San Francisco Stops Letting Shadows Alone Hold Up New Housing, Passing the SHADE Act 10-1

In San Francisco, the shadow a new building would cast has long been enough to start a fight that could stall a housing project for months. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to take that tool away, approving Supervisor Bilal Mahmood's SHADE Act, short for Slashing Housing Appeals and Delays Everywhere. Supervisor Connie Chan cast the only no vote, Mission Local reported.

What changes

The ordinance rewrites how the city carries out the California Environmental Quality Act, the 1970 state law that requires environmental review of many projects. According to the city's legislative record, it removes shadow analysis as a specific type of environmental impact, cuts the time to appeal an environmental determination to the Board of Supervisors from 30 days to 15, and drops some steps the state law doesn't require. Its co-sponsors include Supervisors Matt Dorsey, Danny Sauter and Myrna Melgar.

State law never called for a shadow study. San Francisco added one on its own, and when Mahmood first proposed the change in May, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that it was the only major California city letting residents appeal housing over shadows. The Chronicle said the bill would also cut the number of hearings on environmental impact reports, update public notice rules and put in place a state law, AB 1633, that gives developers a way to challenge delays that amount to a de facto denial.

Shadows on parks will still get a look. Prop. K, a 1984 ballot measure, requires the Planning Commission to find that shadows from any building taller than 40 feet on Recreation and Park Department land are insignificant before a permit is issued, the Chronicle reported, and that rule stays in place.

How much difference will it make?

Mahmood has said shade-related appeals slowed more than 2,000 housing units since 2017. His go-to example is 469 Stevenson St., a planned 495-unit tower on a former parking lot near Sixth and Market streets that has been stuck for years; he said the law "would render such appeals invalid." The Chronicle noted the appeal there also raised soil conditions and gentrification, not just shade.

The record is mixed. A city planner said at an earlier hearing that of 18 projects in the past six years whose appeals mentioned shade, shadows were "not the primary reason" in 14, Mission Local reported. The Chronicle found that the projects appealed over shadows were eventually approved, and that most remain stalled by high construction costs and tight financing.

Opponents argue the faster timeline costs residents. Bridget Maley of the group Neighborhoods United said the shorter appeal window "will limit the public's voice," according to Mission Local. Melgar countered that the language of environmentalism has been co-opted by people who oppose housing, and planning staff supported the change.