their children are in school when they're ages zero to 5, then being undocumented and applying for cal works. this is not a solution to lowering the wait list or a solution at all, it's more of a cover up of what the real issues are and just covering the problem, not looking at the problem or solving an issue. so instead

of covering the problem there's more of an issue of solving it and one way to resolve it is providing more housing, coming up with different ideas, making sure the families can gain access to all the resources and especially giving 'em a chance to be on a wait list for shelter. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> she says that my name is

kenya and i'm here because this is really concerning to me that they're wanting people to apply for cal works. many of these families with little children will be worried more about deportation and the negative impacts on whether or not they'd ever be able to apply to be citizens. she also says she feels that this is against the sanctuary here in san francisco in those policies.

she says how is this possible that an agency -- how can i possibly confide in an agency that's going to be using my information to give to the housing authority or use it for other things that i haven't given permission for? i'm a volunteer at the coalition on homelessness and i know a lot of families and sing people living in hotels right now and they're all on the list waiting for shelter and this new proposal will leave everyone basically blocked or outside.

she said i have a child with disabilities and because we were undocumented we couldn't receive those services. now that i am documented i can receive those services. thank you. >> my name was called and i'm representing [inaudible] families. a lot of us are from families how can they get into an sro because they see that as another affordable way of living. although i don't think a lot of parents want to put their children in a position to that affects their children's health because a lot of sro's that are available and affordable, that's what it

does. it effects their health. there's a lot of issues so these are last options, shelter or hotel. i think it is important unlike what was mentioned earlier is san francisco does provide a safety net from homeless families. i don't think we should exclude anybody. i don't believe that people are deliberately taking advantage of the system. i think it's that there's pieces over this that are broken that we need to look at instead of making it more difficult and putting barriers in front of families. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> [inaudible]. >> if you can speak into the mic please. >> i'm representing the

coalition of homelessness [inaudible] classes on computer science. one of the disagreements [inaudible] one of the problem [inaudible] specifically was [inaudible] paper 'cause i was careless in keeping [inaudible] including where my daughter was born and we was never provided with the birth certificate. we was on the waiting list. i been in san francisco all my life. this year we have to provide a proof of document /taugs if i have to [inaudible] couldn't provide it. i have to run

between the [inaudible] go back to the city haul in oakland, berkley. i wasn't able not to provide those documents. i have to go back again to [inaudible] proposed changes in the [inaudible] will create hardship for the family because those proposed changes is not just simple and easy to obtain for the family to get on the waiting /h*eus. i have a lot of friends who are on [inaudible] and willing to come forward and to speak up about applying for [inaudible] immigration status and i think [inaudible]. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i'm

jenny collins, program director at the hospitality house. thank you for having us here today. i appreciate the questions and it sounds to me like we need more conversation and more data so we're not quite ready to move forward with implementing the proposed change. on the cal works point -- i came out today as a matter of principal at hospitality house we have a single adult shelter and a residency requirement is not something we want to have in between people coming in the door to the shelter. i think we're lucky we don't have more families on the street, but for anybody that lacks stable

housing that's still significant. in dph we have this principal that any door is the right door. i am a san francisco family residents taxpayer and i feel like i would hope that my taxpayer dollars are going to a system that welcomes anybody who wants to stay in a shelter in san francisco regardless of where they're coming from. also i feel like [inaudible] for twitter. they don't require -- documentation issue -- we're waiting for somebody's berth certificate in detroit that we applied for in january. it's important for us to address the supply. we need more resources for people, not de/kroes decrease the number of people

seeking those resources. >> like most of the folks here really feel like this new policy is not the direction we want to be taking and i believe it's unnecessary and is meant to target negatively impact some of the most at risk family members. my concern is what i heard in terms about how this policy decision is moving forward. i heard him say we can't be 100 percent on policymaking when we're talking about human behavior. i don't think that making policy based on assumptions is the way to make sound policy decisions. i am really hopeful that we will be able to have a more robust

process that engages true data, things that make us much more assured about what we're doing and that we're not just going off how man assumption or perception based on human behaviors. i feel that is dangerous. i'm /thra*pbg for you for asking hard question, ensuring a /soupd policy process around this and i'm hopeful that we can continue to pry or prioritize that as we move forward. >> my name is phil, i'm a volunteer, i work with the homeless. my job is to help find permanent housing. i want to thank supervisor kim for asking the question, what is

the problem? the director said we have limited resources and we need to have these stringent requirements to protect our rich resources. i'm not sure of that and i'm not sure if the director can determine what the problem is. after asking his staff what was the process, the answer was the staff made the decision, is declaring it and is now asking questions. doesn't seem the appropriate process for an agency who has within its name the word service. i would suggest and hope that you folks would bring to a question how these policies are determined. clearly the voices of those who work in the monitoring

committee, the homeless board and the commission itself have not been able to really weigh in on this except for this, and i thank you for it and hope that those folks can weigh in on answering the question, what is the problem? 'cause i feel like the problem will be different once that information is out there. using a shotgun approach to residency, shotgun to kill a nigh, cal works to prove residency seems [inaudible] and i think there's ways to prove residency. >> i work for coalition of homelessness. my first first concern is for people that work, they base on cash, how they prove their income. the

second one is sometime we got be displaced and they need to live with family in other county. and when they come back they sometimes leave on the cars, streets, bus. how they prove they are leaving san francisco, how they prove they [inaudible]. >> that's my concern. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good morning suturer visors, i'm so honored to be the executive director of the dv [inaudible] and the good folks at hsa are very well meaning. i think they're trying to do their best with a problem that

will take a lot more work than this. the unintended consequences of this policy i think are huge. dv is the second leading cause among women and children. family violence is [inaudible] both of those populations come to san francisco because they can feel safe here. we did not wan them to get the message that they have to stay in violent situations and not escape so we're concerned about this. i was happy to hear trent mention dv as a possible exception, but i think it speaks to the process that none of us knew that so more needs to be done. the immigration issue -- people are just scared to put their names on any kind of database. again, san francisco is very well meaning. i don't think we think we are turning names over

to ice and people are being deported, but the reality is ice does find people that live in san francisco that are undocumented, they do consider being in this country without documentation a crime and they are being deported. it is an unintended consequence. i think with that our main concern is how would families know that this is going to be safe for them? i loved the point that one case manage /-r made about how concerned we are that families may stay in violent relationships because they're afraid they might never be able to come back to san francisco. we need to to more. >> my name's juliet, i work at the coalition of homelessness.

i've been through services through compass, been in a shelter with my daughter and i've heard most things brought up already. i don't wanna be repetitive, but i don't agree with the new requirements. already when i went through the system with my newborn daughter as a single mother, it was already did i have cull to get all the document together. adding more requirements would seem even more impossible than at the time it already seemed being a single mother with a newborn baby. i also wanted to bring up something that was brought up earlier about families -- a lot of the familyings being on the list and being in housing or having a shelter or roof over their head because they're staying with a friend or sro. that's

sub standard housing. if you don't have your own space to call home, that is homeless. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. my name [inaudible] so my big concerns about this issue-i oppose number one because they don't have community process [inaudible] and decide what direction we're gonna take. second thing, i am really worried because many families

suffer the consequence for applying different places and the schools -- they already have that information so with why we need to [inaudible] difficult to the family. why? we don't need. what we need is working to find permanent solutions to this issues, housing is the first necessity. the other thing i'm seeing right here how [inaudible] lgbt, like, they live on the families on the parents and they can be [inaudible] so please, i would like to ask you to stop this process and [inaudible] suffer this consequence, not only the parent, but the children and we have to think about the children and the children are the future of san francisco. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker

please. >> my name's colleen. we see a lot of homeless families in our predining room as well as in our free closing program and we're concerned. we think that -- i've been told to mention that our catholic social teaching actually instructs us first to take a look at how policies effect poor people, homeless people and the most venerable and that should be the most -- that haven't been addresseded and the process that we went through related to

the single adult shelter system where we pinned a consensus, the whole community worked out issues of how to improve the shelter systems for adult. it took a while but we came up with something that could work and wouldn't have unintended consequences. it's a model for how we should be doing this. i'd like to bring up a couple things about /kal works. in order to apply for cal works they must be fingerprinted and photo imaged so that's a huge factor of fear. the second thing is that folks who are /tkobgsmented but are concerned

about being seen [inaudible] you can be seen as a public charge. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> calvin [inaudible] and founding member of the council community housing organizations. i'm speaking for myself opposed to this profoundly petty policy. it is misdirected. the problem that we face is a problem of exits to homelessness. that is the problem of prodousing sufficient number of affordable units in san francisco. we can address this by building new

housing opportunities. in addition, all of us have a collective responsibility for the systematic failure of the public housing in san francisco. the three of you stood up two weeks ago and directed monies to go into public housing, which is a realistic way of addressing what is at heart problem in this issue that this petty issue fails to address. taken together that is the san francisco model. that is the san francisco approach. we don't deal by imposing additional barriers to people who need housing. we figure

out ways to produce housing for profoundly needy folk, no more of which are families with children in san francisco. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public who has not spoken who would like to? if so, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. super size supervisor yee. >> thank you for bringing the hearing to us and thank you for being here and addressing our concerns and questions. i want to thank the public for being here and i think for the last speaker knows what the problem is and that there's not enough

affordable housing in this city and throughout the /tpaeugs. nation. that's the basic problem here. in regards to this policy change that i'm really concerned about making it mandatory for people to apply for cal works. there's people that fear that system because of the consequences of maybe being deported. there's people that want to be a good citizen and maybe don't want to get into that system. so there's many reasons and i truly believe that the better way to do this is to educate people with the benefits and to trust these people to make the

decisions that's right for them rather than making it mandatory. we just need to bring a little more resours to get counseling on this and for those that do fear ice, we need to convince them that this is not a system we will be reporting them, but when i was on the school board this issue came up even with our public schools and it took a little education, convincing to have people trust that the system -- whatever system it is -- are not here to be against them, but be -- we're here to serve them. so that's a major concern for me. i hope we'll reconsider that.

>> thank you supervisor yee. supervisor kim. >> thank you. my comments won't be too surprising, but i think what i have really learned is what is the problem we're solving for and that's clearly that we have too many families on our emergency waiting list and few units available for all the families that need it. that is we're trying to solve for. so what are the ways to solve for it? one is we get less families on the waiting list by having more requirements. the other one that's also seeming to be very obvious is that we need to create or build more units that are on this pipeline so we can address these families on the list -- 152 on the list today. what i find most problematic --

it seems there is an assumption behind this that there are families that don't deserve to be on this list. maybe they're not low income or they're not san francisco residents. i want to challenge those assumptions, but let's say we agree with those. we found out that only four families didn't have any ties to san francisco. we don't know why. we can't figure out why those four families didn't have ties. out of all the families that we have that may or may not be low incomeing we only know of one

story that wasn't below the income minimum. we know it's already difficult in the current process without making any changes. we've heard from our non profit providers how /kphal /hrepbging it is to provide all of this documentation. i think that's one issue. the second issue is is this the right way to go as

a policymaker and i brought again the example of seqa and i think we talk a lot about the minority of folks that abuse existing systems and we try to create policies that addresses all minorities but then we penalize people that are not abusing the policy. as of today i don't support this policy change. i real ly hope we can re-examine this. i think hearing from what we did today -- i also agree with supervisor campos that we should get some clarification are the city attorney on