Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews UCSF research building design; Hyland recuses
Summary
Planning staff and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill presented a 175,000-square-foot research building at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital for commission review; Commission President Hyland recused herself for a financial relationship with a project consultant and the body discussed massing, materials, and gatehouse/site elements.
The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed conceptual design materials for a proposed UCSF research and academic building at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital on Sept. 18 and provided comments to staff and the project team.
Rich Ducre of preservation staff said the project (a five-story, roughly 175,000-square-foot research facility) would be built on a former surface parking lot and retain historic site elements such as a fence, guardhouse and two gate pillars. The department asked the commission to provide design comments relative to mitigation measures adopted in the project's environmental-impact report.
During the item, Commission President Hyland stated a prior financial relationship with ARG, a consultant on the project, and recused herself; the commission approved the recusal by vote.
Leo Chow of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill walked commissioners through the massing, materials and campus context, saying the team studied the historic campus pattern and proposed terracotta panels, spandrel glass and selected metal panels to align with existing brickwork. He described the building's center massing as repetitive to reflect laboratory and office bays and special vertical bays at the ends to denote communal spaces. "We are not touching any existing historic structures," Chow said, noting the project will retain selected historic elements and relocate a historic fountain on the site.
Public commenter Jim Hass asked staff to review archival records about early hospital architects, suggesting attributions to Newton Tharp in some materials may be inaccurate and asking staff to "get the record straight." Staff said they could explore the archives and address that question during further review.
Commissioners praised the project's respect for campus character while pressing for clarity on the west-end elevation, the proposed materials palette and questions about building width and composition. Members requested material boards and mock-ups; staff confirmed ARG had reviewed compatibility with EIR parameters.
Ending: As a review-and-comment item, the commission did not take a final vote on project design beyond the administrative recusal; staff will return project materials and later capital-project approvals for additional review as the EIR and design process proceed.
