XIV. OTHER UCAN CEQA ALLEGATIONS
Although UCAN alleges that the environmental review of the Sunrise project is inadequate in a number of respects, it cites no authority supporting its assertions. (See UCAN Rehrg. App., at pp. 63-102.) UCAN asserts that the EIR is deficient for failing to adequately assess the cost of the Sunrise project, the justification for the Sunrise project, and other non-environmental merits of the project and various alternatives. These arguments are misplaced because an EIR is an environmental document, which is not charged with exhaustively evaluating the costs and non-environmental merits of the project and its alternatives. (Guidelines, § 15131; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 689-690.)
Similarly, UCAN provides no legal justification for its contentions that the EIR does not sufficiently consider various UCAN alternatives, proposals and suggestions. The environmental process included numerous scoping meetings and public comment opportunities, and the EIR provides exhaustive responses to UCAN's comments. (See, e.g., Responses to Comments B0011.) As a result the environmental process lasted two years and produced an 11,000 page document. "CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure. It does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaustive." (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) Moreover, as discussed, an EIR need only consider a reasonable range of alternatives, and not every conceivable variation of alternatives stated. (Mira Mar Community v. City of Oceanside, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 491.) The EIR considers dozens of alternatives, far more than CEQA requires. To the extent any of the many elements of the UCAN's "No Project Alternative," in particular, were not evaluated in the manner or to the extent UCAN suggested, this does not demonstrate any error or defect in the EIR.6
UCAN fails to support its unrealistic view of the role of an EIR with any case, statute, regulation or any other legal authority. Accordingly, its arguments challenging the EIR lack merit.
6 UCAN's arguments concerning inadequate consideration of its suggested No Project Alternative lack merit for other reasons as well. First, UCAN fails to present a coherent statement about the contents of its No Project Alternative. Also, contrary to UCAN's assertions, the EIR considers all of UCAN's proposals to an appropriate extent. Beyond UCAN wanting the EIR to do more extensive analyses and agree with UCAN's assessments, UCAN does not support its claim of legal error.
