San Francisco supervisors debate telecom site, mobile food rules, health-care planning and mayoral succession; key votes recorded

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Nov. 16 debated and voted on several high-profile items, including appeals over alterations to the telecommunications installation at Bernal Heights Park, changes to mobile food and nuisance enforcement rules, the city’s draft health-care planning procedure and the start of a public process to select a successor (interim) mayor after Gavin Newsom’s expected resignation. Supervisors also continued a public hearing on a proposed Ocean Avenue Community Benefits District and recorded a series of votes on ordinances and appointments.

Why it matters: Several items could affect citywide services — how wireless infrastructure is sited and reviewed, how mobile food businesses are regulated near schools and parks, how the city evaluates major health-care facility changes, and who will lead San Francisco at the start of 2011. The Bernal Heights appeals in particular drew sustained public comment and split votes on whether state environmental review was required.

Bernal Heights telecommunications tower appeals The board considered appeals of Planning Commission actions allowing five point‑to‑point microwave dishes to be attached to the existing tower at Bernal Heights Park. Appellants argued the installation was part of a larger Clearwire citywide backhaul network and therefore improperly "piecemealed," and they raised concerns about cumulative and unusual‑circumstance impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including radio‑frequency exposures if dishes were misaligned by earthquake or vandalism.

Terry Milne, identified as an appellant and Bernal Heights resident, told the board, "We believe the Planning Commission erred in categorically exempting this project from CEQA review." Planning staff, led by Tara Sullivan (Planning Department project manager), told the board the Department of Public Health had reviewed the project and measured cumulative field levels at the site and that the Planning Commission found the proposal met categorical‑exemption criteria in this case.

The board voted to affirm the Planning Commission’s categorical CEQA exemption (motion to affirm the exemption passed by roll call) but then voted to reverse the Planning Commission’s conditional‑use decision allowing the site modifications absent fuller compliance with the earlier 2008/2009 conditional‑use conditions. In debate, supervisors said they wanted to ensure American Tower (the property owner) complied with prior permit conditions (landscaping, fencing, building permits and other site remediation) before additional permissions were implemented.

Mobile food facilities and proximity to schools Supervisors considered two linked ordinances to create a new planning‑code category for mobile food businesses and move much of the street‑use regulation into public‑works oversight. Supervisor Aaron Peskin (appearing in the transcript as Supervisor Dufty) described amendments that would require a business license, reduce permit fees for vendors operating in multiple locations and extend a 1,500‑foot prohibition around middle and high schools to include pushcarts.

Assistant director Nick Kinsey of the Recreation and Parks Department said the department will coordinate with principals and school nutrition staff when park vendors are proposed adjacent to school campuses and that Rec & Park intends to limit some vending near certain school boundaries. Ken Rich of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development said the city’s approach for rights‑of‑way is to limit an individual permit holder to a maximum number of permits (7), as a way to limit formula retail moving into the mobile‑food market.

The board approved the measures on first reading after several technical amendments. Supporters said the ordinances streamline permitting and support small‑business opportunities; critics expressed concern about protecting school nutrition efforts near park sites.

Health‑code nuisance ordinance (DPH enforcement updates) Supervisor John Avalos brought a health‑code amendment aimed at strengthening the Department of Public Health’s authority to bring problem properties into compliance, with several clarifying amendments adopted on the floor. Avalos said the changes were intended to modernize tools for addressing nuisance conditions where landlords had not cooperated after repeated DPH action; he emphasized the changes were intended for a ‘‘very small minority of landlords.’’

Amendments adopted on the floor clarified the listing of "responsible parties," added tenants explicitly as possible responsible parties, required DPH to set abatement timelines in notices of violation, limited penalty accrual if violations were abated within the DPH‑specified timeframe (except where multiple repeated violations at the same property occurred), and removed a mandatory contact‑information requirement that DPH would seek voluntarily. Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams characterized the changes as "clarifying amendments."

Health‑care services master plan and appeals process Supervisor David Chiu introduced an ordinance to require preparation and use of a health‑care services master plan and to require a planning‑department consistency determination for changes to medical uses above a threshold (10,000 gross square feet). The measure had extensive stakeholder engagement and passed first reading after debate and amendments.

In public debate supervisors and counsel discussed how the consistency determination would be appealed. Under the adopted language the planning commission (and, where applicable, the board) would consider consistency at the same time as other land‑use entitlements, and the board may find countervailing public‑policy reasons to approve a project despite an inconsistency with the master plan. Members raised concerns that the board could in theory separately approve CEQA findings or conditional‑use permits and still deny consistency — a procedural outcome some supervisors wanted clarified. The authors accepted an amendment clarifying that any appeal of a consistency determination should be heard "at the same time" as other entitlements so the board can act on entitlements and consistency together.

Ocean Avenue Community Benefits District public hearing The board held a public hearing on a proposed Ocean Avenue Community Benefits District (CBD) covering roughly 148 parcels from Manor Drive east to I‑280. Supporters from the Ocean Avenue Revitalization Collaborative and local merchants said the district would pay for sidewalk sweeping, graffiti removal, marketing and safety efforts; opponents, largely merchants and some property owners, said the timing was poor for new assessments while businesses struggle. Supervisor Avalos moved to keep the hearing open and continue the hearing to Dec. 14 to allow balloting to continue; the board agreed to continue the hearing.

Mayor succession and committee of the whole The board opened a special, extended public discussion on the city charter authority and process for appointing a successor (interim) mayor after Gavin Newsom’s anticipated resignation to become lieutenant governor. Supervisor John Avalos and others pressed for an open, transparent process and asked the clerk and outside counsel to draft a short process proposal the board could adopt; the board voted to convene as a committee of the whole on Nov. 16 to take public input and discuss the appointment process and directed the clerk to prepare a proposed process for the board to consider. Public comment was extensive and called repeatedly for an open, public, deliberative process and for the current board (not the newly elected supervisors) to make the appointment so the city benefits from institutional knowledge during the transition.

Votes at a glance - Item 23 (Health Code nuisance amendments): ordinance passed first reading as amended (roll call: 10 ayes). - Items 29–30 (mobile food planning/public‑works changes): ordinances passed on first reading after amendments (roll call: 11 ayes on final). - Item 31 (landscape irrigation controls): passed first reading (roll call: 10 ayes, 1 no). - Item 32 (Sacred Heart resolution): adopted after debate (roll call 6 ayes, 5 no). - Item 33 (confirmation of Art Torres, SFPUC seat 2): confirmed (11‑0). - Item 34 (Treasure Island Development Authority appointments): motion approved (9 ayes, 2 no) after a failed motion to continue. - Items 35–36 (Ocean Avenue CBD): public hearing opened; board continued the hearing to Dec. 14 to allow balloting to finish. - Items 37–40 (Bernal Heights CEQA exemption appeal): the board affirmed the Planning Commission’s categorical exemption determination (motion to affirm passed; roll call tied to transcript: 8 ayes, 3 noes). - Items 41–44 (Bernal Heights conditional‑use appeal): the board reversed the Planning Commission’s conditional‑use approval and directed findings (roll call: formal reversal vote 10 ayes). - Item 47 (health‑care services master plan ordinance): passed first reading as amended (roll call: 8 ayes, 3 noes). - Items 54–55 (procedural motions on mayoral succession): motions to begin a public committee process and direct the clerk to prepare a process were approved (roll call: item 54 — 10 ayes; item 55 as amended — 10 ayes).

What’s next The Bernal Heights site will require follow‑up enforcement and compliance with earlier conditional‑use conditions before a new build‑out proceeds; Clearwire and American Tower said they will pursue required permits but the board’s action requires more explicit progress on site improvements. The Ocean Avenue CBD hearing will remain open to complete ballots and return for decision on Dec. 14. The board asked the clerk and counsel to present a short, written process for how the body will solicit nominations and ultimately appoint a successor (interim) mayor; supervisors signaled urgency but also emphasized legal constraints (state campaign‑finance and conflict rules) that could shape the final process.

Meeting context and public engagement The meeting combined routine consent business with several extended, substantive debates that drew dozens of public speakers. The Bernal Heights appeals were the meeting’s most contentious single subject, generating technical testimony on CEQA, radio‑frequency health questions and site maintenance/landscaping compliance. The mayoral succession discussion drew wide public attendance and strong requests that the board use an open process and move quickly to select a leader who can manage transition planning and the city’s looming budget challenges.

Ending note Supervisors said they expected follow‑up reports and enforcement steps on the Bernal Heights site, adoption of several ordinances on first reading, continuation of the Ocean Avenue CBD hearing to December and an expedited planning memo on mayoral succession to be returned to the board next week for further action.