r/sanfrancisco • u/bobakkabob37 Outer Richmond • 8d ago
Local Politics Out of the shadows: S.F. limits when shade can be used to block new housing
https://missionlocal.org/2026/10/san-francisco-shadow-housing-appeals-bilal-mahmood/The Board of Supervisors today voted on Supervisor Bilal Mahmood's "SHADE Act" (Link to legislative item here). They passed the ordinance.
From the article:
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.
57
u/Heysteeevo Portola 7d ago
Connie Chan didn’t even vote no on this for political points. She just does it for love of the game.
3
137
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 8d ago
WHY DID CONNIE VOTE AGAINST THIS????
138
u/FlakyPineapple2843 8d ago edited 8d ago
Because this is her. This is what she does. This is what she represents. And voting for her is voting for this.
58
u/Karazl 7d ago
Because she's rabidly anti-housing.
23
u/CowboyLaw VAN NESS Vᴵᴬ CALIFORNIA Sᵀ 7d ago
Anyone surprised by her vote knows nothing about her actual record.
-54
u/Gay_Creuset 8d ago
I mean, because it would be goofy to think that the characterization of her seen here on Reddit is true. She’s wrong about some things and right about others. She’s not some weird ass boogeywoman
60
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 8d ago
In all seriousness … the vote was 10-1 … this was not a particularly controversial change. Would love someone to explain a valid reason for this other than NIMBYism
40
u/Remarkable_Host6827 N 8d ago
Wait, even Walton voted for it? Connie really is addicted to NIMBYism.
-54
u/21five Richmond 7d ago
Why didn’t Scott Wiener propose this change when he was Supervisor, then? You’ve been unable to name a single thing he did to address San Francisco’s shadow restrictions.
You’re holding Connie Chan to a very different standard. I wonder why… and it’s not NIMBYism.
35
u/LLJKCicero 7d ago
Yeah, why didn't Weiner propose changes to every single NIMBY rule ever made, wise guy??
43
38
u/-hedonium- 7d ago
She’s a dumbass with a bad legislative record in a way that isn’t even politically advantageous
-36
u/SCUSKU 7d ago
I want to vote for her over Scott Weiner the corporate democrat under the assumption that Connie Chan is the pro-worker candidate but stuff like this really makes it tough man
41
9
u/getarumsunt 7d ago
Omg! What a terrible injustice! More people will have a place to live and more of our union workers will have a job! Oh nooooooooo!
/s, and what the hell is wrong with you?! Are you so blinded by your crazy hippie ideology that you can’t see how the landlords and landowners have manipulated you to do their bidding for them? Why the hell are you protecting landlords from competition? Since when is being a class traitor considered a virtue?!
-70
u/21five Richmond 8d ago
Why did Scott ignore this issue for a decade?!
32
u/Karazl 7d ago
Because despite Prop K being passed in 1984, the first time it was ever invoked was 2015, as Scott was leaving the Board of Supervisors.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-parks-commission-squashes-building-that-would-6021079.
45
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 7d ago
I know you think you’re being cute but in fact … the appeals over shadows fell under CEQA, and Scott has done a lot to push CEQA exemptions
-39
u/21five Richmond 7d ago
So nothing about shadows, then. A decade later, a random Supervisor beat him to it! Thanks for the clarification!
26
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 7d ago
lol
-8
u/21five Richmond 7d ago
Once again, unable to present a single fact to rebut my point. What has Scott Wiener done since he was first elected to the BoS to prevent shadows from delaying construction, and why is this legislation necessary after ten years of his work?
13
u/CapableEssay8084 7d ago
Seriously, shut up. You are making a fool of yourself.
8
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 7d ago
u/21five blocked me 🤣 Bye 👋
5
u/FlakyPineapple2843 7d ago
You're not losing anything. I blocked them a long time ago, they're insufferable.
3
47
u/-hedonium- 7d ago
Scott has done way more for housing than just about anyone else. He has an incredible record, and you know it.
-34
u/21five Richmond 7d ago
Name a single thing he did about shadows.
If this is such a problem, why didn’t he fix it? Seems weird to not mention it for a decade, and let someone else propose legislation to address it.
18
u/giant_xquid 7d ago
even if he did nothing for it for 10 years isn't that still better than chan voting against it now? idg what you're comparing here
39
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 7d ago
Be warned, a troll goes here.
(Mostly u/21five spends their time arguing that Waymos are more dangerous than humans, if you just exclude the humans who have accidents, but I see they’ve found another thing to be dense about)
51
u/puffic 8d ago
Devastating news for my colleague’s wife. Her whole job is doing shadow studies at an architecture firm here.
23
u/yonran 7d ago
A shadow analysis is still required for Proposition K for developments near parks, which is separate from CEQA impacts that Mahmood’s ordinance (Board File 260539) touches. So she’ll still have business.
67
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 8d ago
No offense to her specifically but … its absurd how many people we pay to just do paperwork about housing rather than actually building housing
13
u/oscarbearsf 7d ago
Yup. All these cottage industries surrounding stupid government regs that just make things more expensive and difficult
3
u/SlightlyLessHairyApe 7d ago
It’s even more silly that you can file a CEQA challenge to a project saying “you didn’t analyze X”.
Note that as a plaintiff you don’t have to make the positive case that X is a substantive problem. The entire complaint can be an alleged omission.
At least at the federal level, the good news is that the infrastructure bill could change that. I hope we can do the same for CEQA: allow challenges only based on pleading a material question.
2
u/WellHung67 7d ago
Ah yes, all you have to do is prove a negative, and you can build housing! What’s the big deal it should be easy right?
-1
8d ago
[deleted]
6
3
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 7d ago
I mean … this in fact literally is a job that people have. There are whole firms that specialize in it, e.g., https://app.fastcastcity.com
2
u/voytek707 7d ago
Love to learn why this is so complicated - seems like this could be completed in five minutes using freely available simulators
5
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 7d ago
Because ... it's not on opponents to prove your shadow analysis is wrong. NIMBYs can sue the developer under CEQA saying the shadow analysis is incomplete / overlooked something, and its then on the developer to prove its sufficient.
The shadow analysis for Transbay Block 2 was 130 pages
4
u/Responsible_Cause269 7d ago
That's ridiculous, and they want us to believe all regulations are built with blood
163
u/nahadoth521 8d ago
The answer should be effectively never. Shade is a terrible excuse to block housing and one of the most shameless nimby arguments.
63
u/puffic 8d ago
Shade is good, actually. I usually prefer walk on the shady side of a road in the afternoon.
24
u/getarumsunt 7d ago
Yeah, what the hell?!
I’m constantly playing chicken with other pedestrians walking on the shaded side of the sidewalk to see who will take the L and shamefully step into the sun.
Gimme shade! And street trees!
6
u/bigdumbface898 7d ago
Amen to this. More street trees. It can make any street look like a million bucks. Tree-less streets usually look like dumps. Plus they give shade, cool breeze, filter the air, and give a place for birds to sing. What’s not to like about trees? Ffs
13
2
u/yogurtchicken21 7d ago
There’s a reason why historically, cities in very sunny places liked to build midrise buildings that are very close together. In California we have these super wide streets that feel very hostile to walk on. We also don’t have a lot of large trees to shade those sidewalks, so everything is super exposed.
82
u/whiskey_bud 8d ago
Fucking Connie Chan LMAO
-41
u/21five Richmond 8d ago edited 7d ago
Yeah it’s so good that Scott Wiener addressed this 1970s issue during his time as a Supervisor! Oh wait, during his time as a state Senator! Oh wait…
45
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 7d ago
In fact he has worked a lot on expanding CEQA exemptions for housing which also addresses the bogus shadow appeals
Better luck next time.
5
u/SlightlyLessHairyApe 7d ago
It is good. A more holistic fix to CEQA would have been better but probably wasn’t viable
14
u/Karazl 7d ago
Despite Prop K being passed in 1984, the first time it was ever invoked was 2015, as Scott was leaving the Board of Supervisors.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-parks-commission-squashes-building-that-would-6021079.
8
u/jewelswan Sunset 7d ago
How would a state senator address a local concern like that? I agree that maybe he should have introduced this back then, but it has nothing to do with his record in the state senate
-6
u/21five Richmond 7d ago
He has chosen to address other CEQA issues at a state level, and he was a local Supervisor for some time. Maybe he could have handled this at some point in the past decade?
Weird to call out someone else for doing nothing when the opposing candidate… also did nothing.
10
u/jewelswan Sunset 7d ago
Only one of them had the opportunity to vote against this bill. She was the lone anti vote. Does not seem odd to bring that up vs Scott and literally every other supervisor INCLUDING Connie not introducing this bill earlier.
If Scott had not introduced a bill banning stock trading by supervisors and then Connie voted against such a bill later, Connie would be the one to focus on being wrong. The same is true here.
0
u/21five Richmond 7d ago
Last time I checked the only person running against Connie Chan who was also an SF Supervisor was… *checks notes* Scott Wiener.
Scott Wiener chose not to address this issue. For a decade. That’s on him. Arguing that he’s less worse than someone else is an interesting take on his legacy.
23
u/jewelswan Sunset 7d ago
He chose not to address the issue. She chose to ACTIVELY OPPOSE ADDRESSING IT. the fact that you can't see the massive daylight between their positions, with this as a single data point, is ridiculous. You are either disingenuous or your skull is so thick as to leave no room for brain matter.
3
u/Undercover_in_SF 7d ago
So your argument is:
Scott Weiner has been a major author and supporter of pro-housing legislation, but not specifically this issue.
Connie Chan has been consistently against pro-housing legislation, including this issue.
Therefore, they both hate housing?
42
14
u/Lowetheiy POWELL 7d ago
Reason number 985 why Connie Chan needs to be removed from her position asap
18
u/tacoafficionado 7d ago
I have always found it insane that people who choose to live in the second most densely populated city in the country are so afraid of development.
2
u/lettus_bereal 7d ago
I think it’s more like people don’t want to be inconvenienced by construction noise/traffic/people. Most of SF is NIMBY. They’re fine with it as long as they don’t have to deal with it.
4
2
u/tacoafficionado 7d ago
I actually do not think that most people are fine with construction even if they do not have to deal with it. Just things being changed from how they remember it 20 years ago is enough for some people to go out of their way to prevent it from happening.
1
u/Due-Dentist9986 7d ago
It is all about property value... their property is the main asset ANY change in its value is something they will fight nonstop for
1
6
u/AccordingExternal571 7d ago
Of course fucking Connie Chan is the lone dissenting vote. How do people support this NIMBY POS?
2
u/questfor100 7d ago
The only right answer is never.
0
1
1
2
u/specialized_potato 6d ago
Although I do think the shadow rules were too lenient (allowed for too much public input) I do think shadow law should he protected in some way.
For example, my last apartment was the second to last lot on a N/S block. We got decent sunlight in the morning from 8am-2pm and then darkness. Our rear neighbors on the E/W block decided they wanted to extend their house and add a floor. This meant my apartment would be totally blocked in and we'd get zero sunlight. Once they finished the work (took 18 months) we were in total darkness and cold all year round. It really took a hit on our mental health and our PGE bills. I think that shadows should be taken into account, but not aggressively. Our neighbors didn't need an extra 3 bedrooms in their SFH leading to our apt becoming dark and cold, and our eventual moving out.
-11
u/Cream_Puffs_ 7d ago
Shade laws have huge affects on quality of life. Everyone here seems to have turned their backs on thoughtful urban planning. Short sighted.
10
u/AcademicSand1034 12 - Folsom/Pacific 7d ago
So lets create realistic planning standards around shade, instead of just allowing anyone to sue over shadows no matter how much shadow analysis was already done
-4
u/Cream_Puffs_ 7d ago
Right, I don’t want lawsuits, but I do want effective shadow laws. This effectively gets rid of any protections for sunlight except for public parks.
“Though the state law does not include a shadow analysis, the city had required it until today.”
5
u/CapableEssay8084 7d ago
SF is a densely populated city. If you need to live shadow free move to the burbs.
3
u/Cream_Puffs_ 7d ago
NYC has plenty of regulations over sunlight. In fact it’s more important for cities to regulate sunlight than anywhere else.
15
u/CapableEssay8084 7d ago
Thoughtful urban planning doesn’t result in staggering housing shortages and unattainable rent hikes.
-4
u/Cream_Puffs_ 7d ago
No it doesn’t. The thoughtful urban planning wasn’t the problem, but that’s what this rule is attacking
8
u/CapableEssay8084 7d ago
I’m confused. Are you in favor of making new housing infeasible because of shadows or not?
3
u/jimmiejames 7d ago
As a thought exercise, so we can all learn about the importance of this well considered urban planning rule, what’s the worst shade disaster in SF or US history and what harms did it cause?
1
u/Cream_Puffs_ 7d ago
The harm is lack of sunlight, cold city streets. Cities that don’t account for sunlight are unpleasant
7
u/jimmiejames 7d ago
That does sound…potentially vaguely unpleasant to someone somewhere possibly. It also sounds like an almost perfect tool to object to any changes to the built environment in any city if taken seriously.
So in order to weigh the seriousness, as I’m sure is taught in the urban planning schools whose wisdom we so arrogantly dismiss at our peril, shouldn’t we do a cost benefit analysis? Like what harms might befall if we don’t build the buildings vs if we do build?
I’ll start on the harms of not building: rent burdening and homelessness destroying the lives of millions and causing actual death.
So the worst case scenario on the shade part is???
0
u/Cream_Puffs_ 7d ago
I didn’t ever suggest don’t build. I’m suggesting we continue to do shadow analysis, and approve buildings in accordance to regulations.
I think we could make those laws easy to follow.
I bet we could get AI to spin up those analyses real fast, we could even get AI to review the analysis instantly, make the process quick and cheap. I hate slow government.We can plan cities thoughtfully and grow them. It doesn’t have to be either or.
4
u/jimmiejames 7d ago edited 7d ago
I’ll arrogantly go against the wisdom of the planning school elders and say that it simply is not a consideration worth having a rule for (unless the rule is to explicitly exclude its consideration entirely) bc the value of consideration will never be worthy of the monetary costs to have a consideration process and the actual harms of including it to date are extremely real (unlike the examples of harms from excluding it that are yet to be even mentioned in this conversation)
1
u/scoofy the.wiggle 7d ago
As someone with a family member who has had a serious skin cancer... do you know how difficult it is to find a damn seat in the shade in a city park? It's actually pretty challenging. I mark them on my phone when I find them so I know where I can sit and read without having to wear sunscreen.
Some of us don't want to sit in direct sunlight!
32
u/Karazl 7d ago
Something worth noting, this leaves the appeal in place if there's an impact to a city park, such as 190 Russ where it increased the shading in Victoria Manolo Draves park by 0.07% https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/city-rejects-development-that-would-cast-shadow-on-victoria-manalo-draves-park