Only if they'd been willing to use every fleet oiler they had, probably load parts of their hanger decks with drums of fuel oil to boot, and leave behind the battlewagons (fuel hogs). You'd wind up with a much more vulnerable fleet much more likely to be detected (both longer time at-sea and moving closer to major shipping lines and patrols), and launching a weaker strike.
All in all you have an operation that goes from risky to flat-out insane. I say that the IJN HAD to take risks to even have a chance in the war, but even I wouldn't say an attack on San Diego would have been a good idea.
Besides, the point of the Pearl Harbor attack was to take out our most advanced base. Well, clearly not the only or even most advanced base--they had to take the Philippines to accomplish that, and neutralize Midway. But the idea was, with the whole fleet based at Pearl gone, and the Philippines taken, Midway alone could hardly stand and the Americans, with a greatly reduced fleet, would have to try and strike all the way from the US West Coast.
Or curl up into a ball and give up. Which may have been the hope of some Japanese.
If they were going to cross the whole bloody Pacific to strike at a West Coast asset, better to close the Panama Canal than merely remove whatever might be available to the Fleet at San Diego. At San Diego, the industries of the whole continental USA stood ready to fix any damage they did, no more than a railway trip away. At Pearl, only the resources available in Hawaii plus whatever the USA could gradually ship there would be available to clean up the harbor. It would presumably take longer and in the
short term which is all the plan really considered, American resources were pushed back the farthest. If they had attacked anywhere on the West Coast
instead of Pearl, then of course the whole set of fleet elements based at Pearl would be out in force to hunt them down on their way back home, assuming they got to the target and got away from shore-based defenses like Army bombers intact. The Japanese command wanted those ships back, and they wanted them soon, for their
real operations once this American sideshow was done with.
No, it had to be Pearl, even if they could have reached the American Pacific Coast, which I doubt too.
And by the way I also agree with consensus for once on another point--HI statehood has nothing to do with the Pearl Harbor attack. I even suppose the place would have become a state if the Pacific War, or indeed all of WWII, were butterflied away completely.
Well, without WWII it is conceivable that the Civil Rights movement and the discrediting of racism as an acceptable publicly acknowledged policy of the US government might have had tougher sledding. I personally think that was one of those tectonic things that had to be addressed sooner or later and the longer it was delayed the worse the social and political earthquakes would be. Certainly failure for the USA to progress in that fashion would tend to shoot our own foot when it came to seeking persuasive hegemony over the newly emerging nations freeing themselves from colonialism, and yes I also think that was another tectonic movement that was going to happen in some fashion or other. Conceivably, without WWII the European empires
might have managed to retain possession of their colonies--if and only if they too were to back off from a basically racist and patronizing position and both co-opt large numbers of colonial subjects into their systems and adjust policy so that the interests of the native colonized peoples were being addressed more fairly. If they had done that, maybe it wouldn't be liberated nations the USA would need decent relations with, maybe it would be a newly multiracial face of the old European powers. Either way, either Jim Crow had to go (at least go sort of underground and be plausibly deniable) or the USA would be an irrelevant pariah nation.
Without that, with a USA as casually and unabashedly racist as before WWII, there would have been considerable doubt cast on Hawaii being "ready" for statehood. With the USA anxious to showcase that we really, honest to God, weren't a bunch of racists anymore,
not granting Hawaii statehood would be an embarrassment.
WWII certainly did catalyze the process considerably but if the USA didn't stay on a path paralleling South Africa in the 1950s and later, I can't see statehood being delayed more than a decade at the most. They had plenty of people, once American leadership stopped paying attention to what "color" they were.