the Brisbane Baylands “as a potential site for a storage and maintenance facility.” CHSRA’s 2012 letter stated that as part of its 2012 Revised Business Plan, the Authority “has changed the basic assumptions for High-Speed Train (HST) construction and operation,” reducing the fleet size to be stored on the Peninsula by more than half, thereby reducing the required storage yard size and footprint. Thus, the 100-acre facility described in the Authority’s 2010 “Supplemental Alternatives Analysis” and cited in Comment SFOM-4 does not reflect the Authority’s most recent business plan, and may be far larger than actually needed.

The Authority’s 2012 NOP response letter states that the Authority is “currently re-examining the corridor to identify site specific and operationally feasible locations which will meet maintenance and storage requirements. Suitable potential sites, in addition to Brisbane, will be evaluated through the NEPA and CEQA environmental processes.” The document cited in Comment SFOM-4, Summary of Requirements for O&M Facilities (April 30, 2013), states, “It should be noted that the siting of the O&M facilities has not been determined at this time. For illustrative purposes only, hypothetical locations of each facility are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1 for the progression of the phased development of the Project.” Thus, it is clear that the Authority does not have a recommended location for the high-speed rail maintenance yard, as Comments SFOM-4 and SFOM-7 appear to assert.

Table 1 of the high-speed rail O&M needs analysis is labeled “Summary of O&M Facilities (For Illustrative Purposes Only),” and identifies the need for an approximate 100-acre site at a San Francisco location. Neither Brisbane nor the Baylands are mentioned in Summary of Requirements document. Figure 1 from the 2013 Summary of Requirements for O&M Facilities is included below. As shown, neither Brisbane nor the Baylands are identified in that figure.