With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". re Bay-Delta, 43 Cal.4th at 1165, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 184 P.3d 709. If it were the case that the no-amendment alternative fails to meet the Project's fundamental purpose by providing only residential accommodations and that the EIR-EIS rejected it for that reason, the court's conclusion that the EIR-EIS did not need to consider a no-amendment alternative would only be strengthened. 23 . Because the court rejects defendants’ contention that a no-amendment alternative could not meet the objective of providing overnight residential and tourist accommodation units, it finds the argument misdirected here as well. 24 . The court may consider the whole record in determining whether the range of alternatives is reasonable. See Cal. Native Plant Soc., 177 Cal.App.4th at 987, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 572 (<HOLDING>). 25 . The Guidelines provide: [EJconomic,

A: holding that the trial judges failure to admonish the appellant regarding the range of punishment was harmless because the record was replete with statements by the parties concerning the punishment range and because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant was unaware of the range of punishment
B: holding that where complaint regarding alternatives analysis was that it was merely perfunctory court could review the whole record to assess the sufficiency of the range of alternatives in the eir
C: recognizing that agencies have discretion to identify the range of reasonable alternatives
D: holding that consultation with counsel and consideration of available alternatives are consistent with exercise of sound discretion
B.