Re: Coyote Wind Block Calcs / Fishermans Park

From: Greg Harris (harris@Synopsys.COM-DeleteThis)
Date: Thu Feb 04 1999 - 17:44:53 PST

Next message: TRACY PIERCE: "wind_talk"
Previous message: Francois Jouaux: "Re: Windsurfing on Kauai"
In reply to: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "Coyote Wind Block Calcs / Fishermans Park"
Next in thread: Matt Chapman: "Re: Coyote Wind Block Calcs / Fishermans Park"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Message-Id: <36BA4D15.B2EC08A@synopsys.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:44:53 -0800
From: Greg Harris <harris@Synopsys.COM-DeleteThis>
Organization: Synopsys
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: Coyote Wind Block Calcs / Fishermans Park
References: <379c084b.36b898c8@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Studying the report again. Actually I think we might have something to
argue with simply from their own report. Check out all the diagrams
from pages 50 till the end. Hopefully we might even make them believe
what I'm saying so we can have a real world value of what will affect
the launch instead of their arbitrary number.

First, think of the hole at Coyote which rears it's ugly head on a
W'ly. They actually show it on pg. 50 and it looks believable. It's
the reason I don't like to sail Coyote. How hard is it to launch when
that hole shows up? I know of several days I've been at Coyote where
the wind isn't enough to sustain you through the hole and people won't
even go out until either the wind switches or picks up. At the same
time the outside is nicely filled in and it's fun sailing. If you look
at an average day, you have no chance of planing at least until you hit
that their mapped area of 2 which has R values from .675-.65 and that's
not always true on a bad day.

Therefore, couldn't we argue the minimum R value of holes we can go
through is with an area labled with 3 (R values of .65-.625), with most
of the sailing done in the areas labled 2. Therefore, our minimum
sailing R value could be called .625 and we want most of it to be .65 to
effectively get to where we need to go. I even believe the area
affected by the hole on a W wind is larger than the 3 area they have
listed, but we'll keep .625 as the minimum sustainable for this
analysis.

Now we can look at the maps of the Project + Cumulative Development (pg.
52) and super windsurf killer the Alternative Hotel plan + Cumulative
Development on (pg. 58). If the guidelines I'm suggesting are accurate,
the alternative plan would absolutely doom Coyote as most of the area in
the map in within at least area 3 with lots of areas even worse.

For just the project and cumulitive development (pg. 52), if you were
launching from the middle point of the launch area, the 2nd. line on the
map to the left, you will quickly find yourself in the level 3 hole. As
you go, you barely slide along the level 2, 3 border returning into
level 3, level 4 and even level 5 before you come back out again into
real wind. Not only is there far more sailing in level 3, but you are
going into levels 4 and 5. Taking away from what is already very
difficult will be very problematic for Coyote.

I'll also bet you as you have higher winds, it would stretch the
distance that the holes exist and while they may have a higher wind
speed, the percent change from what you find on the outside grows as the
area affected by the hole continues out over the bay. This goes back to
safety for the gear you select.

Greg

Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis wrote:
>
> WIND DATA
>
> I have talked with Meg Monroe, the City Planner for Burlingame. She is very
> helpful. She suggested that the best way to get any raw data from the wind
> study would be to contact Marty Abell at ESA . I have a call in to him to see
> what is available. Maybe I need to read the report again, but it looks like
> they gathered data of turbulence/gustiness but did not analyze that data for
> their report:
>
> >From page 7 of the technical memorandum prepared by ESA:
>
> >By measuring both the mean wind speeds and corresponding turbulence
> intensities, high >wind speeds and gustiness (changes in wind speed over short
> periods of time) could be >determined.
>
> MITIGATION / FISHERMAN'S PARK
>
> I talked with Meg Monroe about Fisherman's Park. It is a San Mateo County
> Park. The land is owned by the State of California and it the end portion of
> the larger parcel that runs west to the creek. The holder of the lease on the
> larger parcel established the park in cooperation with the County. The park
> looks to hold 60+ cars but is generally under utilized. The hours are 9 am to
> 5 pm and a gate is locked at 5 pm. The primary users are fisherman who night
> not welcome new users if they feel that our use interferes with theirs.
>
> See map:
> http://terraserver.microsoft.com/GetTilesByXY.asp?XId=5430&YId=3468&TileX=5&Ti
> leY=1&SrcId=1&ImgDate=07/10/1993&DSize=0
>
> Meg Monroe did not think that the City of Burlingame could/would push a
> developer of one property to make improvement on a different property they did
> not own. On the other hand, if we find that a significant impact to
> windsurfing exists and come to a deadlock with the developer (likely since
> there are no easy on site mitigations beyond moving or redesigning buildings),
> I think the developer might be interested in voluntarily coming in on a group
> effort to add windsurfing access at Fisherman's Park.
>
> Access at Fisherman's park would basically require a ramp and extended hours
> for the park. San Mateo Parks and Rec would need to be convinced that the
> benefits are worth extending park hours. The BCDC would have to approve the
> ramp. In a perfect world I'd like to see a floating dock like at Berkeley
> Marina that gets you 50' offshore into deeper water and more wind, but I
> understand that BCDC has major concerns about docks vs. ramps and there are
> maintenance issues. The north frontage has about a 10' sheer drop to the
> water, so a ramp would involve a lot of concrete. I'd appreciate any info from
> people intimate with the 3rd Avenue experience relative to the BCDC (and maybe
> a contact name?). If nothing happens in the near term, park improvements and
> rebuilding of the frontage would likely be required of a developer building on
> the larger parcel that extends west down to the creek. It might be years
> before that development occurs. Three major development plans for the parcel
> have already come and gone.
>
> Peter

Next message: TRACY PIERCE: "wind_talk"
Previous message: Francois Jouaux: "Re: Windsurfing on Kauai"
In reply to: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "Coyote Wind Block Calcs / Fishermans Park"
Next in thread: Matt Chapman: "Re: Coyote Wind Block Calcs / Fishermans Park"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:02 PST