Commission delays decision on removing exterior sunshades at 350 Rhode Island to study energy and safety concerns

The San Francisco Planning Commission on April 11 considered a request to modify a previously approved office allocation at 350 Rhode Island Street by removing exterior sunshade louvers. After a lengthy discussion about energy performance, architectural character and tenant safety, an initial motion to approve removal failed 2–4. The commission then unanimously voted to continue the item to May 23 for the sponsor to return with revised designs and energy‑performance analysis.

Staff member Kalyani Agnihot told the commission the proposal would remove the exterior sunshade louver system on the east and south facades; staff recommended approval under the amended office‑allocation findings after Prop E changes to the planning code. The sponsor, Hal Pham, said the exterior louvers limit tenant views, attract transients in the lower shades, and that the team will address Title 24 energy compliance at building permit.

Vice President Moore, Commissioner Imperial and others pressed that the exterior sunshades (referred to in the hearing alternately as louvers and sunshades) were integral to the building's original energy strategy and facade articulation. Moore argued taking the shades off requires a full recalculation of the building’s energy performance under current codes and urged the commission to see more architectural alternatives rather than simply removing the permanent exterior elements.

Architect Sean Capps and sponsor representatives said the team would perform Title 24 compliance calculations at the building‑permit stage and could apply interior window treatments or other measures to meet energy requirements.

Commissioner Braun moved to approve the removal; that motion failed on a 2–4 vote (Braun and President Diamond in favor; Commissioners Williams, Imperial, Coppell and Moore opposed). Vice President Moore then moved to continue the item with direction that the sponsor return with more creative exterior solutions that meet energy‑performance and tenant‑safety objectives and to include project ownership at the next hearing; Commissioner Braun seconded and the continuation passed unanimously 6–0.

The commission's directions asked the sponsor to present architectural sketches and evidence of how proposed changes would meet Title 24/energy code requirements and to address reported use of the lower exterior sunshades by people seeking shelter. The item will return to the commission on May 23 for further review.