2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
“A
project
could
physically
degrade
a
windsurfing
or
kite
boarding
recreational
resource
if
it
were
to
reduce
wind
speeds
to
the
point
where
the
reductions
would
substantially
impair
windsurfing
in
prime
windsurfing
areas
or
substantially
impair
access
to
or
from
those
areas
from
existing
launch
sites.”
The
2012
criterion,
above,
differs
from
the
numerical
criterion
the
City
of
Burlingame
used
to
evaluate
the
potential
wind
impacts
of
previously
proposed
office
development
projects
at
that
same
300
Airport
Boulevard
site.
The
City
considered
the
2012
criterion
to
be
more
appropriate
for
use
in
evaluating
the
wind
impact
than
the
previous
criterion.
Finally,
models
of
the
scenarios
tested
in
the
wind
tunnel
included
the
underlying
existing
and
proposed
finished
grade
topography
of
the
project
site.
Therefore,
it
is
not
necessary
to
add
25
feet
to
“account
for
the
projected
finished
grade
elevation
above
sea
level.”
The
bulk
models
and
the
wind
tunnel
analysis
were
sufficient
to
simulate
the
worst-case
wind
effects
of
the
proposed
project
on
the
CPSRA
windsurfing
area.
See
31
and
for
discussions
of
the
adequacy
of
wind
tunnel
testing
and
the
windsailing
area
and
why
the
same
methods
as
were
used
by
the
City
and
County
of
San
Francisco
for
analysis
of
windsurfing
impacts
of
the
Executive
Park
project
result
in
an
accurate
analysis.
As
noted
in
Response
above,
this
analysis
used
the
same
methods
used
to
evaluate
impacts
on
the
same
CPSRA
windsurfing
resource
that
were
used
by
proposed
development
at
Executive
Park
in
San
Francisco.
For
additional
discussion
regarding
the
adequacy
of
project
description
details
used
in
the
wind
models,
refer
For
a
discussion
of
potential
wind
effects
in
CPA’s
“practical
sailing
area,”
which
appears
to
include
the
“wind
shadow”
area
noted
by
others,
see
the
discussion
Note
that
as
wind
direction
shifts
to
become
“angled
to
the
north,”
the
wind
effects
of
the
project
within
the
“practical
sailing
area”
diminish.
For
such
winds,
the
part
of
the
Bay
affected
by
Project
Site
development
winds
would
be
in
the
south
section
of
the
measurement
grid,
south
of
the
“practical
sailing
area”,
since
that
would
be
the
only
part
of
the
sailing
area
actually
downwind
of
developed
portions
of
the
Baylands
site.
The
comment
states
that
when
winds
are
“angled
to
the
north,”
areas
of
the
Western
shore
are
used
for
returning
to
the
launch
site.
This
corridor
would
be
unaffected
by
Project
Site
development
when
winds
are
“angled
to
the
north,”
since
it
would
not
be
downwind
of
the
Baylands
site.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.4-8
May
2015