recommendation made was the city should formalize a system to gather information on the characteristics of golden gate park dwellers and why they live in the park. this system, we've been using since july of 2005 that's evolved and gotten better since. it's called a coordinated care management system and we use it to record demographics and use it to record where we find people, locations and then it actually serves as our case management record and it has pretty comprehensive information and in addition to this it gets inputs from the hospital, public health hospitals, the jail house system, the shelter system and ems transports. it's a comprehensivi system to figure out where our folks maybe and how we are taking care of them. that recommendation was completed already. recommendation two was information about golden gate

park dwellers should be used to tailor support services to specific populations whose age and circumstances affect their needs for services. we agree about the importance of this and cms social security -- we use for this. in the last two or three years we've had mostly an outreach approach to the park because when we were in the park daily for about three 1/2 years, we had four case managers dedicated to the effort. at that point the census of the park, much of it entirely due to our effort went down to 20 percent while we were there initially. that was considered a reasonable success and then we were dealing with this on a case by case bases. that's how it's been for the last two 1/2 years and now we hear the census has crept up and that's why we are planning

a more robust management and develop an outreach. we are higher -- hiring new people and we agree entirely with the importance of that. recommendation 3 is a city should establish the system to track it's park dwellers and use the information to help these park dwellers. this information we did not make it specific to golden gate park because we have a general database already. we wanted to do this as part of our overall as opposed to something specific to golden gate park. you will find these people also go to other parks in the city. that's why it was better to use

the citywide data approach rather than specific to golden gate park. that's how we intend to satisfy that recommendation. recommendation no. 4, using a subteam should conduct pro active outreach daytime and nighttime in order to maximize their efforts. we have our engagement team engaged in the park. however in our opinion having a dedicated case manager who can help people to go from street to home, to leave the streets permanently into housing is a better approach. this is why we asked for an expansion in our number of case managers and that was approved over the last budget and we are implementing that now and we are anticipating having that person in place the in mid november. in fact we are going to be two case managers work

halftime to team up and we continue to meet with parks and recreation and the police department to exchange information and with confidentiality to meet with them on weekly basis to do this operation with respect to people that are living there and other uses of the park. that is something that we will be enhancing. we've already been doing but will be enhancing in mid-november. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning supervisors, i will bill raleigh with the police department. during the civil grand jury's recommendation, the police department was asked to look at two items. dr. roj addressed

one of the items with regard to the city should establish a tracking system to its outreach efforts and use that information to reduce the park dwellers. we have used information with the coordinated case management system. the police would also use their own tracking system so we know the exact names of the individuals that we have given outreach to to see if we can follow up with the department of public health to see that we are on the same page and tracking the right people and getting the right services for these people. that is one of the first recommendations that the city wanted with regards to the homeless outreach. the other was the san francisco police department park patrol should expand their outreach to more areas of the park and should

vary their times. at this moment we do outreach at 4:00 in the morning with park rangers and officers from richmond station and park station because they control golden gate park. we do have outreach at 4:00 in the morning with both park rangers to go out. in the past we have included the est which is now the hot team and we have gone out with them in the past and done outreach. the officers also do outreach during the 4:00 meetings and give them flyers for the different services that are offered. project homeless connect. with that comes up we give them information when that comes up. we don't believe that we should vary the time at 4:00. we don't think we should go any sooner. the park could be very dangerous at night when it's dark. there is lots of holes and the way the park is set up with the way the trees are and the bushes, it would be a

safety issue for not only the officers and there is outreach people there and there is park dwellers that come upon us in the dark in the middle of night and we don't know what kind of reaction they would have towards us. we do think we can do more outreach in the early evening hours before it got dark but that would be before the dwellers are setting up their campment. at this time i would like to introduce mr. wong who is going to be taking over. >> you mentioned it wouldn't be a good idea to go to the park in the middle of night to do

outreach because of the lack of daylight. there is a current legislation on the table proposing closing park for hours. i'm wonders ing if this is a recommendation for outreach for that time period what's the point of closure legislation if there won't be any enforcement during that time period? >> there would be enforcement before that time period expires in the morning. at 4:00 you are still considered sleeping in the park during the violation of the hours. >> but between midnight and 4:00 a.m., what would happen during that time? >> it depends upon staffing and equipment. most of the officers that work at park and richmond station do know the exact areas where most of the people are in

camps. most of the park being so diverse, there are areas of the park because of it's size and time limit, the officers don't have the time to go out there and do it. >> if the legislation passed and there were park hours, what difference would that make for the officers who actually are responsible for patrolling the area? >> if there are complaints and there are people sleeping during those hours and it's safe enough to do those, the department would enforce those as the law. >> how would you enforce it if you are not able to enforce it now? >> we are able to enforce it now because the park is closed after a certain amount of hours after 10:00 at night. >> but you are not necessarily enforcing it until 4:00 a.m.. >> it's a safety issue and lighting issue. >> what i'm trying to understand here because i know

for example with alvin and captain corrals, they are issued citations during park closure time period and i know there is park closure legislation on the table. what i'm trying to understand with this report and what's on the table in terms of proposed legislation, how would it make a difference if there is no ability to enforce it during that critical time period? >> well, if there is no ability to enforce it during those critical time period we can still do outreach and find out those areas of where there were people living and getting them set up with the department of public health. >> but you won't do that because there is daylight safety concerns? >> correct. safety concerns and

also staffing levels. >> thank you. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you very much, lieutenant and my questions were along the same lines of what supervisor breed was saying. i appreciate the work that our police department does and i know one of the challenges perhaps the biggest challenge is the issue of staffing. so, before we start talking about the need for new laws along the lines of the one that has been presented, i do want to know what we are doing to enforce the existing laws. so in terms of enforcement in the park, vandalism is already prohibited, there are a number of things that are prohibited. what kind of enforcement happens at golden gate park right now by the police department. you made it sound

like during certain hours there is no police presence. >> there is police presence and the enforcement when the officers see the violation. there was an issue with the vandalism out at one of the meadows and captain corrales put the team out there in the early hours to address those. the captain and the deputy chief behind me will, if there is issues at the park, we will have those resources to address those issues. >> right now if there is vandalism happening at the park right now, do you feel that you and have the tools to deal with that vandalism? >> we'll work that out with the parks and recreation resources and department of public health resource if it's homeless

people doing those vandalisms. >> if you have the tool then why are we talking about adding another law? so, thank you. >> your welcome. >> thank you very much. supervisor? >> good morning supervisor, danny karn, director of parks and recreation. the police department has already addressed this and i will be speaking to recommendation 6 and 7. recommendation 6 concerns park hours and signage and there is currently a patch work of commission resolution establishing a range of park hours within the park system and leaving other parks with no hours at all. further parks are

difficult to enforce. they are not codified by codes and the enforcement hinges on parks and being able to obey both sides. this establishes hours for other parks. this proposed legislation has been heard and land use committee and is scheduled to be heard by the full board on october 29th. the abandoned shopping carts are considered abandoned property. >> does that already exist? >> we remove the abandoned

shopping carts as we encounter them currently. >> supervisor breed? >> yes, you mentioned that it's difficult to enforce the current park hours but i have here before me this past week citation list issued by captain corrales, the park station. for example october 17th, there was a citation issued when the park was closed. there was another citation at 3:40 no camping. the citation for park hours are actually being issued specifically for buena vista park and lake. i know this is not necessarily about park closure, but i truly believe based on the outreach efforts that i know park station is

aggressively doing within the park and i'm trying to understand where parks and recreation is where in their support around patrols and changing the hours and how we can deal with the system over all because of the many challenges we face. >> thank you for that question. the police and our park rangers do cite if they say the commission has established a resolution, a closure and signed out there. the citation is there for failure to obey a sign. if challenged, that would be a very difficult challenge to overcome because it could be overly broad. i can post a sign that says dennis kerns is not allowed there. >> do you have anything from

prosecution because to my understanding there is no real for camping enclosure and all of these infractions, there is no real prosecution. we are just adding an additional layer in terms of hours of closure time, but is there going to be any linked accountability or enforcement or anything different than what we have already in the books in terms of no camping and no sleeping? >> no camping and no sleeping is already enforced an we do already issue citations against those and we could not comment on the prosecution part. that would not be our department but we do issue citations. why the park hours ordinance, i bring it up because it's in the

legislation report. but the legislation has to do around park vandalism. >> yes. i get that but i don't see what difference it will make. because right now, clearly, there are rules on the table that exist, but there is no accountability, no enforcement as it relates to prosecutions or anything of that nature. people aren't paying fines. it's just what, i'm trying to, here is the thing, i'm not trying to criminalize people, but at the same time i'm trying to understand some of the policies by parks and recreation and whether or not they are going to have a real effect in helping with vandalism and challenges especially if there is not additional support around enforcement to help with that and dealing with it over

all. >> as far as that will be presented on the 29th. as i said before, we do aggressively issue citations against park codes, but i cannot comment on the prosecution. once that citation is issued, that leaves our jurisdiction at that point. >> thank you. supervisor campos? >> thank you very much. this you for being here. just a couple of questions in recommendation six in response to that you referenced the legislation that is currently pending before and you say that it will enable the department to move quickly to post standardized signage. can you tell me what the change will be if this legislation passes in terms of parks and recreation since the park will be closed

at golden gate, the park will be closed. what's going to happen to the 50-200 people that are sleeping there? >> it's already illegal to do sleeping in the park. it's already in legal to be camping in the park. with the hours ordinance should it pass, we have an additional layer that you simply cannot be in the park at that time. so, our park patrol unit, we have 18 park patrol officers available for enforcement although that is on three round the clock shifts. so at any given time there is 3 officers available citywide but they are on patrol around-the-clock and they will be out patrolling for the enforcement of all of those ordinance sections. >> so you will enforce the ordinance when it says that the park is closed, you will

enforce it to make sure no one is there. >> our park patrol are around the park to patrol to the degree that we have resources to do that currently and that will continue. >> okay. presumably if you enforce it that means you are going to remove the 50-200 people that are there? >> if the ordinance passes and we are on patrol between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m., and we encounter the homeless, this will be enforced. >> my understanding is that this is on vandalism and you are telling me you will remove people whether they are vandalizing or not. so that seems to be different. >> the purpose of the ordinance that we are supporting is because of the higher rates of

vandalism we are experiencing and evidence shows this occurs overwhelmingly through the hours of darkness. if the ordinance would be enacted, it would be our responsibility to enforce it. >> okay. so if you are sleeping in the park, if you are one of the 50-200 people that are there whether you are vandalizing or not, you will be removing from the park? >> if encountered, yes. >> okay. i think it's good because i think it's really important to clarify that because i think there has been a lack of clarity because people are saying it's not that we are trying to kick people out of the park and we are just focusing on vandalism. but now we have a very clear understanding that you will enforce it and remove people from the park. second question that i have is you had the lieutenant talking about vandalism, i specifically asked him if the police department

had all the tools they needed to deal with vandalism, they said they did. so, do you disagree with that statement? >> i really can't comment on the police department's i refer to them to assess their own resources. for the parks and recreation department we have 18 patrol officers for modeling good park use and enforcing against bad modeling. and we work with the police department in that effort, but i would not comment on the police department's position. >> so you wouldn't challenge that statement today? >> i don't think that's my purview, no. >> okay. thank you.

>> thank you for your presentation. okay. well, let's go back to the civil grand jury for closing remarks. good morning, thank you. >> good morning, my name is suzanne tucker. i also served on the commission on the golden gate issue with homeless. one it is already illegal to sleep in the park. second, we heard from multiple people that no good things happen in the park at night. i think what the park department is asking for in that particular legislation is something that is more clear as it relates to the hours when it is not legal to be in the park. there is another very very important issue that seems to have gotten missed and that is in general, there are two types of homeless in the park. there

are what we will generally call older homeless who believe it's their right to live in the park. these are the moren entrenched, they know the park, they live in the park. i'm not going to say it a good way to live. i'm not going to comment on that that is one. there is another population that duffy is much more hopeful to do something about and that is younger, more transient population. they tend to hang out on the east of the park. they often arrive and plan to be there a short time and they can't move on. they get involved in drugs or whatever. we would like the process to focus on that younger more transient group where there is the possibility of intervention

and protection from a life living in the park. thank you very much. >> thank you, i have a question, could you come back? you weren't here, i don't think you were here in the earlier presentation which was very brief. >> i was. >> i was wondering if you could prioritize the recommendation? >> i don't know that we do believe that the better data that we have about this population, the better able that the various resources will be. we do believe the shopping carts are a problem because they make it easier for the homeless to live in the park. and we support, obviously as hilary said, an awful lot is already being done. the reason i brought up that last point is that i felt that we had kind of

missed that there is this group. when the population expands beyond what we'll call the hard core that live in the park, then that's the group where an intervention is much more likely to have an effect. the other thing that we heard is that the homeless people in many ways they know the park better than anybody. one of the difficulties that the outreach has is the homeless can move around and they kind of know where the campments are because they know the park. >> they there because they spend more time there. >> we are recommending these teams spend more time in the park. >> my other question is, we are talking about banning carts and we ban the carts and the homeless population goes to strollers. you see strollers.

are we going to ban strollers. that is vandalizing. >> i would say it's a start. it's pretty much 99 percent probability that that shopping cart is not theirs that they were taken from an establishment. >> let's say it's a baby stroller. people donate baby strollers when they are done. >> there is also wheel barrels and they make-up wooden carts. >> i think what i'm asking is maybe the policy needs to focus lesson necessarily carts but maybe a multipurpose vehicle used. i don't know how to describe it. >> we talked a lot about that

but we couldn't figure it out. maybe talking to the city attorneys office to couch the language that would legally describe a conveyance that a homeless person carries their belongings in. >> you talk about a conveyance, there is a four and three wheel conveyance. maybe supervisor deputy -- duffy can answer that. there is a combination between four and three wheels. but my point is that it still seems as if this is a little bit specific in targeting as it relates to this one proposal targeting these conveyances that are for the most part used by the homeless population. >> so it's a start because there is a safe way that is

near the west end of the park where the shopping carts can be stolen from. >> right. other stores have implemented some magnetic field when a car is taken, it no longer works and some have long poles which make it impossible for them to leave the stores. the chains are doing what they can to address that. i appreciate your work on this. >> yes. it's a start. >> supervisor campos has a question. >> thank you madam chair. i have a couple questions. so we heard from parks and recreation that if they see someone in the park during the hours that it's supposed to be closed under this legislation that they will be taken out of the park. so