Re: COYOTE POINT: Developer back with revised plan

From: George Haye (geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Mon Nov 08 1999 - 07:40:28 PST


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA233455898; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:45:00 -0800
Return-Path: <geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA020305893; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:44:53 -0800
Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f50.hotmail.com [216.32.181.50]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with SMTP id HAA09632 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9348 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1999 15:40:29 -0000
Message-Id: <19991108154029.9347.qmail@hotmail.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from 199.169.208.132 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 07:40:28 PST
X-Originating-Ip: [199.169.208.132]
From: "George Haye" <geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis>
To: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis, atomic1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, harris4life@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, bob@quake.net-DeleteThis, geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, Randyboz@aol.com-DeleteThis, karinaoc@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, CoyoteSurf@aol.com-DeleteThis, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis, TFeldstein@grmslaw.com-DeleteThis, mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis, lbauman@fostercity.org-DeleteThis, jrunge@netcom.com-DeleteThis, jmcgrath@portoakland.com-DeleteThis, lstanley@stanleyrose.com-DeleteThis, ErikRog@aol.com-DeleteThis, pyliu@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, buck@velaresorts.com-DeleteThis, RedKen2@aol.com-DeleteThis, WindyYet@aol.com-DeleteThis, AIRBOYD1@aol.com-DeleteThis, david@windcall.com-DeleteThis, cort@larnedwindsurf.com-DeleteThis, carlyle@savesfbay.org-DeleteThis, MStokowski@quadramed.com-DeleteThis, jameslord@pacbell.net-DeleteThis, cems1@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, wndrider@hooked.net-DeleteThis, allen.zimmerman@gte.net-DeleteThis, wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: COYOTE POINT: Developer back with revised plan
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 07:40:28 PST
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Peter,
Thanks for keeping this puppy alive.

* What would the FAR be if they kept this same building footprint but
brought them all down to 65'? About .46-.57?

Your suggestion about WNW wind data being needed before the picture is
complete makes a lot of sense to me. Even NW results as well if the
additional cost is not that high. Who knows what kind of turbulence area
could be created that could have impacts on the sailing area even in a NW
wind with this plan.

I appreciate your focus on the FAR, because clearly these wind impacts would
be less if we had the 5 "wind-friendly" buildings but at 65' in height. It
sounds like the Burlingame election campaign may have energized many
citizens to come out and oppose projects like this one on size/traffic
reasons -- so hopefully we have allies we can tap into and who also show up
at the meetings to keep this project down to a comparable FAR to what's
already there.

Dr. White's findings are "surprising". They certainly took the wind concerns
seriously by moving the buildings around, but they have not decreased the
size that much -- they don't seem to be taking our traffic concerns and the
SM/Burlingame residents' traffic concerns as seriously. (Of course, reducing
the size of the project hits them harder economically in the long term than
rotating and re-designing buildings.)

Your mention of the other waterfront parcels is key. If this development is
allowed to proceed, it sets a bad precedent for traffic concerns but also
windsurfing concerns. We've been able to reduce the size of this one (who
knows if its been reduced enough, though), but there are several waterfront
parcels -- when each one is developed, they would expect to be able to put
up 90 foot buildings with onerous FAR (floor area ratio) percentages. We
would need to fight each of these whether they come into play next year or
in 5 years. A 90' building on the Hertz/Avis lot(s) could be even more
damaging to the sailing area than the current project. It would save us a
tremendous amount of grief to have a reasonable precedent set now.

I hope the windsurfing community can stay energized, so that enough of us
show up at the meetings etc.

-George

----Original Message Follows----
From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
To: atomic1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, harris@synopsys.com-DeleteThis, bob@quake.net-DeleteThis,
geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, Randyboz@aol.com-DeleteThis, karinaoc@earthlink.net-DeleteThis,
Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis,
harris4life@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, CoyoteSurf@aol.com-DeleteThis, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis,
TFeldstein@grmslaw.com-DeleteThis, mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis,
lbauman@fostercity.org-DeleteThis, jrunge@netcom.com-DeleteThis, jmcgrath@portoakland.com-DeleteThis,
lstanley@stanleyrose.com-DeleteThis, ErikRog@aol.com-DeleteThis, pyliu@earthlink.net-DeleteThis,
buck@velaresorts.com-DeleteThis, RedKen2@aol.com-DeleteThis, WindyYet@aol.com-DeleteThis,
AIRBOYD1@aol.com-DeleteThis, david@windcall.com-DeleteThis, cort@larnedwindsurf.com-DeleteThis,
carlyle@savesfbay.org-DeleteThis, MStokowski@quadramed.com-DeleteThis, jameslord@pacbell.net-DeleteThis,
   cems1@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, wndrider@hooked.net-DeleteThis, allen.zimmerman@gte.net-DeleteThis,
wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: COYOTE POINT: Developer back with revised plan
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:02:08 EST

The developer for the drive-in property located west of the Coyote Point
launch and sailing area, 301 Airport Boulevard, has submitted a revised
development plan.

It looks like action on the new development proposal for the drive-in
property west of Coyote Point Park may come down during the holidays. A
Planning Commission study session could occur as soon as November 22nd
although a more likely date is December 13th.

The new configuration is three 5-story buildings with a total floor area of
480,000 square feet (s.f.) which would equate to a floor area ratio (FAR) of
about 0.68. The buildings are reportedly 90' tall. The buildings are
somewhat
elliptical in shape and are now oriented narrow side to the wind.

The previous configuration that was rejected by the Planning Commission was
five buildings ranging from 3-7 stories, most of which were oriented
broadside to the wind. The previous configuration had a total floor area of
635,868 s.f. and an FAR of 0.90. The building heights ranged between 52 and
105 feet.

The property at 301 Airport Boulevard lies within the Bayfront/Anza area.
The
area plan for Bayfront Anza allows for FAR up to 0.90, but the average FAR
for office developments built since the area plan went into effect is 0.57.
The FAR for the only similarly sized project in the Bayfront/Anza area,
555-557 Airport Boulevard is 0.46.

The Bayfront/Anza area has a building height limit of 65'. The inclusion of
90' buildings would require that the Planning Commission grant a variance.
The SFBA has previously argued that the development should be built within
area height limits.

In the area there are at least three major parcels that may be developed for
office and/or hotel use at future dates. These include the Hertz lot at 300
Airport Boulevard, the State of California lands near Kincaid's Restaurant,
and the land west of the Sheraton Hotel. Traffic impacts for the new
configuration should be reduced proportionally to the reduction in the FAR.

WIND TUNNEL TESTING

The developer commissioned a wind tunnel test for the revised plan. Dr.
Bruce
White conducted the test at University of California at Davis. Dr. White is
well qualified when it comes to wind tunnels and has an excellent
reputation.
The test was for west winds only. The test showed negligible impacts as
measured by turbulence intensities (TI).

In the existing conditions, areas of higher turbulence (above 20% TI as
measured in the wind tunnel) extend 300-400' past the Airport Boulevard
bulkhead. For the previously proposed development, areas of higher
turbulence
were expected to extend over 1,300' past the Airport Boulevard bulkhead.

For the new configuration, areas of higher turbulence extend 200-400'past
the
Airport Boulevard bulkhead and cover roughly the same area as the existing
zone of higher turbulence. In addition, there is an area well downwind where
TI is projected to decrease below 15%.

PROBLEM

During the summer the developer presented wind tunnel data for a project
which appeared to have the same building shapes and locations as the new
configuration, but which used three 7-story buildings instead of three
5-story buildings. The wind tunnel data showed a primary area of higher
turbulence extending 1,200' past the Airport Boulevard bulkhead and
secondary
bubble of higher turbulence extending out to 1,500' past the Airport
Boulevard bulkhead. In light of these results, one would have expected the
new configuration to have impact closer to those cited above since the
5-story building are roughly 5/7 of the height of the 7-story buildings and
similar in configuration. Typically, the distance turbulence travels is
proportional to the height of the blockage where all other variables remain
the same.

The wind tunnel results that show no serious increase in turbulence
intensity
for the new configuration seem unexpected. Dr. White said that he was
surprised by the results and expected them to be worse, but he also said
that
he believed the results were accurate. The minimal impact from the three
5-story buildings seems problematic in light of the fact that three 7-story
buildings in an almost identical configuration had a major negative impact
that was on a par with the impacts from the previously proposed project
which
was rejected by the planning commission.

WIND DIRECTION TESTED

In the previous configuration, it was agreed that the worst impacts were
going to be for west wind conditions since the buildings essentially created
a wind block with the wide sides of the building square to the west wind.
The
new project is designed to be more west wind friendly with a narrower
profile
relative to the west wind and buildings that are designed to be somewhat
like
a wing. As the wind deviates from west, the wind will flow less cleanly
around the buildings just as wind flows less cleanly over a wing as it
deflects to a steeper angle. At some point a wing reaches an angle where it
stalls and creates very turbulent airflow. In theory there may also be an
angle off of west at which the airflow going around the buildings becomes
much more turbulent.

Ideally, there would be a wind tunnel test for a direction off of west to
show what worst case conditions will look like. Since winds with a more
northerly component are typically considered to be more frequent and better
suited to sailing, I would guess something more northerly would be best. By
the time the wind swings all to way to northwest, much of the wind should
reach the parking lot area at Coyote Point Park with hitting the buildings.
In light of that, I would guess that a test of WNW winds would reveal the
most about the worst case conditions would look like with the new
configuration.

Peter

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:36:20 PST