Latest news with #RafaelMandelman
CBS News
29-07-2025
- Business
- CBS News
San Francisco gas ban could include homes, businesses undergoing renovations
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco may update the gas ban ordinance to include homes and businesses undergoing major renovations. The ordinance, backed by Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman, would require buildings that fit the bill's criteria to convert all gas water heating, heating and cooling systems, and cooking appliances to electric. The amendment would apply to buildings undergoing major wall-to-ceiling renovations and load-bearing elements that support at least 30% of the property. Mandelman told CBS News Bay Area that the updated ordinance is necessary for a greener San Francisco. "I do think the climate crisis is real. The health impacts of natural gas and fossil fuels are real, and we can't ignore them," Mandelman said. "We have to address them." The city has been slowly phasing out natural gas since 2020, when the original ordinance was passed to reduce emissions. Since then, all new builds are required to use electrical appliances. "We can't say that every conversion of a building is going, or every major retrofit is going to involve that building going all electric, but it's pushing in that direction." Buildings with gas appliances protected under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act are exempt. Mandelman also said affordable housing units get a temporary exemption. Justin Spillman, a contractor for Ace Plumbing and Rooter, said he's seeing San Francisco's push for electric appliances unfold in real time. "They want their energy bills to go down. They want to get ahead of the curve when it comes to the changes that are happening in the emissions goals in the city." He said his company is getting more inquiries from people interested in making the switch. Geran Checkley, one of his clients, said he thinks the ordinance is a necessary one. "We already know we want to electrify our house for environmental and climate reasons, and for health and safety reasons," Geran said. But Checkley said the only drawback to the amendment is the price tag. Even with state and federal rebates, he estimated he'll pay thousands for this update. "I am a supporter of the effort to electrify our city. What I would also like to see is state and city changes that make it more efficient and cheaper." The city, state, and federal government offer rebates for electrifying homes and businesses, depending on the type of projects.
San Francisco Chronicle
26-07-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
S.F. may soon ban natural gas in homes and businesses undergoing major renovations
San Francisco may soon ban natural gas in residential and commercial buildings undergoing major renovations, a move that supporters say will help combat greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health. The proposed ordinance, which could take effect next year, would require 'major renovation' projects to include plans for replacing gas utilities with all-electric ones to get a permit. There are numerous exceptions, however. The proposal is sponsored by Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman and builds on the city's existing ban on natural gas in new buildings, first passed in 2020. 'The climate imperatives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are certainly no less urgent than they were in 2020,' Mandelman said. The bill defines major renovations as projects that involve altering walls or ceilings on over two-thirds of the building, or renovating load-bearing elements that support over 30% of the building's floors or ceilings. Projects must also include plans to replace the majority of heating lines and other mechanical systems to meet the definition. The all-electric requirement also applies to any substantial additions to existing buildings that involve installing new utility systems. 'You're already taking out the mechanical systems, you're doing these really major alterations in the property,' said San Francisco Environment Director Tyrone Jue. 'That's the time to be designing for the future and not rebuilding with legacy systems.' The proposed policy would impact about 785,000 square feet of residential renovations each year, according to estimates from the city's environment department. About 250,000 square feet of commercial renovations each year would also fall under the bill. The department does not track total square feet of renovations. San Francisco's current all-electric requirement for new buildings was first passed in 2020, mirroring a 2019 ordinance adopted in Berkeley — the first city in the nation to pass a measure of this kind. But Berkeley repealed its natural gas ban in 2024 after a federal court said the legislation, which was challenged by the California Restaurant Association, conflicted with a 1975 U.S. law that gave federal officials the sole power to set energy regulations for certain appliances, raising legal uncertainty about similar policies passed in more than 70 California cities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that by prohibiting project developers from installing natural gas in new buildings, Berkeley was indirectly regulating gas-powered appliances that fell under federal jurisdiction under the Energy Policy and Conversion Act, or EPCA. The law has allowed federal officials to set standards for most gas appliances, including furnaces, water heaters, stoves and clothes dryers. Though the ruling only impacted Berkeley's ordinance, it led San Francisco to amend its gas ban on new buildings to include an exception for all EPCA appliances. The newly proposed ordinance on major renovations outlines a similar exception. By creating a carve-out for EPCA appliances, the proposed legislation seems to 'protect against a lot of the litigation risks that could arise,' said environment and energy lawyer Ted Lamm, the associate director of UC Berkeley's Center for Law, Energy and the Environment. Because EPCA has set standards for most gas-powered appliances, the exemption would legally allow many property owners to evade the potential ban by claiming that their gas installations would solely serve one of the many EPCA-covered appliances. However, property owners are unlikely to take this route, Lamm said. The exception still requires renovated buildings to be 'electric-ready' — prepared to transition away from gas appliances. In most cases, property owners would find that reinstalling natural gas lines for just one or a handful of gas appliances is not worth the cost and opt to go all-electric instead, Lamm explained. The bill outlines other exceptions for affordable housing projects, major renovations that convert non-residential buildings to residential sites and projects that can prove that going all-electric is physically or technically infeasible, among others. It also proposes an exception to the all-electric requirement for major renovations on buildings that include an area for commercial food services — often restaurants or cafes — which mirrors a similar carve-out in the existing natural gas ban for new buildings. Cooking with gas is 'integral to restaurants,' said Laurie Thomas, the executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. 'If we were to have buildings retrofitted that excluded that, we all think it would be a real detriment to the industry.' Taken together, these exemptions can narrow the potential avenues for litigation by making it difficult for people to sue solely on the substance of the policy, Lamm said. But some critics say that the current exemptions are not enough. Developer Eric Tao of San Francisco-based L37 Development supports the bill's goal of banning natural gas for voluntary renovations, but fears the additional requirements will discourage certain property owners from making necessary repairs that may trigger the natural gas ban. 'You don't want to be financially prohibited from making sure your building doesn't fall down because you feel like all of a sudden it will trigger this,' he said. Members of the city's Building Inspection Commission shared similar fears. During the commission's July 16 meeting, Commissioner Bianca Neumann, who works for an affordable housing developer, pointed to how the proposal exempts projects that can prove physical or technical difficulty, but not financial challenges. Major renovations are often less predictable than new constructions and thus may create unplanned costs, she said. The commission ultimately recommended the bill to the Land Use and Transportation Committee, but with proposed amendments to delay implementation of the ban to 2027, to create an exemption for projects undergoing voluntary seismic retrofits, and to remove the 2028 expiration of the affordable housing exception. The land use committee will hear it on Monday. Commissioner Kavin Williams, the only commissioner to vote against the recommendation, called the bill 'red tape for the sake of red tape' and a 'bureaucratic nightmare.' 'The electrification is already happening on its own,' Williams said, pointing to the existing ban on natural gas in new construction and a trend of developers voluntarily converting projects to all-electric buildings. Mandelman said his office is still considering the proposed amendments and hopes to produce a revised draft of the bill ahead of the Monday committee hearing. He's confident the legislation will receive approval. 'I'm hopeful that even without legislation, that improvements in the market and the products would naturally be leading to this outcome,' Mandelman said. 'But I still think there's a role, potentially for local government, or state government, in pushing folks along to make this choice.' Natural gas combustion in buildings accounts for about 40% of San Francisco's community-wide greenhouse gas emissions, making buildings a key area that the city would likely need to address to achieve its goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2040. The bill would reduce emissions by 45,000 metric tons, according to estimates from the 2021 Climate Action Plan. This represents just over one percent of the city's carbon footprint. The proposal would represent the third largest reduction in emissions among the climate action plan's proposed emission reduction strategies. It would also have key health benefits, such as reducing the benzene emissions that people breathe when using indoor gas stoves.
San Francisco Chronicle
27-06-2025
- Health
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Profoundly disappointing': Modest gains in S.F. effort to force mentally ill people into treatment
In 2024, San Francisco was one of two California counties that jumped at the opportunity to implement a new law allowing cities to place those struggling with mental illness into involuntary medical treatment. But 18 months after San Francisco began rolling it out, Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman criticized the city's implementation, saying it has 'not been a success.' 'It's profoundly disappointing that we are where we are,' Mandelman said during a Thursday hearing, which he had called, of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. Centered on behavioral health issues since he was first elected in 2018, Mandelman has sponsored several actions in support of expanding conservatorship programs. Now, he's turned critical of the little progress that's been made. Passed in 2023, California Senate Bill 43 expanded the population eligible for conservatorship — a legal arrangement where the government can place individuals deemed unable to care for themselves into involuntary treatment — to include people whose mental illness or drug addiction inhibits their ability to keep themselves safe. The city saw 136 temporary conservatorships in the first year of the law's implementation — an increase of 28, or 25%, from the previous year. So far this year, the city has seen 50 additional temporary conservatorships, according to a presentation from the city's public health and homelessness officials. But although over 85% of the new conservatorship cases fell under the expanded criteria of SB43, none relied solely on the new eligibility guidelines, meaning these patients would have qualified for conservatorship without the new legislation. Mandelman called these improvements 'exceedingly modest,' adding that he and other city residents have observed a persistently high number of individuals in critical need of mental health treatment and placements in conservatorship. The slow progress arises from a shortage of 100-140 locked subacute treatment beds for those struggling with mental illness, according to Daniel Tsai, director of the city's public health department. He also noted a lack of mixed-treatment facilities that can provide adequate care for patients who require treatment for both mental illness and addiction. Last month, the state awarded San Francisco $27 million for 73 new treatment beds, including 57 locked subacute treatment beds and 16 dual diagnosis beds for those with both addiction and behavioral health needs. Tsai said that San Francisco currently has about 100 locked subacute beds and has bought 48 out-of-county beds, sending conserved patients to places as far as Southern California. Due to the shortage of locked beds, city officials are piloting a program placing conservatorship-eligible people in shelters, while providing them with intensive treatment. The program has enrolled about five patients in the past month since its launch, he added. The program aims to help those who, with medication or other treatments, may see improvements without locked facilities, explained Kelly Dearman, executive director of Department of Disability and Aging Services during the hearing. Though he's eager to see where the pilot program goes, Mandelman said he's skeptical about addressing a need for locked treatment facilities by placing individuals in shelter beds. He fears that people staying in shelters will be more likely to leave their treatment placements and engage in the same activities that led to their initial condition. Within two years, the city plans to open an additional 57 locked beds at the Behavioral Health Center at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, but the move would displace 82 residents who currently live at the center and receive residential care. The city's public health department notified residents of the plans in early May, Mission Local reported, stating that no residents will be asked to move until the fall. On Thursday afternoon, roughly 40 caregivers, family members and residents gathered outside of the center on Potrero Avenue to protest the public health department's plans to displace RCFE and ARF residents. Around 90% of the residents have signed a petition calling on the city's public health commission to reconsider the project. 'I just do not agree with closing beds to open beds,' said Jennifer Esteen, a union representative and a registered nurse who works at the center. While she emphasized her support for expanding locked facilities, Esteen said that the city must not 'displace people who are stable in order to find room for other people.' She also noted that a locked treatment facility already located inside the center has over a dozen vacant spaces and doubts the city will be able to adequately staff and fill the expanded space. 'No current (Behavioral Health Center) resident will move without a secure and appropriate next home,' said Dr. Hillary Kunins, director of behavioral health services, at the hearing. She added that the city's acquisition of two assisted living facilities in Hayes Valley will help accommodate any displaced residents. But Esteen is skeptical of the city's messaging, sharing that she's seen cases where residents have not received accommodations under similar promises. She also raised concerns with the plans to move residents to privately contracted facilities, explaining that many residents were previously evicted or mistreated by similar facilities. Antoinette Conde, the sister of a resident of the center, fears that moving her brother to another facility will create unnecessary stress and confusion, while worsening his mental state. A lack of state-level oversight has driven much of this uncertainty over implementation, said Jill Nielsen, deputy director of programs at the Department of Disability and Aging Services who also serves as the city's public conservator. 'Counties are operating these programs to some degree in a vacuum,' she said during the hearing. Last year, several deputy public conservators told the Chronicle that they frequently ran into difficulty finding placements for conservatees, with many ending up on the street. These concerns came amid a push from former mayor London Breed to aggressively increase conservatorship numbers. Nielsen noted that the state did not give local governments additional funding to implement the law, a departure from how it provided San Francisco $4 million to implement Gov. Gavin Newsom's mental health program, CARE Court. Mandelman similarly advocated for more state guidance and oversight, adding that conservatorship, at the current moment, 'is almost entirely a local activity with very little state regulation.'
San Francisco Chronicle
18-06-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Failed vision': S.F. citizen body slams city, police for lack of progress on Vision Zero
A scathing new report asserted that 'critical failures' in traffic enforcement by San Francisco police in recent years have made city streets more dangerous, contributing to the city's failure to reach its goal of having zero traffic deaths by 2024 — which instead became the deadliest year in at least two decades. The 43-page report from the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, a 19-member body of citizens that the city empanels each year, found that while SFMTA has implemented several engineering strategies to make streets safer, the sharp drop-off in traffic tickets 'has increased risks to all road users.' 'There's a sense of lawlessness on the city streets, due to the almost complete lack of enforcement in recent years,' jury chairperson Michael Carboy said in a statement. In 2024, ticket numbers rose slightly, but were still only near 2020 levels — 'when nobody was on the streets,' in the words of Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who has put pressure on SFPD to ramp up enforcement. Meanwhile, the number of traffic fatalities in San Francisco hit a high last year. The jury wrote that it was 'unclear if the high fatalities of 2024 are an outlier or a warning of what is to come.' The number of people severely injured in car crashes was also up last year, though still below pre-pandemic levels. San Francisco is not alone when it comes to increased traffic fatalities or decreased enforcement. The New York Times reported in 2023 that traffic deaths began rising in the U.S. around 2014, while they continued to fall in other wealthy countries. And in 2024, the Times reported that traffic enforcement fell across U.S. cities spanning a variety of enforcement strategies and regardless of police staffing. The Times also pointed to several societal changes contributing to more dangerous streets. Those included vehicles becoming heavier, larger and more powerful, the use of smartphones by distracted drivers and pedestrians and even the uniquely American pervasiveness of automatic transmissions, which require less attentiveness from drivers. For its part, SFPD has previously pointed to staffing shortages, increased paperwork thanks to a 2015 state law and pandemic-related changes as reasons behind the drop, though traffic unit commander Nicole Jones said in the December hearing that these factors alone could not fully explain the decline, the Chronicle previously reported. The decline in staffing from 2016 to 2022 was modest (13%) in comparison to the decline in traffic tickets (95%). In the traffic unit specifically, staffing dropped 30% over the same period, according to SFPD. The civil grand jury agreed, saying that the decline instead 'reflects a deeper cultural issue within SFPD: traffic enforcement is not prioritized or expected by leadership, and officers face no accountability for neglecting it.' 'Just like trends in crime, trends in traffic deaths and severe injuries are a police responsibility and a meaningful indicator of police effectiveness,' it said, calling for 'clear enforcement goals.' SFPD spokesperson Paulina Henderson pointed to the uptick in tickets issued so far this year as evidence of several new traffic enforcement strategies, including placing high-visibility officers at select intersections to deter bad behavior and training officers on other units to use lidar for speed detection. 'SFPD is committed to continuing increasing enforcement in the months and years to come,' Henderson said. The report did not pin all the blame on SFPD. While the jury praised SFMTA's efforts to make streets safer, including interventions like daylighting, turn restrictions, protected bike lanes and speed limit changes, it said the agency could be more efficient and proactive, rather than reacting to tragedies. Marta Lindsey, the communications director of WalkSF, a pedestrian advocacy group, said that she hopes the report inspires the city and the mayor to recommit to Vision Zero, which expired as an official policy in 2024. In her view, the findings highlight that street safety 'isn't just a one agency problem' to be shouldered by SFPD or SFMTA alone. The failure to reach zero traffic deaths 'isn't Vision Zero's fault,' she said. 'It's a failure of the execution.' The grand jury agreed. 'At the end of the Vision Zero decade, San Francisco needs to redouble its efforts to make meaningful progress on street safety,' Investigation Committee Chair Katherine Blumberg said in a statement.
San Francisco Chronicle
02-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Traffic tickets are up 50% in San Francisco. These are the most common violations
The number of traffic tickets issued by San Francisco police continued climbing upward in the first four months of 2025, according to police data — though SFPD still issues only a fraction of the tickets they did before 2020. Compared to the same period last year, tickets were up nearly 50% in the first four months of 2025, a Chronicle analysis found, building on increases in early 2024. Just under half of the violations this year were in the 'Focus on Five' category, which includes the infractions most likely to cause a collision: speeding, running red lights and stop signs, failing to yield while turning and failing to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Despite the increase, traffic tickets are still a long way from what they were in years past. Traffic enforcement plummeted with the onset of the pandemic shutdowns in 2020 and stayed low the next three years — hitting a low of less than 200 tickets in June of 2022. By contrast, police issued more than 3,000 tickets in June of 2019. In June of 2015, they issued more than 10,000. The stunning and sustained drop prompted outcry from safety advocates and citizens worried that police had begun to ignore a key responsibility, especially as the city struggled to meet its Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic deaths on its streets. Concerned about the enforcement decline and increasing street fatalities, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman called for police to increase enforcement once more, holding four hearings on the issue between October 2022 and December 2024. In those hearings, police pointed to a number of interconnected reasons behind the drop, including a lack of staff in the traffic division and a 2015 state law that requires officers to carefully document whom they stop to guard against racial profiling, which makes each stop take longer. But police traffic commander Nicole Jones acknowledged in a hearing in December that these changes could not fully explain the precipitous decline. She noted that the pandemic had shifted the department's priorities away from traffic enforcement. While traffic citations had been increasing in the first half of 2024, they dipped again in the second half. Jones said in the hearing that she was hopeful that a bevy of new strategies rolled out over the last year would help. Since then, the numbers have fluctuated monthly but trended back up. Those new strategies include targeted enforcement in problem areas, including having high-visibility officers at intersections to deter bad behavior, training officers not assigned to the traffic unit to use lidar for speed detection and flooding resources to certain areas at different times. Evan Sernoffsky, a spokesperson for the department, said that such strategies enable the department to 'maximize' its resources, even amid a yearslong staffing shortage. He said that traffic safety was a 'top priority' for the department. 'We are taking a very rigorous and data-driven approach to have the maximum impact,' Sernoffsky said. 'At the end of the day, we just want to make sure that our streets are safe for everybody.' Asked whether it was possible for citations to reach pre-pandemic levels, Sernoffsky said that the department's goal is to continue increasing enforcement through citations as well as by having officers visible on the street and issuing warnings for deterrence. In the December hearing, Jones noted another factor that would help bolster street safety, and one not captured in police data: automated enforcement. The city's 19 red light cameras already issue thousands of tickets a year, and its 33 new speed cameras will also begin issuing citations as early as August. The cameras have already begun issuing warnings, and, in April, logged almost 32,000 speeders
