2.
Response
to
Comments
2.8
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Municipalities
2.8.3
City
and
County
of
San
Francisco
2.8.3.1
Office
of
the
Mayor
This
introductory
comment
does
not
raise
any
substantive
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
Responses
to
San
Francisco
Municipal
Transportation
Authority
comments
are
provided
in
Responses
through
Responses
to
San
Francisco
County
Transportation
Authority
comments
are
provided
in
Responses
through
Responses
to
San
Francisco
Planning
Department
Comments
are
provided
in
Responses
through
Responses
to
San
Francisco
Public
Utilities
Commission
Comments
are
provided
in
Responses
through
The
land
use
recommendation
raised
in
this
comment
issues
will
be
considered
by
the
City
of
Brisbane
as
part
of
its
planning
review
and
decisionmaking
for
the
Baylands.
Responses
to
the
San
Francisco
MTA
letter
are
provided
in
Responses
through
See
Master
for
discussion
of
the
Caltrain
Station
location.
The
planning
issues
raised
in
this
comment
will
be
considered
by
the
City
of
Brisbane
as
part
of
its
planning
review
and
decisionmaking
for
the
Baylands.
The
comment
mischaracterizes
both
the
status
of
the
potential
High
Speed
Rail
maintenance
yard
and
how
it
is
referenced
in
the
Baylands
Draft
EIR.
The
Draft
EIR
does
not
acknowledge
or
refer
to
the
maintenance
yard
as
the
“recommended
location”
of
the
railyard
as
asserted
in
Comment
The
California
High
Speed
Rail
Authority’s
September
17,
2013
comment
letter
on
the
Draft
EIR
states
that
“we
appreciate
the
acknowledgement
and
discussion
of
the
California
High-
Speed
Rail
Authority’s
(Authority’s)
potential
maintenance
and
storage
facility
in
Chapter
6…”
No
request
is
made
in
the
Authority’s
September
17,
2013
comment
letter
for
additional
analysis
of
the
maintenance
facility.
Comment
CHSRA-
1
also
states
that
“little
has
changed”
since
the
Authority’s
November
20,
2012
letter.
The
Authority’s
November
20,
2012
letter
provided
comments
on
the
2012
Revised
Baylands
Notice
of
Preparation.
The
Authority’s
NOP
letter
did
not
request
analysis
of
an
EIR
alternative
including
a
high-speed
rail
maintenance
facility
within
the
Baylands.
The
letter
did,
however,
refer
to
a
2010
“Supplemental
Alternatives
Analysis”
that
descri
bed
options
for
the
high-
speed
rail
system
between
San
Francisco
and
San
Jose,
including
identification
of
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.8.3-1
May
2015