conversation like with other departments that use those pesticides? >> rather than speak for them, bart, would you like to speak? dpw is not here but they were interested in not seeing additional burdens on them. >> we worked closely with the department and the mayor's office on making sure that the amendments before you are completely workable. supervisor chu: are there any members of the public that wish

to speak? >> ♪ so many pesticides are everywhere. they are in the air. how can people really exist and you need to fix it right now the poison is blowing in the wind the poison is blowing in the wind now can you take six do you even care the pesticide is in the air how can people do really exist want to fix it please the poison my friend is blowing in the wind the poison is blowing

in the wind ♪ supervisor chu: any other members of the public? seeing no one, public comment disclosed. >> i wanted to make sure that you understood that this was " forward as a committee report. supervisor chu: so, we have a motion to send this forward as a committee report without objection. thank you. item number eight? >> item #8. ordinance amending the san francisco environment code by amending sections 1103 and 1105, to require cell phone retailers to provide customers upon request with factsheets regarding specific absorption rate values for cell phones and the use of cell phones, and to delay the enforcement date for certain provisions of the chapter 11, the "cell phone right-to-know ordinance," and making environmental findings.

>> hello, supervisors. i will be speaking briefly about the ordinance. if i could have debris slides dempster as you may know, as you both voted for this ordinance, san francisco became the first city in the country to have an ordinance that required local retailers to post radiation on specific absorption rates but the point of sale. the other part of the ordinance that is important to note and relative to today is that the city recognized that just that radiation level alone out of context would bring residents benefiting from additional information touse -- cellphone radiation. it required a posting of the fdar value and posting information on reduced exposure. since the time of passage i am

pleased to tell you that philadelphia, new york city, and three more in california have directed their attorneys to draw up ordnances. the french parliament has also drafted and passed a similar disclosure law. san francisco was the first and not the last to go in that direction. since the time you have passed that ordinance we have been busy implementing it. the ordinance before you today is further along in the process as we have already been busy at the department. we have held two public hearings with adopted regulations covering the form of posters, stickers, and materials. we have worked close to the service providers like at&t, t- mobile, verizon, and they have already given us comprehensive list of retailers. something that warms my heart

is they have communicated with retailers what those values are on the phones and what this is. anyways, there we go. this very complicated looking table is the standard list of descriptions of cell phones that service providers give to retailers. all they have done is add a road that is the value. this is an example of how much rope complied with the ordinance with very little stress on their part. so, the amendment before you today is seeking to do two things. the first is that they would propose implementation postponement on one part of the ordinance. the posting of those values at the point of sale for formula retailers. the original ordinance was that they would go into effect

february 1 of this year and been forced to may 1. what we have done to give the department of the environment more time to reach out, after the need for clarification on the second amendment we have pushed that back. we are giving formula retailers more time to comply with the actual posting. the second thing we are hoping to do with it this amendment is clarify what we think is a confusing aspect of the riding. before you you can see the example of the sticker that went with the point of sale. if it says to ask at the counter for supplemental information sheet, the sticker tells customers that you can get more information from the retailer's. they were also ordered to create these sheets, which we did after the public hearings

and talking with the fdc and other city agencies. we came up with the most robust supplemental information sheet. the back of it shows examples of reducing exposure. the problem without the ordinance was written was that it was not clear how the material was the same material that the department of the environment was developed to create. clarified, when you do present what the retailer offense as information, is that developed by the regulation of the department of the environment? those are the small amendments. this is before you as a committee report and i would be happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: are there any members of the public that wish to speak?

>> ♪ tell me cell phones something good that you have no radiation you make me feel like there is 48 radiation hour is not to have to tell me tell me that you're healthy. you make me feel like there are 48 cell phone healthy hours to each day ♪ ♪ tell me something cell phone about it good ♪ supervisor chu: i thank you very much. any other members of the comment who wish to comment on tell number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have to item before us. >> and for clarification, i just realized my slide was wrong. supervisor chu: say that again? >> the city attorney noted i made an error on the slide. the implementation would be

postponed to 2011, not 2010. sorry about that. supervisor chu: yes. thank you. ok can we move this item forward with recommendation as a committee report? ok. without objection, thank you very much. item number nine, please. >> item nine, resolution in support of the measures and actions to mitigate the effects of declining fossil fuel supplies recommended in the report of the san francisco peak oil preparedness task force. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we are joined by supervisor mirkarimi on this issue. the sponsor of this legislation. just a quick comment. i know that we are heading at 1:00 now where budget and finance is supposed to convene. this is our last item, so well try to move as quickly as possible to allow budget and finance to move forward. supervisor mirkarimi, do you have opening comments? supervisor mirkarimi: i do. thank you, madam chair. since the main principals of

budget and finance committee are here before you, i think we'll do our best to usher this as quickly as possible. the resolution that is before you is to affirm what many city governments around the world are now beginning to have a conversation about. that is the concepts of peak oil, which is at the point in time when the maximum global production of petroleum is reached after which production will decline or the coast is prohibitive. dwindling energy supplies and continued growth in population and energy consumption will have catastrophic consequences on our economy, infrastructure and personal lives if we do not begin preparing for these major changes. and some ways without acknowledging what peak oil is, we are making some of those preparations. it would be helpful to recognize the longer-term ramifications what peak oil is. in san francisco, peak oil

preparedness task force was a citizen that was formed in 2007 by legislation advanced by the board of supervisors. san francisco is the largest city in the united states to study the effects of peak oil, but we're not alone. many cities in the u.s. are now beginning to undergo similar studies such as ours. the seven-member task force worked with a broad array of scientists, journalists, authors, community members in city and state departments to prepare the report. the task force 125-page report analyzes the city's vulnerabilities to shortages of fossil fuels. the task force made 91 recommendations on how to prepare for the impacts of peak oil and the revised resolution before you. we ask that the board prioritize 36 of the recommendations as they were written in the task force report, 13 of the recommendations that we have restated in the resolution. we feel that these are the most pracksable and actionable

recommendations. we have left out some of the sort of exotic recommendations that we think it's important to come back to. highlights, calling for the city's long-term plans to forecast and forecast include any one or more peak oil scenarios. plans such as county wide transportation planning which the t.a. is now operating. also san francisco's economic development plan and capital plans for various city agencies to include the concepts of what it means to prepare for limited energy supplies such as peak oil. we also need coordinate regionally to plan for a future without cheap oil. senate bill 275 passed in 2008 called for the creation of regional sustainable community strategies to reduce transportation aid and greenhouse gas eadmission. this is being well advanced by the metropolitan transportation association and 375 has significant legs and significant funding attached to our city's ability to be able

to provide a sustainable community plan. it is important that we consider the effects of peak oil in developing these regional plans. that's why other bay area cities are beginning to take this up as well. managing the city more in line of our food supply by advancing urban farming, something that mayor newsom has also shown a great interest in. in recent jeers, we have seen explosion in urban gardening and farming in the city. in district five, we have seen the success in the farming environment. the hayes family farm where they're used to be a freeway off ramp and in octavia, all wonderful solutions to properties that would lay fallow. this resolution urges the implementation of a buy local first policy as a way of bolstering regional food production, urges the department of environment to note the technologies such as water catchment systems, gray water systems, vertical farming and calls for evaluation of

surplus city property that could be used for gardening or farming as we have already demonstrated and investigating and implementing renewable clean energy alternatives to our overreliance on fossil fuel. that is the highlights that are before you. i would be more than happy to show if you could one more time on the screen. i don't know if the graph is up there. this shows a graphic representation of what it means to live with the forecast of peak oil in dwindling supplies. electricity generation by region in the new policies scenario as well. i don't know if there was anything more than that? ok. and then world oil production which is certainly showing great limits. i would like to call up a few speakers. i know that we're on a quick time crunch, so who here from the department of the environment by any chance?

the department head first. >> thank you, supervisor. we actually in the department don't have any comment at this time other than to be here to answer any direct questions that you had. i know that we were mentioned a couple of times in the report in terms of developing a plan for reducing the number of miles for municipal come post travels and investigatoring the potential of innovative technologies such as water catchment, gray water systems, etc. >> we're come upon you if you need anything. supervisor chu: just a quick question for the department of environment. there is a number of recommendations in the resolution that talks about implementing and prioritizing 30-plus recommendations of the task force. what stages in terms of analysis have you, the department, been in in terms of understanding what the cost of

these might be, what the practical impact of implementing some of these potential priorities would be? >> what we have done is indicated the only thing we have tried to have done is integrate these items into the strategic plan for the next three years, particularly those that are in the energy sector. as you know, many of these items are not either the responsibility of the department of environment or they are the explicit responsibility of other departments, so we have not taken those up. supervisor chu: but even the ones that would be or fall within the purview of the department of environment, it doesn't sound like there has been extensive review what what it would cost to implement some of these things? >> not in terms of an explicit cost benefit analysis, no. supervisor chu: no. supervisor mirkarimi: since this is just a resolution that is before us, has there been any request for resolution to do a cost benefit analysis? >> no. supervisor mirkarimi: right, thank you. who from the task force would like to speak?

please come forward. >> good ann, supervisors, my name is pat gerber. i served on the task force. this resolution is a positive step toward preparing san francisco for the coming consequences of our shared future in the era of declining availability of oil and other fossil fuels. as supervisor mirkarimi mentioned, this will be huge. this issue is not yet well known or widely discussed, but its low profile is not an indication of low impact of the living with less energy will cause massive changes to our lives. the earlier we begin to prepare and the more we prepare, the better our collective future will be. therefore, i urge you to adopt this resolution today. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. is bernie myerson here? ok, benjamin lowe? woody hastings and california

simone? ok. ok. then i would go right to public comment then on this. supervisor chu: are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item number nine? >> good afternoon, my name is erestine weiss and i say go ahead and pass this resolution. i say stop using oil. the name of the game would be boycott. the middle east would be put out of work immediately. we wouldn't have to worry about wars. because the war in afghanistan and iraq is about bush and chaney and the oil interests. let's wipe all of this out. i backed the terminal because of that. the more people we move around by mass transit, the better all of us will be with clean air, etc., thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, eric byrnes representing san francisco green party and our

city. i passed something out to you while you were hearing the beginning of this item that it's one page, if you look on the reverse, it's one full page of text from a report that just came out last month on biofuels and biomass. the reason i bring this up is the underlying resolution here and the report itself are excellent and of course we support it. there is one -- there is one little problem or caveat though and that there isn't -- even though there is some criticism of biofuels in the report, it's not strong enough and there is even a casual reference in the report about the darling facility creating biofuels, the one that just got approved by the port. this report just came out last month, and if you read on the back, the key couple of sentences are not only does this study suggest that ilcu, which stands for indirect land use change that comes from biofuels -- by the way, i should mention this is a study

about the impact of biofuels that they're going to have on europe, which is now in the midst of reversing its mandates, berkeley and seattle have already cancelled their biodiesel programs. not only did z-this study suggest that the ilcs with use of biofuels would lead to additional greenhouse gas emissions and then it goes on, this estimate would represent emissions from ilcu 80 to 166% worse than we would be delivered from continued reliance on fossil fuels in the transport sector. because, i have been kind of knocking on the door of city hall for this issue for several months. because it wasn't yet taken seriously and understood, the port went ahead and passed the ok for darling to go ahead. what i appreciated on this resolution if you can is to put a clause that says that biofuels and biomass need much further study based on recent reports like this one and the

website where the report is on the front, it's not from the oil industry. there are groups like green peace and friends of the earth that were involved in preparing the report. thanks. supervisor chu: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is sue vaughn and i'm here to testify in support of this resolution, but with a recommendation. since resolutions are just statements of recommended policies, i think that this particular resolution needs to have some elements that are turned into ordinances. and in particular, the use of the word urges in this resolution is not strong enough. i don't believe the word urges, i think the word -- sorry about this. i think the word should be changed. urges should be changed to requires and that would have to be in an ordinance as much as possible. in addition, i think where this

resolution urges city departments to take peak oil into consideration, i would add a requirement in the ordinance if one is drafted that these departments report back to the board of supervisors on a regular basis on their progress in adopting the report recommendations that are passed in the resolution, but we do need an ordinance that says you are required to do these things. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> ♪ where do fossil fuels go ♪ ♪ when they find their way from my home ♪ ♪ back to the empty arms of the supplies that are waiting there ♪ ♪ and won't you be there ♪ won't you care and be aware of the supplies that are losing there ♪ ♪ hey, wasn't it me at public comment that said nothing good

is going to last forever ♪ ♪ and make it better, make it conserve it together ♪ didn't i take you to a better place ♪ ♪ make it better today supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm the c.e.o. of san francisco bay railroad. we operate the freight railroad at the port of san francisco and i didn't really realize this was on the agenda today. i was here to listen to another issue. i want to commend supervisor mirkarimi for this forward-looking legislation, and hope that the board will take it one step further and look at the different modes of transport that we use to ship goods in and out of the city because rail can cut down on fuel use and greenhouse emissions by 90% compared to long-haul trucking and barging

can cut down another 50% below that. just by us rethinking the modes of the way we ship our freight in and out of the city can go a long way to meeting the goals of peak oil resolution. so i commend this first step and hope that the board of supervisors will follow up with other legislation. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on item number nine? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi, do you have closing comments? supervisor mirkarimi: very quickly. colleagues, i would ask that you support this, but at least advance this to the full board for a proper vetting. the entire board i think is evidence of what did not materialize in the copenhagen climate change conferences a year ago. in cancun, as recently as of last week, there is really very little happening at best on the federal level we are on the

defensive posture on a state level as evidence by the attack on assembly bill 32 as we saw with proposition 23, luckily that was beaten back and then locally, governments are being asked to contemplate what it means to be a sustainable community. and everybody from san diego on up to the oregon border, municipal governments in california are having to wrestle with one facet of this problem or another. so i believe that san francisco continues to lead the discussion, but we're not alone as i said. the city of portland has already done some great work on the question of peak oil. so as seattle. and new york city is now beginning to do something very similar. it's only consistent with our forward-thinking, i think, trend of contemplating what may be in store for san francisco's limitations, liabilities, and

potentially underutilized assets of trying to figure out what it means to live not reliable on a fossil fuel economy. this resolution is simply just that, a resolution. hopefully it will grow from there as something more binding. your support is appreciated. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. i appreciate the work that was done by the peak oil task force and i think that the conversation about how it is that we start to have more sustainable economies, less reliance on fossil fuel is an important one. however, i won't be supporting this resolution. the resolution lays forward i think too many recommendations to prioritize that we don't fully have an understanding of what the impact would be yet. just a quick note about some of them. there is clearly community choice is a big one that on its own merits, a very large conversation merits a number of hearings and merits

conversation which has been occurring. on the list also includes providing property, rebates or homeowners to underutilize production. there are a lot of consequences and a lot of issues that we would want to talk to with city planning in terms of land use across the city. there is talk about creating a materials depot where residents can access reduced costs items. these are great ideas, but the problem that i have with the entire list is how we're going to pay for it, what does it really mean to prioritize some of these things and what would be the best approach in terms of addressing the issue of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. although i agree with the idea of exploring that conversation, i can't support this resolution because there really is no financial impact tied into any of these recommendations.

supervisor avalos: well, i will be supportive of the resolution and i think it's nonbinding. it's offered ideas where the city can go and what the city could explore. it provides a framework for making further decisions within departments that could be brought forward as binding ordinances of how we do our work around fuel efficiency and emissions in the city and county of san francisco. so i feel i'll be supportive of the resolution and send it forward. i guess we have two votes here so we don't have a third one. supervisor chu: so our committee for folks who may not know currently consistencies of two members. so i am prepared to be able to send this item out without recommendation. again, i will not be supporting this item when it goes to the full board of supervisors even though this is only a resolution, we have a number of very pressing issues that are

going to be coming before this body for the coming year. we have a very large budget deficit that this committee chair, john avalos will also be taking a look at. so i think there is a lot of priorities. perhaps my approach would simply be if we wanted to explore different ideas, we certainly could do so. a prioritized list or a list of 40 is not really a prioritization. i am willing to send this out without recommendation. do we have a motion for that? supervisor mirkarimi: can i make one closing comment on that? supervisor chu: sure. supervisor mirkarimi: what seems a little bit out of kilter in the discussion is there is literally not a single recommendation that hasn't been gestured or signaled by the mayor himself or by his department on the environment since he unilaterally picks the commissions on the department of environment or on the m.t.a. or on rec and parks commission that when you corral the lv