2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
Pasquill
stability
classes
of
D,
E
and
F,
which
are
“neutral
”to“
stable,
are
the
classes
of
interest
to
wind
surfers
in
Brisbane,
where
daytime
solar
radiation
is
moderate
or
slight,
and
the
accompanying
surface
wind
speeds
would
be
11
mph
or
more.
The
commenter
may
intend
that
the
series
of
anecdotes
and
observations
in
Comment
would
offer
proof
of
the
assertion
in
Comment
that
“The
claim
in
the
DEIR
that
it
is
impossible
under
certain
wind
directions
for
the
Project
to
have
meaningful
influence
on
certain
portions
of
the
CPSRA
is
unsubstantiated
and
is
inconsistent
with
real
observable
conditions.”
However,
neither
Comment
nor
Comment
provide
any
substantial
evidence
to
support
that
assertion.
Ultimately,
proposed
development
within
the
Baylands
can
only
affect
the
wind
that
passes
over
the
site.
If
the
wind
does
not
pass
over
the
site,
Project
Site
development
will
have
no
effect
on
that
wind.
For
a
discussion
of
how
surrounding
topography
influences
wind
in
the
CPSRA
windsurfing
area,
see
Draft
EIR
page
4.M-13.
See
also
31
for
discussion
regarding
topography
used
in
the
wind
modeling.
The
wind
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR
evaluated
the
effects
of
winds
from
those
upwind
directions
that
could
be
adversely
affected
by
Project
Site
development
(see
page
4.M-13
to
4.M-14
of
the
Draft
EIR),
including
the
wind
directions
that
were
considered
generally
good
for
surfing
(see
Draft
EIR
page
4.M-5).
The
commenter
provides
no
evidence
that
the
results
of
the
Draft
EIR’s
analysis
would
change
if
more
than
one
wind
direction
prevailed
over
the
CPSRA
area.
See
Wind
shadows
caused
by
existing
topography
and
buildings
appear
at
the
north
and
west
ends
of
the
sailing
area
under
existing
conditions.
CPA
2
Figure
15
shows
the
Recology
facility,
a
structure
that
was
modeled
in
the
existing
setting
and
Project
Site
development
cases
for
wind
testing.
The
magnitude
of
the
existing
“wind
shadows”
from
this
and
other
existing
buildings
and
landforms
is
evident
in
the
Draft
EIR
Appendix
J.1
contour
plots,
especially
for
northwest
winds.
See
for
a
further
discussion
of
wind
speeds
at
points
closer
to
the
shoreline
and
the
Baylands
site,
and
in
the
“wind
shadow”
for
West
winds.
The
commenter
states,
but
provides
no
evidence,
that
the
photo
shows
effects
that
are
“substantially
more
pervasive
and
extensive
than
what
is
predicted
by
the
Analysis
even
for
existing
conditions.”
In
the
caption
for
CPA
2
Figure
16,
the
commenter
does
not
note
the
wind
speed
and
direction
over
the
Bay
at
the
time
the
photo
was
taken,
or
at
what
wind
speed
such
visual
effects
occur
in
the
water.
Otherwise,
if
this
were
taken
under
a
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.4-13
May
2015