. >> the same would apply to the guy who goes across the bay bridge? this is a huge amount of money to spend? >> of applied to all. it would fit the definition. >> have you heard from the tour bus companies? what are they called? >> generally, i think that they are concerned, especially if it is a short time line that we are meeting with them to discuss what is reasonable. >> thank you. >> commissioners, any other questions? >> i have been to other countries and i have seen a lot

of their tour bus in use is -- tour buses using headphones. it would save money for those companies that don't need to have an english toward -- tour for a japanese tour. >> i agree that the large obnoxious buses needed to be reined in. i am sensitive to the issue of it. this is raised with the very small cable cars and possibly this could be phased in for a time line given to the smaller operators and it might take them longer to make a change.

we were dealing with limited life performance and amplified sound. it graduated. there is a little amplified sound and big amplified sound. i don't know how you would like to do with it but that is what she just expressed. >> we are looking if there is a way to separate out smaller operators? as far as i know, there are 10 major sightseeing companies in the city that have opened their buses. >> they seem to be multiplying. i see more of those double decker buses than i ever have. >> and even the small ones, i happen to live on a tourist site.

those little small things, they are so loud. they are. the are really very intrusive. personally, i appreciate this because i have to year that same talk like 20 times a day. >> i have received lots of feedback from across the city. i would to speak to the alamo square neighborhood association. we got e-mail from all across the city where people made the same statements all over and over again. >> i like this legislation because where i live on 20, i hear them every day. sometimes, early saturday morning going up market street. i do like this. i have the same concerns.

there are some smaller and smaller operators in the city. i have actually been -- if there's something that we can phase in with those operators, this is the big double decker buses that are really interested and i would hate to penalize the smaller mom and pop operators which there are very few of in the city. we can grandfathered them in and so we can meet these operations immediately, give them something they can afford. they have been here for generations of with like to see

something working out with those type of people. the big ones, do something, shut them up. >> to do you have any plan for the smaller operators? >> well, i guess my plan would be to go and see if we could have them on a separate time line as the larger companies. >> i wanted to use an example where it is readily achievable of that concept and where it must be achieved over a certain time with the small businesses. it might take a longer amount of time. we have an example with our requirements, businesses have to come into compliance but over time.

>> did we have any concerns or did we have any that wanted to be invoiced already? >> they have been addressed. >> we have to go to public comment. >> members of the public might have three minutes to address the commission. >> i am a surviving resident and i very much appreciate this legislation that has been presented. we have attended many meetings on this subject and it truly is affecting the quality of life for the residents.

we were talking with them on many issues and they are a tough group to go against. they are very big and they are hard to handle and they have made some compromises. we very much appreciate your support. thank you. >> any further public comment? take your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i was here on another matter but this one will be close to my hard. i saw them flying by. the downside would be that these operators to bring their vehicles down our streets, they do at least show off our street even though they are flying by.

the downside is that those double-deckers', they go down and union street and they all turn right on buchanan. they don't go all the way down. they can go straight down the mosque. perhaps there are some routing issues that had been brought about. the upside is that anything that we could get to see our street is an advantage and i do support them keep in the noise at reasonable levels. if it is during business hours are reasonable hours of operation, then i can see that being advantage. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other further public comments?

>> i do agree. we are a tourist town and tourism is the number-one industry in the city. all lot of the neighborhoods, they do bring the people in neighborhoods, especially those that did the drop on, drop off. you were talking about with the entertainment commission, lately i've noticed they are allowed. the commissioner says that if you go to new york can you go overseas to these other cities where they deplore on -- where they depend on headphones. >> we are talking about a very well capitalized industry. on the whole, the tour operators

with these very large buses are not small mom-and-pop, they are in some cases multinational businesses. i can think of two. i don't think that this is a hardship in a technological age and thinking about language access, this will be fine for them. i do support it and i think we should have a motion. >> would you like to propose a motion? >> i would like to move to support this and suggest working with the smallest locally owned operators to develop an implementation plan for them. no longer than two years. also, in that process, would you please request that they are sensitive to noise levels.

>> i have a motion to support the ordinance and support working with the small operators and to set an implementation. no longer than two years. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> with that objection, so approved. >> thank you. >> you are now on item number seven, discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number

110656 which is to require cellphone retailers to provide their customers of information regarding that how to limit exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cellphone in place of the mandatory disclosure of specific absorption rate values. >> give us one second. >> we need -- >> in light of my husband's employment with at&t, i have to recuse myself. >> >> i second the motion.

>> any objections? >> we are here to get support behind some of the amendments to update the cellphone rights. we were here before you and we're very pleased to earn your support in the original ordinance. with the ordinance -- what the board as requires is that retailers post this levels of the specific absorption rate bubble for each phone at the point of sale. this will vary in range. the ordinance requires that retailers make information on how to reduce exposure to the upper frequency. the amendments would take away the label which to make it much easier for the individual

retailers to comply and instead require that each phone sold, they are given information on how to respond to the radio frequency. we determined that this might not be the most accurate or reliable way to determine radiation from a cell phone. it really depends how far you are from the antenna, what type of system you are operating. that is not really a pinpoint accuracy. also, there is a setting that reviewed hundreds of articles and the international panel of experts determined that the phones are possibly

carcinogenic to humans. that was a much stronger statement than we had earlier about the possible risks. they went on to say the director of the international research on cancer said that is important at different research is conducted into the long-term use of mobile phones and we certainly agree with that. pending of the availability, it is pour in to take a pragmatic measures to reduce exposure. even the world health organization has said that you want to reduce your exposure in light of not having full information. the amendment to this ordinance as a great thing of making it easy to comply while at the same time increasing the level of information available because rather than just having the radiation information available on a passive level, it will be given out for each phone. >> thank you very much. >> i want to say that i

appreciate the revamp of this which makes it hard to comply for the smaller businesses. thank you. >> any of the commissioners? >> i would like to ask a couple of questions. so, what has changed specifically from before. they will still have to post a sign in the store? >> that's the same. then they will have to give out information and how to reduce exposure. previously, they were required to put a notification on each phone that was for sale with the specific absorption rate. >> how did they do it now?

they're giving them the phone. >> you give them information on the radio frequency energy. >> is that information already available on the box or the cover? >> it might be in the instruction books. this is not top of the mind. >> if there are no further questions, i will open up to public comment. >> members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. >> i have some letters of opposition from individual

retailers that operate in the city. there is a committee meeting earlier on the same ordinance before the city operations and the neighborhood services committee and they attended that hearing and had to give back to their businesses. with the escalating penalties in this ordinance, the previous speaker is correct. there is no -- that is posted for each cell phone display. the materials need to be handed out and a poster needs to be put up in the store. with this there is escalating penalties. if the retailer for gets to market label, for guests to hand out a pamphlet, it might have them available for every that comes in the store.

any consumer can request a pamphlet. that opens it to penalties. this will be unduly burdensome to the mom and pop cellphone retailers. with more independent cellphone retailers then the carrier-own stores, this will disproportionate impact those mom-and-pop stores. this will also place retailers in the untenable position of having to answer questions about radio frequency emissions and that they are not appropriately trained to answer. i've been in the industry for five years and there are certain issues with this that i still don't fully grasp. imagine the retailers that might have just one employee who was a teenage student being put in the position of answering those

highly scientific questions. if there is a place for regulation, this is best that the federal level. the consumers, retailers, and wireless carriers can receive guidance from the expert federal agencies that studied this issue. as the previous speaker noted, there was a classification that came out in may and they are updated of june, 2011. some parties recommend that you take practices to reduce rf exposure. >> are there any public speakers

on this item? public comment is closed. >> i would like to ask the representative a clarifying question. the previous speaker stated that they would have to have information on each individual cell phone display or just one and it was my understanding that it was posted at the cellphone display, there is a wall of self phones and the need to be a poster on that wall. the information sheet will be developed by the department which should be available to the retailer, downloadable, may be a nice small size. >> the poster itself --

>> the information sheet hamas -- the information poster she can be -- this can be smaller than a page or something. thank you for answering my question. you have to give them a piece of paper, they are not expected to inform the public about things. thank you. >> who will pay for the poster and you will pay for the little pieces of paper that you give out? >> the department would pay for the first round of posters.

>> i don't have anymore questions. i just want everyone to know that i am prepared to support this. i think the department did a lot of work. i did not see it more onerous than the warning labels that were required to put -- alcoholic beverages if you're pregnant can harm her fetus. i have to say that, i'm not expected to go convene with someone who is pregnant but we know there is a risk. well, it has been said there is a risk with there is some disagreement about that and there are people who will argue that drinking while they are pregnant is not heard your fetus. i would like to share a personal story. i know two people under the age of 50 with inoperable brain cancer and we don't know where it came from.

there is an increase in certain things happening and if the world health organization is talking about it, i think it is better to be cautious and disseminate information. i am for more information, not less. i don't see that this is onerous or board in some. i agree with many members of the public who spoke about this, particularly since we have some the children who use cell phones and they're using them at younger ages. there are ages and there are studies. i don't really want to argue. we have a chance to inform at the point of sale which is a positive step. for an industry that is a very well capitalized industry, i don't see that it will put anyone at a disadvantage. the people take informational things, they read everything

like prescription drugs. i just finished by telling the industry that you might be actually doing yourself a favor. maybe to air on the side of caution and inform people of the ways to take care now would be a good thing. >> i am a little concerned about the finds some of the first time, this is $100, to 50, 500. how will you check up on the retailers? >> we will be dealing inspections on the retailer's. there is a small amount of

stores. these will go to the stores individually. there are well over 5000 restaurants. >> would it be the same people? >> yes. this would be department of the environment. what happens if the poster was damaged or lost? >> it to be replaced easily. >> i don't think there would be much between time. we could send one write out. >> i read some of these letters. they felt the additional burden for the retailer and this would define the penalty.

>> they would not have to pay the fine if they complied with the ordinance. we see with this ordinance, we very half to -- with very seldom have to issue the fines. we would have to do fines after several visits. >> >> i respect what you have to say. i cannot vote for this. i do not think it is the position of the city and county of san francisco to regulate this. you talked about the drugs and smoking, that is done at a federal level. this kind of legislation is not just for san francisco, this should be national. let's make it easy. i have talked to several small

retailers and frankly, here is san francisco again. i respect everything you say. the verdict is still out on what the phones do and what they don't do. there has been no conclusive evidence out there from anyone, including the world health organization, and i do not feel to be in the place of the city and county of san francisco. this would be one of the first in the nation. this is what we let congress and our senators for to come to washington, this should not be done on a local level, that is what i cannot support this. >> i would like to respond. i don't believe we're regulating the phones. there is no regulation whatsoever. i don't think it falls in the same per view but i do respect

your point of view. thank you. >> is it the department of the varmint that also fits or is this from supervisor avalos or his office? >> this was supported by supervisor avalos. >> my concern is that i don't want to repeat the point, but i think that this is a little bit onerous that they have to issue a flyer with each and every sale of the cell phone to a customer who was coming in. it is -- the other substances are products we get. we put the onus on the manufacturer. as an example, smoking. it is put on the box.