Supervisor Bilal Mahmood is preparing to introduce legislation next week aimed at speeding up housing approvals by eliminating shadow analysis as a grounds for appeal under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The legislation, which he has entitled the Slashing Housing Appeals & Delays Everywhere, or the SHADE Act, would streamline environmental review procedures that go beyond state requirements. San Francisco is the only major California city that allows residents to appeal housing projects based on the shadows it would cast.
Over the past decade CEQA appeals involving shadow analysis have led to delaying or stalling 2,195 housing units citywide, according to Mahmood. This includes the proposed 495-unit development at the former Nordstrom valet parking lot at 469 Stevenson St, near Sixth and Market streets, although the appellant in that case also said the environmental review process had failed to adequately analyse geotechnical conditions or potential impacts on gentrification.
While Mahmood’s proposed changes would save developers from having to fight a lengthy appeal, which can take six months or more, the CEQA review process will still include a shadow analysis required under Prop K, a 1984 ballot measure that passed in response to a growing concern about shadow impacts of buildings on the city’s open spaces.
Prop K requires the planning commission, prior to the issuance of a permit for a project that exceeds 40 feet in height, to make a finding that any shadow on property under the jurisdiction of Recreation and Park department cast by the project is insignificant.
Since 2017, 11 appeals of housing projects cited shadows analysis, impacting about 2,000 proposed units. Eventually all the projects were approved, including the 3333 California St., now slated for 744 units, and India Basin, which is a 1,575-unit project. Most of the11 projects remain stalled because of high construction costs and lack of available financing.
Mahmood said “for too long San Francisco has paid the price of being afraid of its own shadow.”
“This is a direct example of how people are weaponizing our environmental process to actually hurt environmental outcomes,” he said. “To treat shade as the equivalent of toxic waste is incorrect, especially when you are blocking infill housing which is in part how we meet our environmental goals.”
In addition to eliminating shadows as a basis for environmental appeals, the legislation would cut the number of hearings on environmental impact reports; simplify and modernize public notification requirements; and implement assembly bill 1633, which provides developers recourse for challenging de facto City disapproval of projects stemming from CEQA-related inaction or delays.
Planning Director Sarah Dennis Phillips said CEQA review should be focused on “the most critical environmental concerns.”
We are reconsidering past priorities and taking a second look at requirements that may inadvertently discourage development,” she said. “We have to get out of our own way.”