proposed Baylands development and surrounding lands. To mitigate impacts on the character of the Baylands Project Site and surrounding lands, Mitigation Measure 4.A-3 sets forth design guidelines that must be applied to all proposed development within the Baylands in addition to compliance with Brisbane General Plan policies and the City’s design review process. The guidelines in Mitigation Measure 4.A-3 address landscaping and open space; development intensity, setbacks, stepbacks, and building heights; roof design; building materials and articulation, signage; building design; outdoor storage; and parking. The Draft EIR concluded that the combination of implementing General Plan policies, the City’s design review process, and adherence to the guidelines set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.A-3 “would ensure development of a cohesive urban aesthetic across the site and support a well-designed urban environment and positive visual character” and would reduce the impact of the Project Site development on the visual character of the Baylands Project Site and its surroundings to a less-than-significant level.

The existing industrial and commercial uses within the Baylands Project site would be replaced as new development occurs; existing lumberyard operations will be relocated within the site. Thus, compatibility in scale between existing and proposed development within the Baylands is not relevant to the impact discussion starting on page 4.A-32. Compatibility of proposed development with surrounding uses, including the Kinder Morgan tank farm, is addressed in Master Response 19, while land use compatibility with the Recology site is addressed in Master Response 20.

The Draft EIR acknowledges on page 4.A-31 that “determinations about aesthetics and visual resources are subjective by nature.” To clarify the meaning of “compatible,” the last full paragraph on page 4.A-31 is revised to read as follows.

As discussed previously, determinations about aesthetics and visual resources are subjective by nature. Therefore, while it is recognized that one’s assessment of whether a change from the existing conditions would be comparatively better (substantially improved) or worse (substantially degraded), this evaluation assumes that while well-designed and well-landscaped urban development that is compatible in scale and appearance with the surroundings may be substantially different from the surrounding visual character, it would not necessarily represent an adverse change (i.e., resulting in substantial degradation). “Compatible” in scale and appearance does not necessarily mean “the same as,” but would indicate that two areas can exist together without conflict.

Moreover, while development proposed within the Project Site would not directly affect the visual character of its surroundings, if Project Site development would result in poorly designed buildings or development,