Shade stopped 469 Stevenson St. in San Francisco from becoming 495 units of housing. It remains a parking lot.

Did you know that shade shares the same environmental classification as toxic soil under California law?

Yes, under the California Environmental Quality Act, relative sun exposure is a form of environmental degradation. And the lack of a clear definition in CEQA for what constitutes a “significant” shadow allows opponents to stall housing projects for years with environmental reviews. 

It should go without saying that conflating shadows with toxic waste makes no sense. 

Article continues below this ad

Last week, San Francisco Supervisor Bilal Mahmood introduced legislation to stop the weaponization of shade in the city. His Slashing Housing Appeals & Delays Everywhere (or SHADE) Act would streamline environmental review procedures that go beyond state requirements — by removing shadows cast by buildings as a criterion for local CEQA review and as a basis for environmental appeals.

Since 2017, shade-related CEQA appeals have delayed or stalled 11 housing projects, impacting 2,195 housing units in San Francisco, according to Mahmood. Most infamous was the former Nordstrom valet parking lot at 469 Stevenson St. An appeal to a proposed 495-unit development there claimed the building would cast a shadow on nearby Mint Plaza. That appeal effectively halted construction and turned the lot into a symbol of the city’s housing dysfunction, triggering a state investigation.

See more S.F. Chronicle on Google

Today, Mint Plaza is barely used; many of the businesses there have shut down. The parking lot nearby remains — a parking lot. In March, an entitlement extension was requested for the........

© San Francisco Chronicle