alternative was also determined to be premature and speculative, as the parameters for possible high speed rail operations (including facilities) on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula, have not yet been established.”

The comment’s suggestion that a “possible future storage facility" be combined with the Renewable Energy Alternative to create and analyze a new variant on the Renewable Energy Alternative is not required under CEQA since the EIR already provides a reasonable range of alternatives. In addition, an alternative involving rehabilitation of the railyard was already considered and rejected in the EIR. The text on Draft EIR page 5-9 explaining the reasons for rejecting the Rail Yard Rehabilitation alternative will be revised to read as follows.

• Rail Yard Rehabilitation. In this alternative, the existing Bayshore Industrial Park, Recology facility, and temporary and interim uses located on the Brisbane landfill would continue. In addition, the bulk of the site would be utilized as a rail yard for storage and maintenance of high-speed rail trains and engines. This alternative 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.” Retaining existing uses and adding storage and maintenance facilities for high speed rail use will not provide the types of activities or uses that would be characterized as “active” or “vibrant” in the sense of supporting uses or activities that would enhance Brisbane’s “sense of place.” Development of this alternative would not provide for integration of environmental, social, and economic considerations, since the rail yard would provide a use consisting of a single freestanding facility that would provide few, if any, social or economic benefits to the community. A railyard would encompass a large part of the Baylands and would not generate revenues to the community. It would, however, generate substantial point source air pollutant and GHG emissions, as well as serve as a substantial noise source. This alternative was also determined to be premature and speculative, as the parameters for possible high speed rail operations (including maintenance and storage facilities) on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula, have not yet been established are currently being re-assessed by the California High Speed Rail Authority.

SFOM-7

[See page 5-54 for the original comment] Because the Authority is re-examining the San Francisco-San Jose corridor, including maintenance and storage facility needs, the high-speed rail maintenance and storage facility described in the Authority’s 2010 “Supplemental Alternatives Analysis” is not necessarily representative of what will ultimately be needed. The 100-acre facility referred to in Comment SFOM-4 was formulated in 2010 before the concept of a blended system with Caltrain was developed in the 2012 Business