crises on the street. if we obtain our vision, we will have a lot more middle classes than jail for people to be triaged and offered the care that they need. so with a 24/7 mental health service center, which again we don't have. so a lot of the crises that we know about -- that i think we don't appropriately respond to right now happen after our existing center is closed and when there aren't many alternatives, there aren't any, besides urgent care and d.p.s. if we achieve our vision which we're so committed to, there will be lots more alternatives, a 24/7 mental health service center, more urgent options, more hummingbird options. so we really look forward to

that time when we can send a clinical team out, when we can meet with people where they are. most of this happens after the hours again of bhac, and we need to adjust our services to respond to the needs of these highest-risk, highest-needs people. >> and i think -- >> i should have mentioned the drug sobering center. these are other 24/7 facilities which this response team could take people to and get them the help they need. >> through the chair, i just think it's important to talk about how this team is distinct from the h.o.t. team and the e.m.s. i know it feels like a lot of

teams, but we fought to make sure that the language requires coordination amongst all of these teams. they really do have distinct roles. so the h.o.t. team is not supposed to be experts on behavioral health. their mandate is to outreach and engage with people who are experiencing homelessness. let's remember, not all people experiencing homelessness have mental health or addiction issues. so they are -- they have another role entirely. it's about -- well, that's a role that not all of us feel comfortable with now and we're always constantly battling out, but it is distinct and separate from the issue of behavioral health. the e.m.s. 6 team, the firefighter has to come when there is a physical risk to safety. so it's not just that someone -- let's say someone's passed out, for example, or someone's injured because they were in psychosis and they walked down

the street and got hit by a car. that couldn't be this team. that has to be firefighters who have the medical training to deal with physical impacts that are related to addiction and mental health, overdoses, et cetera, but that aren't -- but that requires some sort of physical medical attention as well. this team is for people that are not in a physical risk to bodily harm, but are having a mental health crisis, psychosis, or drug-induced psychosis and they need a behavioral health professional to come and engage with them and get them into treatment and care, but they're not -- they're not overdosing, they're not -- they haven't been hit by a car. there's not an immediate risk to their physical need. that is a distinct thing.

believe it or not, we need all of these expertise. without all of this specific expertise, we are missing a part of the population that is currently living on the streets. >> well, i'm excited to see how the conversations about this team develop. i do think e.m.s. 6 does a lot more folks who may not have had a physical injury. they may be at risk of a physical injury at some point, but their charge is to work with folks to prevent things from being more expensive -- >> that's what i was just going to say, then we're not spending our resources well because we don't need that level of intervention. >> they're being assigned based on high 911 callers, but those 911 are not always generated by

a physical injury. but at any rate, i'm looking forward to seeing what the crisis response street teams look like. supervisors haney and ronen are asking for big, bold, structural change, as is this board. so i think what we at least to know what it looks like, not just to expand what we are doing now or make it look -- or make it work smarter or for efficiently and effectively and raech people and have more places to take people, but actually meet the need and the demand. so that i as a san franciscan have an app and a phone number that i can dial and know that i will get a response that is as timely or almost as the 911 response, but is calibrated to this problem we're having in san francisco right now of a ton of folks who are under psychosis or

inebriated and need intervention. if that's more money that's needed, we should describe the program, show it, put it on the policy-makers -- i do think that the good thing about mental health s.f. is that it's asking us to think boldly about the system that we want. that will -- in order not to be i think -- i think for this to fall flat at some point, we need to be honest about what the scale and costs are going to look like if we do this and actually deliver what people are going to be expecting with mental health s.f. if we can do this for $6 million, fantastic. i will be not surprised at all if deliver be that response which san franciscans deserve is a lot more than $6 million. >> may i say -- >> sure.

go for it. >> i think -- and with dr. hammer's information and speculation, i think we are being asked to in some ways speculate on things with all humility we don't know yet. i think we all are looking for a transformation and we acknowledge that we need to do that. i also think we need to be very thoughtful to apply scientific methods to transformative change. i would be -- as a provider myself, when i make assumptions and speculate what a patient needs, i am usually wrong. so i just think that part of this effort and also with all forbearanc forbearance, we will test things and some of those things are not work. to be bold, by definition, you have to be willing to take risks. the things that do not work, we will recommend that we no longer invest in and change, and the things that do work we will

scale up. i think in this process, we have done great things in the health department. the behavioral health team is an amazing group providing grate solutions. i think as we look to solutions, in some cases we have become a little bit lax in san francisco about the possibilities we think about. with dr. hammer and dr. nigusse bland, we look outside to other models to say how would this work in san francisco, take those programs, make the right investments to pilot them, potentially scale them up. i think there are some things that we know, like the case management piece that we know enough about that we do need to scale up, there's enough evidence there. on the other hand, as we transform our system, there's not a lot of value in case managing people if we don't have places and resources to case manage them to.

i think that's one of the key things that i've heard in talking to our workforce and community partners, one of the great frustrations, because you're basically trying to work with somebody and even if that person is ready. i do think we have to

>> thank you. through the chair. with all due respect, supervisor mandelman, that's what we've been doing for the past year in creating mental health s.f. we've tried to engage you the whole time. up until now you haven't been willing to really engage with us on it, but we have spent an entire year researching all our systems, talking to front-line workers, writing hundreds and

hundreds and hundreds of drafts of this law to put that vision out there. everything that we're trying to engage you in is what mental health is, it's a vision for a system that will finally meet the actual need that's there based on current scientific evidence to engage and get people to a point where they can live healthy lives. of course we don't know every detail. there's never been a piece of legislation throughout history that has been able to know every single detail with specificity, but what mental health does is take a leap and it says what we've been doing absolutely doesn't work. it's something that all of us can see every single day when we walk the streets of san

francisco. we got in a room with the front-line workers and experts in the field and we said, let's imagine and create a system that would work. let's put money aside for a minute. what do we actual need? this is what we came up with. this is what we need. it's not only been vetted by every behavioral health worker and psychiatrist in the field, it's been vetted by the department of public health and the mayor's office. this is a vision moving forward. it's not a mystery about what's going to happen. i worry slightly in this dialog that you're having with dr. colfax that you're looking for some other vision municipal the vision is mental health s.f. the policy that you have co-sponsored is that in order to fix the crisis in the streets, we are going to implement mental health s.f. we have to find the money for that and we're mutually committed to doing that, but this is how we're going to fix

it. there are devils in that detail that always we're going to have to be working out and that is what the implementation working group is. there are things thak the doctor said that we try and don't work, but the vision that if you vote for this legislation that you are voting for is saying that mental health s.f. is a way to fix the crisis on the street every single day, day in and out, and that's how we're going to make things better in san francisco. don't vote for the legislation unless you believe this is the right vision to get us there. >> i have two more substantive points i want to make about mental health s.f., and i don't -- i don't want to get into a back and forth with supervisor ronen about the history of this legislation. i will say -- and supervisors absolutely have the right to work with whomever they want to on developing their legislation. if the supervisor wants to work

with a different supervisor or others and not a third or fourth supervisor, that is completely in the right of the authors. the original version of mental health s.f. was presented to me i think a couple days before it was introduced. i think that was the time it was presented to the department of public health. i have been part of the discussions. that has been worked out between the supervisors and the department of public health. i'm grateful for the work and the consensus they have forged. i do not believe that mental health s.f. is the be all and end all of behavioral health reform services. i am happy to vote for and support this. i have two more substantive questions. i really am grateful to see in here the emphasis and the intention to address the behavioral health services needs

of folks in the criminal justice system. when we had our treatment on demand hearing a couple months ago, we saw data that was questionable about whether we've achieved treatment on demand. we're doing better there. it is completely clear to me from my engagements with behavioral health court and drug court. we are dismally failing to provide adequate treatment opportunities for people in jail or justice involved. i think that needs to be a priority, and i look forward to you continuing to work on that. my last question is about my new obsession with locked subacute beds. it was a little bit of a fight in last year's budget to expand the number of those beds by 14. some folks thought that money would be better spent in other areas. i insisted that we include those 14 beds. a few weeks bad we had a hearing

on conservatorships. that was in part based on some work that the budget and legislative analyst had done. it is, i believe, and i believe that folks at general and in p.e.s. believe that we are desperately short of locked subacute beds. that means that has implications -- and all these things are connected, and a shortage in one part of the system affects -- i know there are shortages everywhere. but this shortage means people stay in jail too long, that the whole system slows down referrals around things like conservatorship. i do believe that is happening and we would be conserving more folks on a short or long-term

basis if we had those beds. people would benefit and not be cycling as much. whether it is 100 beds more that we would need or more than that, it's a significant price tag. depending on how they're done, i think 100 beds would be in the $10 to $20 million range. i absolutely think we have to make that commitment. we have unfunded and unused beds on the third floor in the behavioral health building. we have potential partnerships with some of the private and other hospitals that might be able to provide beds. i really want to push our whole system, this board, the mayor, g.p.h. to look at further expansions in our locked subacute capacity and to do that in the 2021 budget. not specifically called out in mental health s.f., but i think

it's part of the spirit of mental health s.f. and that is one of the reasons -- and that understanding is one of the reasons i will be voting for mental health s.f. okay. thanks, everyone, for indulging me. >> thank you. now supervisor stefani. >> i would like to congratulate everyone for coming to a compromise on this very important piece of legislation. i think if you look at the history of it and how everybody came together to come up with this solution, it just reminds me what unites us on this board is much, much more than what divides us and we do have common goals here to address a very serious problem in san francisco. i have a very pragmatic and practical question. it's along the lines of the hiring challenges. supervisor ronen spoke to a staffing analysis would be done, but i think it goes beyond how

difficult it is to keep people in the positions. it's also -- i don't know exactly how many case workers we're talking about. i don't think i heard a number. i heard some math that i might have been able to do in my head, but i didn't, about how many case workers we are talking about with $22 million or how many it will take. i think we need to be mindful of that going forward, how are we looking at recruiting and moving through the department of human resources. how are we looking at possibly creating additional regs. we have to be mindful of that. i don't know if the department has looked at that. i know it is a constant strugis truing -- struggle. if we don't have the money, we're not going to be able to move forward. if anyone has an answer, i would appreciate it. >> supervisor stefani, i'll try to speak to that a little bit.

any hiring manager in the city or certainly department of public health knows it's exceedingly difficult to recruit and retain workers, given the economy here and the challenges of this work. as supervisor ronen mentioned, the workforce that we need to build, our behavioral health workforce, is challenging and gruelling work. when we talk about the 24/7 street crisis response team, i mean, that is very, very hard work as any of us who has ever spoken to or spent time doing this work. so we are working with our department of human resources. we are looking to see how we can both look at short-term and

long-term solutions. we know that we need to build a pipeline. we need to really figure out how to support training and internship experiences so that -- so the people are interested in doing this work and can get exposed to our amazing clinicians. really, i mean incredible people working on the frontlines right now. how can we create more opportunities for people to see up close the work and have a pipeline in for both psychiatrists and then licensed masters level behavioral health clinicians. we also are looking to see -- looking at lessons that we have of other large shortages. so really thinking outside the box and how we do much more efficient hiring of large classes of workers that we may need. so for the behavioral health

clinicians, i think we'll need to do this. we also have major concerns about psychiatrist recruitment and retention and so we are working with the department of human resources to see how we can remain competitive with our -- with the other health systems in the area in terms of recruiting psychiatrists and incentivizing them to do this work. also teaching opportunities. so i think there is some good possibilities, and we have some -- there's some best practices from other health systems. we're looking to those for both short-term and long-term solutions, but it's a major challenge. >> thanks. well, i have many comments, but considering the time i am going to actually call public comment right now. so i have three cards, mary kate

bucalo, c. fields, and erica frommer. and any other speakers, feel free to line up. you don't have to submit a card. okay. first speaker, please. >> i didn't take a card. david elliot louis. i was an early adviser of mental health san francisco. i also do work with the crisis intervention team for the police department. i've been a trainer for them. i'm on the advisory group. my comments are informed by that work as well. first, i fully support mental health san francisco and strongly support it. it's a bold step forward. it really helps to address a lot of our problems. i know there's some concerns expressed, but let's not let them be the enemy of the good. this is good and this is more than good. i'm so thankful for all you supervisors supporting it and

passing it forward. here is my next thinking. imagine you call 911 for a crisis on the street and instead of just hearing do you want police, fire, or medical, you hear from the dispatcher, do you want police, fire, medical, or crisis response? there is a city that has that in eugene, oregon, they use a program called cahoots. they dispatch a nurse and a trained crisis responder to incidents on the street that don't involve a crime for mental health instances and they can bring them back to the clinic for treatment. it's a great program. matt haney has been looking into it. this is not quite ready for us, but this could be for the

future. maybe mental health san francisco 2.0 might have a service like this, where we have really true mobile crisis that works with our department of emergency management dispatching so we can dispatch crisis responders out, bring them back into mental health san francisco for treatment, and kind of leave the police out of it when we don't really need the police. and the police are supportive of this -- >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm here representing the 15,000 workers of the national union of healthcare workers, thousands of which are mental health care providers at non-profits across the state. on behalf of those caregivers, i'm here to speak in support of mental health s.f. i want to thank the supervisors and the members of the budget committee who have come forward to support mental health s.f. for far too long, despite numerous expenditures on the

part of the city and county to address these issues, the vast majority of us still can't get access to timely care. the simple truth is you can't get care when you need it in san francisco. by creating a comprehensive system that paves a clear pathway for service expansion and helps ensure access for patients. i just want to thank you once again for the support you provided thus far and also urge the members of the budget committee to continue to support the program moving forward. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> on behalf of the san francisco labor council, we're thrilled that we're at this point in the process. a year ago i never thought we'd get here. i want to thank supervisor ronen for her vision, her flexibility,

her determination, and seeing that there was a need for change and being bold enough to take on the system. thank you. i've been dealing with the mental health system in san francisco for many, many years. i got to say, this is much-needed change. every detail is not accounted for in the legislation. it wasn't meant to be. it was meant to be a flexible system that will change with the needs of its clients. this is a user, end-minded legislation, aimed at what the users need and not necessarily what anybody else thinks. not what the supervisors think, not what various doctors may think. it's based upon what users are going to eventually mandate and

need and how we can accommodate them. and thus, there is a flexibility in the legislation and that is one of the more brilliant parts of the legislation. i want to thank supervisor haney, though he's not here, thank you for his hard work. i think it's really important that we move forward in a way that we remain flexible. you know, we know what is needed and right now money is at a critical point. just within this last month, we're losing additional boarding care beds. one in supervisor ronen's district. i think there's one in -- i don't know what other district, sandy's district. we need money for those things now. we need to -- >> my name is mary kate bucalo.

i want to start by saying that investing partially in a solution that fails is not a solution. we need to think bigger and we need to dream bolder. we're only talking where we're talking in -- we're talking mostly still about that population of about 4,000 people that's homeless with mental health and substance use issues, but i think we need to think bigger of the population we're targeting here. studies show that toddlers have mental health issues over their family being homeless. there's more than 420 families on the community queue for housing and there's 900 families housed by 15 non-profits over several sites in san francisco. we need to think about those people too because we're raising the next generation of people

who are at risk of being in that 4,000. i think on the staff sustainability issue, we need to make sure that these positions are funded in a robust way. i will also add that there is a pipeline of job seekers with lived experience at organizations such as compass. i would urge the supervisors to fund this robustly, think holistically about all the people that are impacted by this crisis, and make sure that staff are funded sustainably. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is steve fields. i had a bland support mental health s.f. statement that fits your time frame. i've been taking notes. you get engaged in this level of discussion, and i want to jump in. i'm going to list some things that i don't think very listed adequately.

not just going into settings where we can keep spinning people through the system, but treatment. we haven't used that word enough in this discussion. we have a model in san francisco and i do an enormous amount of state-wide work that is not replicated that would like to have the continuum of care and array of services. in my 50 years of working in this county, we haven't coordinated our care and we have wasted the effort of too many services. too many clients go down a linear line and almost fall off the edge and then there's nothing for them. there is going to need to be a proper continuum of care, that

doesn't drop people into s.r.o. hotel rooms, that doesn't do cycles through temporary housing, but actually provides enough treatment for people. progress foundation serves 4,000 people a year. they all come in through the emergency service system. those 4,000 are getting treatment and they're not a different d.n.a. than the people on the street, they're's just n enough services for them. the need for more beds that are locked and the need for more case management is all -- >> thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> i want to first say that we whole-heartedly support mental health s.f and appreciate this bold

>> we look forward to the ideas and solutions that the implementation committee comes up with. >> i work at the coalition on homelessness. on behalf of the coalition on homelessness, we want to thank the supervisors for all of your work putting forward this legislation. we're excited and hopeful about what it's going to be bringing. again, want to emphasize what steve feels that the most important part of this piece of legislation is really expanding the services. it's something that we see on a

daily basis. the other thing i just want to talk about is we know it's going to take time and it's not going to happen until it's actually funded. once it's funded, it will take more years to build up the system and the capacity. that's really just the reality of it. i hear so often people calling me and saying there is someone who is unhoused and has a mental health condition and in crisis and they don't want to call the police on them because they know that will be harmful to whatever they're experiencing. we at the coalition on homelessness don't have a good answer for them. i ask that in the interim that all of these systems are being built and we're thinking thoughtfully about these things, that we consider the real

traumatic experiences that unhoused people are facing. we do not criminalize people simply for being poor and simply for being homeless. i was at an encampment that was swept yesterday at 6:00 a.m. a lot of these folks had a dual diagnosis. cops were there, h.o.t. team wasn't there. in the interim, please let's not criminalize people and just let them survive and exist. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> are you proposing to create an auxiliary system to treat mental illness? how do you intend to structure and monitor it? what kinds of controls will exist to safeguard patients, to monitor prescriptions, program

costs, potential abuse, potential fraud, as well as individual health outcomes and progress? also, do you propose or intend to provide clients with illicit substances, marijuana or anything else. will some form of mental health counselling be mandatory. will there be a cutoff date on treatment, or will clients be able to obtain the substitute substances such as methadone for years on end. can you redirect a portion of the existing funds as opposed to seeking additional funds. i'm actually seeing a lot more homeless people on the streets all the time. mayor breed's program where she has this large -- i mean every country has homeless people.

norway has about 7,000 homeless people. they have a population the size of the san francisco bay area, about 6 million people, and they've got huge amounts of money and resources. it's a difficult problem. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is c.w. johnson. i want to say congratulations to you working together and making mental health s.f. a reality. i want to say what is obvious, you probably know this, but we have a lot of people at m.h.a., they are students, very intelligent, highly skilled workers that are going to school to be therapists and psychiatrists. what i'm saying is we have a lot

of professionals in flight. what i would like to see throughout this whole system is for this to be given to case workers and therapists with previous experience. without the people that are affected by mental health, then it's going to be challenging or to even have a view of how it should work without peers. peers need to be in every aspect, especially peer professionals. >> thank you very much. any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> just a short comment to close. this thought was sparked by sam liu. i want to make clear that while mental health s.f. -- the major

components of it won't be implemented until we identify and collect the $100 million annual revenue that we need to implement it at least, the planning of mental health s.f will begin immediately upon the creation of the implementation working group. so the idea -- we had always planned that we passed the vision and the policy first because there's so much planning and studying that needs to happen and work to put systems in place. just putting the behavioral health access center into the mental health center is a project on its own that requires real estate and moving people and admin offices and finding people a new home. there's a ton of work that's already started. it's happening right now. it's related to dr. bland and dr. hammer's work. so i want to make sure that

people know that this is truly exciting. it's not like we're passing this and nothing happens until we find the money. these are simultaneous endeavors. they both need to be successful in order to implement this full vision, but the work starts -- has already started and will start in earnest once the implementation group is in panel. i want to make that clear and thank all of my colleagues for the robust hearing and time. >> thank you very much. we heard from the b.l.a. we had public comment. i just want to say thank you to everyone for participating today. i think we did have a robust conversation, but i want us to be mindful that while this call takes time that there's human suffering happening on our streets every single day still. let's not lose sight of that. we can have a vision and work towards that vision, but

concretely every single day and at this moment there is human suffering on our streets of thousands of people. i also wanted to say that in speaking to police officers also, their level of frustration is they also don't have, according to which the speaker said, is that they don't actually have solutions either. so they're called out to homeless encampments or unhoused folks and people having behavioral mental breakdowns, but yet they don't have the tools, they're frustrated. this is not actually something that they actually signed up for in this profession to protect and serve. and i also wanted to say mr. field's comment about recovery, we would add in a component of employment. every time i hear about recovery and housing, i never hear about employment. so i think that we should stop talking in silos about this.

if we're talking about a continuum of recovery, of stability, then we also fold people back into the communities in a productive way. so we must, must think -- not only just about housing because so often we fall short. we say if we can house somebody, we feel it is done. it is not about that. it is about embracing them back into the community and what are we doing about employment. today i heard nothing about that. so i just want to make sure that that's on our radar, that we're not falling short and not delivering a full delivery of care, continual care and success. i don't think we can do it without also the employment piece. so having said that, i would like to make a recommendation to move this to the board with a positive recommendation as the committee -- >> oh. >> thank you very much. and then move this committee

report to the full board as amended. thank you very much, colleagues. [ applause ]. >> ms. clerk, do we have any other business before us today? >> confirmed this matter has been amended and it will be referred with recommendation as a committee report. >> absolutely. any more business? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> we are adjourned. thank you very muc 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 ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

. >> we call this meeting to order. and i apologize for my voice. please call the roll. >> good afternoon.