Page 5-9 SFOM-6 [See page 5-53 for the original comment] REVISE the text of the second full paragraph 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 single free-standing 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.
Page 5-22 BCC-473 [See page 5-253 for the original comment] REVISE the last paragraph to read as follows:
As discussed in Section 4.K, Population and Housing, of this EIR, this is considerably less than the number of jobs that would be generated under the CPP or DSP scenarios (approximately 15,000 and 17,000 new jobs, respectively), and consistent with Projections
20132009 growth forecast of citywide employment growth from 2010 to 20 403 5 (8, 2809 ,880 jobs). As further discussed in Section 4.K, Population and Housing, employment growth under the No Project-General Plan Buildout Alternative is greater than the citywide employment growth projections of the draft Plan Bay Area, exceeding the growth forecast of preferred and alternative scenarios (employment increase of 300-1,580 jobs). While the No Project-General Plan Buildout Alternative would thus be consistent with Projections