Shadows cast by tall and not-so-tall buildings alike have long been used to block housing in San Francisco, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood wants it to end.
The District 5 legislator is announcing a law on Thursday that would eliminate the ability for people to say shadows cast by a building are an “environmental concern” that can be used to delay, and possibly block, new housing.
“In San Francisco, we’ve literally paid the price of being too afraid of our own shadow,” Mahmood said, pointing to data showing that shadow-based concerns were used to delay or block 2,195 housing units in 11 projects since 2017.
Whenever a new housing project is proposed in the city, its developer typically must create an environmental impact report on a variety of factors, like toxic waste and seismic hazards.
San Francisco requires that report to include a shadow analysis noting whether the new building will cast shade on any open space in the city. Mahmood’s legislation would get rid of that requirement; it is not in state guidelines, and most California cities do not consider shadows an environmental factor.
The environmental impact report is intended to help politicians make an informed decision about whether to approve or deny a development proposal. But any resident can file an appeal if they think environmental impacts were not fully considered, which can delay, block or alter projects.
Shadows ultimately led to a delay for the infamous 469 Stevenson St. project from 2021, a 495-unit building on the site of a Nordstrom parking lot in SoMa.
Some SoMa residents were concerned that the project, which contained about 100 affordable housing units, would gentrify the area.
But gentrification alone is not a legal reason for supervisors to block a project. So residents filed an appeal, alleging the project’s environmental impacts were improperly evaluated. The Board of Supervisors ended up siding with them in an 8-3 vote, citing shadows cast on nearby Mint Plaza in their decision.
The developer was forced back to the drawing board and had to redo his environmental report, delaying the project by several years.
Even when projects are 100 percent affordable, shadows cast uncertainty: Residents near 16th and Mission’s “La Maravilla” housing project, a 380-unit project next door to Marshall Elementary School that broke ground last month, raised concerns that the development would darken the school’s playground.
That forced the nonprofit developers to hold meetings and negotiate with residents about the issue.
Mahmood said even if appeals are ultimately rejected, the length and cost of the appeals process makes it difficult to produce housing projects, and leads developers to avoid building in San Francisco.
“The housing problems we’re facing are death by a thousand cuts,” said Witt Turner of the Housing Action Coalition, a proponent of the bill. “We need to start sewing them up, one by one.”
The state is requiring San Francisco to plan for 36,000 more housing units by 2030, and the city’s best guess is that, even under the most favorable scenarios, developers will build less than half of that, and in four times as much time.
Mahmood, a YIMBY, has made streamlining housing a focus of his 15 months in office. His new legislation eliminates certain intermediate appeals and hearings and shortens appeal timelines, mostly from 30 days to 15 days.
The bill will be evaluated by the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors in early summer.
The bill is no quick fix, however. Environmental appeals often cite more than just shadows when seeking to change projects. In the case of the Nordstrom parking lot building, for example, a failure to properly consider the seismic impact of a building was also a component of the decision.
YIMBYs have long pursued reform to CEQA, a California law outlining the environmental appeals process.
“We shouldn’t let outdated laws get in the way of building housing, which is actually important to making progress on our climate goals,” Mahmood said.
I consider infill an environment win. As a city dweller more people make more options for entertainment and opportunities for small businesses. In San Francisco specifically with great year round temperatures buildings do not require the same heat and air resources as almost anywhere else in the country. I hope better transit and less driving follow. I remember the sunshine ordnance time when it meant buildings casting shade and not political transparency. I hope he is successful here in pealing back layers of unnecessary rules that allow people with a vested interest in property values rising from keeping out new people in all of our neighborhoods. And I mean ALL
I consider selling out to developers who don’t make low-income housing that actually moves the needle on the housing “crisis” they purport to be trying to solve the opposite of a win. I consider that a talking point from someone who isn’t thinking about the reason given by YIMBY PR shills for building more housing in the first place – keeping prices low enough for the working and service classes to remain nearby.
It’s at best an afterthought and if you think endless construction of ever taller maximum-rent condos is an “environment win” you really smoke the PR kool-aid.
“Higher rents are needed to push profit margins up and incentivize developers to build more housing, pro-housing groups say.”
FROM THEIR OWN LYING MOUTHS.
Because there’s no such thing as too dense for a given existing footprint?
I consider mindless YIMBYism a mental illness based in a basic fallacy, and I don’t think those who push that line actually understand the end result of the parroted virtue signaling pushed to maximum developer profit and deregulation in the City of Billionaire Private Equity Control formerly known as San Francisco.
If you want to live your “dream” I’m sure you’d love Rio’s favelas…
Blocking 400+ units of housing in a transit rich neighborhood is much more environmentally damaging than any shadow. Maybe we should be allowed to use environmental law to sue those who block housing in favor of gas stations and parking lots.
YIMBY’s prefer to live in the shadows, agreed. Certainly their SuperPAC donors do, why else would they mix and match dark money and developer money as if completely interchangeable, as it is. YIMBY CITIZENS UNITED!
(As an aside, gas stations and parking lots aren’t abusing the shadow ordinances. Just another YIMBY misdirection based on nothing real, bravo.)
Very telling that you continue to focus on shadows while having no complaints about the cars/car infrastructure that is CA’s #1 source of greenhouse gas emissions. This is why CEQA is abused: it’s disconnected from the true causes of environmental damage in CA. How much environmental damage have shadows caused?
Well, now we’re getting somewhere. For years, I have been annoyed by this tactic to stop a building from going up. I knew it was a scam because I was sitting in a regular Board of Supervisors meeting when a project was being opposed due to shadows. But I was staying nearby and knew there was no way that a park would not be obstructed by a shadow of the proposed building. I was so mad because I couldn’t do anything to protest, other than send an email that would surely be ignored. So after a year and a half in office, I can finally give Supervisor Mahmood an A+ for this proposed legislation. It’s not perfect, but I am pleased.
Allen, you know that shadow studies are public documents, right?
A shadow document means nothing to me when I know for a fact, there was no possible shadow obstruction at the park where I was referring to. And for the record, I was homeless and frequented the park (Victoria Manolo Draves) in question at the time for YEARS.
This is nice but really its time to acknowledge that CEQA has been a complete disaster. The intentions were good but it needs to be scrapped and replaced.
The intentions remain good and the necessity of regulation still exists. Do people abuse SF/CA’s system of byzantine regulations, yes they do. Others (Billionaire Private Equity that doesn’t live here) also abuse the giveaway deregulation periods. They don’t care if the end result is a diverse, vibrant and interesting city to live in. They care about cash, and they use it to buy politicians like Scott Wiener.
Look at his donor list. All those big companies are your local heroes? Just altruistically helping reduce local regulation burdens for.. the little guy, you?
Sure. Scrap CEQA when you have a credible replacement. Not before.
CEQA and EIR’s are completely abused in California. Environmental concerns should come in to play when developing pristine open space. The “environmental concerns” when adding hundreds of housing units to a city that already has hundreds of thousands of housing units are complete BS. It’s just another way for folks who don’t want any development to block things.
“Environmental concerns should come in to play when developing pristine open space.”
“Concerns for people should only come into play when those people are Corporations.”
Under-thinking something so broad, so entirely, so hand-wavingly…
I wonder what ‘environment’ produced such a single-file mind?
Nevermind those thousands and thousands of vacant units held by corporate LLC control, let’s take away any safeguards against them doing whatever they want because one of them has been abused by the wealthy and their lawyers. Why would we possibly want to fix that issue, the _abuse_ of the regulation, when we can just deregulate everything and pretend it’s all solved thus?
Planning and governance suggestions should come into play when someone has a whit of understanding of the word “environment” and its broader implications for the discussion at hand, pretending instead that it only applies to open fields…
Do what the French do – Modern high-rises in Paris, such as the Tour Triangle (topping out in 2026), use slanting, pyramidal, or tapered designs to minimize shadows cast on neighboring buildings and maximize natural sunlight for the surrounding urban area. This approach contrasts with, but is inspired by, the traditional 19th-century Haussmannian buildings which used steep, 45-degree Mansard roofs to ensure light reached the streets.
“San Francisco requires that report to include a shadow analysis noting whether the new building will cast shade on any open space in the city.”
Is it any open space or is it just Rec & Park property? I’m thinking of the 1980s-era Prop. K requirements that are unique to SF. (See Sec. 225 of the planning code.)
Correction: Sec. 295 of the planning code.
To Andy. It’s not only RPD property. Public open space in the city (roads and sidewalks are not considered in the shadow ordinance) are also owned by other departments such as SF Port, SFPUC, state and federal agencies.
I’m happy with just about any new building, but god forbid you find one awful and tell someone they shouldn’t build it. You’ll get name called into oblivion. They wanted to make a 7 story tall CHROME building in North Beach with only luxury condos and a private restaurant. I was perfectly happy to vote against it. They also put in a ton of section 8 and public housing, which I was perfectly happy to vote FOR. And yet, the yimby people say I’m the “nimby”.
This entire yimby thing has turned into a farce. Whenever I hear it, I’m immediately suspicious. Nice job ruining what could have been a positive movement for SF. I hope it paid well.
I agree with the supervisor in principle. The problem I see is that every new development is basically a six-story block with very little architectural interest. When the developer drops these blocks into a community that previously only contained one and two-story single-family homes, you literally overshadow the neighborhood.
So a developer tried to cut corners and their attorneys and consultants declined to advise them to consider the legal reality of shadows, therefore San Francisco should eliminate shadow studies so that our scarce open space and park land can be not only cold and windy, but sun-free too.
Move fast and break things.
The only way for the developer to avoid legal issues is if they didn’t try to build at all. Which is exactly why anti-housing folks have weaponized CEQA to block infill housing under the guise of “environmentalism.”
In my opinion, we need to be judging the environmental impact of an action relative to the alternative. In this case the alternative to infill housing is green field developments way out in places like Fairfield, forcing people to drive hours every day. Much worse than a sliver of a shadow in a park miles away!
Poooooor private equity corporations with speculative investments!
Ben is so right!
There are many qualified land use legal practices in San Francisco who know what requirement projects must meet in order to get approved and advise their clients accordingly.
Lots of money on the table? Be sure to get legal counsel to make sure you don’t get dinged.
This is not rocket science.
Particularly on the warmer and sunnier East Side of the city, shade is actually welcome. I often prefer to walk on the shaded side of the street.