2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
addressed
in
Section
6.3,
Cumulative
Impacts
.
As
stated
on
page
6-7
of
the
Draft
EIR,
those
portions
of
past
projects
that
were
constructed
prior
to
2010
are
addressed
as
part
of
existing
conditions,
rather
than
as
part
of
cumulative
project
impacts,
since
impacts
of
the
previously
constructed
portion
of
projects
are
already
accounted
for
in
the
EIR
baseline.
See
regarding
use
of
the
SF-CHAMP
model.
Table
6-2
reflects
conditions,
including
the
Northeast
Ridge
project,
as
of
the
2010
baseline
year
used
for
analysis
in
the
Baylands
EIR.
See
for
discussion
of
impacts
on
the
US
101
freeway.
The
Bi-County
transportation
study
undertaken
by
the
cities
of
San
Francisco,
Daly
City,
and
Brisbane,
along
with
San
Mateo
County,
proposed
interchange
improvements,
but
not
widening
along
the
101
freeway.
In
addition,
Caltrans
has
no
plan
or
fee
program
in
place
for
widening
of
the
101
freeway,
widening
of
the
freeway
only
as
it
passes
through
the
Baylands
would
have
little
practical
effect
on
easing
congestion,
and
the
City
of
Brisbane
has
no
jurisdiction
over
freeway
improvements.
The
additional
track
cited
in
the
comment
is
being
provided
as
part
of
Caltrain’s
electrification
program
(Cumulative
Project
19
on
Table
6-2).
The
California
High
Speed
Rail
Authority’s
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.
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.
Thus,
the
City
of
Brisbane
concluded
that
addressing
the
potential
for
a
high-
speed
rail
maintenance
and
storage
facility
prior
to
the
time
the
Authority
completes
its
operational
re-evaluation
would
be
premature
and
speculative.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-218
May
2015