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, Project Site development could detract from nearby existing, relatively well-designed built or natural environments. This would be considered an adverse effect on the surrounding area.
Page 4.A-34 OSEC-57 [See page 5-310 for the original comment] REVISE the final paragraph to read as follows:
Although there are differences that could occur under the DSP, DSP-V, CPP, and CPP-V scenarios, the following Mitigation Measure 4.A-3 sets forth design guidelines to address the design elements that largely contribute to the overall visual character and continuity of a site as large as the Baylands Project Site. Adherence to these specific guidelines, in combination with the City’s Design Review process, would reduce the impact of the Project Site development on the visual character of the Project Site and its surroundings to a less-than-significant level.
Page 4.A-35 OSEC-56 [See page 5-310 for the original comment] REVISE the second bullet point in Mitigation Measure 4.A-3 to read as follows.