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 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 our current sanctuary policy and how this new policy would interface with that. the last statement that i'll make is no one deserves to be homeless. i think everyone in this room agrees with that. i think i can say i don't think we should be making things harder for this group. this is the group we need to flush out for the precious few affordable housing units that we have available. i appreciate the passion that hsa has to get

into emergency housing units. we need to dedicate more resources to get more units, more rental subsidies to get our families housed. that's the answer to this problem and it's not this new policy. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'd like to begin by thanking director ro r and his staff and i do appreciate the impetus behind these changes and we see an agency that's trying to maximize the use of its limited

resources. i appreciate the the fact -- may be missing out on. i appreciate all of that. i do have concerns and one of the concerns i have is about the process. i want to thank all of the community members, advocates that have come to share their thoughts and stories. it's not an easy thing to come into this intimidating building to talk about those things. i do worry about the process because i do think that these kind of changes are significant enough that you want to get feedback from the people that are going to be impacted directly before you move to make those changes. i am concerned that there wasn't as much involve /-pl by the shelter monitoring committee and the local coordinating board and the

commission of this /aeu/seu itself so i worry about that. i know there's a proposal to begin implementation of this august 1. i believe that we still have a long ways to go in terms of understanding all of the data and the information that is relevant to this position and i would hope that before there is implementation that there will be an effort, a process to get more information so we really understand what it is -- what the problem is that we're trying to address. i think it would be important to make sure the folks who are on the ground working with these families -- that they have some say over what these changes look like, if any changes should be made. we heard from a lot of people who are working

with homeless families. we've heard from beverly that be there maybe con consequences and i think this is too important to move forward on without knowing what those consequences would be. you have to understand the context in which this is happening. we as a city, are facing, i think a real question about who gets to live in this city. there are many people who are doing extremely well in san francisco and there is economic development throughout the city and we're grateful for that, but there's a lot of displacement. there are a lot of people being pushed out of san francisco, especially

families and it is disturbing that we have the lowest number of kids living in this city than in any other urban district in this country, lower, by the way, than new york city. so when we do look at the context in which this is happening, i also think that as well intention that these policies are that we should be making it easier for people to find housing, we should be making it easier for people to stay in san francisco and we should be make it easier for people who have no connection to san francisco or want to come to san francisco because they're gay or whatever else, they should be able to do that. we live in the city of saint francis who gave his life to helping the poor and i think

that's the city we need to remain. i hope that there is a process going forward this this item is revisited before the item is implemented, the new rules are implemented august 1. i would ask my colleagues that we can't to item to the call of the chair so that if there is a decision to move forward as currently proposed that we have the ability to come back. i'll be hun honest, i think that if this moves forward as it is, and even though i respect why it's being done, i certainly would be interested considering a legislative solution to this

problem. i would hate to inject legislation on this issue but if we need to we must be prepared to do that. so before we take any action on this item i wanted to just give the /tk-p -- department -- if they wan to say anything else, give the opportunity to say anything else. thank you for multitasking today. >> i want to say i appreciate supervisors for calling the hearing and having more dialogue in this and good input from you all as well as from the community. we'll continue to work with our partners and providers on this. it's not the intent of the department to create barriers to housing and shelter for families. it's

simply an attempt to try to responsibly deal with a limited resource for the most needy and for those are here and want to live here, so with that goal in mind we'll continue to work with our par /tphers on this. >> i find you to be very responsive and i appreciate that. so in terms of going forward, the pro pose proposal is to begin august 1. is that still the plan? >> next step is to work on the issues that arose today and last week and see if they can be addressed and write solved in a responsible way by august 1. if not, it's not etched in stone, just a date we're working towards. thank

>> thank you very much if we can have a motion to continue to the call of the chair. so moved without objection i want to thank everyone for coming out for their comments and mr. clerk, is there any business before the committee. >> that concludes today's agenda. >> thank you, meeting adjourned.