2.
Response
to
Comments
2.8
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Municipalities
See
through
for
discussion
of
the
potential
for
a
high-speed
rail
storage
and
maintenance
facility
within
the
Baylands.
As
stated
in
that
response,
there
is
no
factual
basis
to
support
the
assertions
of
the
City
and
County
of
San
Francisco
that
a
high-speed
railyard
on
the
Baylands
is
reasonably
foreseeable.
Even
the
California
High
Speed
R
ail
Authority’s
September
17,
2013
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
(CHSRA-
1)
state
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…”
and
do
not
request
additional
substantive
analysis
of
such
a
facility.
This
comment’s
expression
of
agreement
with
the
need
to
balance
economic,
social,
and
environmental
objectives
in
establishing
a
development
plan
for
the
Baylands
raises
no
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
Further
response
is
unnecessary.
The
position
of
the
San
Francisco
Planning
Department
regarding
the
location
of
the
Caltrain
station
does
not
raise
any
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
As
discussed
the
location
of
the
Bayshore
Caltrain
Station
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
’s
cumulative
transportation
analysis
was
based
on
the
results
of
Bi-County
Transportation
Study
led
by
the
San
Francisco
County
Transportation
Authority
in
partnership
with
agencies
from
both
sides
of
the
San
Francisco/San
Mateo
county
line.
In
addition,
SFCTA’s
2012
Bayshore
Intermodal
Access
Study
recommended
two
station
alternatives
for
subsequent
planning
and
design
of
the
Bayshore
station,
both
of
which
proposed
moving
the
Caltrain
platform
to
the
south.
As
discussed
in
Response
CEQA
permits
an
EIR
to
rest
its
analysis
on
reasonable
assumptions
when
future
actions
are
difficult
to
forecast.
The
commenter’s
assertion
that
the
EIR
should
analyze
the
effect
of
relocating
the
Caltrain
station
on
future
transit
funding
is
outside
of
the
purview
of
CEQA,
which
requires
the
lead
agency
to
identify
and
evaluate
the
physical
impacts
of
the
project
on
the
environment.
See
also
Response
for
discussion
regarding
location
of
a
high-speed
rail
maintenance
yard.
See
Master
Response
25
for
a
discussion
of
mode
splits
and
the
manner
in
which
mixed-use
development
that
places
housing
in
close
proximity
to
employment
tends
to
reduce
commute
distances
along
with
resulting
air
pollutant
and
GHG
emissions.
The
evaluation
of
alternatives
in
the
Draft
EIR
addresses
specific
environmental
issues
by
topic,
rather
than
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.8.3-13
May
2015