X. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CBD/Sierra Club allege that the Decision's statement of overriding considerations is inadequate. They contend that this required statement of findings is not based on substantial evidence, does not sufficiently describe how the benefits of the project specifically outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts, and fails to explain how the adopted Sunrise route is preferable to the environmentally superior alternatives. UCAN also alleges that the statement is deficient. We find that although the statement is legally adequate, modification is warranted to more clearly refer to the impacts we are overriding.
CEQA requires that an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations before approving a project that has unavoidable environmental impacts. The statement must explain how overriding concerns justify approval of the project despite the unavoidable impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; Guidelines, § 15091, 15092.) The statement "is intended to demonstrate the balance struck by the body in weighing the `benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks.' (Guidelines, § 15093, subds. (a) and (c).)" (Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1222.)
While the mitigation and feasibility findings typically focus on the feasibility of specific proposed alternatives and mitigation measures, the statement of overriding considerations focuses on the larger, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes, and the like. (Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1222.) A statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record. (Id. at p. 1223.)
(Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles v. Los Angeles School Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 847.)
Although the basic requirements for a statement of overriding considerations are straightforward, evaluating whether the statement is sufficient can be more subjective. As explained, "`There is a sort of grand design in CEQA: Projects which significantly affect the environment can go forward, but only after the elected decision makers have their noses rubbed in those environmental effects, and vote to go forward anyway.' [Citation]" (Westwood Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683.)
For Sunrise, the statement of overriding considerations is stated on pages 269-271. The Decision states the approved project:
...will provide substantial benefits in that it will facilitate our policy goal of renewable procurement at 33% RPS levels within a reasonable period of time with the greatest economic benefits at the lowest environmental cost. As described in Section 9, it will also provide unquantifiable benefits, including a more robust southern California transmission system, long-term improvement of California's aging energy infrastructure, and insurance against unexpected high load growth in SDG&E's service area.
(Decision, at p. 270.) The statement refers to the sections of the Decision where the benefits are specifically discussed, and also refers to how the benefits outweigh "each and every unavoidable impact." (Ibid.) Although the specific impacts are not enumerated in the statement, they are contained in Exhibit E to the Decision, which we reference in section 18.2, the section just before the statement of overriding considerations.
Contrary to CBD/Sierra Club's allegations, the statement satisfies the CEQA requirements for a statement of overriding considerations. The overriding benefits - facilitating 30% renewable procurement in the shortest time in a cost effective manner and Southern California reliability improvements - are the broad policy- type benefits that CEQA contemplates. Moreover, the existence of each of the benefits is supported by substantial evidence which is cited in the Decision sections the statement mentions.5 The statement also refers to "each and every unavoidable impact," which meets the requirement of Guidelines section 15093. These unavoidable impacts are listed and discussed in Appendix E, as well as the EIR sections H.4 and E.S. 8
CBD/Sierra Club are incorrect in their claim that the statement only discusses GHG impacts. As discussed above, although it does not identify them specifically, the statement refers to all unavoidable impacts, which are described elsewhere in the Decision. The GHG discussion is only separated to explain the Commission's position that despite the unavoidable significant impact, the Sunrise line should also facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions. (Decision, at p. 270-1.) The GHG holdings are also supported by substantial evidence, as discussed below. Moreover, CBD/Sierra's argument that the statement lacks a comparison with environmentally superior alternatives is misplaced. There is no requirement that the statement of overriding considerations contain such a discussion. (Guidelines, § 15093.) Rather, this discussion is part of the required findings pursuant to section 15091. The section 15091 findings and alternative comparison are contained in the Decision at pages 254-257 and in Appendix E.
Despite the general sufficiency of the statement, we note that due to the construction of the Decision, it is not necessarily easy to find the unavoidable impacts to which we refer. While the unavoidable significant impacts of the project as approved are listed in Appendix E, that appendix is not specifically cited in the statement and is quite large in any event. To remedy this, we will add a new Appendix to the Decision, solely containing a list and description of the unavoidable significant impacts of the approved project. We will modify the statement of overriding considerations to specifically refer to Appendix G, in order to reinforce that we have considered and reviewed each and every unavoidable impact of the project and have chosen to approve the project despite these impacts.
5 The assertion that it will facilitate renewable procurement is supported in exhibits, Strack, Ex. SD-16, Table 2, at 13, EIR, at 2-43, Exh. I-2, Table 4.3, Table 4.6, and Table 4.7; Compliance Exhibit 1.). The goal of 33% is supported by D.08-10-037 and Gov. Schwarzenegger November 17, 2008 Executive Order S-14-08, and the cost effectiveness of Sunrise fort the 33% goal is supported by CAISO Compliane Exhibit 1 and Update). The claims of reliability benefits are supported by CAISO's Compliance Exhibit 1.
