Page | 5 <br />3) Critical data is missing or flawed <br />1. No hydrologic study was required due to an exemption allowed. <br /> <br />Unfortunately, this was interpreted as permission to ignore any existing data and yielded incomplete <br />analyses. <br />2. Prior studies were available but not referenced in the application. Specifically, the Hydrologic Analysis <br />done in 2003 by Goebel Engineering was not referenced [7]. This is particularly puzzling since the author <br />of that analysis designed the stormwater treatment and collection facilities for previous phases of the <br />Braewood subdivision. The findings of that analysis conflict with the customer-provided information used <br />by the engineer here. <br /> <br />3. The ORWAP study of this property [4], commissioned in 2018 by the applicant, defining the extent and <br />depth of wetlands on the property, should have been considered as key data. <br />4. Plan does not recognize the need to handle stormwater inflow from adjacent uphill properties. <br />5. Plan does not discuss the 30” privately-owned culvert crossing Videra Drive which is already filled to <br />capacity (Figure 2) [1]. <br /> <br />Figure 2 - Videra creek is already at capacity and has experienced flooding in the past <br /> <br /> <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 31 of 43