you have a basic set of criteria and you develop them or respond in how you guide the design based on basic considerations. it puts a little extra work on the ppa >> how about we find a review of light and air? >> no, that's okay. special reference to rear yards and property line windows. >> it needs more work. >> i believe we are because the maker of the motion is actually suggesting we send it forward without recommendation and give special consideration of these three elements. we're recommending d >> yes, d is recommended, but

all the other --. >> i apologize, we are recommending d so there is a recommendation. okay, sorry. >> what are we reviewing, the recommendation or lot mergers are prohibited until divide lines are developed? currently you can merge lots. lot mergers would be prohibited until specific guidelines were available. >> i thought that was just a recommendation. >> instead of trying to specify how the guidelines are developed can we say until the guidelines that are aproofrpbd by the commission are developed so you would see the guidelines before they are finalized and until then lot mergers would be prohibited. >> that works. >> i'm sorry, director, can you repeat that? >> lot mergers would be

prohibited until commission approved new guidelines. guidelines are only as good as --. >> typically -- go ahead. >> the ordinance is drafted with reference to the design

guidelines and guidelines have to be approved by, they have the power of code but the specific guidelines do not live within the code, it is a separate document approved by the planning commission. >> added d today, we all thought it was important at the time we did it but it didn't work. >> commissioner antonini, as maker of the motion are you accepting those amendments that are making recommendations as opposed to no recommendation? >> yes. >> thank you. commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to recommend to the board of supervisors that they accept staff's recommendation regarding section d of the urban design and then that lot mergers would be prohibited until such time the planning commission approves new guidelines and then to refine

the review as they relate to light and air. on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner hillis, yes. commissionerer moore, no. commissioner president fong? aye. that motion fails 3-2. do you want to defer this until commissioner richards returns? >> yes, let's go to the next one. >> 4 is public review and commission approval. staff has made one recommendation for an amendment and that is to modify the existing approval process available to local and 100 percent affordable bonus program projects to be appealable to the board of supervisors rather than the

board of appeals. >> commissioner hillis. >> it should fall under a conditional use approval which to me is the essence of conditional use approval, can you explain, though, the difference between what you are asking us to do as far as how this approval is done and icu >> the design of the approval process for the local programs is not necessarily to remove any of the requirements that would have applied to a project without the program, but to consolidate them all into one approval process which is a proposed section 328 and if that project would have otherwise required a conditional use authorization, the planning commission would still be required to make all the same findings and review all the same criteria that that conditional use authorization

would have required, it's just all of that would be consolidated under 328 approval process so you would have one essentially entitlement instead of multiple entitlements on the same project. as it is right now because it was crafted after the large project authorization process that we have for eastern neighborhood and mixed use projects, those approvals are appealed to the board of appeals. so the proposal here is to basically keep the same proposal we have, keep the 328 process which in terms of the way you would hear and see and review a project would not change anything, you would still have to review all the same criteria as you would if they were numerous separate conditional use authorizations, but instead of having it appealed to the board of appeals have it appealed to the board of supervisors just as a conditional use authorization would be. >> so the project didn't need

commission approval prior ahpp with the approval route. >> it would be 328. >> 328 for commissioner approval. >> we wanted to make sure because this program is so specific and detailed we wanted to make sure each project that took advantage this to program had a very similar review and approval. >> okay. so i'm comfortable with the recommendation then -- it's analogous to a seal. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm not sure there were a lot of calls for further higher level conditional use on any of the projects. i know we can have many large projects authorizations that come before us from the eastern neighborhoods that have lots and lots of discussion and modification and i would be supportive of this as long as i

am sure that any project that comes has to come before us and we can do any modification we want. some speakers were saying we can only change design. we can make them shorter or, you know, do anything we want with them. >> before we approve them; is that correct? >> the va would answer whether you can make modification rather than urban design through the 328 process. >> could you repeat the question? >> i guess the big concern that was voiced by many members of the public tonight was if something complies with all the tenets of this legislation then our ability to modify the projects would be somewhat limited and if we feel that they were allowed two extra floors but we really don't think it's appropriate, we only want to give them one, i mean can we do that sort of thing oh

an lpa >> this program, yeah. so the design is such that you would have the same ability you would with an lpa for each neighborhood to grant exceptions, right, as you see fit and to, especially to allow you to move maps around to adjust context in the area. for example, if a subject property is on a block that doesn't have really any midblock open space to speak of, maybe it takes a little sense to take a little bit of height off to add some mass in the rear to keep the overall development envelope around the same thing. the language in section 328 states that the planning commission can modify the project. it does have to make sure the project meets the affordable housing design guidelines but that the modifications are intended to be minor because obviously if

you chop a wlaut -- lot of it off it's not really an incentive to use the program because you are not going to be to get the density bonus associated to cover the higher affordable housing. obviously the planning commission has the power to modify it or even deny it but there is language that because of this program it is understood to some degree these projects are going to be somewhat larger than the surrounding context. >> that's true, but on an individual project i would like to have the authority to modify, even though the bonus might be less, they might get wles affordable housing, they might get less, you know, because the height is too high or for one reason or another we feel this particular one has impacts that are negative enough. and i think that's what we've been talking about, they want to make sure we have discretion on each of these projects and i would support this if we have it, if we don't

then i'm going to ask to move up to the level of cu for all the projects. >> i think the advantage here is it doesn't have to be necessary or desirable, the level for the neighborhood, the cu criteria. the lpa is a little different, it's more matching the design constraints. >> commissioner richards. >> question for mr. welch if we may, please. in your opinion the difference between an lpa we just approved a project tonight for a hundred units based on an lpa >> deputy zoning administrator said it pretty clearly. you basically have design criteria that you cannot violate. the density bonus, so you can't do what you want to do. i mean

you can twist and turn but your staff just told you, no, you don't have the same power that you have in a ceu and that's the question, you know? the answer is pretty clear, you don't. >> thank you. thank you. so the question then, mr. teague, even if we start chopping things off and moving things around and it doesn't qualify for the bonus, what's the deal? >> i think i was pretd clear -- pretty clear that you can disapprove the project if you want. the planning commission has that authority and it's very clear in what's proposed, it's very clear in lpa's, you have that authority. the caveat i was making was the relevance of understanding the context of the program when you are reviewing a project. obviously it's somewhat different than if you are

reviewing just a standard conditional use or lpa because obviously the context of the program is to have higher mass of the building to have higher amounts of affordability. but in terms of the planning commission you obviously have the ability to approve it or disapprove it. >> the basis for the approval have to have basis eye. >> there are required findings that have to be made for section 328. if the project would have otherwise treated (inaudible) subsumed in the disapproval as well. >> the other question i have is for supervisor wiener's based on 100 percent affordable there's no hearing at all unless -- there's no hearing at all, no cu >> remove the cu requirement for 100 affordable. >> we have a program here that

talks about 100 percent affordable, under lpa it's still going to be treated affordablely? >> yes. >> the next shoe to fall might be we want to propose we don't have any meeting at all. >> commissioner moore. >> i believe these projects need to be looked at for being necessary and desirable in the larger con tebs, not a question of taste but overall fit and i regrelt we have to set ourselves up here by not being able to have a cu process partially because the density requirements will override the commission's ability on specific circumstances. i basically for that reason cannot support or send this on with any recommendation. i believe this needs to be reworked in a manner that meets the broad objective and is indeed work that the commission

with work supportively with the planning department to deliver projects in the appropriate form and shape where they are necessary and where they are desirable. >> commissioner antonini. >> so do we have a motion yet? >> commissioner hillis made a motion to move this along with staff's recommendation, if i recall correctly. >> second. >> second? it seems there are some concerns so i would go ahead and make a motion to require conditional use on all these projects. i realize we still have some constraints but it would be a higher bar and i think it might alay many of the fears that a lot of the public have mentioned, so that would be my motion. >> second. >> with the xepltion of 100 percent affordable, we might have to make that an lpa because they are not allowed any more, i don't think. is

that correct? >> we'll have to resolve the conflict between the recent legislation. >> it's a motion anyway. >> deputy city attorney burnet, i'm going to jump in for a moment and remind you that the housing affordability act reduces the city's ability to make (inaudible) public health and safety, i believe it is. so it's not just that the state density bonus program provides that the city is subject to certain requirements when housing projects produce density but also the commission would be limited by the housing accountability act and its ability a project submitted on this program or any project from removing density. >> commissioner. >> i seconded this for two

reasons, one, we're going to have a hearing anyway so it's not like we're creating a new process, we're going to have a section 328, it's the same time, same bat station. i think the second thing is we haven't -- we normally take projects and cut floors off them and things like that, i completely get what the city attorney is saying, we don't lop floors off, we try to make projects better. >> commissioner moore. >> i would prefer we forward this without recommendation pargtsly because of what the city attorney is saying. i think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, if a cu is not the way to approve a project that we normally use in a cu we should not be forwarding this as a measure that we support. >> if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that was seconded to

move this forward to the board of supervisors recommending that the planning commission retain conditional use requirement or review on all projects. on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner hillis, aye. commissioner moore, no. commissioner wu., no. commissioner hillis, aye. commissioner president fong, yes. that passes 4-2. there was a motion on topic 3, commissioner richards, you actually left the chambers, where the recommendation was moving to the board of supervisors recommending staff's recommendation d and that lot mergers would be prohibited until such time as the commission approves new guidelines and to refine the review related to light and air. the question i had for the maker of the motion, if i

may, we would be seeing those guidelines here and we would be approving them? >> until such time as the commission approves new guidelines, yes. commissioner antonini, yes. commissioner hillis, yes. commissioner wu commissioner richards, aye. commissioner president fong, aye. that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners wu and moore voting no, which moves us to topic 5. >> there are 4 recommendations from staff. four are really about services and protections to existing small businesses to offer first right of refusal to establish a small business relocation fee and to provide a guarantee of 18 months

notification for businesses that may occupy sites that are developed. the fourth one is around requiring the commission to reduce commercial use sizes or require commercial uses in ahb projects if you deem it appropriate on a particular corridor. >> commissioner antonini. >> okay, a few questions about this. is the relocation fee, now this is, how is this set? does it mean that the project sponsor is going to pay for the cost of your business being relocated or is it going to pay some of the additional rent that the tenant will have to pay at its new site, how extensive is this fee? >> the proposal in the staff recommendation is that it be

consistent in the relocation act and that was recommended by this commission. this that case it covers relocation costs up to a capped amount or relocation costs plus a $10,000 fee. i think that is something that when we went to the small business commission they were interested in working with us and that is an idea and also i should mention that folks at iwd are also interested in helping us rail get that number right so we would be interested on sort of considerations for that process. >> i'd like to see we go lailgts bit further because we are giving a bonus to the project sponsor that's significant and if a business, right of first refusal but the project sponsor should assist the renter in, you know, some sort of stablized rent. i know

we don't have commercial rent control but i think tr should be some kind of agreement with the business if they want to relocate that there be a rent that's consistent with what they were paying before when they come back. that might be --. >> commissioners, joaquim torres, office of economic development. we would be working together with the small business commission, also with our own office to figure out what the exact need to be and also think through some of the pieces to how it would relate to the project sponsor and what kind of agreements would be in place or considerations were being made in terms of how the small business would be supported during that time and through that individualized process. >> also some attention to what the rent might be when they return --.

>> it would be a full conversation, if you are offering them a first right of refusal you want it to be first right of acceptance and that the condition would be right for them. we support small businesses through the process. >> deputy city attorney marlena burn. state law is very explicit that the city cannot impose any kind of commercial rent control or requiring certain types of negotiations around rent in terms of businesses. >> in terms of requiring, correct? cannot require. >> you certainly can encourage as part of this legislation. the two parties worked together for a mutually acceptable result. i would be supportive of this, i think it may be as far as we can go given the state law. >> commissioner richards. >> i can support e and i would

recommend that the rest of all this really be left up to the small business commission or because moist of it's millionaire domain i would look for this guidance. they seem to have done a good job at a couple hearings i watched. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> commissioner moore. >> i cannot support for those who do not recognize the dna of san francisco is small business and that particular ambience and how it stands in contrast to most new retail spaces actually standing empty for weeks and months on end, i think there is a clear indication that new retail spaces we are building are not at all accommodating those small businesses which we are talking about relocating and it's for that reason that i cannot support any of what is

suggested here. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner moore, this notion that we are allowed to reduce the commercial lot sizes when they come before us and i think punting or the small business commission really let this one out, it's the appropriate thing to do. i completely agree with you, they are the dna and i think the small business commission is the one that actually went with it. >> i agree this particular suggestion for registration falls short toally a discussion about small businesses, i believe some of the ballot measures to better address how we get a better amount of fair housing. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to move this topic forward to the board of supervisors recommending staff recommendation e on that motion, commissioner antonini,

aye. commissioner willis, yes (inaudible) convert some of the 18 percent middle income units which are currently meant to be serving 120 percent for rental and 140 percent for owner and the group wants to take a look at the feasibility and find room for households that are at 100 percent for rental and 120 percent for ownership.

>> to point out the commission also previously, you remember, included in their motion looking at further value recapture on this issue. so i mean i think that was a similar recommendation if there's, if you want to specifically get of these numbers that's something you can do or you can rely on that earlier notion and says look for a way to refine the ami requirements. >> commissioner hillis. >> staff recommendation, the comment that director made, there was also this possibility there was this neighborhood adjustment if during the process in a neighborhood the average rental level was below a certain amount, can we do that proactively, like make these adjustments now by neighborhood and have, you

know, in some neighborhoods, somebody showed a chart with rental rates and perhaps in the sunset it starts off lower then that's what's codified. >> we could definitely do that. we could take neighborhood data, set the market rent, look at the appropriate ami to be 20 percent below market rent. i would recommend that we just have an adjustment measure where you could monitor that over time since the market changes. but, yes, that's possible. >> okay. >> that's a possible additional recommendation if people are willing to look at it, kind of change those percentages based on the rent variation in neighborhoods. >> commissioner antonini.

>> i would make a motion to support the staff recommendation present to modify those percentages according to neighborhoods to make it most appropriate and appropriate to address that space between the traditional lower income levels and the levels of the milds income, see if there's a way to kill some of that space. >> commissioner, i think what i heard was to codify it would be 20 percent of the average of each neighborhood. >> yeah, that makes sense, right? >> is that what i hear you say doible. >> staff could look into an index to make it neighborhood specific and our staff recommendation is around making

the 120 percent ani . >> commissioner wu >> i'd like to ask mr. welch one more time to comment on this adjustment, particularly because the information presented by staff, the levels are of great concern for me even with the suggestions just made by star. >> this is kind of fascinating to do it not at a city ami level but a neighborhood ami level, i think i've died and gone to heaven. if you guys want to do that i think it's a great idea. the question becomes, it seems to me, how do

you do that? i'm delighted to hear you are prepared to do that. then why are we using ami, why am i using ami you are going to do neighborhood level rents, why are we using san francisco ami why are we using a regional ami there's no federal money in this program, developers can't get any money, why don't we start with a san francisco ami and then make the san francisco neighborhood adjustments. it's beyond me to understand why it is that we're sticking with a jupbal ami in a program that requires, that doesn't have any federal money in it, that indeed is a new public policy that it has no public subsidy

which has been elevated to a new master plan policy, i guess. then let's have the current of our neighborhood, let's do a city ami >> commissioners, you remember how an unadjusted ami gives us greater simplicity, it streamlines our process. if we have dueling ami programs, it slows down the process and it's more costly. there's nothing magical about an ami chart versus a hud unadjusted ami chart. what's the average people make? on the hut chart,

the point is go to the data, look at what the incomes are in the neighborhood, look at what the market rate is in the neighborhood and pick the place. it's either could be to be fiflt percent and 45 percent, you don't need to have dualing charts. we can look at data on the market rate rents and pick an ami level according to the ami chart that's 20 percent below the rates. that's something very simple. it's neat and clean and there's no need to be doing charts. >> can you spent on commissioner's opinion? >> i don't think you want to start at this idea that this is

about finding 20 percent below market rent. i would argue that the work from the bottom upb, not the top down. it was a major critique you have had, you are still ending up with a program that's going to end up targeting what's called middle income, keep in mind the mayor's office of housing has defined milds income as a very, very wide -- all the way up to 120 and somebody what argue 140. i would suggest that you look at incomes by neighborhood, yes, you can really understand the demographic and the spending power, and then decide where to set the program so you are targeting the widest range of beneficiaries and not simply, it's always going to be up as a reference point. the other thing that gives me

pause, i would agree with just plug it into a chart, i will say the history of the inclusionary program that we have now is originally it was 16100, you heard that from staff earlier and they purposefully adjusted it down 10 percent to accommodate san francisco incomes. that's how we have 55 percent for rentals and 90 for ownership. if you simply start at 120 and 140, you are already assuming that's where you want to get to, so abandon the whole determining the ami first and find where you want to hit based on the research as staff is suggesting. the seed units neither of them went for 70, 80, as well as the higher stuff, but don't start with the ami and work backwards based on real data from folks' incomes.

>> commissioners wu --. >> just one point of clarification. i do want to remind everyone that this is a very, very, very small piece of the affordable housing effort in san francisco. 92 percent of our housing goes to households at 60 percent of ami and below. our middle income households, yes, from 60 percent all the way toup 140 percent, even 150 percent in some neighborhoods. get very little assistance. this is merely a way to address a middle income need. the reason we're not at 21 percent. we would have to finance affordable housing every single day. it wouldn't be a workable plan. it wouldn't be a

workable plan, the low income housing option at 55 percent and 65 percent and 75 percent, it wouldn't really work. the number's at 100 percent and 120 percent, our construction costs were so high that that's where we think we can get the 18 percent and is still have it be a propl that people will takability of. if it's a feasibility analysis we should maximize the affordable housing option, it's not that we don't want to subsidize the 65 or 65 percent option, it's just very, very expensive. that's why the levels are set where they are, it's financial feasibility and serves a group of people that

gets no assistance whatsoever from the city of san francisco. >> what programs do we have available for them? >> we have no programs for them. we have some middle housing money that we put into the property bond specifically for that reason so we are now going to start serving people at 70 percent ami and 80 percent of ami up to 120 percent of ami, but it's a very, very small bit of funding tif to an overall total of 67 percent. >> who made that motion? was a motion made? >> i moved to support, i think. i do now -- the staff recommendation. >> okay, so commissioner antonini it's a motion for neighborhood specific rates and lower income income ami >> yeah. >> staff recommendation added

neighborhood specific. >> yeah. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> thank you, commissioner. shawl i call the question? >> yes, please. >> on that motion then to take staff's recommendation about neighborhood affordability and lower level ami so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners moore and richards voting against. . >> the last one. >> it's a general plan amendment, there are two items before you. commission comments that ends the discussion but maybe we can call the --. >> yes, i think that resolves

-- oh. commission, city attorney, would it be cleaner to simply have the commissioners make a motion to pass forward the program with no recommendation and the votes for each of these specific items as opposed to sort of nothing? >> yes. >> do you need a motion from one of us now? >> yes, please. >> so moved. >> no, you have to make it, i can't make it. >> i move to forward without recommendation on the program as a whole considering the suggestions that were made through those --. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner wu.. on that motion to forward, no recommendation, only consideration to the recommendations on the individual topics, commissioner antonini, aye. so moved, commissioners, that motion

passes unanimously 6-0 and there is just the general plan. >> the plan includes two sentences at the bottom of several maps that say to encourage greater levels of affordability on site, the city may adopt affordable housing policies that are several stories higher and building masses that are more than shown here and that is inserted through jot the general plan. the question to the commission is whether they would like to forward that to the board of supervisors. >> i would move to forward that just a general statement about this program. >> second. >> i have a motion to move that recommendation eye ?ue. >> what does that mean? >> there's a packet in your practicalet about the exact language.

>> you have to take a vote to either approve or disapprove it. >> but it's only related to this program, correct, or if this program fails at the board of supervisors, does our action today, does that stick? >> if the board elects to forward that information you send to them, that would stand regardless of what action you take on the plan ordinance. we -- by acting on this item you are forwarding a recommendation to the board to make this change to the general plan and the board of supervisors has an up or down vote on that amendment. >> wouldn't we rather make this general plan amendment only if the affordable housing

program is approved? >> i would say so. >> attach them. >> the question is whether you can recommend a general plan amendment that's contingent on the plan moving forward. i believe you can do that. >> deputy city attorney, that's fine. it would only go into effect if the corresponding motions are approved. >> commissioner antonini. >> i am supportive of this and i would make a motion to put this language in, it's pretty much boilerplate and it also speaks to this whole concept you are trying to prevent additional, to enable us to

afford more private nobody else is going to be able to build, afford to build middle income housing in san francisco because you can't charge enough to make it salable, to make it work. >> that's not the question before us. commission. >> it looks to me like you want to put tires on if you don't have a car. i believe there is nothing there. this would come back, the board of supervisors have classed it in a manner i expect they can, we can't support it at this time but at this moment i cannot send this on with nothing to support it. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to recommend the board of supervisors adopt the general plan amendment contingent on the program being approved. >> commissioner richards.

>> that's fine, make your motion. i am comfortable with that motion if it is kupb continue jepblt with the board of supervisors approving that. >> on that motion (calling roll) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners wu and moore voting against. commissioners, we will place this on general public comment for which i have no speaker cards. >> general public comment? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. (meeting adjourned

week. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the san francisco. the reporter: has many opportunities to get out and placing play a 4 thousand acres of play rec and park has a place win the high sincerely the place to remove user from the upper life and transform into one of mother nachdz place go into the rec and park camp mather

located one hundred and 80 square miles from the bay bridge past the oakland bridge and on and on camp mather the city owned sierra nevada camping facility is outings outside the gate of yosemite park it dates back before the area became is a popular vacation it i sites it was home to indians who made the camp where the coral now stands up and artifacts are found sometimes arrest this was the tree that the native people calm for the ac accordions that had a high food value the acorns were fatally off the trees in september but they would come up

prosecute the foothills and were recipe the same as the people that came to camp camp is celebrating it's 90th year and the indians were up here for 4 thousand we see every day of them in the grinding rocks around the camp we have about 15 grinding sites in came so it was a major summer report area for the 92 hawks. >> through there are signs that prosperity were in the area it was not until the early part of the century with the 76 began the construction of damn in helpfully a say mill was billed open the left hand of the math for the construction by which

lake was used to float logs needed for the project at the same time the yosemite park and company used the other side of the camp to house tourists interesting in seeing the national park and the constructions of damn when the u son damn was completed many of the facilities were not needed then the city of san francisco donated the property it was named camp mather the first director it was named after him tuesday morning away amongst the pine the giant sequoia is the giants inventories first name if our title is camp means there's going to be dirt and bugs and so long as you can get past that part this place it

pretty awesome i see i see. >> with a little taste of freedom from the city life you can soak up the country life with swimming and volley ball and swimming and horseback riding there you go buddy. >> we do offer and really good amount of programming and give a sample p of san francisco rec and park department has to offer hopefully we've been here 90

years my camp name is falcon i'm a recession he leader i've been leading the bill clinton and anarchy and have had sometimes arts and crafts a lot of our guests have been coming for many years and have almost glutin up, up here he activity or children activity or parent activity here at camp mather you are experiencing as a family without having to get into a car and drive somewhere fill your day with with what can

to back fun at the majestic life the essence of camp mather one thing a that's been interesting i think as it evolves there's no representation here oh, there's no representation so all the adults are engine i you know disconnected so there's more connection the adults and parents are really friendly but i think in our modern culture i you know everyone's is used to be on their phones and people

are eager to engagement and talk they don't have their social media so here they are at camp mather how are i doing. >> how are you doing it has over one hundred hundred cabins those rustic structures gives camp mather the old atmosphere that enhances the total wilderness experience and old woolen dressers and poaches and rug i do lay out people want to decorate the front of thaifr their cabins and front poefrnz their living room is outside in this awesome environment they're not inviting their guests inside

where the berms are people get creative with the latin-american and the bull frogs start the trees grow and camp mather is seen in a different light we're approaching dinner time in the construction of the hetch hetchy damn the yosemite park built jackson diane hauling hall to serve the guests it does was it dbe does best service s serve the food. >> i'm the executive chef i served over 15 hundred meals a day for the camp mather folks breakfasts are pancakes and french toast and skranld eggs and hash brown's

our meal formulate is we have roost lion it's reflecting of the audience we have people love our meals and love the idea they can pick up a meal and do worry about doing the dishes can have a great time at camp mather after camp people indulge themselves everyone racks go in a place that's crisis that i air after the crackinging of a campfire a campfire. >> the evening is kept up with

a tenant show a longed tradition it features music i tried this trick and - this talent show is famous for traditional things but we have new things ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the first 7, 8, 9 being on stage and being embarrassed and doing random things >> unlike my anothers twinkling stars are an unforcible memory

♪ ♪ ♪ admission to camp mather is through a lottery it includes meals and camp programs remember all applicant registration on line into a lottery and have a rec and park department family account to register registration typically begins the first week of january and ends the first week in february this hey sierra oasis is a great place to enjoy lifeiest outside of the hustle and bustle and kickback and enjoy and a half >> everything is so huge and beautiful. >> the children grew up her playing around and riding their

bites e bicycles it's a great place to let the children see what's outside of the city common experience is a this unique camp when you get lost in the high sierra wilderness camp mather is waiting and we look forward to city manager's office you here soon ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> all right. good afternoon, everyone we're going to get starting i want to welcome you the meeting will come to order