Laserfiche WebLink
white - tailed kites in the neighborhood. <br />To accommodate concerns, as part of final approval of the Finger Avenue Project, <br />Respondent agreed to have Petitioners and Real Party In Interest agree upon appropriate <br />biological expert(s) to assess the situation on the subject property prior to construction and <br />during construction to be sure that protected species that actually exist are not interfered <br />with. Under the circumstances, the Court does not find any showing of abuse of <br />discretion, or failure to prepare an adequate EIR. <br />In addition, and an alternative basis for denial of writ on this point, the Petitioners <br />stipulated that the EIR be limited in scope to certain topics for evaluation ( "the Parties <br />agree that the EIR need only evaluate the following potential environmental impacts <br />related to the Project"), which did not include impact on wildlife. (2AR 1227.) Thus <br />there seems to be a stipulated waiver to objection to the Project on this point. <br />Adequacy of Response to Comments <br />The Responses to Comments section of the Final EIR is lengthy and extensive <br />2AR 963 to 2AR 1076.) Petitioners make broad -based assertions that the Responses are <br />conclusory", not "substantive", not "meaningful ". The Court finds these concerns to be <br />too vague to be the basis of finding the EIR inadequate. The Court did review those <br />particular Responses specifically identified in the Petitioners' Opening Brief, and does not <br />agree with Petitioners. The Responses must also be read in light of the Comments <br />themselves, some of which are simply arguments or subjective opinions. <br />In regard to the concerns about allegedly inadequate responses to detailed <br />comments about incompatibility with existing neighborhood residences in size and <br />density, the Response that much of this pertains to design concerns and subjective <br />31 <br />8.B. - Page 90