2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
The
uncertainty
of
the
hot-wire
anemometer
close
to
the
surface
of
the
model
is
±5%
of
the
true
values.
However,
experience
shows
that
within
a
series
of
comparative
tests
such
as
these,
the
repeatability
of
measurements
of
R-Values
for
project
and
existing
scenarios
typically
is
better
than
±1%.
Since
the
Draft
EIR
comparisons
are
between
the
R-values
or
ratios
of
R-values,
the
resulting
uncertainty
is
estimated
to
be
close
to
±1%.
Finally,
the
natural
range
of
variation
of
the
winds
in
the
boundary
layer
is
simply
not
a
factor
in
the
accuracy
of
the
wind
speed
measurements.
The
wind
tunnel
measurements
apply
equally
well
over
the
entire
range
of
wind
speeds
that
windsurfers
would
encounter
when
sailing
in
the
CPSRA,
with
the
exception
of
wind
speeds
that
are
less
than
a
couple
of
miles
per
hour.
This
comment
introduces
the
comments
that
follow
in
letter
CPA2
by
stating
that
the
CEQA
guidelines
were
improperly
applied
in
determining
potential
significant
impacts.
Specific
responses
to
specific
issues
raised
in
the
comment
letter
are
presented
below.
See
which
provides
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
thresholds
of
significance
used
in
the
windsurfing
impact
analysis.
See
also
The
comment
states
that
“Impacts
on
availability
of
the
Resource
due
to
changes
in
mean
wind
speed
are
assuredly
non-linear”
and
cites
the
Drake
article,
An
Introduction
to
the
Physics
of
Windsurfing
,
which
is
intended
to
help
the
reader
in
understanding
the
physical
processes
involved.
However,
the
comment’s
statements
that
immediately
follow
are
conclusions
that
are
not
supported.
The
comment
describes
“Basic
Requirements
of
Windsurfing,”
noting
that
it
requires
“…minimum
gusts
to
provide
enough
impulse
to
achieve
a
state
of
hydro-planing
(planing)
and
perform
maneuvers…,”
“…requires
minimum
mean
speeds
to
continue
in
this
planing
state”,
and
“…requires
minimum
lull
wind
speeds
that
are
not
too
frequent
such
that
the
windsurfer’s
momentum
would
be
insufficient
to
continue
planing
through
the
lull.”
Comment
2-35
does
not
include
appropriate
numbers
that
describe
the
“minimum
planing
speed”
in
Figure
20.
See
for
discussion
of
the
“alternate
analysis”
provided
in
the
CPA
comment
letter.
Comment
2-36
argues
the
need
for
“Calibrated
Absolute
Measurements,”
stating
that
“The
(Draft
EIR)
Analysis
made
no
effort
to
establish
critical
absolute
measurements
or
thresholds
for
the
Resource
but
only
considered
relative
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.4-15
May
2015