APPLICATION COMPLETENESS REVIEW (3-31-17)

Please also clarify why many lots show every tree to be removed on the lot (or within the usable area of the lot) while several lots do show some trees to remain. Was this based on a health assessment of the trees to be removed or saved? Some trees near property lines are shown to be removed, for example tree #2237 that straddles the property line of lots 15 and 16, or tree #1105 at the rear preservation line on lot 11. Please further explain why these trees are proposed for removal, or revise the plans to show they will be preserved. Additionally, page 34 of the narrative proposes a replacement plan of 1 tree for each tree removed. Please indicate when trees on the lots will be removed and when replaced. For example, will trees on the individual lots be removed during road and utility construction, and then replaced as individual houses are built, potentially years later? Please describe how the replacement plan will work and be enforced. Also, please indicate when trees in Tract A that are proposed for removal to accommodate the storm water system will be replaced. Na tural Features Assessment and Delineation of Applicable Boundaries on Site Plan Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 48. Significant on-site vegetation, including rare plants (those that are ® ❑ ❑ ❑ proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law), and native plant communities shown. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 49. All documented habitat for all rare animal species (those that are proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law) are shown. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 50. Prominent topographic features, such as ridgelines and outcrops shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 51. Wetlands, intermittent and perennial stream corridors, and riparian areas shown. 52. Natural resource areas designated in the Metro Plan diagram as ❑ ❑ ❑ ® "Natural Resource" and areas identified in any city-adopted natural resource inventory shown. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 53. If disturbance to natural features, a mitigation plan was submitted, in accordance with 9.8320(4)(c). (53) Sheet L2.0 shows a proposed connection to the Ribbon Trail. Please show any proposed trails within Tracts Comments A and B or any proposed picnic areas or other common use amenities within the community areas of Tracts C and D? Architectural Features of Proposed Buildings Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 54. Indicated general building locations, bulk and height. ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 55. Indicated key architectural features of proposed buildings (concept drawings okay). ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 56. Indicated how buildings proposed on slopes will blend with natural terrain if subject to the South Hills Study. (54 & 55) Please indicate building envelopes for the lots, and whether homes will be limited to 1 or 2 stories Comments through the CC&Rs. Supporting Documents Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 57. Submitted a legal description of the property included in the planned ® ❑ ❑ ❑ unit development application. This legal description is typed on an 8%" " white sheet of paper (no letterhead) so that it is suitable for x 11 recording ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 58. Submitted a preliminary title report. 59. If application requires notification to Oregon Division of State Lands concerning potential wetland permit requirements (on Eugene LWI or ❑ ❑ ❑ ® WEWP Inventory Maps), notification form and related map is prepared and attached (by staff). (ORS 215.418) *Planner: for necessary forms, Click here. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 60. Submitted a Geotechnical Analysis (60) As previously discussed the South Hills Study is applicable and has some specific language about what Comments should be looked at, both on-site and off-site, by "a qualified engineering geologist". Please refer to the attached Tentative Planned Unit Development Completeness Reviekv Form Page 4 of 5