. up to this point, my job -- doing that was easy, communicating that to a.c. transit. communicating the mornings of this. i had great depictions and then

a great building eventually to say, wow. this is it. it wasn't costing a.c. transit much money. it was a great benefit to them. that's over now. now you're get into the operations and a.c. transit operations. what i can do on the board inspirationally is a lot easier than doing that operationally because a.c. transit has to recognize its responsibilities to the region more so than ever now that we have a station that can take lot of capacity, can do all their stuff. we're going to have to make a lot of changes. i couldn't do that as one board member. maybe somebody who can is the general manager. that's going to be a big job. he does understand the job.

you have to keep his feet to the fire. you don't have to get him too close, he does understand. i'm very happy with my replacement. i'm very happy to be able to, long last, say, okay, my job is done. now, it's up to getting a.c. transit operations living up to the terminal that essentially has so much to with. thank you very much. [applause] >> members of the public that want to comment on the item. mr. patrick. >> thank you jim patrick. i watched mr. harper for a long time. i think he's added a lot to this board, ask great questions and has been the leader we need. i take my hat off to mr. harper and say thank you very much.

>> i echo mr. patrick's comments. i want to thank director harper for his many years. first tour before i got here and second tour after i got here. it was always a little bit more lively and interesting of a meeting with director harper here. he brought up a perspective that brought up his particular seat at a.c. transit, i think from his professional background, brought lot of value to the board and a perspective that rest of us different have. he was a great complement to the rest of the board members. certainly passionate and outspoken and creative. i think the project is better off for his having been on the board for all these years. i want to thank him for being a colleague and for his many years

of service. >> i want to echo the thank you. it's great to have been a partner with you. i wasn't sure if it was about dr. seuss. i'm okay with that. a project of this magnitude and the complexity is a journey. that journey is ongoing but you been part of that journey for many years. i think it's 11 or 12 years. that's a long time. so thank you for your commitment, your passion, your inspiration and for making a difference for the region by helping this project come forward and to be almost where it is today. so thank you and best on your next chapter. >> on behalf of the board, i would want to say thank you. i learned a lot from all the trips to oakland and difficult discussions and insights. thank you for everything.

>> i want to add my thanks. thank you for loving this project. thank you for your commitment to the project, your vision for advocating for the project, the regional perspective and also advocating for a great fill for a.c. transit and those amazing customers. >> move for approval. >> second. [roll call] >> call the next item. item 12 is approving of the mips of the september 13th meeting >> can we do all three together? >> we have some attendance. >> they are separated out. >> move the item.

>> second. >> mr. chair, i'll be abstaining. >> we go [roll call] that's five ayes. item 12 is approved. item 13 approving minute of the october 2nd meeting. we have a motion. >> move for approval. >> second from lipkin.

>> was that the special meeting? >> october 2nd >> that's a special. >> i was in l.a. >> abstain. >> director kim was here. >> at that meeting, lot of alternatives were here for the agency. >> she could have voted for it. >> but now that we're approving them, even though the director wasn't here, the alternative for that agency was here. >> any member of the board can approve minutes even if they were present at the met meeting so long as they approved the minutes. >> i don't know if we're going to have enough votes to approve the minutes. i will acknowledge that i have not reviewed the tape or the

minute. i will not be in position to support them. we may need to continue this so that those who weren't here can review and approve. >> folks would like to continue october 2nd meeting. let's continue those. call item 14, approving minute of the october 11th meeting with the exception of hursh not being on the board why the and director nuru absent. everybody else was here. >> move approval. >> second. [roll call] item 14 is approved. >> we'll moved into your closed

session. you are scheduled to go into closed session. we'll clear >> the tjpa board of directors meeting is back to open session. in regards to item 19, there's nothing to report. that does conclude the agenda today. >> at this time we'll adjourn the meeting. >> thank you.

>> the hon. london breed: hello, everyone. good afternoon, and thank you so much for being here today. if anyone wants to come down to the front, there are a number of seats where you can join us. i called my aunt today, and i was about four years old about

40 years ago