VIII. I-8 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE
CBD/Sierra Club argue that the EIR errs in concluding that its proposed I-8 corridor placement ("CBD I-8 Route") is infeasible. According to CBD/Sierra Club, the EIR's basis for judging the CBD I-8 Route to be infeasible is inadequate. Because the EIR's conclusion is based on substantial evidence, CBD/Sierra Club's argument lacks merit.
The EIR fully analyzes the I-8 Alternative route, which roughly follows I-8, an east-west interstate highway in the area, as one of the Southern Route alternatives. In the EIR's analysis, portions of the I-8 Alternative eventually comprise the Environmentally Superior Southern Route. CBD/Sierra Club proposed some of the route should be constructed within I-8 right-of-way. The EIR rejects the CBD I-8 Route as infeasible because, "Caltrans staff informed the CPUC that regulations currently prohibit longitudinal easements within restricted access highways except in unusual situations, which would not apply in this case." (EIR, Response to Comments, G0018-5.) In addition, the Campo Band objected to certain portions of the CBD I-8 Route, since they interfered with tribal lands (EIR § H.4.2.2), and the United States Forest Service objected to hazards involved in other portions of the CBD I-8 Route.
CBD/Sierra Club challenge the EIR's reliance on the Caltrans statements and claim that the statements do not provide a sufficient basis for ruling out the I-8 corridor alternative. CBD\Sierra Club argue that no regulations prohibit the easement, but rather Caltrans has a discretionary policy which is included in the EIR in Appendix 1, Attachment 1 B. Because there is no legal prohibition against Caltrans granting the easement, CBD/Sierra Club claim the EIR errs in judging the alternative to be infeasible.
Under CEQA, feasible means "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors" (Pub. Resources Code, &_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=150&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CAL. PUB. RES. CODE 21061.1&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAB&_md5=0613b3953bb5502c4f484cb175f4e5c0" target="_top">§ 21061.1; see Guidelines, § 15364.) An alternative site is properly excluded as infeasible where the project proponent is unable to acquire use of the site. (Save Our Residential Env't v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1753.)
In this case, whether the Caltrans opinion that the project would not receive approval to be placed along I-8 was based on a regulation or a policy is not dispositive as to whether the placement is feasible. Caltrans is the agency that would need to grant the approval and Caltrans staff stated its opinion, based on its procedure manual, that permission would not be granted. This provides substantial evidence that SDG&E would not be able to acquire the rights to build along that route.
CBD/Sierra Club cite Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587 to support their view that in order to find it infeasible, the Commission must be legally restrained from approving the I-8 corridor route. (CBD/Sierra Club App. Rehg, at p. 11.) In Uphold Our Heritage, however, the court found that the fact that the Town was legally unable to force the project proponent to pursue the alternatives, did not prevent the Town from approving the alternative or denying the proposed project. (Id. at pp. 602-3.) As the Court stated, "The fact that Jobs does not wish to proceed with the rehabilitation does not make that alternative legally infeasible." (Ibid.) Here, it is not SDG&E that would not wish to proceed. Rather Caltrans, an independent agency neither within SDG&E's nor our control, indicated that it would not grant permission. The EIR is justified in finding the alternative route infeasible on that basis.
Also, as discussed, an EIR need not analyze " ` " `every imaginable alternative or mitigation measure,' " ' " rather, "it should evince good faith and a reasoned analysis." (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 58 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1029.) The EIR reviewed over a hundred potential route alternatives, far beyond the reasonable range of alternatives CEQA requires. As SDG&E points out, even without Caltrans' and others' objections, it would not be error for the EIR not to consider this alternative because an EIR is not required to consider every conceivable variation of alternatives stated. (Mira Mar Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 491.) Because the EIR considers a reasonable range of alternatives, and goes beyond that, its analysis meets the requirements of CEQA whether or not the EIR analyzes CBD's particular I-8 corridor alternative.
