|
<br />89
<br />substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project component would impede sustainable groundwater
<br />management of the basin. Furthermore, the Focused GPU program EIR (Focused GPU program EIR pp. 4.10-18
<br />through 4.10-19) concluded that although the City is currently evaluating groundwater as a potential future emergency
<br />or back-up supply source, there is no guarantee that future development projects would use groundwater for water
<br />supply, and instead would rely on potable water purchased from SFPUC (distributed by the City) and recycled water
<br />from the City. In addition, the Focused GPU program EIR also concluded that increases in new impervious areas
<br />associated with future development within the City, including the project component, would be expected to be minimal
<br />and would not be expected to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project component
<br />would not substantially decrease water supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
<br />project component would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. This impact would be less than
<br />significant. This project component would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU EIR because it would
<br />not create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA
<br />purposes.
<br />c. As discussed in the Focused GPU program EIR (pp. 4.10-19 and 4.10-21), development facilitated by the Focused
<br />GPU would occur in areas of the City that are currently developed, and increases in impervious surfaces would be
<br />relatively minimal (i.e., new impervious surfaces would generally replace existing impervious surfaces and either
<br />result in a decrease in impervious surface area due to more extensive use of stormwater control measures or result in
<br />a small net increase in impervious surface area). As discussed in item (a) above and the subparts below, the proposed
<br />project component would therefore not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of project component site. In
<br />addition, the rate or amount of surface runoff would not be substantially increased by new development because new
<br />development would be required to comply with the City regulations regarding stormwater and stormwater
<br />management, the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, and the San Francisco Bay Region
<br />Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP).
<br /> i) As discussed in item (a), the project component would be subject to Water Board construction requirements (in
<br />particular, see NPDES MRP section “C.6. Construction Site Control”). The Focused GPU program EIR (pp. 4.10-19
<br />and 4.10-21) concluded that possible construction period erosion and contamination effects would be adequately
<br />mitigated with the required implementation of the extensive City, County, and RWQCB requirements, which would
<br />be implemented during construction and monitored by the City Engineer.
<br /> ii) As discussed in item (a), the project component would result in a net decrease in impervious surface area and
<br />therefore would not result in substantial surface runoff that would result in flooding onsite or offsite. The impact
<br />would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
<br /> iii) As discussed in item (a), project component stormwater control measures would be designed to meet C.3
<br />stormwater criteria and would thereby minimize potential project component-related pollutant runoff. These control
<br />measures would be required to meet City storm drain design criteria to maintain post-development peak runoff rates
<br />and average volume of runoff similar to existing pre-development levels. This would be expected to minimize impacts
<br />on downstream drainage systems. As also discussed in item (a), the proposed project component would result in a
<br />decrease in total impervious surface area through offsetting any increase in particular impervious surfaces (e.g.,
<br />building rooftop area) with a reduction in other impervious surface area (e.g., sidewalk, patios, paths, driveways,
<br />streets, uncovered parking). The post-development impervious surface area (35,113 SF) would be less than the pre-
<br />development impervious surface area (35,995 SF) (Project applicant “C.3 and C.6 Development Revise Checklist,
<br />San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program,” R. Hansen, CBG, undated). Because the project
<br />component would provide onsite treatment of stormwater, it would not create a substantial additional source of
<br />polluted runoff or substantially increase runoff compared to the existing condition, and the project impact would be
<br />less than significant.
<br /> iv) As analyzed in the Focused GPU program EIR (pp. 4.10-20 and 4.10-21) and discussed in item (d) below, a
<br />sizeable portion of the Focused GPU planning area is mapped as flood hazard zones with “0.2% annual chance [500-
<br />year] flood hazard; areas of 1% annual chance [100-year] flood with average depth less than 1 foot or with drainage
<br />areas of less than one square mile.” The project component site is designated as Zone X on FEMA Map number
<br />06081C0303E Panel 301 of 510, dated October 16, 2012, which although a type of flood hazard zone is not a Special
<br />Flood Hazard Zone. As discussed in the Focused GPU program EIR (pp. 4.10-19 through 4.10-21), standard City
<br />requirements for flood protection, as applicable, would ensure that potential impacts from flooding would be less than
<br />significant. For these reasons, the project component impact would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU
<br />EIR because it would not create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial
<br />importance for CEQA purposes.
<br />ATTY/RESO.0074/CC RESO 847 WOODSIDE (CEQA) - EXHIBIT 1 - CEQA CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
<br />REV: 10-23-24 VR
<br />
<br />Page 89 of 135
|