and board members. the chamber and committee room are closed. this is pursuant to local, state and federal orders and directives. committee members will attend through video conference. public comment is available for each item on cable channel 26 and sfgovtv streaming the call in number across the street at this time. the opportunity to speak and provide comments during the public comment period will be available by calling 415-655-0001. following that you will be prompted to enter the meeting id which is (187)490-6868. followed by pound twice to be connected to the meeting. when connected you will hear the discussions but your line will be in his senning mode only. dial star to be added to the speaker line. wait until unmuted to begin comments. call from quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television, radio or streaming device. there are time delays between live coverage and streaming. you may submit public comments by e-mailing me. john carroll at sfgovtv. org. if you submit by e-mail it will be in the file as part of the matter you comment upon. your written comments may be sent to our office in city hall. clerks office, room 244, 1 carlington bgoodlet place this is on our agenda today. items today will appear on the march 16th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated by motions. >> thank you. please call the first item. ordinance amending the police code to require grocery store, drawing store, restaurants and on-demand delivery service employers to provide health and scheduling protections related to covid-19 to workers and to sunset an emergency ordinance with similar requirements. call 415-655-0001 and enter (187)490-6868, pound, pound and star followed by 3 to speak. it will indicate you raised your hand. wait until unmuted. we received a memo requested this be a committee report at the march 9th 20, 21 board meeting. >> thank you, mr. clerk. at this time i believe that supervisor haney's chief of staff will be here with comments on this item. i will turn the floor over to her. >> thank you. good morning. i am abygail and i am here on behalf of supervisor haney. on our workers protections ordinance this was continued from last meeting in light of substantive amendments during committee. the legislation before you strengthening the worker protections covered by the health officers orders during covid-19 to give workers an additional level of protection and mechanism to file complaint with the office of labor standards and enforcement. we have non substantive amendments today that i previously circulated to the committee members for consideration. walking through two of those amendments. first clarifies that employees must be paid normal rate of pay for the services and in accordance with high touch areas in accordance with law. independent contractors must be paid no less than the personal services minimum contractual rate ordinance admin code chapter 12b. that is noted in page 6 lines 3 through 8 in your ordinance that i circulated previously. second amendment requires that covered entities retain their records in compliance with this ordinance for three years. other city attorney is on the line for any other clarifying questions. i am requesting for your consideration those two non substantive amendments before you today. i thank you for your cosponsorship on behalf of supervisor haney and special thank you to the organizers with jobs for justice san francisco, 10-1, we drive progress, state workers rising and chinese progressive association for fighting hard during this pandemic. thank you so much. >> do you have any staff presentations planned? you have folks available for questions. i didn't know if you wanted any presentations from those departments to get us started? >> no, supervisor, i think we covered everything in the last couple hearings. i just wanted to bring forth these amendments. >> thank you. do we have any comments or questions from the vice chair or supervisor mandelman? >> okay. why don't we go to public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair. maria with the department of technology is working to help run the public comment lines. there is about a half dozen people on the line. for those connected via phone press star 3 to be added to the queue if you wish to speak for this item. for those on hold please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. you will hear that your line is unmuted. on channel 26 or through sfgovtv if you wish to speak call in by following the instructions on the screen. dial 415-655-0001 enter id1874906668. pound pound and star followed by 3 to speak. mr. chair, while we have callers listening. i hear that we have no callers for public comment on this agenda item. agenda item. public comment is now closed on this item. may we have a motion to amend? >> move. chen. >> thank you. can we have a roll call, mr. clerk. >> on the motion to amend. vice chair chen. >> aye. >> member mandelman. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> mr. chair, three ayes. >> if thank you. can we have a motion to refer this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report for consideration at our next board of supervisors? >> moved. mandelman. >> roll call, please. >> on the motion this ordinance be recommended as committee report vice chair chan. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> mr. chair. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you. mr. clerk, call item 2. >> an emergency ordinance to temporarily require certain grocery stores, drugstores and property service contractors for grocery stores and drugstores to pay employees an additional $5 per hour during the public health emergency related to covid-19. call 415-655-0001 enter id1874906868. press pound pound, star. a system prompt will indicate your line is unmuted. that is your opportunity to provide public comments. >> thank you, mr. clerk. at this time i would like to welcome natalie gee, supervisor walton's chief of staff and turn the floor over to ms. gee to present on this item. >> good morning. thank you, chair preston and supervisors for hearing this emergency ordinance today. i am natalie gee, chief of staff for supervisor walton. he was not able to make it to the meeting today. we have been in the pandemic a year. grocery and retail pharmacy workers have not stopped working to make sure residents have access to groceries and supplies. they provided appreciation pay for the workers. many of them stopped in june of last year, three months after the shelter-in-place orders. earlier this year the board of supervisors passed a resolution for $5 hazard pay during the pen dam eck. this is a follow up. if this is passed san francisco will join berkeley, san jose, south san francisco, oakland and santa clara and long beach, la, santa ana, santa monica who have allen accounted similar measures on hazard pay. this will require grocery stores, retail pharmacies and janitor and security contractors whose securities work to provide $5 per hour of hazard pay to employees making under $35 per hour or $75,000 a year. this will only apply to grocery stores and retail pharmacies with at least 20 employees in san francisco and 500 or more employees worldwide. it does not include mom and pop grocery stores or pharmacies that do not meet those requirements. if the store wants exempt all they have to do is engage in a collective bargaining agreement with the union regarding the hazard pay and they will be exempt. this exempts employers who have predated collective bargaining agreements on hazard pay which some stores negotiated during this pandemic. this is written in the ordinance on page 5 lines 18 through page 6 line 4. president walton would like to clarify the definitions. this was sept to committee members this morning for review. i think we would like to thank united workers 5 and 8 for advocating this issue and deputy city attorney powell for helping us draft this. i will go to the list of amendments we are presenting. first we are striking drugstores and adding retail locations to include pharmacies. on page 5 line 4 clarifying the definition of base wage for salaried employees. calculated on 40 hour workweek. we are striking lines 6-7 and adding hazard pay to hazard page or wage enhancement. on page 6 line 16. we are clarifying and adding to include at least 20 employees who work on site at the restale sales and service use that operates and add excluding pharmacies provided as part of the hospital or health service use defined in section 102 of the planning code. we are adding clarifying definition to be on page 5 with lines 22-25 to on site at retail sales and service to operate any general grocery, specialty grocery or pharmacy as part of the hospital or health service use as each of those terms is defined in planning code section 102 with the boundaries of the city. page 6 line 16-17 under hazard pay we are striking including premium pay applicable at the time and adding any wage enhancement in effect for each hour worked for for salary employees for 40 hours per week. page 6 line 25 under poverty services contractor to include services for covered employer at any retail sales and service use that operates grocery store, specialty grocery or pharmacies except health service use. striking 3 to 7 page 7. new definition on page 7 lines 8-10. premium or additional wages paid to an employee by covered employer above base wage without additional fay for over time -- additional pay for hazard pay. page 7 line 14. we are adding plus any wage enhancement in effect. finally page 12 section 12 adding that this emergency ordinance shall become operative third day following enactment and based on termination of health emergency or first day of the emergency ordinance whichever occurs first. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, ms. gee. any questions for ms. gee on this item? vice chair chan. >> thank you, chair preston. thank you so much, natalie. great to see you here and thank you for walking us through the amendments without taking a breath. that was amazing. my question is and my apology and i really should have done better homework in making sure i really understand thoroughly but i also appreciate the amendments today. i am trying to digest amendments as well. if this is something that already addressed in the amendment, my apology for asking this. i am trying to understand from the legislation specifically really around employer initiated hazard pay. i understand that right now i am looking at it specifically page 7 or starting page 6 and then with the date about how this provide after february 1st including collectively bargained employer initiated hazard pay which leads to the conversation or my question will be following on page 7 specifically talk about except for the employees whose base wage is between $30 per hour and $34.99 per hour. if initiated employer hazard pay is provided on and after february 1st but not meeting the base wage between 30 and $34.99 per hour are they exempt from this or are they not? >> thank you for the question. do we have city attorney lisa powell on the line? >> yes. i am not sure i understood the question. basically the way it is intended to function is that employer initiatedded hazard pay can be offset from the requirement and there is a hard cap to the requirement of $35 per hour. for example, if an employer provided initiated hazard pay $o makes $20 an hour, they would get $2 an hour on top of that to opposite the employer $3 an hour and get $2 an hour on top of that. if an employer provided the same $3 of initiated hazard pay to someone who already made $33 an hour, that would take them over the cap so they wouldn't get any additional hazard pay on top of that. >> that may beings it. thank you so much for walking me through it. that may beings a lot of sense. my last question will be if i may, chair preston, really about the waiver on page 11 starting online 14. to try to understand all or any portion of applicable requirements for emergency ordinance shall not apply to employees covered by collective bargaining agreement. someone in -- maybe it is my lay person ignorance trying to understand what abonnified collective bargaining agreement. explain to me. if there is a ongoing bargaining agreement now or timeline? how do we figure out a waiver? >> this is a fairly standard provision in many of the ordinances that standards enforcement oversees. it is for people who have collectively bargained an exception to an ordinance. many of the city worker protections allow employees who are represented by collective bargaining agent to choose the ordinance of protection or trade-off with their collective bargaining agent to the overall superior for those workers. for a temporary ordinance it is unlikely to come into play because collective bargaining agreements aren't amended as frequently as a shorter term ordinance. i put it in there as a standard provision that is how local ordinances operate. there is a worker protection that says for those workers who have the protection of collective bargaining agent negotiating for them, they have the option of bargaining something different as long as they expressly agree to do that. >> for any employer already have collective bargaining agreement, they are exempt? >> no. it is only if it is expressly waived in a collective bargaining agreement. probably how this would function if it were to happen is that an employer would do a side letter agreement expressly waiving the hazard pay if they chose to do that. much more common in longer term ordinances where the paid sick leave ordinance around the paid sick leave in the city but maybe a union already hadtic agreements regarding paid time off so they decided to stay with that and expressly wave in their collective bargaining agreements the specifics of the paid sick leave ordinance. this may not be particularly likely applicable. there could be an employer who offered the union something else that they consider to be very valuable to them and that they might agree to waive in either an amendment to the collective bargaining agreement or side letter agreement to waive their rights under this ordinance, presumably as trade-off for something else. >> good to know. my apologies. just signed on as cosponsor. i want to understand the amendment that we proposed today and that overall that i understand what we can actually accomplish with this legislation. i think the waiver itself learning this now it sounds like standard language that doesn't quite impact any employer that already has a collective bargaining agreement unless the union decided to come forward to have the conversation with the employer. i think at this time, you know, this is only for 61 days hazard pay. on the third day of the effective day of this ordinance, right? if i understood the amendment correctly. thank you. that may beings sense to me. -- makes sense to me. i appreciate chair preston allowing me to do so. >> thank you. following up they are good points. just want to say on the last piece around the waiver, i think that the duration of this is important. while it may be standard language and not utilized in the collective bargaining context it is possible that there would be discussions especially given this will protect folks for 60 days or add the hazard day for 60 days. no one nos if it -- no one knows if it will get renewed. there would be discussions during the course of the emergency ordinance period. i would hope there would be discussions. there might be voluntary agreements reached. as long as if that happened and they could expressly waive the protections of this or future renewal ordinance but not forced upon anyone to wave those. it is part of the agreement between the union and the employer. is that right? >> correct. any other comments or questions from committee members before public comment? all right. mr. clerk, can we begin public comment, please. >> thank you, mr. chair. we are checking for callers in the queue. for those connecting by phone press star 3 to speak for this item. for those on hold, please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. you will hear that your line is unmuted and once you hear that you will have an opportunity for your comments. if you are watching on cable channel 26 or through sfgovtv, if you wish to speak call in now by following instructions on your screen. that will be by dialing 415-655-0001. press pound twice and star followed by 3 to be entered to speak. i am hearing that we have four callers and three people raised hands. please bring us the first caller, please. >> good morning. onis of mollies -- owner of mollies market. we have done the right things for employees, customers during the last year. owned independent in san francisco with more than 500 employee in the bay area. we have 675 employees over nine stores, three are in san francisco. the number of employees doesn't equate to profit. we are a local, family-owned company. we rewarded employees with increases in hourly pay for a number of months over the past year. the latest in the first part of this february. we have had only one case in the last 30-days in our three stores in san francisco. our increases of pay coincided with the stay-at-home orders and most critical periods of the spread of virus over the past year. we paid our people approximately five months of extra pay. including bonuses throughout the year. this week we have had over 60% of the worke forcer in san francisco have gotten the vaccine or have an appointment to get it. by next week we hope to have 90% of our people vaccinated. we are not exempt from our collective bargaining agreement. we are union. don't have anything in the contract, nobody knew covid was happening. it is not normal to have this in the contract. the force us to negotiate with the union when we fairly provided the utmost protection for all of our employees. ramifications of this will belong lasting, not just a band-aid. we have done the right things and treated our employees -- >> thank you. next caller, please. >> good morning. i am dan larson. i represent the members of usc w648. being the president i have heard so many issues concerning covid with our members. we represent the food and drugstores in san francisco. i thank president walton for bringing this issue to the forefront. our members have been on the front line of the pandemic when it began a year ago and they are still serving customers day after day. the work goes unnoticed. this will bring respect, dignity and appreciation to the dangers of their jobs they do every day. we may never know the many dangers and sacrifices each worker made during these times but this ordinance does acknowledge the dangerous conditions exist and tells the employers that they are providing the absolute minimum of protection to the most valuable employees is not enough. we ask for your support. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. we are checking for further callers. i am hearing now that we have reached the end of the queue, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. clerk. thanks to the comments from the public on this. i do just want to say i am a cosponsor and proud to be a cosponsor. appreciate president walton's work and i think there is a tendency through not unintentionally through this pandemic of some essential workers more than others. i want to say that the sector of the worke forcer that is addressed by this legislation is a sector that is really taken for granted. the folks working, particularly at the big national chains grocery stores, and others covered by this ordinance have been work nothing matter what tier we have been in. they have been working every day through this entire pandemic. i appreciate all of the work president walton has done. not just in this legislation but previously by resolution in trying to elevate really the need to be recognizing that service and rewarding that service. i do appreciate and had a opportunity to speak with mr. stone who called in. they are in an between situation where it is not a big national chain and not a small mom and pop store on the corner with nearly 700 employees. certainly wherever you draw the line in this legislation, there are going to be followings who are near that -- folks who are near that line raising legitimate issues. i defer to the sponsor who addressed the various amendments. i think it is something to keep an eye on regardless of the final vote on this and contours of the size and other parameters. something to look at. this is 60 day period open to hearing from impacted workers and employers during the pendency of that. when it comes time for renewal of these things. the only question i had that was raised a little in the call is just the issue of and supervisor chan raised this as well. the issue of past, i think he used the example what happens if someone gave a voluntary hazard increase pay in february. i just want to make sure my understanding of the ordinance is right. my understanding this is just looking forward, right? in other words if somebody gave a bonus in january of a certain amount, that wouldn't impact their obligations one way or the other under this ordinance or does it? >> it did not. it is only perspective. there is even a provision that says past pay doesn't matter, basically. >> okay. i think i understand the reason and it could be very complicated to do it differently so i am not proposing changes. i think as we go further and if there is future legislation, i think a policy question of how we address past voluntary bonuses in terms of if there are longer term legislation in the future around this, we don't want a situation where we are rewarding people who have chosen not to do past voluntary bonuses. i want to recognize that. i don't know the details in particular but their particular business overall, i think while i understand why this is structure understand this way for this legislation, it is, i think, beyond emergency ordinance potentially a question of what is the cumulative? my view if folks have not been providing increases over time they should be forced to pay more. if folks have been doing voluntarily increases it might make sense to factor that into future obligations. that is an editorial comment rather than a specific proposal with respect to this ordinance which is very strong. i appreciate the amendments submitted. i see my colleague supervisor mandelman on the roster. >> thank you, chair preston. i guess and i am going to support moving this forward to the full board today. i do want partly based on a conversation with mr. stone yesterday and his comments this morning. i am -- when i think of molly stone in a different category from certainly the whole foods of the world or safe ways and luckies and all of the bigger actors. i know there was an effort to carve out the smaller operators with this 500 employee cap. i am wondering about the thinking that went into choosing that number. it sounds like 750 which was the san mateo number would go above molly stones. i just wanted to see if ms. gee is still here to talk about 550 verse -- 500 versus 750. >> thank you. the thinking be hired this is -- behind this is other jurisdictions passed ordinances at 500. lowest was 300 in california. >> is it true san mateo did 750. >> the city of sanaa theo 750. >> not the county? >> not the county. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. mr. clerk, to dot the i's and cross the ts. if i have not closed public comment, public comment is now closed. i see that vice chair chanmay have a question. >> hazard pay i thought from deputy city attorney powell's explanation. if an employer has already initiated that pay say $3 per hour, with this passage of the legislation moving forward for the next 61 days is that instead of $23 an hour for the next 60 days is now $25 per hour. basically, it is paying the $5 cap. in my opinion if you really have as an employer if you have been providing employer initiative hazard pay on and after februare basically paying the gap, there is a cap of $34.99 per hour. you will not -- actually the employee will not receive the pay increase for the next 60 days. did i understand that correctly? i thought that was the explanation. i am sorry. >> the current employer initiative pay is offset but not past hazard pay. >> supervisor chan, i think the distinction is if there was a hazard pay increase in effect now. folks were getting $2 per hour more. under this ordinance under the emergency ordinance they would get the balance of that, right? $2 increase in effect would go toward the $5. what the ordinance doesn't do and would be quite complex to try to do especially in a 60 day emergency ordinance is figure out the past that is not in effect now. if somebody had given a bump up in pay for october, november, december but that was no longer in effect. that past pay would be irrelevant to the analysis. i believe that is the summary. someone correct me if i'm wrong of both the questions we have been asking and i think that is my understanding of it. do i have that right? >> yes, you have that right. >> if thank you. seeing no other questions from colleagues to ms. gee regarding the procedural posture of this. it is my understanding that in addition to moving the amendments today, which i understand to be substantive amendments that it is president walton's request to refer this item as amended rather than to our next gao meeting weeks away instead to a committee as a whole on march 9th, is that right? i want to make sure that is the preferred course here? >> thank you. that is correct. >> can we have a motion to amend the emergency ordinance as provided to the committee? >> move. chan. >> can we call the roll, please. >> motion offered that the ordinance be amended as presented in text by the office of president walton. vis chair chan. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> aye. >> three ayes for the amendment. >> thank you, mr. clerk. can we have a motion to refer the emergency ordinance as amended to the board of supervisors for a committee as the whole on march 9th, 2021 pending approval to it is as committee as hole in 210231 on the same agenda. let's call the very long and wore demotion. >> you want me to repeat? >> on the motion offered by member mandelman the ordinance be referred as amended to committee as the whole hearing date marthe, 2021 board of supervisors spending approval to it is as committee as whole which will appear without agenda on that same meeting. vice chair chan. >> nicely done. aye. >> member mandelman. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> aye. >> mr. chair three ayes. >> thank you, mr. clerk for that challenging motion. i think we got it procedurally right. thank you, ms. gee and to president walton for this ordinance. mr. clerk, any further business? >> there is no further business. >> thank you. then we are adjourned. >> today's special guest is dr. andrew tanner. >> you're watching "covid with covid-19". today our guest is dr. andrea tanner at san francisco's command center that is located in the musconi convention center. she's here to talk about the city's high volume vaccination sites and san francisco's vaccination efforts. dr. tanner, welcome to the show. >> hi, thank you, it's good to be here with you. >> let's start by talking about the high-volume vaccination centers and the new mission neighborhood center. how many centers are we setting up? and where are they located and how many people will they be able to vaccinate? >> so we're setting up three high-volume sites. so we tried to locate them in some of our highest prevalence neighborhoods that are easiest to access. so we have one located here at musconi center at the south of market area. another at city college of san francisco which is in the oceanview and ingleside neighborhood. and the third one that is coming down the pipe is our produce market that is in bayview. so as far as the number of people that we can vaccinate, we are hoping that once we have adequate vaccine supply we'll have the capacity to vaccinate over 10,000 san franciscans a day combined across san francisco. as i'm sure that you have heard in the news and other settings, vaccine supplies have been a big challenge. but our goal is to try to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place so that when vaccines are available that we can -- we can get it into arms as quickly as possible. we also though have some other sites in addition to the large-volume sites and the mission neighborhood sites, for example, set up in an effort to expand the vaccine access across the bayview as well as the other neighborhoods with the highest infection rates for covid-19. and it does have limited access to health care services. so that site, when our vaccine increases, we may expand to have 200 to 400 vaccinations a day. and we have through the department of public health a network of community clinics and neighborhoods across the city that are providing vaccines. so we're trying to give people as many options and in whatever way is comfortable for them to get vaccine when our supply increases. so we're trying to have a menu of options available so that we can get people vaccinated as quickly as possible. >> i think that the city college location has a lot of capacity as well, right? >> yes, they can do 3,000 plus and right now it's limited by the vaccine supply. but, yes, it's got the capacity to do quite a few patients. >> that brings me to my next question, where are we getting the vaccines from and who is providing them to the state and to the city? >> so a really good question. so it's distributed by the federal government who procures the vaccine and it goes to each of the states. the states then distribute the vaccine to large multicounty health systems. so kaiser permanente and the university of california, and the remainder goes to the county health departments. and those health departments then can disseminate to other -- to other entities. unfortunately, we don't determine how many vaccines we receive per week, so while the supply is still very low, the state has been determining our allot mament. that's based mostly on population size, and somewhat on the number of health care workers that are registered as working in that county. but we take any of the vaccines that we're offered and we're hoping that the supply will pick up soon. >> do we know how many residents have been vaccinated so far? and as we move forward, how are people going to know when it's their turn and how to go about making an appointment? >> yeah, so the health department and the hospitals and clinics within san francisco have administered over 130,000 vaccines per date that that is a significant portion with those with second doses. this is a higher number than the state recorded number of san franciscan residents who have been vaccinated so far. because the majority of people vaccinated to date have been health care workers in san francisco. and more people work here than live here, we have a disproportionate responsibility for vaccines relative to our population size. as far as knowing when it's your turn and how to get an appointment. we have set up a website at sfgov/getnotified and people can check their priority status, so based on your age and type of employment. and sign up for an email or text message when your priority group is authorized to be vaccinated. there will be links to sites where you can make an appointment. as we get more and more sitings online and as our vaccine ramps up, that's the area, so sfgov/getnotified and you can see what groups are available. right now because the supply is so limited, there can be limited vaccine appointments but keep checking back and as we get more and more supply, and more and more appointments will open up. it is though for us and for the system in general important metric to track how equitably the vaccine is deliberated to ensure that it's going to neighborhoods and populations that have experienced the highest prevalence of mortality. and the highest prevalence of mortality and our interventions for the covid-19 response has sought to intervene to try to reduce disparities in health care. so we are anticipating that these efforts are going to help us to advocate to receive more vaccine quickly from the state once the systems are implemented. >> can you pick which vaccine you get? and do you think that we'll be using the johnson & johnson version shortly? >> so currently there's two available. one is made by pfizer and the other is made by moderna and they require two doses each. and the johnson & johnson is the newest to apply for authorization and it is being evaluated by the f.d.a. obviously, we have to wait for the f.d.a. to give it an emergency authorization before we can give that vaccine. but it has so far in the data that has been reported has been shown to be very effective and only requires one dose, which is great. so all of the vaccines are distributed to local entities and we don't get to pick which supplies are distributed to us. they make an allocation and we receive whatever they give to us. so in an effort to make sure that we have as many appointments available as possible, we just assign -- as you register, you original for the appointment and whatever vaccine that is available is the one that you would receive. the good news is that all of the vaccines have been shown to have great effectiveness in preventing death from covid-19 as well as great safety protocols. and on a personal note i work also as an emergency physician at san francisco general and i received a second dose of the vaccine and i have not had any problems, which is great. i had a little arm soreness and that was it. so, you know, i think that we're very excited that we've seen such good results with the vaccine so far. >> well, that's excellent. well, as we wrap this up, do you have anything that you would like to share with our residents about vaccines? >> yeah, so my hope is that all of our san franciscans are learning all that they can about the vaccine and preparing themselves to get vaccinated. i know that it can be a scary thing to do something that is new. but there actually is very good data available about the vaccine and so i'm hoping that people can learn about this, we are trying to help to put out information around the vaccines so that people can make an informed decision and get vaccinated as soon as vaccines are available and their turn comes up. as an emergency physician, i was not in the very first group vaccinated. i think that i got my vaccination appointment a few weeks later, but as soon as my turn came i jumped on it. so i'm hoping that others will do the same. i do truly think that this is our ticket out of this. and i know that this has been a long road. and everybody is tired. san francisco has done really well throughout the pandemic, thanks in large part to our citizens. and the people listening to science, and wearing masks, social distancing, doing all of the things that science and public health experts have asked them to do. i think that this is -- this is our way out and i'm just very excited. i wish that everybody had their vaccine yesterday, but we're getting it as soon as we can. >> that's great. have been helpful information that i hope that has shed some light on our vaccination program. >> i think one of the hardest parts has been, you know, how -- how the supply issues that we just wish that we had, you know, we wish that we had all of the doses on the first day and we could just give them out. but i'm hoping that that will improve and hopefully, you know, this will be behind us soon. >> i hope so too. well, thank you once again for coming on the show. >> thanks, it's good to be here with you. >> that's it for this episode. we'll be back with more pandemic related information shortly. you have been watching "coping with covid-19," i'm chris manners, thank you for watching. francisco. >> my name is fwlend hope i would say on at large-scale what all passionate about is peace in the world. >> it never outdoor 0 me that note everyone will think that is a good i know to be a paefrt. >> one man said i'll upsetting the order of universe i want to do since a good idea not the order of universe but his offered of the universe but the ministry sgan in the room chairing sha harry and grew to be 5 we wanted to preach and teach and act god's love 40 years later i retired having been in the tenderloin most of that 7, 8, 9 some have god drew us into the someplace we became the network ministries for homeless women escaping prostitution if the months period before i performed memorial services store produced women that were murdered on the streets of san francisco so i went back to the board and said we say to do something the number one be a safe place for them to live while he worked on changing 4 months later we were given the building in january of 1998 we opened it as a safe house for women escaping prostitution i've seen those counselors women find their strength and their beauty and their wisdom and come to be able to affirmative as the daughters of god and they accepted me and made me, be a part of the their lives. >> special things to the women that offered me a chance safe house will forever be a part of the who i've become and you made that possible life didn't get any better than that. >> who've would know this look of this girl grown up in atlanta will be working with produced women in san francisco part of the system that has abused and expedited and obtain identified and degraded women for century around the world and still do at the embody the spirits of women that just know they deserve respect and intend to get it. >> i don't want to just so women younger women become a part of the the current system we need to change the system we don't need to go up the ladder we need to change the corporations we need more women like that and they're out there. >> we get have to get to help them. >> >> clerk: the time is 5:05 p.m. cell phones and pager devices can still happen virtually and are still prohibited. please turn your devices off. due to the covid health emergency, commission, and staff, meeting room 416 is closed. however, stand

Related Keywords

Mission District , California , United States , Japan , Paris , France General , France , Missouri , Oakland , City College , Richmond District , Bayview , Santa Monica , South San Francisco , London , City Of , United Kingdom , San Francisco , Berkeley , Deyoung Museum , Sacramento , Houston , Texas , Hayes Valley , American , Kate Lazarus , John Maclaren , Don Franklin , Liz Farrell , Gigi Gunther , Lance Kerns , Michelle Taylor , Bob Hall , Rodney Fung , Jeremy Brenner , Sarah Oglesby , Dana Ketchum , Mike Chen , Larry Mazzola Jr , Joseph Salem , Linda Schafer , Kaiser Permanente , Sha Harry , Mora Mcknight , Amy Cohen , John Goldsmith , Natalie Gee , Elton Wu , Joe Salem , Connie Chan , David Harrison , Sarah Greenwald , Dan Larson , Catherine Howard , Andrew Tanner , Dina Ketchum , Deborah Raphael , Anna Mccarthy , John Cunningham , Anna Creston , Jeff Gordon , Hillary Ronen , Phil Ginsburg , Susan Mullaney , Joanie Eisen , Kate Sosa ,