Page | 8 <br /> <br />Figure 5 - Large discrepancy between planned detention capacity and volume required. <br /> <br />4. Insufficient and Unscalable Design: Figure 6 further demonstrates the inadequacy of the proposed <br />detention system. Even if the applicant were to use the larger pipe they mention in their calculations, it <br />would still provide only a fraction of the necessary capacity. The claim that the design is ‘scalable’ [10] is <br />misleading, as a properly sized facility would require an area equivalent to several proposed lots. <br /> <br />Figure 6 – Detention facility requires extensive area to provide sufficient capacity <br /> <br />5. Impractical Privately Owned Detention Facility: Applicant does not plan on a public-owned <br />stormwater detention facility, which is the best approach. They also do not show easements and roads <br />to access facilities as required by code. <br />6. Deferral of Responsibility: Applicant proposes to defer stormwater detention to be solved by each <br />individual lot owner. The current code requires each lot owner to provide treatment to remove <br />contaminants before discharging into the public collection system, which is reasonable and should be <br />required. However, requiring 39 individual lot owners to pay for the engineering design and construction <br />of detention facilities is not sensible, especially for sloping land with inflow from uphill properties. <br />0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 <br />Shown on Plan <br />KPFF Calculated <br />Goebel Hydrologic Study 2003(*) <br />Replace Wetlands Function <br />Stormwater Detention Required (cubic feet) <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 34 of 43