same comment that was raised about posing significant adverse impacts. and i would feel more comfortable to use a language significantly impact instead. oppose significant impacts whereas in the clause. i understand there's harm that will be caused and we need to address the water supply issues and there's economic concerns and impacting on rationing, all sorts of impacts but i look forward to naming specifically and looking for solution to address but i would be more comfortable with that language as a friendly amendment. then the last piece and i would just kind of put this to my commissioners and i'm not sure if it could or should appear as an amendment but the word

sustainable has different interpretations. i just want to go on the record. because we have not yet come up with what specific outcomes are, sustainability and sustainable has a lot of room for interpretation. i would feel more comfortable with language along the lines of fish populations that are growing and become self-sustaining. short of a specific outcome. sustainable just feels wishy washy to me. it's still short of the outcome or specific bold goals that i would love to see in a resolution like this and that i'm hoping the state will come up with and the p.u.c. will work with the state to meet that bold goal and meet our water supply obligations. so with that i have three

proposed amendments, one which is to add the word independent. second is to change the post significant adverse impacts language to significantly impact and third would be the word sustainability changing or sustainable changing to fish population s that are growing and becoming self-sustaining. >> would you like it submit those separately or all together?becoming self-sustaini. >> would you like it submit those separately or all together? >> separately. >> commissioner: separately i suppose. >> could you indicate which clauses those are. >> i know it's hard because they're not numbered. so the independent word would appear which is the first amendment we'll address is the second to last further resolved and would appear before the word

scientific. >> i think i followed closely enough so i don't know if you want to move to independent or separately, your pleasure. >> we'll take it separately. i would move to amend introduce an amendment adding the word independent in the second further resolved clause. >> i will second that. >> further discussion?

comments from the public? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. >> i think you're kaushging about for the -- talking about for the second potential change in the fifth whereas on the page on the third line that starts the state's proposed flow regime will limit it's ability to meet supply obligations an strike the word pose and change significant to significantly, delete adverse and take the "s" off impacts and add the word on. to read to meet supply obligations an impact the over $2.7 -- $2.7

>> 2.7 million people. >> and i'd like to propose that as an amendment. >> okay. do i have a second? any comments from the public? further discussion on this change? >> i will vote for this. the main reason si -- is i don't want to spend our time talking about the intent is to deal for the fishery issues. will state for the record i believe the original statement and there are significant adverse impacts in one way or another will affect our service area. if for no other reason it will be spend money and everybody will pay rates and it would affect everybody different ways but effect everybody one way or

another. i believe it's a true statement. i will support this as a don't think it really retracts from the statement and not what i want to talk about on the resolution. i want to talk about the resolve and what our commitments are. >> do you have any comment? >> i have to agree with the change and i think commissioner moran when we talk about significantly impact by increased rationing or spending substantial funds for new water supply is significant. i'm good with that. >> okay. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. the last one, steve, you still with me here? >> i think the third page the second further resolved that this commission direct staff to

look at outcomes and voluntary agreement that will strike the word increased fish populations and strike the to make them sustainability and replace them that are growing and becoming self-sustaining. >> and become self-sustaining. >> i would ask a question. what does it mean for a population to be self-sustaining? >> i think these are all words that really specific definition the concept itself of self-sustaining is that it doesn't need artificial support. and there's a question on the system we haven't really spoken to except in some comments the influence of hatcheries in california and the strain of

fish into different rivers makes the question of self-sustaining a difficult one to get around. but soon we have hatcheries and stray i don't know if we'll be successful and know if the state is really willing to grapple with that issue because the department of fish and wildlife is strongly in support of hatcheries and thinks they're an important tool. they are, but it moves you away from self-sustaining. i think that's just maybe it as long as we all recognize that issue, i think it's something i have no objection to but it is a big issue. >> and the board states things

like doubling or viability and it's hard to find the right word because there's a lot of connotation in each of those words . self-sustaining i wasn't even thinking about the hatchery issue because you did have enough fish coming from a hatchery and if they're reproducing enough they're self-sustaining and doesn't matter where they come from but i provides more on the question of sustainability. >> if the existence of fish having their hand on the valve i don't know they'd be self-sustainable in a natural way. >> i don't think it says whether it's a natural or not natural environment. could have a self-sustaining

population that's not natural but we're in the talking specifically about the impacts. my hope is it's not opening a can of worms, so to speak whether the fish or native or hatchery by saying self-sustaining. the idea is the population is going to grow, doesn't matter the source. enough to become self-sustaining. so there is a large enough population to be viable and sustainable. whatever the word is. >> i don't really see where that language is that much different from what's there now. this is one i don't mind leaving as it is in it's vagaries

because of where the v.s.a. process is. i would be okay not having that amendment move forward at this time as long as the conversation goes on record this is really part of the urgency of this sto get to those outcomes so we really know what a sustainable population of fish is for the health of our future and our future eco system and future generations. that's the main intent of this. the idea behind tightening that language is an effort to get there and it's certainly not as far as we need to go but going on record saying sustainable is not as clear or as far as we should or could go. and with that, i withdraw the amendment. >> you don't have to withdraw it. >> commissioner: it's a little

bit vague. >> to me sustainable means that. >> so i would introduce the amendment and we can see if there's any public comment or commissioner comment and then vote on it. >> commissioner: sure. >> commissioner: so the amendment would be fish populations that are growing and become self-sustaining. >> commissioner: i think the issue is defined self-sustaining versus manmade environment. you can put words in there but it gets more confusing when it

seems we'll have goals set soon. >> it's supposed to create more definition to that because sustainable is self-sustaining to me in my view is the opposite, if you will, of going extinct. they are able to sustain themselves and they're growing. the growing word is important too. >> are you saying we shouldn't have hatcheries? >> no, i'm not getting in the hatcheries. i'm trying to avoid that. i did not bring that up. were the fish come from they're able to grow and maintain that growth and state the population well if they can grow to 100,000 or sustain themselves at that number and we're creating the ideal environment for that to

happen. >> i do support the sentiment. i don't support the words. it talks about increased populations to make them sustainable. that's clear when you introduce the concept of self-sustainability it raises questions instead of resolving them. >> so the amendment is on the table? >> no. >> if you moved it, then you moved it. >> second. >> is there a second? >> if there's no second, it doesn't move. >> so any other public comment? >> it's an interesting code. it was once called the legislative embodiment of the public trust doctrine.

and i think it's fish and game code section 5937 which places a responsibility on owners and operators of dams to take responsibility for maintaining fisheries in good condition. fisheries that are established or may become established. that's been their a long time. and i'm sation -- saying here is where public trust and sustainability do a lot of overlap and interplay and economics and science has sort of separated the tether betwethg

and i support the efforts completely of the vice chair to try to establish good intent and good practice in this commission. >> speaking to letter and intent of the public trust doctrine is in good and the species act 5739, not so much. just keep fish in good condition. so those existing laws, the letter and intent is very good as a goal. speak from experience in other wathersheds there's been harvestable levels for fisheries an tribal uses so that's another way of stating the goal. >> and first, i present the fishing industry. we're supporters of hatcheries.

they were built to compensate for the damage to our rivers done by dams and diversion projects. that's what they're there for to maintain fisheries at a healthy level. that's not the same as self-sustaining. our goal would be a truly self-sustaining system and the biologies wrestle with this a lot saying self-sustaining means populations that sustain themselves without hands-on management. there's a difference between a hand on a valve and a hand on a fish. that's what the managers talk about. once you take it into a hatchery and physically manipulating fish one at a time, it's hard to call this self-sustaining. there's a difference between turning a valve to make sure there's healthy river flows or provide habitat that allows the fish to be self-sustaining. there's some gray territory there but i think there's a

distinction between the hands on management of individual fish and ways in which we try to restore healthy eco system functions. the third comment is we've been wrestling with this for a fair amount of time. one way the state and feds and state board have wrestled with this is by coming up with a specific metric. the state passed the salmon doubling metric. that was adopted by the federal government in 1992. that is the doubling of naturally producing salmon compared to the baseline of 67 to 92. that's the federal metric for restoring salmon for sustainability, if you wish. the state board also adopted that and in the legislature the congress and state adopted that. that's a healthy metric that's been around 30 years at this point. it doesn't use the word sustainability but it's also

more specific. i'll leave it there. thanks. >> i would just like to speak briefly to the state doubling. i've been trying to get my head around that through the whole conversation. the reason i fell away from that and didn't really like that is because i think there's a lot of questions out there on which baseline you're using. if there's only 2,000 now, i would not be okay with 4,000. so i think the state has some of the same questions. which is why i think leaving it slightly open with a directive from this commission to come up with bold goals and specific objectives around what it's going to take to create a healthy fishery may in the end up being a better goal or outcome at the end of the day than the doubling. i just wanted to respond to that because the doubling one is a tricky one. and i do know that's in the state law right now and a

wouldn't be surprised if questions at least to establish a baseline of what doubling means would come forward as part of these agreements and i would encourage it and if that emerges what it's the mean double from what to what. >> okay. mr. rishie do you have any comments? >> no, i think you've heard a lot of things here and i think actually make sure you're aware, the state water board is actually commencing a process. the plan to establish biological goals nor -- for the plants

which they didn't have one and they've convened a scientific panel and they heard information from them and there'll be more over time. >> so, now, i need a motion for the item that has been amended. >> i believe we passed both the amendment and i'd like to move the adoption of the full resolution. >> as amended. i will second that. >> any discussion from the public? any further discussion from the commission? all those in favor. opposed? motion carries. yea. yay. okay. next item, please. >> clerk: item 12,

12. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of agreement with the united states department of the interior, national park service, to fund comprehensive management, collaborative environmental stewardship, and security for the watersheds within yosemite national park supplying the san francisco regional water system, for an amount not to exceed $33,257,629 and with a duration of four year subject to board of a[speaking french] supervisors. >> motion carries. next item. >> clerk: item 13 13. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the treasure island development authority setting forth the terms and conditions for the sfpuc to continue to provide utility services for naval station treasure island, with a retroactive start date of october 1, 2018, and ending on june 30, 2020. >> any discussion? all those in favor. motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 14.

14. authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a cost share agreement with contra costa water district, zone 7 water agency, alameda county water district, bay area water supply & conservation agency, the city of brentwood, east bay municipal utility district (ebmud), grassland water district, san luis & delta-mendota water authority, and santa clara valley water district, for funding costs of planning for the potential expansion of the los vaqueros reservoir. with this authorization, the sfpuc increases its maximum contribution to the cost share agreement from the $300,000 approved on march 12, 2019 to $354,129, with no change to the duration of the agreement. >> move approval. >> any public comment on this item? discussion from the commission? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> clerk: item 15, 15. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco recreation and park department setting forth each agency's respective responsibilities for the construction, operation, and maintenance of green infrastructure on el camino del mar in lincoln park. >> move approval. >> second. >> public comment?

further discussion? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> clerk: would you like for me to read the closed session item prior to public comment? >> yes, please. >> clerk: item 18, existing litigation david alfaro, et al. v. city and county of san francisco san francisco superior court no.: cgc-15-547492 date filed: august 20, 2015 proposed settlement of action as to property claim of victoria sanchez in the amount of $97,500. >> any comments on closed session? seeing none can i have a motion to assert. >> assert. >> second. >> all those in

>> the commission is now back in open session. the announcement from closed session is item 18 would settled. -- was settled. can i have a motion whether to disclose the discussion? >> move not to disclose. >> all those in favor. the motion carries. is there any other new business? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:03.

sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up.

our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. >> this job, it's really not an i job. i wouldn't be able to do this job without other people. i make sure that all the regulatory and nonregulatory samples get to access in a timely manner.

we have groundwater samples, you name it, we have to sample it every day. i have ten technicians, very good team. we work together to attain this sampling. >> a sample is only as good as when you collect properly. if sample is not collect properly according to not the proper protocol, the sample could be biased, could be false positive or could be false negative. so all this to have good so you can manage the sample collectors, as well as the schedule, and she is pretty good, and she is very thorough. and so far, i think that she is performing a very good job. >> this job is really not an i job. i wouldn't be able to do this job without my team. you can assign them any job, they can handle it, and again, without them, i wouldn't be

here. i take pride, you know, for what i do. we are providing a very good water department. my name is roselle, and i have been working with the water department

>> good afternoon. the commission will please come order and the sshth -- secretary will call the roll. >> clerk: [roll call] . the second item is for the approval of the minutes. >> commissioner: move approval. >> second. >> commissioner: any correction to the minutes? seeing none all in favor say aye. all opposed. the minutes have been approved. next item.

>> clerk: item three is the director's report. >> good afternoon, commissioners, director of health. a few things to highlight in the director's report. i report on the three measles cases in the area. thankfully we haven't had more cases and it was a contained situation and it's a good reminder all are up to date on their vaccination. one of the key issues with the health department is employee engagement and responding to employee's needs. in order to do that we need to know what employees think about the department and what the challenges are. our employee engagement survey sup to 66% as of today, which is twice the response rate from the past. a nice job from h.r. in moving that piece forward.

i also wanted to and will ask i.t. to give an update on the server incident at the end of session and want to note the sad passing of a lieu -- laguna honda employee who was killed in an automobile accident leaving laguna honda. he was a reporter for the environmental services department and he was an exceptional performer. he joined laguna honda in 2017 and carried out his responsibilities well and earned respect from his peers throughout the hospital and unfortunately he leaves his family. there were services held at laguna honda and we mourn when the department loses one of its own. it also highlight the importance

of the vision zero work has been co-led by the health department and you'll hear more about that work in the presentation today. but i am pleased we'll be working with mta to install a speed radar device at the intersection where unfortunately this death occurred. again, one death is too much but we continue to make progress and our condolence to mr. carasco's family. and some highlights on breaking news with regard to regulation and control of e-scigarettes. sales and consumption in san francisco the city attorney announced potential legislation and legal action to basically

ban e-cigarette sales in san francisco spending s.t.a. oversight and approval of any e-cigarette devices. you recall f.d.a.'s been looking at e-cigarettes for years now and has not made a final decision on their acceptability. san francisco is once again leading in regard to the public health issue as you'll recall a generation of youth are being addicted to nicotine and it has harmful effects on brain development. micro particles are harmful through vaping alone and it's a gateway drug to tobacco addiction. excited in seeing how the legislation unfolds and i'll come back to the commission and report in more detail on that on another date. going back to the server incident summary.

i've asked acting chief information officer to give you a brief summary and answer any of your questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners. so i do have a vim -- summary that was written up and will give you more detail to any questions you have. march 2 we experienced a widespread outage when a room overheated it's more of a temperature incident that resulted in servers going down. the outage depended between three and six hours and it depended on the application in effect. the outage resulted from a chiller failure. the chiller did not fail over to a secondary. there are three and it should have failed over tie third if that didn't work. there's a series of alert systems that alert i.t. when adverse conditions happen such as temperature.

that's only one of the conditions. one alert is a horn that sounds in the engineering room. the second is an alarm on the facility's automated panel. a third is messaging and e-mailing alerts to i.t. and a fourth is an alert that just goes to i.t. the first three alerts failed, the fourth alert generated an alert to the server team manager who called the team on duty and notified i.t. and others of the issue at zuckerberg. they turned on the second chiller and at 7:00 a.m. the system cooled and they brought the system back up. systems did not fail at 3:00 a.m. they didn't just start going off. it took a while for the room to heat up. some of the rooms reached high

temperatures so the system shut down. the majority of systems within the room did stay up. nonetheless, critical systems were not available between two and a half and five and a half hours. one was not verified as functional until 5:30 p.m. and required repair the following monday. i.t. are in the process of updating alarm notifications and procedures and retrain teams and the alert will be brought to procedure by end of june. facilities is still working on why the chiller did not fail over as there's been ongoing issues with the same chiller. faciliti facilities and i.t. reviewed the time line and looked at practices an improvements that have surface and will be managed

in upcoming planning. we're meeting with the public health emergency preparedness group and will do an after-action report april 19 and then we will have a recommendation within 90 days. i do want to say that while no system downtime is opportune, there's issues from the initial data center rebuild three years ago. i.t. has spent hundreds of hours refreshing antiquated hardware but the data center has remained on a back burner. the seriousness of not only the alert failures but the urgency of a had the site for critical applications is necessary. we did this for epic. it's hot and redundant and will reprioritize plans nor systems. do you have questions for me? >> yes, was there any damage to the servers or data loss? >> we did not lose data but what

we think is damaged because we've had failures on boards and systems within the data center. >> will that require replacement or can it be repaired? >> we've been doing that and they're under maintenance agreements but we've been doing it as it occurs. it's difficult to determine what the stress did in terms of long get of the systems. >> thank you. -- longevity of the systems. >> thank you. >> were there any operational issues at the hospital they were prepared to put into action and therefore patient care itself was able to continue? in other words, during this information was or was not available and does the hospital itself have preparations because we never know what will finally

happen. there could be a major san andreas event and no matter how many servers and alerts we have and wonder if the hospital has contingencies when we don't have the availability of the system? >> we do and it's part of the peptic planning. when we go down critical things like medications are backed up and put on to local computers ran on a generator so nurses can no what medications were given previously and there's manual planning. there's a plan for downtime. they have downtime parentheses to follow and they activated a hospital incident command center, and we were in touch with an officer on duty during this time.

my understanding is there was nothing suffered in patient care during that time. >> commissioner: thank you. any other questions? thank you for that and we're looking forward to seeing that all get back into order and you get all the backups. >> i'll be back here april 16, i believe. i'll give you at least the status at this point in time. >> commissioner: thank you, very good. any further questions to the director, please? director, your very clear we'll go to the next report. >> clerk: there were no public comment comments and item four is public comment and i have not received general comment requests. we can move to item 5 a report back from today's community and public health committee.

>> >> very good. commissioner royce. >> we have two updates from the syringe exchange program and from substance abuse services and the syringe data program we learned three important issues. one, the can i -- kiosk collection increased and there are three navigation centers and nine disposable box and smaller for syringes out in the community. the san francisco aids foundation has created a pick up crew you can get through text messages and the crew began july 18 of 2018 and they have collected 90,000 syringes in the first six months of the program and the san francisco youth foundation pick up crew receives

these messages via telephone and through text. they usually arrive at the pick up site within 58 minutes. once they arrived on site, they take a picture and when they cleaned the area they take a picture and send it back to the person who texted them. commissioner brown do you have any comments? >> one thing i'd add to the presentation about the needle exchange is the number of new hiv infections from people who inject drugs dropped from 2010 to 2016. it's been an effective program. there may be other factors involved such as adherence to antiv antivet -- antiretrovirals but also i wanted to add the phone number you just mentioned for folks to send a text to if they

should see a syringe, the number is 415-810-1337 if you see a syringe on the street or anywhere else. text to that number and they'll send back a photo showing it's cleared and the response time has been less than an hour. >> commissioner: other questions of commissioners? >> when they commented on the fact that it was better to have the current syringe program without a 1 to 1 exchange, i wonder if they shared the additional information because it had been a contentious issue in the past about yes, we should have needle exchanges but they should be on a 1 to 1 basis. i thought that was a very

important point i didn't know if there was backup information people asking could site? >> what they stated at the meeting today opposed to a 1 on 1 which injection drug users if they're only doing 1 to 1 exchanges will typically not have enough to cover the use during a 24-hour period. many injecters inject four and five and six times a day. if they're 1 on 1, what will happen is they'll share needles and blood-born viruses can impact both the initial injecter and subsequent injecter if they don't have the opportunity to get new needles for every injection. they also do need-based

exchanges. if i'm an injection drug use earned come to an exchange site, i can tell them based on inquiries by the staff to know what i need between the course of today and next time i can get to a needle exchange site. >> commissioner: thank you very much. the second presentation? >> it was on the drug medi-cal program and the organized delivery system which looks at our substance abuse services and what it's qualifying for medi-cal reimbursement and i'll

defer to my colleague to ad anything he'd like. the highlights for the providers including residential treatment transitioning to drug medi-cal continuing care and if you're in drug treatment you don't just drop off. there's a referral to continuing services and there needs to be continuum of care for that population. because in the past particularly those in withdrawal programs just got dropped. they go through the withdrawal at a site and then they don't move to necessarily a residential trent -- treatment or longer-term facility. they're attempting to ensure people are moving from withdrawing to treatment programs. penetration rates compare favorably to state-wide ones which means these programs are

getting involved in the continuum of care and provider system available in san francisco and they have an external quality review operation which allows them to contact other folks to determine whether or not they're actually making inroads into this population and san francisco is greater than the statewide average. and we are are exceeding the time line to make it medi-cal eligible and i'll defer to my colleague for comments in relationship to this. >> they're setting a goal of

having medi-cal residential organization within 24 hours and then to have people authorized to be admitted in under 15 days. in both measures they had exceeded their goal significantly. the 24-hour authorization was a goal of 35% and the goal of 15-day admission was 75% and they have achieved 84%. >> commissioner: commissioners, any questions? i have one. when did this begin and hi'm looking forward to some sort of

a report like a year it had gone into existence to see how we've done. >> my recollection is 2017 by dr. martin so the data was a year and a half of data i believe around that. >> july 2017. >> commissioner: it sounds like a new way of working within a structure of payment because it began by saying this was a new model of withdrawal and i'm just wondering when it was felt we had put the new model in place. it could have been authorized in 2017. and there's some data here.

is that sort of a year well not really a year of data because it begins in july. is it july we began the program and it may be worthwhile to look at it in july and present to the full commission? >> i would agree that is true and would agree from start date to actual implementation, take some period of time and so we want to recognize it take some period of time and what they will do is if we asked them to come back, they will. i'm going defer to dr. colfax for additional comment. >> my question -- if there's a question when o.d.s. started in the department that was before i was here but there may be people who can answer to that and it's july the starting point was july of '18. i'm not sure if that's the start date or because we had enough data it was meaningful.

>> we can get the exact start date but there were certain metrics that had to be met by the largest providers initially so that took time. but we'll get the exact start date four and make sure every year we update. at the state level they're looking at o.d.s. and looking to incorporate that. >> excellent. i think as the report seems to show, this is really progress towards the continuity of care for the withdrawal patients and it would be really good to see how well this is coming along a year after it's been in operation. thank you. commissioner green. >> i wondered if you have projects about the outcome of adding almost double the number of residential step-down beds.

is there anticipation of the penetration rate and what outcomes you'll see and when? >> one thing we're noticing is it gets stuck because the lower levels of care are an issue and house. we're hoping to see more people take up the space but that's a data point we'll be able to track. >> commissioner: thank you. any other questions? if not we'll then move on to our -- thank you, commissioner loyce. sounds like you had an important meeting of very important topics and we'll move to the next -- >> clerk: there were no public comment requests for that item. item sex is the commissioner health elections. >> commissioner: several of our members are absent and i'd like a motion to request that we be

the postpone the election according to rules and regulations is supposed to be the second meeting in march to the first meeting of april. >> so moved. >> commissioner: is there a second? >> second. >> commissioner: all in favor say aye. the election will then be held april 2. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. item seven is the second hearing. actually could ever turn off your phones whoever that is may be and the next is on the 20 budget. >> good afternoon, commissioners, greg wag ner, chief financial officer.

i'll start with context and turn it over to budget director jenny louie. as you know in the past this year as we have in the past during two hearings on the budget. the first occurred last month and so this is the second of the two. i would have normally have had this meeting in late february but of course the schedule due to some decision making and of course director colfax joining us and wanting to spend time on the budget before coming to the commission. we're requesting initiatives today we'll forward to the mayor's office and we'll enter into the next phase of the budget process for reviewing wa

we submitted and having conversations with the department about priorities for other potential initiatives added in the mayor's space. so we have a lot of things going on financially in the department. one of the things i just want to point out that came up in the prior conversation is that there are a set of initiatives in front of you today but there are also a lot of other things happening in terms of our budget and finances in the department and i just want to point those out and acknowledge the fact that there are a lot of these things happening since you'll be voting on some things today but that's not the entire context. the mayor and mayor's office have been active on behavioral health needs. a lot of those directed toward individuals experiencing homelessness in the city.

the result has been significant new funding for the department and a number of new initiatives in the areas. we talked about the o.d.s. waiver. there's funding that the mayor submitted to the board and the board has approved for 72 new substance abuse step-down recovery beds. those are appropriated mid year and the current year from the dollars san francisco paid to the state over the formula requirement and were returned to the state. so those dollars are being appropriated in a supplemental appropriation in the current year and will be bridge funding to get us to the point where the legal issues around prop c are resolved and we can have continuing funding for similar programs hopefully under prop c. so 72 new substance abuse residential step down recovery

beds and new beds at st. mary's healing center. we opened that facility a year and a half ago and due to budget constraints we only had funding to purchase about 40 of the 54 beds available in that facility. with this additional funding being appropriated midyear we'll have an additional 14 beds available for us to access for our highest priority patients. we also just recently -- and you had seen it in your director's report but have submitted to the board a resolution requesting to accept and appropriate about $3.1 million in state funds. these are funds that came in the governor's budget and the focus of those funds will be to improve our outreach capacity to individuals, expand homelessness and provide infrastructure to support the city's healthy streets operation center which is the collaboration between

departments to respond to calls from the public around homeless individuals and street behavior and give us capacity to engage patients who are in psychiatric service at the campus and connect them to follow-up care. lastly, as you know, we opened an additional 15 beds at the humming bird program at the campus of zuckerberg san francisco general. there's lots of things happening budget wise and lots of new investment we think will allow us to move the needle on some of these activities and i want to acknowledge for the commission and public though those aren't on the items you're approving today there's items you've been involved with and have been pushing programs on multiple fronts including the budget that will be before you today. i'm going turn this over to jenny louie to go through the

initiatives on the agenda explicitly for you for request to approval for today. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with the dpa budget. for the items before you in terms of the second set of proposals, the first set is around revenues. we have the projected 2011 realignment and the county is responsible for maintaining the mental health services and we get a portion of the dollars realigned from the state. we've seen it in prior years before and now we're projecting an additional $3 million for services. then the back fill of funding losses is a loss in revenue.