Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves DISH rooftop antennas after finding minimal shadow impact to future park
Summary
The San Francisco Planning Commission approved a DISH rooftop wireless facility at Otis and 12th Streets, finding a reduced design would add 0.003% shadow to the planned Eleventh and Natoma Park; the Recreation & Parks Commission recommended approval and the Planning Commission voted 5–0.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously on Feb. 15 to adopt shadow findings and grant conditional use authorization for a DISH Wireless rooftop facility at the northwest corner of Otis and 12th streets.
Lizzie Mao, planning department staff, told the commission the proposal would add three antennas screened inside two radomes and ancillary equipment behind an eight‑foot enclosure atop a 26‑story mixed‑use building. Mao said the department found the project “on balance…consistent with the [...] objectives and policies of the general plan” and recommended approval with conditions.
Eric Lentz, product sponsor for DISH Wireless, said the company explored alternatives but the building’s unique rooftop—occupied public areas, window‑washing equipment and a permanent crane—limited feasible locations. “The building is unique. There's some publicly occupied areas on the roof,” Lentz said, describing why the upper rooftop location was necessary.
A shadow study prepared for the reduced massing showed the project would increase shadow on the proposed Eleventh and Natoma Park by 0.003% above current levels, concentrated in late‑afternoon hours in winter. Planning staff said an earlier, larger screening would have cast about 0.01% of additional shadow; the sponsor reduced that massing to lower the impact. A Recreation and Parks Commission reviewer told the Planning Commission the parks body had “no concerns” and found the small, late‑day winter shadow de minimis.
Commissioners pressed staff and the sponsor about alternate buildings and whether other sites were analyzed; Mao said five alternate locations were considered but either declined or did not respond. Lentz said the sponsor reduced an initial plan for an eight‑foot parapet extension to two radomes and centralized equipment to limit visibility and shadow.
On the motion to adopt the shadow findings and approve with conditions, commissioners voted aye and the motion passed 5–0. The action grants the planning‑code approvals cited by staff and requires the conditions listed in the staff report.
