2.
Response
to
Comments
2.8
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Municipalities
Plan,
substantially
reducing
storage
demands
and
the
size
of
facility
needed
for
maintenance
and
storage.
Combining
a
potential
future
storage
facility
with
the
Renewable
Energy
Alternative
into
a
new
Variant
on
that
Alternative
as
suggested
in
is
not
required
since
a
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
aimed
at
avoiding
or
reducing
the
significant
unavoidable
impacts
of
proposed
Baylands
development
is
already
provided
in
the
Draft
EIR
and
the
suggested
alternative
would
not
meet
most
of
the
basic
project
objectives
(see
In
addition,
until
the
CHSRA
completes
its
re-assessment
of
the
San
Francisco-San
Jose
corridor,
including
maintenance
and
storage
needs,
the
size
and
operational
requirements
of
a
storage
and
maintenance
yard
cannot
be
known
other
than
storage
needs
may
be
far
less
than
the
100
acres
assumed
in
the
2010
high
speed
rail
alternatives
analysis.
In
addition,
a
“Renewable
Energy
Alternative
-
High
Speed
Rail
Storage
and
Maintenance
Variant”
based
on
the
100
-acre
footprint
suggested
in
Comment
could
be
problematic.
To
provide
for
a
100-acre
high
speed
rail
storage
yard,
while
retaining
the
large
solar
farm
featured
in
the
Renewable
Energy
Alternative
would
involve
replacing
the
59
acres
of
proposed
research
and
development
uses,
26
acres
of
retail/entertainment
use,
and
the
7-acre
water
treatment
plant,
along
with
8
acres
of
open
space
with
the
high
speed
rail
storage
and
maintenance
facility
on
the
west
side
of
the
existing
Caltrain
tracks.
A
total
of
170
acres
would
remain
devoted
to
a
large
photovoltaic
(PV)
solar
farm.
Since
there
would
be
no
R&D
or
commercial/entertainment
buildings
on
which
to
mount
solar
facilities
in
this
variant,
rooftop
solar
uses
would
not
be
provided
as
they
would
under
the
Renewable
Energy
Alternative.
In
addition,
since
R&D
and
commercial
development
areas
would
not
be
part
of
the
suggested
High
Speed
Rail
Storage
and
Maintenance
Variant,
wind
energy
generation
within
those
development
areas
would
not
be
provided
as
it
would
under
the
Renewable
Energy
Alternative.
The
Recology
expansion,
lumberyard
relocation,
site
remediation,
and
approval
of
the
proposed
water
supply
agreement
would
remain
as
part
of
a
rail
storage
variant
of
the
Renewable
Energy
Alternative.
However,
because
Project
Site
development
under
such
a
variant
would
have
minimal
traffic
generat
ion,
Brisbane
would
be
left
in
the
position
of
“hosting”
major
transportation
facilities
carrying
tens
of
thousands
of
vehicles
daily
(such
as
the
Geneva
extension)
without
any
commercial/office
or
other
development
that
would
take
advantage
of
these
regional
access
improvements.
Thus,
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
and
freeway
interchange
improvements
along
US
101
(Candlestick
and
Sierra
Point
interchanges)
would
not
be
included
as
part
of
a
rail
storage
variant
to
the
Renewable
Energy
Alternative.
Instead,
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
and
US
101
freeway
interchange
improvements
would
be
left
to
be
constructed
by
others
should
development
outside
of
Brisbane
choose
to
do
so.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.8.3-5
May
2015