Shadows cast by proposed building projects may no longer loom so large over San Francisco’s housing landscape.
That’s the hope of Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, whose “SHADE Act” — Slashing Housing Appeals and Delays Everywhere — was approved by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday.
The law removes processes that have, Mahmood said, obstructed or delayed development projects, including shadow review. It also cuts in half the allotted time for certain appeals before projects move forward.
Mahmood said that appeals involving shade had slowed down over 2,000 housing units in a dozen city projects since 2017, and said they are part of the city’s “notorious” review process.
But it is not clear how significant shadows alone are in holding up development.
One city planner said at an earlier hearing that while 18 projects in the last six years had faced appeals that mentioned shade, for 14 of those shadows were “not the primary reason for the appeal.”
Still, Mahmood pointed to “the infamous project at 469 Stevenson,” a proposed 495-unit SoMa complex at the site of a parking lot that has been stalled for years due to shadow concerns, and said “this legislation would render such appeals invalid.”
Planning department staff supported the legislation and, in an unceremonious vote Tuesday, the board voted to pass it 10-1. Supervisor Connie Chan was the lone dissenting vote.
Mahmood introduced the law in May. It deals with the city’s implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, a 1970 state law that requires an environmental impact report for planned developments. Though the state law does not include a shadow analysis, the city had required it until today.
Developers will still have to present an analysis for any building that casts a shadow on a city park, Mahmood said at the hearing last month, and “the public voice in this environmental review process will still be heard loud and clear.”
Bridget Maley, a critic of development through the group Neighborhoods United, disputed that. She said the law’s reduction of appeal times “will limit the public’s voice.”
“Yes, we need to make housing more affordable for everyone in this city,” Maley said. “But by undermining our environmental review process, what are we doing in terms of giving people their access to proper environmental review?”
Supervisor Myrna Melgar, who supported the law, said she believes that the language of environmentalism has been co-opted by those who oppose housing. She thanked Mahmood in September for “doing a very small thing” toward building a denser, more environmentally friendly city. And today, she voted “aye.”
“Planning department staff supported the legislation and, in an unceremonious vote Tuesday, the board voted to pass it 10-1. Supervisor Connie Chan was the lone dissenting vote.”
But of course Chan voted against it.
For the Love of Christ, she’s the worst.
There is no way we should allow her political career to continue once she’s termed out of the BOS on January 8, 2029.
She’s been undeniably the lamest D1 Supervisor — and that’s saying a lot.
Agreed!!! Wow. I remember when the 16th & Mission vitriol was happening, and all the Connie Chan types were up in arms that the playground at Marshall Elementary would be shaded for a couple of hours for just a few weeks a year, during December/January when kids aren’t even in school that much. The initial proposal for 330 market rate units with 30% of them affordable came out back in 2013. It’s 2026. It will be 2030 until we have housing for people in need who aren’t recovering addicts, all on a giant lot on top of a struggling transit system that could desperately use the ridership. Instead we still have a blighted corner that is an active drug den at night, that the city pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to try to keep clean and police. SF could have saved $10+M in DPW costs and police overtime, and 500 people could have had housing for 10+ years, but here we are…
It’s really kind of shocking Connie voted against this, a month from the election, where one of the biggest dings against her is that she is anti-housing and obstructs housing development. You’d think she would at least throw people a bone and not be the LONE dissenting vote in trying to streamline housing approvals and get rid of spurious delays.
The story list that up to 2000 projects have been affected by shade legislation. From what I understood 4 stories is the max height allowed for most buildings unless it is a corner because shadows would be cast on sidewalks. Is this the difference in the 2000 or 18-14 numbers sighted in the story? Thank you for clarification on this discrepancy.
Nobody in St. Francis Wood’s sunlight will be affected, so this is all okay.
Shady Mahmood is diligently repaying the favors extended to him by his real estate backers.
I miss Dean Preston.
At least he understands that the Wienering of San Francisco has very little to do with housing affordability.