Reso24 16252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

88  DMA-3: 7,004 SF of impervious area and 625 SF of pervious area; located adjacent to and south of DMA-2; required bioretention is 283 SF, and treatment proposed is 625 SF. Stormwater runoff from DMA-3 would be treated using a flow-through planter.  DMA-4: 5,182 SF of impervious area and 214 SF of pervious area; located in the southeastern part of the project component site; required bioretention is 208 SF, and treatment proposed is 214 SF. Stormwater runoff from DMA-4 would be treated using a flow-through planter.  DMA-5: 5,165 SF of impervious area and 122 SF of pervious area; located in the southwestern part of the project component site; required bioretention is 207 SF, and treatment proposed is 207 SF. Stormwater runoff from DMA-5 would be treated using a flow-through planter.  DMA-6: 1,656 SF of impervious area and 719 SF of pervious area; located adjacent to and south of DMA-3; stormwater runoff from DMA-6 would be conveyed to a media filter. Stormwater runoff from DMA-6 would be conveyed to a media filter.  DMA-7: 652 SF of impervious area and 1,055 SF of pervious area; located along the northern part of the project component site; this DMA would be self-retaining. This DMA would be self-retaining.  DMA-8: 0 SF of impervious area and 910 SF of pervious area; located adjacent to and south of DMA-3; this DMA would be self-retaining. This DMA would be self-retaining.  DMA-9: 1,333 SF of impervious area and 2,041 SF of pervious area; located adjacent to DMA-12, extending along the southern part of the project component site and wrapping up the eastern side; this DMA would be self- retaining. This DMA would be self-retaining.  DMA-10: 10,674 SF of impervious area and 322 SF of pervious area; located along the western border of the project component site (e.g., Woodside Road). This DMA would be treated using bioretention treatment.  DMA-11: 315 SF of impervious area and 28 SF of pervious area; located adjacent to DMA-10 on the west and DMA-8 and DMA-5 on the east. This DMA would be treated using bioretention treatment.  DMA-12: 406 SF of impervious area and 54 SF of pervious area; located adjacent to DMA-10 on the west and DMA-5 and DMA-9 on the east. This DMA would be treated using bioretention treatment.  DMA-13: 129 SF of impervious area and 94 SF of pervious area; located adjacent to DMA-1 and in the northeastern part of the project component site. This DMA would be self-retaining. Total impervious area = 45,658 SF; total pervious area = 6,722 SF; total bioretention required = 1,561; total bioretention proposed = 1,988. There are some minor differences in area computations between the proposed stormwater control plan and the alternate plan: the alternate plan includes 211 SF more imperious area, 404 SF more pervious area, 122 SF less required bioretention area, and 69 SF less proposed bioretention area. All stormwater data and components provided by the project component applicant are subject to review, approval, and onsite inspection by the City. The project component would be subject to these standard requirements as conditions of project component approval. As a result of Focused GPU standards and the City requirements described above, the proposed project component would have a less than significant impact and would not generate additional stormwater drainage impacts beyond those analyzed in the Focused GPU program EIR. Therefore, this project component would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU EIR because it would not create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. b. The City of Redwood City does not currently rely on groundwater as a water supply source. Groundwater impacts were analyzed in the Focused GPU EIR and were determined to be less than significant impacts because Redwood City did not then have and had no intention of using groundwater as a water supply, so future development within the planning area would not have caused a depletion of groundwater supplies. Additionally, because future developments would largely be constructed on previously developed land, there would not be a substantial increase in impervious surfaces. Because the Focused GPU implementation would not substantially decrease water supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, this impact was found to be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project component would not require substantial amounts of water such that it would result in substantially depleted groundwater supplies (see item XIX[b] [water supply] of this checklist). Under the State’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), medium and high priority groundwater basins are required to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The project component site is located in the San Mateo Plain Subbasin – Santa Clara Valley Basin, which according to the City of Redwood City 2020 Urban Water Management Plan has been ranked as a “very low priority” basin and is therefore not subject to the requirements of SGMA. In addition, as discussed in item (a) above, there would be a net decrease in impervious surface area. Therefore, the proposed project component would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere ATTY/RESO.0074/CC RESO 847 WOODSIDE (CEQA) - EXHIBIT 1 - CEQA CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST REV: 10-23-24 VR Page 88 of 135