Laserfiche WebLink
considered and discussed, the EIR appropriately points out that additional "alternatives" as <br />to the number of lots, the number of houses, the size of houses, etc. can be reasonably <br />extrapolated from the specific alternatives considered: <br />When an EIR discusses a reasonable range of alternatives sufficient <br />to foster informed decision - making, it is not required to discuss additional <br />alternatives substantially similar to those discussed. Accordingly, given <br />the range of alternatives discussed herein (new subdivision configurations <br />with four lots, an eight unit design, and three nine lot variations, as well as a <br />No Project alternative with six units on three lots),there is not a need to fully <br />evaluate every possible design alternative between four and nine units, i.e., <br />a new six or seven lot plan not included in this list above, in that the likely <br />tradeoffs of these additional possible alternatives can be reasonably inferred <br />from the discussion of the various alternatives discussed. <br />2AR 257.) <br />Consideration ofPlroteeted Bird <br />As a separate claim, Petitioners assert that the Environmental Impact Report is <br />defective because it does not give due consideration of the white - tailed kite, a fully <br />protected species of bird. It should be noted that this specific claim of EIR inadequacy <br />was not raised by the Petition itself. <br />There was no evidence presented in the initial Study or the Draft EIR or the Final <br />EIR that white - tailed kites live on the subject property, feed in the subject project, or nest in <br />the subject property. Rather, thereafter (but prior to certification of the Final EIR) two <br />pieces of anecdotal evidence were presented in July 2012 of sighting two or three <br />KZl: <br />8.B. - Page 89