S.F. supervisors shelved townhome project because of shadows. What does it mean for the city’s housing shortage?

A decision by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week to delay a 10-townhome project in Nob Hill, in part from concerns over how shadows would affect a neighboring park, raised fresh doubts among housing advocates and political leaders that the city can break old habits and meet an ambitious, state-mandated goal to build housing.

The move “raises serious doubts about the viability of SF’s housing element,” state Sen. Scott Wiener wrote on Twitter, referring to the state’s requirement that San Francisco build 82,000 new units during the next eight years.

Mayor London Breed said Thursday that the supervisors halted the project at 1151 Washington St. for “complicated, kind of unsubstantiated reasons,” undercutting the city’s stated commitment to building much more housing.

“We say we support it, but our actions show something completely different,” she said on the steps of City Hall. “We have to get out of our own way.”

The California Department of Housing and Community Development said in a statement Thursday that it was aware of the supervisors’ vote and is taking it into consideration in its investigation of housing issues in San Francisco.

Though a tiny project by San Francisco standards — the 10 townhomes would replace one single-family home — the supervisors’ move to delay it for months or possibly years reminded many of the board’s well-known rejection of a proposed 495-unit tower on a Nordstrom valet parking lot in the Mid-Market neighborhood in 2021. That case became exhibit A in arguments for reform of San Francisco’s housing-approval process.

But the Washington Street project’s opponents, including the next-door neighbor who brought the appeal forward and the community groups that joined it, said that’s not a fair comparison, and that there were specific reasons the development needs environmental review.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin, whose district includes the development and the park, as well as Chinatown community members, said the situation is unique, especially in a neighborhood that is so densely populated with many people living in cramped, single-room occupancy homes, where many people rely on the park to get fresh air and sunlight.

“Chinatown is the city’s densest area with very little open-space opportunities, and the Chinatown community, pursuant to the law, raised a number of questions that the board of supervisors found to be compelling enough to ask for additional analysis,” Peskin said.

Malcom Yeung, executive director of the Chinatown Community Development Center, a group that opposed the project, said it is reasonable to require the developers to examine alternatives that don’t block sunlight on a public space. That’s especially true in Chinatown, where high rises are common, he said.

“To characterize this fight as anything other than a fight for equity and to characterize this fight as ‘blocking housing’ erases the critical issues faced by Chinatown and low income places like Chinatown,” he said in a statement. “Given the dependence of all San Franciscans on open space for their health and wellness, all developments should be required to implement designs that avoid blocking essential sunlight to our city’s urban parks.”

Peskin echoed that concern. “I think the city and its leaders have a particular obligation to Chinatown, a community that historically has been ignored by generations of City Hall leaders,” he said. “I’m pleased that the Board of Supervisors listened to them.”

Shadows have historically been one successful type of objection used in San Francisco to block housing that otherwise has no issues to prevent building, according to Annie Fryman, director of special projects for urban planning think tank SPUR.

“At the point people are fighting about shadows, they’re really grasping at straws to stop a project,” she said.

It isn’t the first time San Francisco has stopped housing projects because they would cast shadows on parks — in 2016, shadows over Chinatown parks created a challenge for the still unfinished 50 First St.; in 2018, the Board of Supervisors required more review on a Mission housing project that would cast shadows on an adjacent school’s playgrounds, during hours that the playground was closed; and in 2019, the board rejected a 63-unit housing project in South of Market that would cast an evening shadow on a park.

Each project had similar concerns about disadvantaged communities being disproportionately affected by shadows cast by the buildings and residents who would not be able to move elsewhere.

While state law does not require cities to analyze shadows as an environmental impact, San Francisco has its own law intended specifically to protect public parks from shadows. A 1984 ballot measure, Proposition K, blocks construction of any building more than 40 feet that casts an adverse shadow on Recreation and Park Department property unless the Planning Commission decides the shadow is insignificant.

But the Washington Street project, the Planning Commission argued, is not subject to that law because it is not above the 40-foot height limit. Opponents to the project argued that it is unique because it’s uphill from the recreation center, which makes its shadow more prominent, though the city’s planning staff countered that urban parks downhill from buildings are not unusual in San Francisco.

Fryman said that, while she empathizes with the Chinatown community’s resistance to changes to their beloved recreation center, shade in parks isn’t inherently bad, and that in a warming climate, it’s appropriate to have shaded areas in parks where people can cool off.

“We don’t see anyone ever complain about shade cast from trees. We don’t ever hear people complain about shade cast from other types of things,” she said. “We selectively care about shadows when it is a tool that can be used to stop or delay housing or water down housing.”

Public commenters at the meeting said that a shadow shouldn’t be a good enough reason to block new homes, especially in an urban environment.

“Housing for all means housing for all, even if there’s a little bit of a shadow,” said Kent Mirkhani, a YIMBY Action member who spoke at the meeting. “And that really sucks, but we have to pretend we live in a city and sometimes there’s a little bit of a shadow.”

The owners of the building previously sought to expand their home by building out the back — an effort that was turned down by the Planning Department in 2021 because it did not maximize the amount of housing possible on the lot. Neighbors also complained about obstructed views and shadows for that project.

Fryman said the move was an example of how illogical San Francisco housing decisions can be. The city first rejected it because it was not dense enough, then because a more dense proposal would cast shadows.

But Peskin said he thinks the developer can work with the community to design the housing such that it doesn’t block the sunlight — a solution, he said, that has helped resolve issues of shadows on parks, including in Chinatown, in the past.

“This can be done in a way that doesn’t adversely affect a precious community resource that adds to the quality of the neighborhood’s life,” he said.

The same day Peskin voted to block the townhouses, he and Breed proposed legislation that would reduce the amount of affordable units builders need to include and cut the fees they have to pay to try to speed up the city’s stalled housing development market.

Also on Tuesday, the board let through a proposal to build a similarly unpopular apartment building at 3832 18th Street. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district the project is in, said the city would likely lose in court if it blocked the project because previous challenges using environmental law had already been resolved. Thus, he said, the state would have more power to overrule the city’s decision if it blocked the development.

Peskin said the seemingly contradictory decisions are examples of how complex development issues are.

“We can encourage the development of more residential housing in San Francisco and take care of precious resources,” he said. “These are not mutually exclusive concepts, but they require care and consideration and listening to our constituents, and particularly constituents who have an outsize reason to be listened to.”

“....the situation is unique, especially in a neighborhood that is so densely populated with many people living in cramped, single-room occupancy homes, where many people rely on the park to get fresh air and sunlight.”

Odd. My town spend millions on a new city park. Around it they are building those 6 story apartment buildings on top, shops on the bottom. They used the same excuse for spending so much money on the park - the apartment dwellers needed it.

Everything was happening at the same time and I thought the city had worked out a deal with all of the surrounding building developers. Nope - all the tax payers paid for the park.

What used to be a quaint downtown with tack shop, plumber, machine shop, etc. is now a city full of apartments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.