San Francisco supervisors voted 10-1 on Tuesday, Oct. 6, to limit the city’s use of shadow reviews in housing disputes and shorten the time allowed for certain appeals. Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, who sponsored the measure, says it will help prevent environmental review from delaying needed housing. The law, called the SHADE Act — short for Slashing Housing Appeals and Delays Everywhere — removes the city’s shadow-review process for proposed developments, while retaining shadow analysis for buildings that would cast shade on city parks. It also cuts appeal deadlines in half for some projects, according to Mahmood. Mahmood said shade-related appeals have delayed more than 2,000 homes across 12 projects since 2017. But the extent to which shadows themselves have held up development is disputed. A city planner said at an earlier hearing that 18 projects in the past six years had faced appeals mentioning shade, but that shadow concerns were not the primary reason for 14 of those appeals. Mahmood cited a proposed 495-unit development at 469 Stevenson St. in SoMa, where shadow concerns have been part of a years-long dispute over a project planned for a parking lot. He said the new law would make such appeals invalid. The measure concerns San Francisco’s implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, a state law requiring environmental impact reports for planned developments. The state law does not require shadow analysis, but the city had required it as part of its review process. Planning Department staff supported the legislation. Supervisor Connie Chan was the only vote against it. At a hearing last month, Mahmood said developers would still need to assess shadows affecting city parks and that the public would continue to have a voice in environmental review. Bridget Maley, who opposes the law through the group Neighborhoods United, argued that shorter appeal windows would limit public input and access to environmental review. “We need to make housing more affordable for everyone in this city,” Maley said, while questioning whether the changes would undermine environmental protections. Supervisor Myrna Melgar, who supported the measure, said environmental arguments have been co-opted by some opponents of housing and described the law as a small step toward a denser city.