2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
transect,
1,125
feet
from
the
shoreline.
These
measurements
provide
substantial
evidence
of
the
relative
wind
speeds
in
the
“wind
shadow”
area
identified
by
CPA.
These
wind
tunnel
data
indicate
that
wind
speeds
in
the
“wind
shadow”
area
are
reduced
by
approximately
3
percent,
compared
to
winds
in
the
larger
grid
area,
and
reduced
by
approximately
6
percent
compared
to
winds
975
feet
inland
from
the
shoreline.
Given
that
trees
and
shrubs
also
exist
between
the
inland
and
water
segments
of
the
transect,
the
actual
reduction
of
speed
for
west
winds
in
the
“wind
shadow”
area
is
expected
to
be
greater
(estimated
to
add
approximately
2
percent
to
4
percent
more)
to
the
3-percent
reduction
without
trees,
as
measured
on
the
transect.
The
wind
speed
reduction
(“wind
shadow”)
due
to
trees
will
be
larger
when
closer
to
shore
and
closer
to
the
trees.
However,
the
recovery
of
wind
speeds
with
increasing
distance
into
the
Bay
will
occur,
until
reaching
well
into
the
grid,
where
the
effects
of
the
trees
cannot
be
discerned.
Because
the
“wind
shadow”
area
is
also
closer
to
the
proposed
Baylands
development
,
it
should
also
be
expected
that
wind
speed
reductions
and
turbulence
associated
with
Project
Site
development
would
be
incrementally
more
than
the
values
at
points
on
the
grid.
However,
the
resulting
speed
reduction
at
any
given
location
would
be
the
largest
for
the
west
wind
(given
the
shortest
distance
from
the
Project
Site),
and
smaller
for
the
other
three
wind
directions.
The
Project’s
effect
–
its
wind
speed
reduction
–
in
the
“wind
shadow”
area
nearest
the
shore
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
2
percent
to
4
percent
more
than
in
the
grid
for
the
west
wind,
and
would
be
less
than
that
for
other
directions.
In
addition,
the
wind
speed
reductions
and
turbulence
intensity
results
measured
at
points
on
the
grid
may
be
extrapolated
to
locations
to
the
east,
into
the
Bay
and
farther
from
the
shore.
The
greater
the
distance
over
water
that
the
wind
travels,
the
more
speed
the
wind
recovers
from
the
atmospheric
boundary
layer
above
it.
Because
of
this
phenomenon,
the
areas
farther
from
the
shore
and
beyond
the
measurement
grid
that
would
be
less
affected
by
existing
wind
shadows
and
Project
Site
development
would
have
higher
wind
speeds.
Indeed,
as
can
be
seen
in
the
wind
plots
in
Draft
EIR
Appendix
J,
the
wind
effects
of
the
Project
would
be
very
small
at
the
eastern
side
of
the
grid.
Wind
tunnel
test
data
from
the
2009
wind
analysis
for
the
proposed
Executive
Park
project
was
included
for
the
Project
only
for
portions
of
the
grid
that
are
not
affected
by
Baylands
Project
Site
development.
For
additional
discussion
of
the
use
of
data
from
the
proposed
Executive
Park
project,
please
refer
2.4.33
Master
Response
33,
Windsurfing:
Alternative
Analysis
Methodology
Comments
A
number
of
comments
from
CPA
recommended
an
alternative
methodology,
which
is
described
in
the
response
below,
to
analyze
impacts
of
proposed
development
on
windsurfing
resources
at
CPSRA.
These
comments
suggested
that
use
of
such
methodology
would
demonstrate
that
proposed
Baylands
development
would
result
in
significant
impacts
on
windsurfing
resources,
and
thereby
require
mitigation.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-97
May
2015