myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Proposed Development Upwind of Candlestick Point

Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Southwest USA, Hawaii, Mexico
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 31 May 1998
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:22 am    Post subject: Proposed Development Upwind of Candlestick Point Reply with quote

The following are SFBA comments to the City of Brisbane regarding its Revised Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan, immediately upwind of the sailing area at Candlestick Point.

January 9, 2011

Mr. John Swiecki, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005

Subject: Comments to the Revised Notice of Preparation for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan – Draft Environmental Impact Report and the need to fully address potential Impacts to the Recreational Use of Windsurfing

Dear Mr. Swiecki,

This letter provides comments with respect to the scope and content of the Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan.

The San Francisco Boardsailing Association (SFBA) is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1986 to protect and enhance boardsailing access, and to promote safety and related education in the San Francisco Bay Area. To this end, SFBA actively participates in the planning processes for development, reuse and redevelopment of public and private properties adjacent to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean which may enhance, threaten and/or directly or indirectly impact the recreational uses of Windsurfing and/or KiteBoarding.

SFBA’s main concern with the Development Alternatives proposed in this NOP are focused on the significant potential of the projects to alter existing air movement patterns - i.e., degradation of wind quality downwind of the project by creation of turbulence and/or “wind tunnels” or similar conditions. The large scope and upwind massing of the Alternatives described below, including the size and placement of structures (buildings, wind turbines, etc.), has the potential to significantly degrade or even destroy the ability to windsurf in one of the most cherished windsurfing locations on San Francisco Bay.

The landowner and Project Applicant, Universal Paragon Corporation, has submitted a specific plan application to the City of Brisbane proposing approximately 7 million square feet of office / retail / industrial / institutional uses, plus 5 million square feet of residential development (4,434 residential units) and approximately 205 acres of open space and related infrastructure. This land use scenario includes an “Entertainment Variant”, which will also be addressed in the EIR. The Project Applicant’s proposal, which could include the use of building-integrated wind turbines, is identified in the NOP as the Developer-Sponsored Project.

A Community Preferred Plan has also been proposed for the project site. This plan, which will be evaluated in the forthcoming Draft EIR at the same level of detail as the applicant’s proposal described above, includes a “Recology Expansion Variant”. The Community Preferred Plan includes up to approximately 8 million square feet of office / industrial / commercial / institutional space, no residential development and approximately 330 acres of open space.

In addition to the development scenarios and variants identified above, a Renewable Energy Alternative (which includes wind-turbines erected immediately upwind of the Candlestick Point Windsurfing Area) and a No-Project Alternative will also be evaluated in the forthcoming EIR.

SFBA hereby requests that the EIR include appropriate studies and evaluations within the topics of “Air Quality” (alteration of existing air movement patterns) and “Recreation” (impacts on existing recreation resources), and consider the impacts that all structures proposed for the Baylands site may have on the windsurfing recreational use that takes place on the San Francisco Bay to the east of the Baylands site and Highway 101. Proposed buildings and/or wind turbines on the Baylands Project site could have a significant impact on the westerly winds that make Candlestick Point State Park and the waters south of the park a premiere windsurfing spot.

Existing Windsurfing Use

Candlestick Point State Park is one of the premier windsurfing spots in the Bay Area. It is one of the more favored locations for windsurfing and it is ideal for beginners and intermediates because there is very little swell or wave action to contend with as a result of the short distance between the upwind shoreline and the windsurfing area. In these flat-water conditions, beginner and intermediate windsurfers can develop skills that are hard to master in wavy and choppy waters, and advanced windsurfers have a less hectic environment in which to learn trick/freestyle moves. Candlestick Point Park is the only practical place for beginner and intermediate windsurfers to windsurf within the City and County of San Francisco. The three nearest alternate launch sites (Oyster Point - 3 miles, Crissy Field - 8 miles, Ocean Beach - 8 miles) are appropriate for advanced windsurfers only because of the on-water conditions... offshore winds, strong currents or heavy surf.

The launch area at Candlestick Point State Park is located approximately 100' SW of the parking circle at the south end of the Candlestick Point State Park parking lot. Windsurfers are most efficient traveling perpendicular to the wind, so the windsurfers sailing from the launch typically travel back and forth on tracks that run roughly SSW and NNE in the face of wind that typically comes from the WNW. When sailing at Candlestick Point, windsurfers generally try to stay well the west (closer to I-101 and the shoreline) to ensure that they can make it back to the launch point in the face off offshore winds, or if they lose mobility through decreased wind speeds, damaged equipment or injury; (in other words, to prevent from being blown out into the Bay towards Oakland/ Alameda and not being able to return to their launching point at Candlestick Point.)

The picture below is a series of GPS tracks (provided by a windsurfer who regularly uses the site) superimposed on an aerial view of the windsurfing area at Candlestick Point and immediately downwind of the Baylands. A number of other windsurfers polled found these tracks to be representative of the primary sailing area, with the areas that are solid blue showing the most frequently used areas. At the southerly end of the sailing area, windsurfers approach within 500-1,000’ of the shoreline and generally get closer to the shoreline along Highway 101 as they move in a southerly direction.

(See attachment Candlestick Sailing Area GPS)

Wind Impacts

Windsurfing generally requires strong and steady wind. As wind conditions become gustier, with greater variations in speed and direction, windsurfing becomes more difficult and less enjoyable as a recreational activity. Reduced wind velocity and increased turbulence are both factors that can affect wind conditions such that windsurfing becomes difficult or even impractical. Turbulent winds can also increase the risk of injury. If wind speeds are reduced greatly in the lulls, then the wind may not provide enough energy for windsurfers to keep a board planing on the surface of the water, resulting in very low sailing speeds, instability and falling into the water (similar to balancing on a bicycle with little, to no, forward movement).

During an impact analysis for an earlier project in Burlingame, wind tunnel analysis was used to look at potential impacts on wind velocity and turbulence. Information in the resulting environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by Charles Bennett of Environmental Science Associates (ESA) indicated that turbulent effect can travel 25-50 times the height of a solid obstruction. The experience of members of our windsurfing community confirms this rule. One notable case is the construction of a Marriott hotel in Aruba that has affected wind well offshore.

Beyond height, the width and the shape of a building or tower or other obstruction also can have an impact on how the passing wind is affected. In the case of wind turbines, the towers would likely have a nominal impact on the wind because they present a relatively narrow obstruction, while the blades could have a more significant impact because they are designed to capture energy from the wind as they convert wind velocity into blade speed. In the case of buildings, narrower and less angular buildings may allow the wind to recover more quickly and over shorter distances.

It is important that an analysis of wind impacts evaluate both changes in velocity and changes/increases in turbulence and/or turbulence intensity. A standard that examines wind by looking at average velocity only cannot distinguish between wind that is averaging 20 m.p.h. and gusting between 18-22 m.p.h. and wind that is averaging 20 m.p.h. and gusting from 5-35 m.p.h. While the measure of average velocity would see these wind conditions as identical, the first wind condition would be ideal for windsurfing while the second would make windsurfing impractical or impossible. Windsurfers can adjust to changes in wind speed by rigging a larger or smaller sail; however, windsurfers cannot adjust to changes in turbulence because each sail has a limited range within which it can function well.

SFBA strongly recommends performing wind tunnel analysis of your Alternatives with ESA acting as the consultant. The figure below identifies likely data points that could be used for that study.

(See Attachment Candlestick Wind Study Data Points)

The aerodynamic and hydrodynamic issues of windsurfing, and the complexities of how windsurfers are affected by the wind and other conditions, are both complex and to some degree site-specific. SFBA would be glad to work with you and any consultant who works on the preparation of the EIR in order to lend our knowledge and assist in developing any information that you feel would be helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me, and I would appreciate being advised of any issue that might be of concern to our members. Please also add me to the project mailing list for the Baylands Specific Plan EIR and any other matters related to the Baylands Project.

SFBA is also concerned about the cumulative impacts of the Baylands Project combined with impacts of other pending projects in the immediate area, including Bayview Hunters Point, Executive Park, and Visitation Valley Schlage – Locke. We are specifically interested in a comprehensive analysis of the combined projects on 1) traffic and transportation impacts, 2) air quality impacts, 3) visual impacts, 4) aesthetic impacts, 5) scenic impacts, 6) resources impacts, and 7) impacts on open space.

We look forward to an EIR that tests and improves the environmental performance of this ambitious project.


William Robberson, President
San Francisco Boardsailing Association
(415) 307-7720

Download the original letter under public comments at ""

Candlestick Wind Study data points.jpg
 Filesize:  57.89 KB
 Viewed:  11512 Time(s)

Candlestick Wind Study data points.jpg

Candlestick sailing area GPS.jpg
 Filesize:  70.18 KB
 Viewed:  11512 Time(s)

Candlestick sailing area GPS.jpg

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 264
Location: San Mateo

PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

excellent letter! great job!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 19 May 1998
Posts: 3320
Location: Leo

PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So is there a petition to sign or letter writing campaign at this time?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, to whom can we write?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 17 Jul 2012
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The time is nearly here when we will really need your help to save Candlestick Windsurfing.

We've almost finished preparing comments to reject the conclusions of the "no significant impact" claim for the Brisbane Baylands project.

******** Here is why you should care ********

- See the project:

- This project begins just 500' upwind of the water's edge, includes over 10 million square feet of development, possible 160' high hotels and office buildings, possible sports stadium, a 4x increase in the Recology expansion and introduction of biomass (compost) processing for entire San Francisco City, and much more.

- The highest buildings and the Recology expansion are projected to be immediately upwind of the main Candlestick Area closest to the launch right in the flow of Alemany Gap. The plan would also tie Geneva Ave into a new 101 Highway exit right through this point. This could not be a worse possible configuration for Candlestick wind.

- Amazingly, they don't even have a finished plan for where the buildings will be located, how high they will ultimately be, or other site plan details yet they somehow still stuck something in a wind tunnel and decided it won't make any difference to Candlestick windsurfing. Even more amazing is that they did not even consider impacts on the sailing area within 1,000' from Western shore along Highway 101.

- 58% of the measured impact data points showed a reduction in average wind speeds between 5% and 11%. We have calculated that an average wind speed decrease of 5% through large portions of the site would reduce sailing days by up to 20% based on current required conditions and current sail/board sizes. This does not include the frustration from the wind shadows and turbulent conditions that would become the rule not the exception.

- While Candlestick is surely threatened by this, the bigger picture is even more frightening. The same bogus-logic threshold that was used at Coyote Point recently to claim "no significant impact" for a development adjacent to the water is being used here again at Candlestick. If this claim sticks here, it will most certaintly establish a precedent that will allow upwind development anywhere in the Bay to have much greater impact.

******** How you can help ********

We will publish our comments here and elsewhere, but we need lots of people to write in and voice their objection to the plan. We also need to make contacts at the various environmental public and private agencies and interest groups to gain their support. Media attention would also be invaluable.

If you are thankful this season, then find a way to give back in return. This is a great way to take a few moments and help a very worthy windsurfing cause. Everyone says that windsurfing is dead. It is not dead, and it is in fact growing in the Bay Area. But it will certainly be killed if we don't act to save it.[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Apr 2000
Posts: 1439

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right on, Brad.

Let us all know when it's time.

"No significant impact", my arse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 17 Jul 2012
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:44 am    Post subject: Save Candlestick -- now is this time Reply with quote

The public comments from Candlestick Preservation Association have been completed and an online petition at is now available.

To sign the petition, please visit:

It takes literally 30 seconds and an e-mail will be automatically generated and sent to Brisbane to register a prepared set of comments.

The deadline for public comments is January 24th, 2014.

The public comments and additional information are available at:

In a nutshell, the Baylands development is 700 acres, with buildings possibly up to 200 feet above sea level nearly 500 feet from the edge of the Bay and the possibility of a 1 million square foot trash plant.

The words "potential" and "possible" are frequently used in this subject because despite having numerous alternative "programs," there are no specific building foot prints yet somehow they still stuck something in a wind tunnel (in several pieces analyzed separately).

Other wind tunnel impact studies such as 300 Airport Boulevard (Coyote Point) or Executive Park (Candlestick) were on the order of 1/20th the size of the Baylands project and had specific building footprints identified and even in some cases typical elevation sections specified.

It is possible that once this Baylands EIR is approved, no further wind impact studies will be conducted on the 700 acres for potentially 12 million square feet of new buildings.

The environmental consultants for the Baylands analysis also didn't even have a criteria for minimum acceptable wind level conditions for windsurfing in the analysis so they merely thresholded the relative reduction in wind speed. Thresholding the relative change is meaningless.

We prepared an alternative analysis that looked at three years of historic iWindsurf data and applied the projected relative wind speed reductions of 5% to 10% and found that anywhere from 9% to 44% of the days over the previous three years between April through September would have been lost based on multiple sets of very conservative minimum acceptable conditions for windsurfing at Candlestick.

Another big problem is that they defined the sailable area based on one specific wind direction only and did not include much area near the Western shore. Therefore, much of the frequently sailed area closer to Highway 101 that would be most impacted by the development was not even analyzed.

Finally while the air quality section reveals the substantial presence of carcinogens from the Recology facility, it does not discuss any practical standards, enforcement, or penalties program for controlling this pollution or managing the odor.

Recology was fined by BAAQMD just $300 from July to September of this year for its odor pollution. Brisbane doesn't even have the jurisdiction within San Francisco or the Bay to monitor the downwind air pollution from a possibly quadrupled facility that may also now include compost processing.

Thank you for your interest and help in this! Since there are so few windsurfers and even fewer who get involved, every single one of you who makes an effort here will certainly make a difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Apr 2000
Posts: 1439

PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tell your buddies. Let's get some more signatures!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 17 Jul 2012
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geohaye wrote:
Tell your buddies. Let's get some more signatures!


Thank you!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Southwest USA, Hawaii, Mexico All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group