CHAPTER 4 Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology 4.0 Introduction Chapter 4 includes discussion of baseline conditions and presents the thresholds of significance (“Significance Standards”) used in this EIR to assess the program-level impacts of the 2014 LRDP. Following this introductory material, the rest of this chapter is divided into 15 major sections, one for each environmental topic considered. Each major section contains: environmental and regulatory regional setting information regarding the environmental topic, relevant background and regulatory material, the Significance Standards and the analysis methodology for the topic. The Regional Setting section describes those regional baseline conditions pertinent to an environmental topic and thus, provides the context for an analysis of potential impacts resulting from implementation of the 2014 LRDP. Site-specific setting information applicable to a particular proposal at a campus site is presented in the relevant chapter in which campus site impacts are discussed (i.e., Chapters 6 through 9). The Regulatory Considerations section summarizes relevant federal, state and local laws that govern various aspects of an environmental topic. The preparation of this EIR was preceded by an Initial Study (included as Appendix A), which determined that the 2014 LRDP would not result in certain identified impacts. Each of the environmental resource sections clearly identifies those effects that were adequately addressed in the Initial Study and are therefore not evaluated further in this EIR. The topics of Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources were determined in the Initial Study to require no further analysis in the EIR. Accordingly, these topics are not discussed in this EIR. 4.0.1 Baseline The environmental setting sections describe the baseline physical environmental conditions. For purposes of the analyses in this EIR, the baseline is the most recent completed academic year: 2012-2013. This EIR evaluates environmental impacts in terms of changes resulting from implementation of the 2014 LRDP as compared to existing conditions. With a few exceptions as stated in the text, the UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan 4-1 ESA / 120821 Environmental Impact Report November 2014 4. Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology conditions that would result at the LRDP planning horizon year (2035) are compared to baseline conditions to characterize the changes that would result from implementing the 2014 LRDP. 4.0.2 Levels of Significance This EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the levels of significance of adverse impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis. The following are definitions of terms used in this EIR: Less than Significant Impact. Impacts that are adverse but are not substantial because they do not exceed the specified standards of significance. Potentially Significant. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that may be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Significant and Unavoidable. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. 4.0.3 Analysis of Cumulative Effects The geographic extents of potential cumulative effects of the 2014 LRDP differ according to the environmental topic. For each environmental topic area, the analysis specifies the geographic scope of the cumulative impact, considers whether implementation of the 2014 LRDP in conjunction with past, present, and probable future projects would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts, and finally, determines whether the LRDP’s contribution to that effect would be “cumulatively considerable.” Cumulative impacts of the 2014 LRDP are discussed in Chapter 10 of this EIR. UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan 4-2 ESA / 120821 Environmental Impact Report November 2014 4. Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1 Aesthetics This section presents the Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards, and Analysis Methodology for the evaluation of Aesthetics impacts. 2014 LRDP Aesthetics effects are discussed in Chapter 5, 2014 LRDP –Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Aesthetics effects resulting from 2014 LRDP proposals at each of the four affected campus sites are discussed in Chapter 6, Parnassus Heights – Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Chapter 7, Mission Bay – Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Chapter 8, Mount Zion – Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Chapter 9, Mission Center – Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 4.1.1 Regional Setting The regional setting for aesthetics is the City of San Francisco, a relatively dense urban environment that is built out in most areas. Visual resources and issues within the City focus predominantly on protection of waterfront views and long-range views and encouragement of development that is compatible with adjacent existing or planned development and neighborhoods. Each campus site is located in a visually distinct area of the City, characterized by natural landforms and topography, existing buildings and unique land use patterns. 4.1.2 Regulatory Considerations 4.1.2.1 UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines New development at UCSF is guided by the Facilities Design Guidelines. The guidelines set forth design objectives and special considerations for UCSF projects, with an emphasis on a project’s functional requirements, overall economy and technical guidelines. The Facilities Design Guidelines also contain specific policies related to landscaping at UCSF campus sites. These policies include designing landscapes at entrances and exits to UCSF facilities (e.g., roadways, parking lots and pedestrian areas) to maximize visibility and allow adequate lighting. Vegetation should be compatible with the natural limitations presented by the Bay Area’s climate and soil conditions, and also be appropriate for man‐made environments (e.g., adequate for use as street trees). Additional policies related to landscaping include incorporating water and energy conservation features and utilizing low‐maintenance materials. 4.1.2.2 UCSF Physical Design Framework Development at UCSF is also guided by the Physical Design Framework, which sets forth a vision for the physical development of all UCSF campus sites. It serves as the foundation for UCSF to plan and design future projects according to a clear and consistent set of planning and design principles, guidelines and strategies. The Physical Design Framework contains six planning principles that are universally applicable to UCSF campus sites. They express key thematic concepts of Context, Connectivity, Cohesiveness, Collegiality, Community and Conservation. UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan 4-3 ESA / 120821 Environmental Impact Report November 2014 4. Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology 4.1 Aesthetics Each of the above principles contains related specific guidelines, such as designing buildings to fit within their urban context, considering massing, style, pattern and color of buildings in the vicinity; relating buildings to pedestrians and scale to human activity and visual interest; providing a positive campus interface at campus edges; providing comfortable, activated campus open spaces; and incorporating sustainability features in buildings. 4.1.2.3 San Francisco General Plan The City’s General Plan includes policies that pertain to views and visual quality. The policies most relevant to aesthetics are contained in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Policies 1.1 through 1.5 of the City Pattern section of the Urban Design Element relate to the appearance of buildings and landscaping, and their total effect that characterizes the various city districts. These policies also recognize and protect major public views in the city, with particular attention to views of open space. Policies 2.4 through 2.6 of the Conservation section of the Urban Design Element address notable landmarks of aesthetic or other importance, as well as convey a need to respect the character of nearby older development in the design of new buildings. The Major New Development section of the Urban Design Element, Policies 3.1 through 3.7, relate to building design and the visual relationship between new and established development, with an emphasis on promoting a harmonious relationship between existing and new buildings, relating building heights to important attributes of the city pattern and to heights of existing buildings, and recognizing the special urban design problems posed in development of large properties. Policy 4.15 of the Neighborhood Environment section of the Urban Design Element includes requirements for protecting the livability and character of neighborhoods from intrusion of incompatible new development. Although the University is not subject to local planning policies whenever using land under its control in furtherance of its educational mission, the University strives to be consistent with local policies where feasible. 4.1.2.4 San Francisco Planning Code The standards contained within the San Francisco Planning Code are used to analyze the potential wind and shadow impacts of projects. San Francisco