2.
Response
to
Comments
2.8
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Municipalities
Thus,
the
City
of
Brisbane
concluded
that
development
of
an
alternative
including
a
high-speed
rail
maintenance
and
storage
facility
prior
to
the
time
the
Authority
completes
its
operational
re-evaluation
would
be
premature
and
speculative.
The
high-speed
rail
segments
mentioned
in
Comment
do
not
include
any
portion
of
the
San
Francisco
to
San
Jose
route.
The
segments
mentioned
in
Comments
include
the
29-mile
route
from
Merced
to
Fresno
for
which
construction
contracts
have
been
let,
and
the
60-mile
route
from
Fresno
to
Bakersfield
for
which
requests
for
statements
of
qualifications
for
construction
have
been
released.
CEQA
requires
analysis
of
the
physical
changes
to
the
environment
that
would
result
from
a
proposed
project.
Thus,
the
Draft
EIR
evaluates
the
physical
environmental
changes
that
would
occur
for
each
of
four
development
scenarios.
Possible
implications
of
proposed
Baylands
development
on
what
land
the
CHSRA
may
or
may
not
eventually
want
to
purchase
and
use
for
a
rail
storage
is
not
a
reasonably
foreseeable
impact
of
proposed
Baylands
development
and
attempting
such
an
evaluation
prior
to
c
ompletion
of
the
Authority’s
re-assessment
of
corridor
and
rail
storage
needs
along
the
San
Francisco-San
Jose
portion
of
the
high
speed
rail
system
would
be
speculative.
The
Draft
EIR
evaluates
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
to
the
project,
including
two
No
Project
Alternatives
(No
Project-No
Build
and
No
Project-General
Plan
Buildout)
and
three
additional
alternatives
aimed
at
reducing
significant
impacts
of
proposed
Baylands
development
(Renewable
Energy
Alternative,
Reduced
Intensity
Mixed-Use,
Reduced
Intensity
Non-Residential
alternatives),
These
alternatives
meet
CEQA’s
requirements
for
consideration
of
a
lternatives,
i.e.,
they
would
(1)
feasibly
attain
most
of
the
City’s
basic
objectives
as
set
forth
in
Chapter
3
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
(2)
avoid
or
substantially
lessen
any
of
the
significant
effects
of
the
project.
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15126.6(a).).
As
stated
in
Section
15126.6(a),
an
EIR
“need
not
consider
every
conceivable
alternative
to
a
project.
Rather
it
must
consider
a
reasonable
range
of
potentially
feasible
alternatives
that
will
foster
informed
decision
making
and
public
participation.”
[See
page
for
the
original
comment]
Chapter
5,
Alternatives
,
notes
that
an
alternative
that
would
use
the
bulk
of
the
Baylands
site
“as
a
rail
yard
for
storage
and
maintenance
of
high
speed
rail
trains
and
engines…
was
rejected
since
it
did
not
meet
the
City’s
overarching
objective
of
an
‘active,
vibrant
place
which
strengthens
the
community
of
Brisbane;
contributes
to
its
sense
of
place;
and
demonstrates
environmental,
social,
and
economic
considerations
can
be
harmonized
to
the
betterment
of
the
natural
environment,
the
Brisbane
and
regional
community,
and
the
individuals
who
will
use
the
Baylands.’
This
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.8.3-3
May
2015