Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Application Materials
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TENTATIVE www.eugene-or.gov/planning Planning & Development Updated: May 2024 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue Suite 290, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail: planning@eugene-or.gov Page 1 of 7 Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additional information may be required after further review in order to adequately address the applicable approval criteria. If you have any questions about filling out this application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center, phone (541) 682-5377, 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene. List all Assessor’s Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included in the request. Proposals are required to include all property under contiguous ownership of the applicant. Assessor’s Map Tax Lot Zoning Area of Request (square feet/acres):____________________________________________________________________ Existing Use of Property:_____________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Use of Property:____________________________________________________________________________ Number of Dwellings Existing: Proposed: Number of Lots Existing: Proposed: Planned unit Development Approval Criteria (check one): General/Discretionary Housing/Clear and Objective Is site included on City acknowledged Statewide Goal 5 Inventory? Yes No Uncertain (If request includes Pollution Reduction/Flow Control, submit approved alternative design. If request include Source Control, submit DAR form). Pre-application Conference (as required per EC 9.7005): Date:___________________________ Conference No.:___________________________________________ www.eugene-or.gov/planning Planning & Development Updated: May 2024 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue Suite 290, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail: planning@eugene-or.gov Page 2 of 7 Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting Requirements Provide the following documentation that a neighborhood/applicant meeting was held per EC 9.7007 (see EC 9.7010): The list of persons to whom notice was mailed pursuant to EC 9.7007(5) and a signed statement that notice was posted and mailed to those on the list; A copy of the notice; A copy of the meeting notes and sign-in sheet described at EC 9.7007(9); and A copy of the site plan presented at the meeting. Filing Fee A filing fee must accompany all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center to determine the required fee or check the City website at www.eugeneplanning.org Submittal Requirements: Provide 2 paper copies and one digital copy (CD, USB Drive, or Other) of all application materials (i.e. written statement, site plans, etc.). Digital files must be in PDF file format. Please note that it is the applicant’s responsibility to make sure that the digital and paper copies are identical. Following completeness review, an updated digital and paper copies may be required. All paper site plans must be folded to a size equal or less than 11” x 17”. Written Statement Clearly state whether the application is to be reviewed under General/Discretionary or Housing/Clear and Objective criteria. Submit a detailed written statement which describes the proposed use of the property and how the proposed planned unit development satisfies all applicable approval criteria (EC 9.8300-9.8310 and 9.8320 or 9.8325). The statement must include the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the design team members, and designation of the professional coordinator for the project. Site Plan Requirements Show the date, north arrow, and standard engineer’s scale on the site plan. Show the Assessor’s Map and Tax Lot numbers involved in the request on the site plan. Show a vicinity map on the site plan (vicinity map does not need to be drawn to scale). Show the dimensions of the plan boundary, dimensions of proposed lots, approximate square footage calculations, and proposed parcel lines. Show the location of parcel lines and other layout details for future division of parcels greater than 13,500 square feet. Show the location of all existing and proposed structures and indicate whether the existing structures will remain or be removed. Provide elevation drawings that portray the scale and appearance of proposed buildings. Provide a tabulation of all impervious surface areas (existing and proposed), including the amount of area covered by building(s), parking, and the amount of area devoted to open space Indicate on the site plan and provide a supporting written statement addressing the solar lot standards (this applies only to land zoned R-1, and R-2). www.eugene-or.gov/planning Planning & Development Updated: May 2024 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue Suite 290, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail: planning@eugene-or.gov Page 3 of 7 Provide a cover sheet with the certification and signatures of the professional coordinator and all design team members for the project. Each drawing must be stamped and signed by the licensed professional responsible for preparing the plans. Show the width and location of all existing and proposed public and private easements. Show all contiguous property under the same ownership. The application shall include all contiguous undeveloped or partially developed property under the same ownership. Show all proposed grading for streets, building areas, and other proposed development. Show the type and size of existing or proposed fencing and/or landscape buffering. Include a phasing plan that indicates any proposed phasing for development, including the boundaries and sequencing of each phase. Wastewater Requirements Show the location and flowline elevation of the existing public wastewater sewer at proposed connection point(s). Show the existing and proposed wastewater sewer layout, including service to each lot. (Each lot must be connected to the public wastewater sewer.) Water Supply Requirements Show a diagram (including diameter) of existing and proposed water mains. Show existing and proposed fire hydrants. Is any part of the property located above 500 feet in elevation? Yes -- If yes, contact EWEB Water Engineering at 541-685-7377 to discuss water service/capacity for the site prior to application submittal No Storm Drainage Requirements Show the location and flow line elevation of the existing public piped system at proposed connection point(s) Delineate the tops-of-banks of all open waterways on and adjacent to the property. Delineate the Special Flood Hazard Area and the base flood elevation. A description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development, including a stormwater analysis of pre- and post-development flows. Show existing and proposed storm drainage, including the type of facilities proposed for collection, conveyance, and treatment of storm water for all lots and development consistent with the stormwater provisions at EC 9.6790 – 9.6795. Submit a stormwater analysis that demonstrates compliance with stormwater provisions at EC 9.6790 - 9.6795. Indicate whether the stormwater system or portions thereof are proposed for public or private maintenance. If applicable, submit a draft Operations and Maintenance Plan (for private facilities) and/or Operations and Maintenance Agreement (for public facilities) consistent with EC 9.6797. Tree Preservation Requirement Provide a tree preservation plan and report prepared by a certified arborist or approved equivalent. Both the plan and reports shall demonstrate compliance with EC 9.8320(4)(b), (c) and (d), and/or other applicable requirements. www.eugene-or.gov/planning Planning & Development Updated: May 2024 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue Suite 290, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail: planning@eugene-or.gov Page 4 of 7 Show the location, size and species of existing trees on site that are 8 inches or more in diameter at DBH (4.5 feet above ground). Provide an assessment of the condition of the existing trees, indicate whether they will be preserved or removed, and indicate the means of preservation when applicable. Show the “critical root zones” for trees to be preserved and provide supporting information that preserved trees will not be impacted so as to constitute “tree removal,” as defined in EC 9.0500. Natural Features Assessment and Delineation of Applicable Boundaries on Site Plan. Site plans shall show the following information in accordance with EC 9.8320(4)(a): 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. All documented habitat for all rare animal species (those that are proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law). Prominent topographic features, such as ridgelines and rock outcrops shown. Wetlands, intermittent and perennial stream corridors, and riparian areas shown. Natural resource areas designated in the Metro Plan diagram as “Natural Resource” and areas identified in any city- adopted natural resource inventory. Submit a mitigation plan, in accordance with EC 9.8320(4)(c). Landscaping Requirements Show the location, species, and size of existing and proposed landscaping. Indicate means of irrigation. Show open space and landscaping proposed for open space areas. Contour Intervals Show existing and proposed contours at one of the following intervals and must be based on City Bench Mark (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAV 88). The City Bench Mark used must be noted on the plan. Indicate bench mark used. One-foot contour intervals for ground slopes up to five percent. Two-foot contour intervals for ground slopes between five and ten percent. Five-foot contour intervals for ground slopes exceeding ten percent. Parking Area Requirements Show the location, number, and dimensions of existing and proposed parking spaces, including aisle widths and disabled parking spaces. Show the location, number, and dimensions of bicycle parking spaces, including long-term and short-term bicycle parking. Show traffic circulation patterns, including the width of travel lanes. Show landscaping and screening for parking areas. Show means of protection for landscaped areas (i.e. curbs). Show the location and height of all existing and proposed lighting for parking area. Show designated carpool and van pool parking for developments with 20 or more employees. www.eugene-or.gov/planning Planning & Development Updated: May 2024 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue Suite 290, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail: planning@eugene-or.gov Page 5 of 7 Street and Public Access Way Requirements Identify the number of peak hour trips based on the proposed development. If the development will generate 100 or more trips during any peak hour, a Traffic Impact Analysis Review shall be required in accordance with EC 9.8650 - 9.8680. Identify the street classification of all streets in accordance with EC 9.6850 and EC 9.6870. Indicate potential slope easements. Provide a street center profile using ground elevations when proposed streets intersect 15% grade. Provide the distance from centerline-to-centerline of all street intersections. Show the location and widths (right-of-way and paving width) of all existing and proposed streets, intersections, and bike and pedestrian access ways, both within and adjacent to the project. Show existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks on the site and adjacent to the site. Show street connectivity and provide supporting narrative to address applicable street connectivity standards from EC 9.6815, and secondary emergency vehicle access, if applicable. Show street names for all existing and proposed streets (public and private), in accordance with EC 9.6855. Indicate the radii of all curves on the plans. Show the location and type of existing and proposed transit-related facilities. Identify any street grade over 12 %. Show all existing private access driveways to property. When the property fronts a street under Lane County jurisdiction, also show driveway locations for adjacent properties. Submit an Alternative Traffic Safety Study (ATSS) if an adjustment is requested to required internal vehicle stacking at EC 9.6703(3)(a). Note any amount of increase to the development site’s peak hour trips due to the proposed development; particularly if the increase is more than 50% and there will be 20 or more additional peak hour trips than the previous/existing use. Demonstrate that access to the development site is located in accordance with EC 7.420. Street and Utility Improvement Requirements Show existing and proposed public and private improvements. Note on the plan whether public improvements are to be constructed publicly or privately. Note on plan the location, size and species of existing and proposed street trees. Note on plan the location of any existing or proposed streetlights. Architectural Features of Proposed Buildings Indicate general building locations, bulk and height. Indicate key architectural features of proposed buildings (concept drawings okay). If subject to the South Hills, indicate how buildings proposed on slopes will blend with natural terrain. Supporting Documents – (submit 3 copies) Submit a Geotechnical Analysis, if required, to satisfy applicable criteria. Submit a preliminary title report. www.eugene-or.gov/planning Planning & Development Updated: May 2024 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue Suite 290, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail: planning@eugene-or.gov Page 6 of 7 The applicant is responsible for meeting State/Federal wetland requirements. Submit a wetland determination and a letter of acceptance of the determination from the Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) and if necessary, a wetland delineation report for potential wetlands identified on the Eugene Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) maps, West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) maps, Wetland Determination reports, or other sources which indicate the potential presence of wetlands. Submit a legal description of property included in the planned unit development application. This legal description must be typed on an 8½" x 11" white sheet of paper (no letterhead) so that it is suitable for recording (submit one copy only). www.eugene-or.gov/planning Planning & Development Updated: May 2024 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue Suite 290, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail: planning@eugene-or.gov Page 7 of 7 NOTICE STATEMENT: If the Eugene/Springfield Fire Marshall (or the Fire Marshal’s designee) determine that there is inadequate water supply, apparatus access, or both, to the site for the development of one and two family dwellings that will be subject to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code, the Eugene Building Official (or the Building Official’s designee) may require complia nce with one or more of the fire suppression or fire containment Uniform Alternate Construction Standards set out at OAR 918 -480- 0125(4) and (5). By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understood the submittal requirements outlined, and that he/sh e understands that omission of any listed item may cause delay in processing the application. I (We), the undersigned, acknowledge that the information supplied in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. OWNER (Also the Applicant? Yes / No): Name (print): ____________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT / APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE (Check one): Name (print): ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Company/Organization: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ___________________________________________ E-mail (if applicable): ________________________________ Phone: _________________________________________________ Fax: ______________________________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE / DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON (Check all that apply): Name (print): ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Company/Organization: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ___________________________________________ E-mail (if applicable): ________________________________ Phone: _________________________________________________ Fax: ______________________________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ TENTATIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EMILY ESTATES WRITTEN NARRATIVE Submittal No. 1 Document Date: October 1, 2026 Proposal: Planned Unit Development for 10–Lot Emily Estates Subdivision in the South Hills Study Area Property Owners/Applicants: Pineridge Construction, LLC PO Box 23526 Eugene, OR 97402 Applicant’s Representative: Metro Planning, Inc Jed Truett, AICP, Principal Planner 846 A Street Springfield, OR 97477 ( Engineer: A & O Engineering, Inc. Kyle Morris, PE 380 Q St., Suite 200 Springfield, OR 97477 ( Surveyor: Pacific Surveying, Inc. David J Collier, PLS # 2552 75506 Blue Mt. School Rd Cottage Grove, OR 97424 ( Arborist: Matt Rivers ISA Certified Arborist, PN-0682AM 3295 W 16th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 ( Landscape Architect: Dougherty Landscape Architects, Inc. 474 Willamette St #305 Eugene, OR 97401 ( Subject Property: 18-04-02-43-04600 Location: n/a – vacant Property Size: +/- 2.98 Acres Zoning/Comprehensive Plan: R-1/ Low-Density Residential Refinement Plan: South Hill Study Number of Lots Proposed: Ten (10) Lots & Two (2) Tracts Subdivision Name: Emily Estates Background This Planned Unit Development (PUD) application pertains to a parcel of land identified as Map and Tax Lot number 18-04-02-43- 04600 (subject property). The subject property is vacant and is located on Hawkins Lane in southwest Eugene, at the intersection of Videra Drive and Hawkins Lane. Proposed for development with this PUD application is a ten (10) lot subdivision to include one (1) tract for open space, one (1) tract for stormwater management and one (1) private street. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the South Hills Study area, at an elevation above 701’; therefore, a PUD application is required for review and approval of the proposed tentative subdivision submitted for review concurrently with this PUD application. For City staff review, the following narrative demonstrates the proposal’s compliance with the requisite PUD criteria contained in Eugene Code (EC) Sections 9.8300 – 9.8325. The applicant is electing to use the Housing/ Clear and Objective Approval Criteria. Herein, Eugene Code sections are indicated in bold and/or italic typeface; applicant responses follow in plain typeface. EC 9.8305 Tentative Planned Unit Development – Applicability. PUD provisions shall be applied when any of the following conditions exist: (1) The proposal is subject to review and approval through the PUD process according to an adopted refinement plan, including but not limited to, property within the boundary of the South Hills Study where all or a portion of a development site is: (a) Between an elevation of 500 feet and 701 feet, and the development site is at least 4 acres with areas of the development site containing slopes that exceed 20%. (b) On property above 701 feet in elevation, except partitions that do not include the creation of a public street, unless an alternate review procedure is approved pursuant to EC 9.9630(3)(a). (c) Above an elevation of 900 feet, except for a land division undertaken by or on behalf of a governmental entity in order to preserve, manage, or expand park, open space, or natural resource areas. The subject parcel is located above 701’ in elevation and is therefore subject to review and approval through the PUD process per EC 9.8305(1)(b), above. EC 9.8310 Tentative Planned Unit Development General Application Requirements. (1) Ownership. The area included in a proposed PUD shall either be under single ownership or common development control. The application shall include all contiguous property under the same ownership or development control, shall be signed by the owner of the property, and include such related information as prescribed by the planning director. Otherwise contiguous parcels that are separated only by a public right-of-way, shall be included in the PUD application unless the public right-of-way is designated an arterial or collector on the street classification map. If otherwise contiguous parcels are separated by an arterial or collector street, the applicant may, at the applicant’s discretion, include those parcels in the PUD application. The subject parcel included in the proposed PUD is under single ownership. There are no contiguous properties under common ownership with the subject property of this application. The application is signed by the property owner. (2) Project Coordinator and Professional Design Team. The tentative PUD application shall identify the PUD project coordinator and the professional design team and certify compliance with the following: (a) Project Coordinator. The project coordinator shall: 1. Be the liaison between the applicant and the city. 2. Ensure that the required plans are prepared and executed according to any required conditions. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 2 3. Either be a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners or licensed in the state of Oregon to practice architecture, civil engineering, or landscape architecture. The project coordinator, Jed Truett, is a Principal Planner and member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He shall be the liaison between the applicant and the city and will ensure that the required plans are prepared and executed according to any required conditions. (b) Professional Design Team Designation. Unless waived by the planning director, the professional design team shall consist of at least the following professionals: 1. Oregon licensed arborist. 2. Oregon licensed architect. 3. Oregon licensed civil engineer. 4. Oregon licensed landscape architect. 5. Oregon licensed land surveyor. In compliance with Subsection (b) above, the professional design team consists of the following individuals and/ or companies: 1. Matt Rivers, ISA Certified Arborist, ISA # PR–356083A/ PN–0682AM. 2. N/A (no dwellings proposed for development) 3. Kyle Morris, PE of A&O Engineering, Inc 4. Dougherty Landscape Architects, Inc. 5. David Collier, PLS #2552 of Pacific Surveying, Inc. (c) Plan Certification. Certification of the services of the professionals responsible for particular drawings shall appear on those drawings. Drawings created for this project by individual design team members are certified thereon. (3) Phasing. The tentative PUD application shall include a phasing plan that indicates any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries and sequencing of each phase. Phasing shall progress in a sequence that promotes street connectivity between the various phases of the development and accommodates other required public improvements. This tentative PUD does not include phasing. This criterion is not applicable. (4) Density. Dwelling unit densities for PUDs shall be consistent with Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards. The calculation of the number of dwelling units allowed shall be determined based on the following: (a) Easement Calculations. If it is demonstrated that easements will benefit residents of the proposed PUD, residential density calculations may include areas in easements, with the exception of private streets or ingress/egress easements. The easement area that covers Tract B is included in residential density calculations as it will benefit the residents of the proposed PUD. The easement area that covers the private access (ingress/egress) easement is excluded in the area used to calculate the residential density and makes the net density approximately 2.39 acres. (b) Dedications. If it is demonstrated that lands dedicated to the city will benefit residents of the proposed PUD, residential density calculations may include areas dedicated to the public for recreation or open space. There is no land that will be dedicated to the city with this proposed PUD. (c) Cumulative Density. When final plans are to be approved in phases, at no time shall the cumulative residential density exceed the overall density per acre established at the time of tentative plan approval. Final plans are not to be approved in phases. The proposal complies with this criterion. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 3 (5) Housing. If the proposal includes housing, the written statement submitted with the PUD application shall clearly state whether the applicant is proceeding under: (a) the approval criteria in EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary; or (b) the approval criteria in EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria Housing/Clear and Objective. The proposal does not include housing; however, the application will be proceeding under (5)(b) above, using the Clear and Objective approval criteria contained in EC 9.8325. This PUD proposes only the development of land in the form of a ten (10) lot subdivision with accompanying private street, open space and stormwater tracts. EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective. Unless the applicant elects to use the discretionary criteria contained in EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary, for housing applications entitled to clear and objective review pursuant to state statute, the hearings official shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the PUD application based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The proposal complies with EC 9.5860 Transition Standards. 9.5860 – Transition Standards for Housing/Clear and Objective Applications. (1) Applicability of Transition Standards. The transition standards at EC 9.5860(2) shall apply to land use applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria under EC 9.8100 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective, EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective, or EC 9.8445 Site Review Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective. The transition standards at EC 9.5860(2) apply to all new buildings and any building additions that increase the square footage of livable floor area by 20 percent or more for any of the following: (…) (2) Standards. The following standards apply to new buildings and building additions identified in subsection (1) and unless specified otherwise, must be applied within 25 feet along the portion of any property line that abuts land zoned R- 1, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR: Per EC 9.5860(1) and (2), the Transition Standards for application using Housing/Clear and Objective criteria apply to, “…all new buildings and any building additions that increase the square footage of livable floor area by 20 percent or more…” No buildings are proposed with this PUD or concurrent tentative subdivision – these applications involve only a division of land; therefore, the transition standards do not apply to this PUD. (2) The proposed land uses and densities within the PUD are consistent with the land use designation(s) shown on the comprehensive plan diagram, as refined in any applicable refinement plan. Metro Plan The subject property is designated Low-Density Residential on the Metro Plan, which allows “through 10 units per gross acre” (Metro Plan II-G-3). Metro Plan density limits are also included in Policy A.9 of the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element, Residential Density, which states: Low density: Through 10 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate up to 14.28 units per acre depending on each jurisdictions implementation measures and land use and development codes) Eugene’s implementation of the Metro Plan Policy allows up to 14 dwelling units (du) per acre, with no minimum dwelling units required. The proposed PUD to develop ten (10) new residential lots on approximately 2.98 acres of land complies with the adopted Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 4 policies of the Metro Plan designation of Low Density Residential. Per the Metro Plan, the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the 2.98-acre parcel is at minimum 30 (10 du per gross acre) and at maximum 42 (14 du per gross acre). The subject property is also subject to the criteria contained in the South Hills Study refinement plan which only allows 8 dwelling units per gross acre; therefore, the subject property is limited to developing only 24 units total on the 2.98-acre parcel. As no dwelling units are proposed with this PUD, the number of lots and the minimum and maximum dwelling units allowed can be taken into consideration – ten (10) lots developed with one (1) single-unit dwelling each would develop ten (10) dwelling units, in compliance with the minimum allowed and will not exceed the maximum allowed. Ten (10) lots developed with up to one (1) duplex dwelling unit each would only develop 20 dwelling units total, which is under the maximum of 24 allowed by the South Hills Study, and under the 42 allowed by the Metro Plan. Therefore, the proposed PUD to create ten (10) new residential lots is consistent with the Metro Plan Designation and Policy A.9 regarding development of Low-Density Residential land. EC 9.9630 South Hills Study Policies. (1) Ridgeline Park Section – Specific Recommendations. (a) That all vacant property above an elevation of 901’ be preserved from an intensive level of development, subject to the following exceptions: The subject property is not located at an elevation above 901’; therefore, these criteria do not apply. (b) That all proposed developments in the south hills area be reviewed to determine if connecting linkages are possible between various park sites, particularly north of Skyline Park to Hendricks Park and between Blanton Heights and Hawkins Heights. The subject property cannot provide a connection linkage between Skyline Park and Hendricks Park nor between Blanton Heights and Hawkins Heights due to the surrounding residential development and accompanying infrastructure. (2) Density Section – Specific Recommendations. (a) That in the area west of Friendly Street the maximum level of new development per gross acre be limited to 8 units per acre (the maximum of 8 units per gross acre being subject to positive findings under the planned unit development criteria). The subject property is located west of Friendly Street and is therefore subject to the limitations contained in EC 9.9630(2)(a) and may only contain eight (8) dwelling units per gross acre, making the maximum development at approximately 2.98 acres, 24 dwelling units. (b) That in the area east of Friendly Street the maximum level of new development per gross acre be limited to 5 units per acre (the maximum figure of 5 dwelling units per gross acre being subject to positive findings under the planned unit development criteria). The subject property is located west of Friendly Street, making this criterion not applicable. (c) That low-moderate income housing developed under the Controlled Income and Rent provisions of the City Code be exempt from the density standards set forth above, but subject to normal specific site analysis standards. There is no proposed housing with this PUD. (3) Development Standards – Specific Recommendations. (a) That all major developments (developments in excess of minor partitions) occurring on property above an elevation of 701’ shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to determine if standard subdivision procedures, site review procedures, or planned unit development procedures should be required. In reaching a determination, the Planning Director shall evaluate the following factors: Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 5 1. The potential for surface movement; 2. The view potential of the property; 3. The nature of existing vegetation; 4. The nature of surrounding development; and 5. The nature of the development proposal. Noted. The proposed PUD is also submitting a concurrent tentative subdivision plan for review by the Planning Director. (b) That planned unit development procedures shall be utilized for the following purposes: 1. To encourage clustering of development in areas characterized by: a. Shallowest slopes. b. Lowest elevations. c. Least amount of vegetation. d. Least amount of visual impact. The PUD development complies with subsection (b)(1)(a) through (d) above by clustering the proposed lot development in the shallowest sloping areas, the areas of lowest elevations and least vegetation. By clustering the lots primarily on the southern and central areas of the subject parcel and leaving open space with the majority of the property’s trees to the northeast of the proposed development, the existing houses located to the east, which are more private and already provided more visual screening in the form of existing vegetation and trees than the existing houses to the west, will be visually impacted the least. The existing houses to the west of the proposed development are already visually impacted by Hawkins Lane and surrounding dwellings. The proposed development is maintaining cohesion with the existing development by encouraging clustering in areas characterized by (a) through (d) above. 2. To encourage preservation as open space those areas characterized by: a. Intermediate and steep slopes. b. Higher elevations. c. Significant amounts of vegetation. d. Significant visual impact. The PUD development encourages preservation as open space by creating a tract of open space to the east/ northeast side of the property which contains the most sloped and areas of higher elevations on the property, the bulk of the existing trees and the primary amount of existing visual privacy. (c) That adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any development by a qualified engineering geologist occur under any of the following conditions: 1. All formations: Soil depth of 40 inches and above. Slopes of 30 percent and above. 2. Basalt flows: Soil depth of 40 inches and above. Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent. 3. Eugene Formation: Soil depth of 40 inches and above. Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent. 4. Basalt flows: Soil depth of 20 to 40 inches. Slopes of 30 percent and above. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 6 5. Eugene Formation: Soil depth of 20 inches to 40 inches. Slopes of 30 percent and above. EC 9.9630(3)(c) requires review of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development by a qualified engineering geologist. This review is provided in the Preliminary Geological Hazard Assessment & Geotechnical Engineering Report included with this submittal. Specifically refer to Section 6, Geologic Hazard Review and Section 7, Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations which address this requirement and are further identified below: • Review of on-site and off-site slope stability and landslide impacts, including the mapped landslides in the site vicinity and the steep slope within Tract B, is presented in Section 6.4, Landslides and Global Slope Stability, and Section 6.4.1, LiDAR Review, with supporting hazard mapping in the Site Research Appendix. • Review of on-site geologic hazards, including seismic, liquefaction, flood, erosion, and radon hazards, is presented in Sections 6.1 through 6.7, Geologic Hazard Review. • Recommendations for site development to address the identified on-site and off-site impacts, including grading, drainage, erosion control, slope setbacks, and site preparation, are presented in Section 7, Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations, including Section 6.6, Erosion Hazard; Section 7.1, Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations; and Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations. (d) That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space elements of different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous open space. To the west of the subject property is Hawkins Lane and the primary amount of housing in the area. To the east of the subject property the existing housing are buffered by vegetation and trees. The proposed PUD complies with this criterion by proposing development nearer to Hawkins Lane and maximizing the most significant amount of vegetation and trees in an open space tract on the east side of the property. (e) That developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to insure that development blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south hills area. The proposed PUD is designed to work with the natural landscape by proposing development in the areas with the least amount of sloping, vegetation and trees, nearer to Hawkins Lane. Further, the property owner intends the proposed lots within the PUD to be designed for single-unit dwellings which ensures that the development will blend as opposed to dominating the natural characteristics of the south hills area. (f) That all proposed road locations be reviewed to insure minimum grade disturbance and minimum cut-and-fill activity, particularly in those areas most visible due to slope, topographic or other conditions. The proposed private street has been reviewed by the engineering team to ensure that the location will utilize minimum grade disturbance and minimum cut and fill activity as this is desirable all around for blending with the surrounding environment as well as minimizing the financial cost of implementing a new street system. (g) That planned unit development review shall be based upon a recognition of both public and private interest. In areas of significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a highly visible area as opposed to a less visible area or in an area of significant vegetation as opposed to a relatively open area) which could be resolved through use of an alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the public interest in any determinations. As already demonstrated in the previous criteria in this section, the PUD acknowledges and maintains that recognition of the public interest is important and significantly aligns as much with the public interest as it does with private interest in the deve lopment of the subject site. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 7 (h) That all developments shall be reviewed for potential linkage with or to the ridgeline system. The development has been reviewed for potential linkages with or to the ridgeline system and none are found to be feasible. (i) That all developments (planned unit developments or subdivisions) be reviewed to insure maximum preservation of existing vegetation. The PUD and subdivision plan have been designed to ensure maximum preservation of the existing vegetation, as previously demonstrated. (3) For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the PUD preserves existing natural resources by compliance with the provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. 9.6880 – Purpose of Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. Sections 9.6880 to 9.6885 establish standards for tree preservation and removal in a manner designed to: (1) Implement comprehensive plan and refinement plan policies related to vegetation preservation; (2) Maintain a minimum level of tree canopy cover throughout the city while addressing the city’s goals for a healthy economy, affordable housing, and reduced sprawl; (3) Mitigate the impacts of development on the essential functions of the urban forest through requirements for preservation and replacement of tree canopy cover; (4) Ensure a healthy future urban forest by encouraging protection of mixed age stands of trees and promoting a diversity of tree species; and (5) Maintain a safe and attractive environment for residents and workers by requiring the integration of urban forestry principles into the design of new development. This proposed PUD balances subsections (1) through (5) above for tree preservation and removal by complying with the applicable Eugene Code criteria related to Tree Preservation and Removal as well as the South Hills Study refinement plan criteria, required Tentative Subdivision criteria, and the PUD criteria. Compliance is demonstrated herein this section as well as throughout this written narrative and the concurrently submitted Planned Unit Development application. 9.6882 – Applicability of Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. Unless exempt under EC 9.6885(1), the standards in EC 9.6885(2) apply: (1) Prior to city approval of an agreement or permit, including, but not limited to development permits and grading permits, for development activity that would result in the removal of a significant tree on the development site; or (2) When another section of this land use code specifically requires compliance with the standards; or (3) To all subsequent actions impacting trees on property subject to an approved conditional use permit, planned unit development, site review, or subdivision that includes a tree removal/preservation plan or conditions related to tree removal or preservation. The proposal is not exempt from the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards; EC 9.6885(2) is addressed below. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 8 9.6883 Tree Verification. Prior to a site change that impacts a significant tree, a tree verification request form shall be submitted to the city for verification regarding the status of the tree. Verification shall be based on: Prior to development, a tree verification request form shall be submitted to the city. 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. (1) Exemptions from Standards. The standards in this section do not apply to activities regulated under EC 9.4900 through 9.4980, or an application for development activity that includes or will result in: (…) (c) Land Use Approvals. Any tree removal on property subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision, or Willamette River Greenway Permit that includes a tree removal/preservation plan or conditions related to tree removal or retention. In those areas, that plan or city approved modifications thereto control tree removal. This exemption does not apply to the removal of a street tree, which must be authorized by a permit issued pursuant to EC 6.305; This is an application for a Tentative Subdivision and therefore the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards apply and are addressed below. (2) Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. The standards in this subsection apply only to land use applications processed under EC 9.8100, EC 9.8325, EC 9.8445, EC 9.8520, and EC 9.8812. Unless exempt under subparagraph (d) below, no permit for a development activity subject to this section shall be approved until the applicant demonstrates compliance with the standards in this subsection. (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this subsection (2), the following definitions apply: 1. Critical Root Zone (CRZ). That area surrounding a tree that has a radius of 12 inches multiplied by the diameter breast height expressed in inches of the tree trunk or trunks. 2. Tree Removal. To fell or sever a tree or to use any procedure the natural result of which is to cause the death or substantial destruction of the tree. Substantial destruction includes actions that destroy more than 20% of the critical root zone of a tree, or topping, or severing the cambial material on 50% or more of the circumference of the tree trunk. Remove does not in any context include those pruning standards as defined in the 2014 edition of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Section A300, Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance Standard Practices. (b) For the purposes of this subsection (2), the South Hills Area is defined as all property located within the City’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary, above an elevation of 500 feet, and: 1. South of 18th Avenue, 2. South of Franklin Boulevard and East of the intersection of 18th Avenue and Agate Street, or 3. If 18th Avenue were extended from the intersection of 18th Avenue and Willow Creek Road directly west to the Urban Growth Boundary, the area south of that extension of 18th Avenue. (…) (e) Tree Preservation Requirements. Unless adjusted per EC 9.8030(13), significant trees must be preserved in accordance with the requirements of Table 9.6885(2)(e). Minimum preservation is based on the total existing Diameter Breast Height (d.b.h.) of significant trees within each specific location category prior to development. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 9 Maximum mitigation is the percentage of the minimum preservation that may be mitigated according to subsection 2. below. 1. A Tree Preservation and Removal Plan is required except as provided in EC 9.6885(2)(d) or EC 9.6885(2)(e)3. The plan must be prepared by a certified arborist, licensed landscape architect, licensed engineer, or licensed surveyor and shall provide the following: a. A table, organized by the location categories listed in Table 9.6885(2)(e), listing all significant trees on the development site and including the following information for each listed tree: (1) Diameter Breast Height (d.b.h.) (2) Preservation, removal, or mitigation status (3) Common name, genus and species A Tree Preservation and Removal Plan, prepared by Matt Rivers, ISA Certified Arborist, PN-0682AM, is included with this submittal. Included with the plan is a table listing all significant site trees by common name, genus, species, d.b.h., and whether each tree is slated for preservation, removal, or mitigation. b. A site plan that includes the following information: (1) The locations of all significant trees on the development site, the Diameter Breast Height (d.b.h.) for each significant tree, whether each significant tree is to be preserved, removed, or mitigated according to EC 9.6885(2)(e)2., and the location of the critical root zone (CRZ) for each significant tree to be preserved. (2) The location of all existing and/or proposed public and private utility easements, driveways, and areas of grading or excavation on the development site. (3) The location of all existing development on the site as well as the location of development proposed in the land use application that triggers the requirement for a Tree Preservation and Removal Plan. (4) Proposed lot or parcel boundaries. (5) For development sites with any portion located within the South Hills Area, identification of areas at or above 500 feet elevation and areas at or above 900 feet elevation. A Tree Preservation and Removal site plan including all of the above items, prepared and signed by Matt Rivers, ISA Certified Arborist, PN-0682AM is included with this application. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 10 c. A written statement from a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect that the Tree Preservation and Removal Plan meets EC 9.6885(2)(e) Tree Preservation Requirements. If the Tree Preservation and Removal Plan is prepared by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect, then the written statement otherwise required by this subparagraph is not required. The Tree Preservation and Removal Plan included with this submittal is prepared and signed by Matt Rivers, ISA Certified Arborist, PN- 0682AM. 2. Mitigation. An applicant may elect to mitigate a portion of the minimum preservation of significant trees on the development site as provided below: a. The maximum d.b.h. that can be mitigated shall be based on location category as provided in Table EC 9.6885(2)(e) Tree Preservation and Mitigation. Preservation of a minimum of 50% will be attained and mitigation of up to 50% will be done in accordance with Subsection (d) below unless a maximum mitigation allowance adjustment needs to be requested per EC 9.8030(13). d. Installation and Maintenance. Unless otherwise specified, each significant tree designated for mitigation must be replaced with one tree selected from the approved species listed in Table 9.6885(2)(e)2 within one year from the date of removal or prior to final occupancy, whichever is later. Trees planted in accordance with subparagraph (2)(e)2.b. must be planted prior to final occupancy. At the time of planting, deciduous trees used for replacement must have a minimum diameter of 2 inches and evergreen trees used for replacement must be a minimum of 5 feet in height as measured according to the 2014 edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1), published by the American Nursery and Landscape Association. Any mitigation trees to be planted within the Willamette River Greenway Setback shall be selected from the native trees included on the City’s adopted list of plant species for sites at or below 500 feet in elevation, attached as Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 20351. e. The maximum mitigation allowance may be adjusted in accordance with EC 9.8030(13). At this time, it is still uncertain whether a mitigation allowance will be requested and adjusted in accordance with EC 9.8030(13). (…) 4. Protection Standards. The following notes must be included on the final plan set submitted for approval by the City and shall apply at the time of development: a. “Protective fencing for trees identified to be preserved shall be installed by the applicant and inspected by the City prior to beginning any development activities. All protective tree fencing must remain in place until completion of all construction activities; any relocation, removal, or modification of the protective fencing shall only occur under the direction of a certified arborist and a written explanation of the reason for the relocation, removal, or modification of the protective fencing from the certified arborist must be provided to the City.” b. “At the time of building permit, a site plan in compliance with the approved tree preservation and removal plan is required.” c. “No excavation, grading, material storage, staging, vehicle parking or other construction activity shall take place within protective tree fencing areas.” d. “The removal of trees not designated to be preserved is optional; removal may occur at the owner’s discretion.” Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 11 e. “Any tree designated for mitigation must be replaced with one tree selected from the approved species listed in Table 9.6885(2)(e)2 within one year from the date of removal or prior to final occupancy, whichever is later. At the time of planting, deciduous trees used for replacement must have a minimum diameter of 2 inches and evergreen trees used for replacement must be a minimum of 6 feet in height as measured according to the 2014 edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1), published by the American Nursery and Landscape Association. Maintenance of replacement trees is the ongoing responsibility of the property owner.” f. “In the event a tree designated to be preserved must be removed because it is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous, documentation of the tree’s dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous condition by a certified arborist must be provided to the City prior to tree removal. The tree must be replaced with one replacement tree selected from the approved species list in Table 9.6885(2)(e)2. At the time of planting, deciduous trees used for replacement must have a minimum diameter of 2 inches and evergreen trees used for replacement must be a minimum of 6 feet in height as measured according to the 2014 edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1), published by the American Nursery and Landscape Association. Maintenance of replacement trees is the ongoing responsibility of the property owner.” These notes, as applicable, will be included on the final site plan set. (f) Street Tree Removal. If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those street trees has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process at EC 6.305 Tree Felling Prohibition. There are no street trees being removed with this tentative subdivision proposal. EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective (con’t). (4) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of the following: (a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways. 9.6805 - Dedication of Public Ways As a condition of any development, the city may require dedication of public ways for bicycle and/or pedestrian use as well as for streets and alleys, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. Public ways for pedestrian and bicycle accessways, streets and alleys to be dedicated to the public by the applicant shall conform with the adopted Street Right of Way Map, and EC Table 9.6870. There are no public ways proposed for dedication to the City of Eugene. 9.6810 – Block Length There are no public streets proposed for development with this tentative subdivision plan; this criterion is not applicable. 9.6815 - Connectivity for Streets (2) Street Connectivity Standards. (a) All streets and alleys shall be public unless the developer demonstrates that a public street or alley is not necessary for compliance with this land use code or the street connectivity standards of subparagraphs (b) through (f) of this subsection. There are no public streets proposed for development with this tentative subdivision plan. Street connectivity standards of subparagraphs (b) through (f) of this subsection are addressed below to demonstrate compliance with standards. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 12 (b) The proposed development shall include street connections in the direction of all existing or planned streets within 1/4 mile of the development site. The proposed development shall also include street connections to any streets that abut, are adjacent to, or terminate at the development site The proposed development includes a private street into the subdivision from Hawkins Lane located within the 32’ Private Acce ss and Utility Easement. The street will include a hammerhead turnaround. There can be no further extensions of public streets made. Hawkins Lane is fully developed throughout connectivity routes. No other public streets abut, are adjacent to, or terminate a t the development site. (c) The proposed development shall include streets that extend to undeveloped or partially developed land that is adjacent to the development site or that is separated from the development site by a drainage channel, transmission easement, survey gap, or similar property condition. The streets shall be in locations that will enable adjoining properties to connect to the proposed development’s street system. No undeveloped or partially developed land exists adjacent to the development site or that is separated from the development site by a drainage channel, transmission easement, or survey gap that would require a street connection to be made. A private street is proposed from Hawkins Lane into the development site. Please see the Tentative Subdivision Plan and A&O Engineering plan set for additional details regarding the private street segment. (d) Secondary access for fire and emergency medical vehicles consistent with EC 9.6870 is required. Hawkins Lane is classified as a Neighborhood Collector street which requires 40’ – 55’ of right-of-way width and 20’ – 43’ of paving width. At the subject property, Hawkins Lane maintains a variable width right-of-way mask of 41’ – 51’ and a paving width of approximately 28’, in compliance with EC 9.6780(d). A hammerhead turnaround for on-site fire and emergency vehicle access is proposed within the 32’ Private Joint Use Access & Utility Maintenance Easement. For dimensions and details, see the Emily Estates Tentative Subdivision plan set and A&O Engineering Stormwater and Grading Sheet C – 1.0 and A & O Engineering Civil Details Sheet C – 3.0. (e) Except for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, all applicants shall show that the proposed street alignment shall minimize excavation and embankment and avoid impacts to natural resources, including water-related features. N/A. This application is being reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria. (f) In cases where a required street connection would result in the extension of an existing street that is not improved to city standards and the street has an inadequate driving surface, the developer shall construct a temporary barrier at the entrance to the unimproved street section with provision for bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access. The barrier shall be removed by the city at the time the existing street is improved to city standards or to an acceptable standard adopted by the public works director. In making a determination of an inadequate driving surface, the public works director shall consider the street rating according to Eugene’s Paving Management System and the anticipated traffic volume. No street connections are proposed; this criterion is not applicable. (g) Except for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, in the context of a Type II or Type III land use decision, the city shall grant an exception to the standards in subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) if the applicant demonstrates that any proposed exceptions are consistent with either subsection 1. or 2. below: This application is being reviewed under the clear and objective approval criteria; therefore, subsection (g) is not applicable. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 13 (h) For applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, exceptions to street connectivity standards may be granted if one of the following conditions exists: 1. Existing building(s) on the development site or on land abutting the development site and under separate ownership obstruct the extension of the planned street. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “building” is defined as a structure designed and used as a place of occupancy. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “building” does not include a shed, carport, detached garage, accessory building, or other structure designed and used solely for storage or shelter; 2. Existing slopes would result in a street grade exceeding current adopted street design standards when measured along the centerline of the proposed streets to the existing grade of the subdivision boundary or abutting property under separate ownership; 3. Provision of public street connection would require dedication of 25 percent or more of the total development site area; 4. Abutting residential land cannot be further divided under current development standards. No exceptions are requested or needed as no public streets extend to the subject property that are undeveloped. (i) Street connectivity standards may be adjusted in accordance with EC 9.8030(29) for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria. No adjustments to the street connectivity standards in EC 9.8615(2) are requested. 9.6820 – Cul-de-sacs or Emergency Vehicle Turnarounds (1) Except for streets that are less than 150 feet long and streets that will be extended in the future, all streets that terminate shall be designed as a cul-de-sac bulb or an emergency vehicle turnaround. An emergency vehicle turnaround will be designed for the at the termination of the proposed private street. (2) If a street will be extended in the future, a temporary easement shall be provided and an emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed. There are no streets that will be extended in the future; however, an emergency vehicle turnaround is proposed at the termination of the proposed private street. (3) There shall be no cul-de-sacs more than 400 feet long from the centerline of the intersecting street to the radius point of the cul-de-sac bulb. There are no cul-de-sacs proposed. (4) Public accessways to provide safe circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency vehicles shall be required from a cul-de-sac or emergency vehicle turnaround longer than 150’ in length when measured from the centerline of the intersecting street to the radius point of the cul-de-sac or to the center point of the emergency vehicle turnaround There are no cul-de-sac or emergency vehicle turnarounds proposed to be longer than 150 feet. (5) As part of a Type II or Type III process, an exception may be granted to the requirements of (1), (3) and (4) of this section. For applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, exceptions may Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 14 only be granted as provided in subparagraph (c). For all other applications, exceptions may be granted because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: No exceptions to Subsections (1), (3), and (4) are requested or allowed as this application is being reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria. No exception per subparagraph (c) is requested. (6) Cul-de-sacs or emergency vehicle turnarounds standards may be adjusted in accordance with EC 9.8030(29) for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria. No adjustments to the emergency vehicle turnaround standards are requested. 9.6830 Intersections of Street and Alleys (1) Angles. (a) Streets and alleys shall intersect one another at an angle as near to a right angle as is practicable considering topography of the area and previous adjacent layout. The proposed private street intersects Hawkins Lane at a right angle. (2) Offsets. The minimum intersection offset shall be 100 feet on a local street, 200 feet on a collector street, and 400 feet on an arterial street unless adjusted through the process for adjustments to standards of EC 9.8030(12). Offsets shall be measured from the center lines of the two intersecting streets. To provide continuity and alignment of street segments, the private street which extends into the development site from Hawki ns Lane is designed to align with Videra Drive. With the curve of Hawkins Lane to the north, this design prevents blind turns from and onto Hawkins Lane both north and south and allows for traffic coming from Videra Drive to be visible to traffic entering and exiting the development site via the private street. Due to the curve of Hawkins Lane, this location, aligned with Videra Drive, is the most practical siting for an ingress/egress point. 9.6835 – Public Accessways There are no public pedestrian and/ or bicycle accessways being proposed within the development site. There are no adjacent cul-de- sacs, adjacent sites that are undeveloped, adjacent sites that are publicly owned, or adjacent sites developed with an access way that connects to the subject site, that would require an accessway to be constructed in order to provide a connection to and/or from this proposed subdivision. No new public accessways are necessary or included as part of this proposed subdivision. 9.6840 Reserve Strips There are no reserve strips needed as Hawkins Lane is fully developed. 9.6845 Special Safety Requirements Except for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, where necessary to insure safety, reduce traffic hazards and promote the welfare of the general public, pedestrians, bicyclists and residents of the subject area, the planning director or public works director may require that local streets and alleys be designed to discourage their use by non-local motor vehicle traffic and encourage their use by local motor vehicle traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and residents of the area. This application is being reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria. This criterion is not applicable. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 15 9.6850 Street Classification Map The November 1999 Street Classification Map adopted by Ordinance No. 20181, and as amended by Ordinance thereafter, shall be the basis for determining the correct classification of a street as a major arterial, minor arterial, major collector, or neighborhood collector in order to meet transportation, access, and safety needs of an area and for determining the dedication, design and location of streets to be required, other than local streets as described in the Eugene Local Street Plan. In the event any conflict exists between any street classification contained in the November 1999 Street Classification Map and a classification contained in any other ordinance, resolution, order or plan, except local streets in the Eugene Local Street Plan, the descriptions in the November 1999 Street Classification Map shall control. There are no existing ordinances, resolutions, orders or plans that conflict with the street classifications identified on the November 1999 Street Classification Map for the existing streets adjacent to the subject property. Hawkins Lane is classified as a Neighborhood Collector. 9.6855 Street Names Wherever practical, streets that are in alignment with existing named streets shall bear the names of such existing streets. Names for streets that are not in alignment with existing streets are subject to approval by the planning director and shall not unnecessarily duplicate or resemble the name of any existing or platted street in Lane County. The new private street is aligned with existing Videra Drive across Hawkins Lane; however, it is a private street and is not planned to be named. 9.6860 Street Right-of-Way Map The November 1999 Street Right-of-Way Map is an official map adopted by the city council by Ordinance No. 20181 designating the widths of street right-of-way and street paving for specific street segments. Any street segment for which no widths are designated on this map shall have the maximum widths for its classification as set forth in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths. Hawkins Lane is classified as a Neighborhood Collector street which requires 40’ – 55’ of right-of-way width. At the subject property, Hawkins Lane maintains a variable width right-of-way mask of 41’ – 51’ in compliance with EC 9.6860. 9.6865 Transit Facilities (1) Except for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, the city manager may require provisions, including easements, for transit facilities where future transit routes are required on streets extending through or adjacent to the area of the development, and where a need for bus stops, bus pullouts or other transit facilities within the development has been identified, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. This application is being reviewed under clear and objective approval criteria; this criterion is not applicable. (2) Except for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, where the provision of transit stops, bus pullouts or other facilities along a public street requires a right-of-way or paving width greater than that listed in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths and where a need for transit service within the development has been identified, the planning director or public works director, depending upon the type of application being processed, may require that additional right-of-way or paving be provided. This application is being reviewed under clear and objective approval criteria; this criterion is not applicable. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 16 9.6870-Street Width Hawkins Lane is classified as a Neighborhood Collector street which requires 40’ – 55’ of right-of-way width and 20’ – 43’ of paving width. At the subject property, Hawkins Lane maintains a variable width right-of-way mask of 41’ – 51’ and a paving width of approximately 28’ in compliance with EC 9.6870. 9.6873 Slope Easements Because of terrain, slope easements may be required to facilitate the construction of streets and alleys and protect the structural integrity of the constructed roadway. Slope easements shall be granted in addition to the required street or alley width listed in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths. There is one existing 10.0’ slope easement located on the east side of Hawkins Lane on the west boundary of the subject property and shown on the tentative subdivision plan set. 9.6875-Private Street Design Standards Private streets, when permitted under EC 9.6815(2), shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable requirements for private streets contained in the adopted “Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways.” There is one private street proposed into the development site from Hawkins Lane; it is designed and will be constructed in accordance with applicable requirements for private streets contained in the adopted “Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways” as required. See the Civil Engineering Plan Sheet C – 3.0 for specifications. EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – Housing/ Clear and Objective (con’t). (4) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of the following: (b) The proposal will provide pedestrian circulation to transit stops and neighborhood activity centers located within 1/4 mile of the development site and bicycle circulation to transit stops and neighborhood activity centers located within 2 miles of the development site, provided that the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. The distance between the development site and a transit stop or neighborhood activity center shall be determined using the shortest distance as measured in a straight line between a point along the perimeter of the development site and: 1. A sign identifying a transit stop; or 2. A point along a property line of a neighborhood activity center. There are no transit stops located within ¼ mile of the development site. The closest LTD transit line is located approximately one mile from the subject property, running east and west on W 18th Avenue with the nearest stop located at the intersection of W 18th Avenue and Hawkins Lane. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the public transit line exists via bike lanes and sidewalks on Hawkin Lane. As the development site is located in the South Hills area, it is extensively residentially developed and there is not an abundance of commercial amenities within ¼ mile, but within 2 miles on 18th Avenue there are gas stations, a Safeway grocery store, a BiMart, and a number of small commercial businesses such as a dry cleaner and convenience stores. The closest park to the intersection of Hawkins Lane and Videra Drive is Skyview Park. Skyview Park is located directly adjacent to this residential loop. The loop of Videra Drive curves around the northern, northeastern, and eastern edges of the park, while Skyview Lane provides direct entry along its western edge. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 17 (5) The PUD complies with all of the following: (a) EC 9.2000 through EC 9.4170 regarding applicable lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone and any applicable overlay zones. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area. The subject property is not included within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone. Subsections 1. and 2. above do not apply. The pertinent sections of EC 9.2000 through 9.4170 regarding lot dimensions, solar standards, and density requirements are summarily addressed below. 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards. Density The subject property is zoned R-1 and designated Low-Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map. There is no minimum density for the R-1 zone, and the maximum density is fourteen (14) dwelling units (du) per net acre. The subject property is approximately 2.98 gross acres. The area used for calculating net density excludes the area of the private street making the net density ~2.39 acres. At ~2.39 net acres, the required density for R-1 zoning is 0 – 33 du. Proposed for development is ten (10) standard lots. The proposal complies with density standards. 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards. Minimum Lot Area Per EC 9.2760, the minimum area for standard R-1 zoned lots is 4,500 square feet. Lot # Lot Type Minimum Area Required Proposed Lot Area 1 Standard 4,500 SF 7464 SF 2 Standard 4,500 SF 7528 SF 3 Standard 4,500 SF 7591 SF 4 Standard 4,500 SF 8340 SF 5 Standard 4,500 SF 8587 SF 6 Standard 4,500 SF 10859 SF 7 Standard 4,500 SF 7309 SF 8 Standard 4,500 SF 6488 SF 9 Standard 4,500 SF 6572 SF 10 Corner 4,500 SF 10470 SF Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 18 Minimum Lot Frontage EC 9.2750 requires 50 feet of frontage for R-1 standard lots. Lot 7 is requested an exception to the Lot Frontage standards within the PUD application. Minimum Lot Width EC 9.2750 requires a minimum width of 50 feet for standard interior and corner lots in the R-1 zone of 50 feet. Per EC 9.0500, Lot Width is defined as, “the horizontal distance between the midpoints of the side property lines.” Compliance with Lot Width standards are included in the Table below. Lot 7 is requested an exception to the Lot Width standards within the PUD application. Lot # Lot Type Minimum Width Required Proposed Lot Width 1 Standard 50 feet 75.00 feet 2 Standard 50 feet 75.00 feet 3 Standard 50 feet 75.00 feet 4 Standard 50 feet 75.00 feet 5 Standard 50 feet 96.00 feet 6 Standard 50 feet 108.5 feet 7 Standard 50 feet 60.00 feet 8 Standard 50 feet 59.23 feet 9 Standard 50 feet 99.55 feet 10 Corner 50 feet 82.24 feet Lot # Lot Type Minimum Frontage Required Proposed Lot Frontage 1 Standard 50 feet 85.51 feet 2 Standard 50 feet 82.84 feet 3 Standard 50 feet 82.84 feet 4 Standard 50 feet 58.59 feet 5 Standard 50 feet 74.14 feet 6 Standard 50 feet 70.00 feet 7 Standard 50 feet 40.00 feet 8 Standard 50 feet 59.23 feet 9 Standard 50 feet 54.91 feet 10 Corner 50 feet 91.17 feet Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 19 9.2790 Solar Lot Standards Solar Lot requirements apply to the creation of new subdivisions in the R-1 and R-2 zones; therefore, the solar lot criteria applies to this proposal. Per EC 9.2790(2), at least 70% of the subdivision lots must be designed to have a minimum north-south dimension of 75 feet and a front lot line orientation that is within 30 degrees of the true east-west axis. The tentative plat illustrates compliance with the requirement that 70% or 7/10 of the proposed subdivision lots (Lots 1-6, and Lot 10) maintain a minimum of 75 feet from north to south boundary lines and the front lot line is well within 30 degrees of the true east-west axis. The proposed subdivision complies with solar lot requirements. See the table below for exact dimensions. Lot # Lot Type Minimum N-S Dimension Required Proposed N-S Dimension 1 Solar 75 feet 99.94 feet 2 Solar 75 feet 100.79 feet 3 Solar 75 feet 101.64 feet 4 Solar 75 feet 118.50 feet 5 Solar 75 feet 96.00 feet 6 Solar 75 feet 100.00 feet 7 Not Solar 75 feet 60.00 feet 8 Not Solar 75 feet 59.23 feet 9 Not Solar 75 feet 60.77 feet 10 Solar 75 feet 120.00 feet EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – Housing/ Clear and Objective (con’t). (5) The PUD complies with all of the following: (b) EC 9.6500 through 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards. 9.6500 Easements. (1) The city may require the dedication of easements for wastewater sewers and other public utilities, and for access thereto for maintenance, of a sufficient width to meet the intended use, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. (2) Easements may be required along lot or parcel rear lines or side lines, or elsewhere as necessary to provide needed facilities for present or future development of the area. (3) No building, structure, tree, or other obstruction shall be placed or located on or in a public utility easement. Prior to approval of a final PUD, final site review plans, or final plats, there shall appear thereon a restriction showing compliance with this subsection. There is a private 15.00’ Sanitary Sewer easement proposed on the west side of Lots 8 and 9. Please see the tentative subdivision plan set and the A&O Engineering plan set for details. All proposed public storm infrastructure will be located either within a Right-of-Way, public utility easement or public storm easement of appropriate width. All proposed private storm infrastructure crossing lot lines will be located within private utility easements of appropriate width. Please see the A&O Engineering Utility Plan Sheet C – 2.0 for details. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 20 All proposed public EWEB infrastructure will be located either within a Right-of-Way, public utility easement or EWEB easement. No private water infrastructure is proposed to cross lot lines; therefore, no private water easements are expected with this project. Please see the A&O Engineering plan set for details. All proposed dry utility infrastructure will be located either within a Right-of-Way or public utility easement. Please see the A&O Engineering plan set for details. EC 9.6505-Improvements-Specifications All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with adopted plans and policies, the procedures specified in Chapter 7 of this code, and standards and specifications adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 of this code. Additionally, all developments shall make and be served by the following infrastructure improvements. (1) Water Supply - All developments shall be served by the water system of the Eugene Water & Electric Board. A new public water main is proposed to be constructed through the development that will allow all individual parcels to be served by individual water services. Routing of proposed water system is shown on the utility plan sheets included with the tentative subdivision plan set. (2) Sewage - All developments shall be served by the wastewater sewage system of the city, complying with provisions in Chapter 6 of this code. A new 8” wastewater line is proposed to be routed from the city wastewater mainline in Hawkins Lane and extended within the 20’ private utility easement where it will taper to a 6” line at the east end of the private street. Two 4” lines will extend from the 8” line to Lots 7, 8, and 9 via a 15’ private utility easement. The remaining lots will be served from the primary line in the 20’ private utility easement within the private street and be served by individual 4” wastewater laterals. All lots will be served by the wastewater sewage system of the city of Eugene. (3) Streets and Alleys Per EC 9.8670, Hawkins Lane is classified as a Neighborhood Collector street which requires 40’ – 55’ of right-of-way width and 20’ – 43’ of paving width. At the subject property, Hawkins Lane maintains a variable width right-of-way mask of 41’ – 51’ and a paving width of approximately 28’. (4) Sidewalks - Sidewalks shall be located, designed and constructed according to the provisions of this land use code, the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, construction and design standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 of this code, and other adopted plans and policies. All proposed sidewalks will be constructed to meet all City of Eugene standards. Please see A&O Engineering Stormwater and Grading Plan Sheet C – 1.0 and Civil Details Sheet C – 3.0. (5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways - Bicycle Paths and Accessways shall be designed and constructed according to provisions of this land use code, the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, construction and design standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 of this code, and other adopted plans and policies. No bicycle paths or accessways are proposed with this development; this criterion is not applicable. (c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709 Special Flood Hazard Areas – Standards. Per FIRM Map Number 41039C1120F, Community Number 039C, the subject property is located in Zone X – an area determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain. These criteria are not applicable. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 21 (d) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. The Preliminary Geological Hazard Assessment & Geotechnical Engineering Report included with this submittal identifies report sections addressing each item required under EC 9.6710(6) below. 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. (6) Clear and Objective Housing. Unless exempt under 9.6710(3), in lieu of compliance with subsections (2), (4), and (5) of this section, applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria shall include a certification from an Oregon licensed Engineering Geologist, an Oregon licensed Geotechnical Engineer, or an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer with geological experience, prepared within ten years of the date of application, that includes the following information: (a) Identification of any portion of the proposed development site that is located in an area of moderate or high landslide susceptibility as shown on the city’s adopted Eugene Landslide Hazard Map. Identification of any portion of the site located in an area of moderate or high landslide susceptibility on the Eugene Landslide Hazard Map, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(a), is presented in Section 6.4, Landslides and Global Slope Stability, with supporting hazard mapping in the Site Research Appendix. (b) A statement that the proposed development will not be impacted by existing or potential stability problems or any of the following site conditions: slopes 20 percent or greater, springs or seeps, depth of soil bedrock, soil types, variations in soil types, open drainage ways, fill, or a combination of these conditions. The statement regarding stability problems and the site conditions listed under EC 9.6710(6)(b), including slopes 20 percent or greater, springs or seeps, depth of soil to bedrock, soil types, variations in soil types, open drainage ways, and fill, is addressed in Section 5, Field Exploration and Subsurface Conditions, and Section 6.4, Landslides and Global Slope Stability. (c) If proposed development will be located in an area identified as moderately or highly susceptible to landslides pursuant to (a), or will be impacted by existing or potential stability problems or any of the site conditions listed in (b), the certification must also include: 1. A review of the suitability of the proposed lot layout, street locations, and proposed locations for utilities, driveways, parking areas, and buildings given the landslide hazards, stability problems, and/or site conditions identified in the certification; Review of the suitability of the proposed lot layout, street locations, and proposed locations for utilities, driveways, parking areas, and buildings, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(1), is presented in Section 6.4, Landslides and Global Slope Stability; Section 7.1, Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations; and Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations. 2. Any recommended modifications to the proposed lot layout, street locations, and proposed locations for utilities, driveways, parking areas, and buildings that in the engineer’s opinion, would mitigate the landslide hazards, stability problems, and/or site conditions identified in the certification; Recommended modifications to the proposed lot layout, street locations, and building locations to mitigate the identified hazards and site conditions, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(2), are presented in Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations, including slope setback recommendations for Lots 6, 7, and 10, and Section 7.9, Potential Retaining Walls. 3. Methods for safely addressing the landslide hazards and/or site conditions identified in (a) and (b); and Methods for safely addressing the identified landslide hazards and site conditions, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(3), are presented in Section 6.6, Erosion Hazard; Section 7.1, Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations; Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations; and Section 7.9, Potential Retaining Walls. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 22 4. Recommendations, if any, for additional geotechnical analysis for future buildings or improvements on the development site. Recommendations for additional geotechnical analysis for future buildings or improvements on the development site and on the proposed lots, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(4) and (5), are presented in Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations. 5. Recommendations, if any, for additional geotechnical analysis for future buildings or improvements on proposed lots or parcels. Recommendations for additional geotechnical analysis for future buildings or improvements on the development site and on the proposed lots, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(4) and (5), are presented in Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations. (e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site. EC 9.6730(2) states, “the standards in this section apply to any development that creates a new building entrance.” No new building entrances are being proposed in connection with this tentative PUD. This criterion is not applicable. (f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this land use code, no building or structure shall be erected or altered except on a lot fronting or abutting on a public street or having access to a public street over a private street or easement of record approved in accordance with provisions contained in this land use code. In accordance with EC 9.6735, all lots within the proposed Emily Estates Subdivision will have frontage on a public street or access to a public street over a private street or easement of record. (2) Access from a public street to a development site shall be located in accordance with EC 7.420 Access Connections Location. If a development will increase the development site’s peak hour trip generation by less than 50% and will generate less than 20 additional peak hour trips, the development site’s existing access connections are exempt from this standard. Access from the existing public street has been located in accordance with EC 7.420, addressed below. (3) The standard at (2) may be adjusted if consistent with the criteria of EC 9.8030(28). No adjustment to EC 9.6735(2) is requested. 7.420 Access Connections – Locations (1) Access Connections to all Street Classifications. Access connections to all street classifications shall be located in accordance with the following standards: Access Connection is defined in the EC 9.0500 as, “The area located within the public right-of-way that provides for the movement of vehicles to or from a development site onto and from the vehicular travel way of the public transportation system.” Access connection standards are addressed below. (a) No access connection shall be located to encompass a municipal utility. No access connection will be located in such a way as to incorporate a municipal utility. This criterion is satisfied. (b) Except when an existing lot or parcel frontage is located entirely within an area where the adjacent street grade is over fifteen percent (15%), no access connection shall be located in areas where the street grade is over fifteen percent (15%). If an existing lot or parcel frontage is located entirely within an area where the existing street grade is Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 23 over fifteen percent (15%), one access connection may be permitted at the point of lowest grade percentage. No street grades over 15% are proposed within this development. This criterion is not applicable. (c) If a parcel has frontage on two or more streets of different street classifications, the access connection shall access the street with the lowest classification. The access connection can access the street with the higher classification if the applicant can demonstrate (1), (2) or (3): Lot 10 maintains double frontage on Hawkins Lane and the new proposed private street and will therefore take access from the private street. There are no physical conditions that limit this requirement from being met. The proposal complies with EC 7.420(1)(a) – (c). (d) Access connections located within five feet of an existing alley connection may be merged with the alley pavement. The combined connection width shall not exceed 35 feet. A public access easement shall be recorded and submitted to the city upon issuance of a permit to construct the access connection. There are no existing alleys near or abutting the subject property or that will be created within the proposed development; this criterion is not applicable. (2) Access Connections to Arterial and Major Collector Streets. In addition to the standards set forth in this EC 7.420(1), access connections to arterial and major collector streets shall be located in accordance with the following standards. There are no access connections to Arterial or Major Collector Streets. This criterion is not applicable. (3) Access Connections to Local and Neighborhood Collector Streets. In addition to the location standards set forth in EC 7.420(1), access connections to local and neighborhood collector streets shall be located in accordance with the following standards: (a) Lots and parcels at intersections shall have the access connection begin no less than 20 feet from the end of the radius of the curb, or 20 feet from the property corner if there is no curb. Lot 10 is the only lot that is located on the intersection of the new proposed private street and Hawkins Lane and therefore it will not have an access connection begin less than 20 feet from the end of the radius of the proposed curb. (b) A safety island of not less than 22 feet of full height curb shall in all cases be provided between access connections under one ownership. There are no proposed access connections that require a safety island. This criterion is not applicable. (g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. There are no special setbacks proposed or needed as the development site does not abut any public right-of-way not developed to city standards. (h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities. EC 9.6775 requires that all new utilities be placed underground. The specific utility locations and details will be worked out at a later stage of development; however the PUD site plans shall include a note that all new utilities will be placed underground, as required. (i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. All street corners proposed with this development will meet AASHTO vision clearance requirements. See the tentative subdivision plan set for Vision Clearance Area details. Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 24 (j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance. An adjustment review application pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015, addressing EC 9.8030(24) Stormwater Quality, Flow Control, Oil Control and Source Control Standards Adjustment, is being submitted concurrently with this application in order to adjust the standards contained in EC 9.8325(5)(j). (k) All applicable development standards explicitly addressed in the application. A Planned Unit Development exception is requested to the lot standards contained in EC 9.2760 for the frontage of Lot 7 which is limited to 40 total feet rather than 50 feet due to the dimensions of the proposed private street. An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – Housing/ Clear and Objective (con’t). (6) The applicant has demonstrated that wastewater service, transportation service, stormwater service, water service, and electrical service will be provided to the site prior to the need for those facilities and services. Where the facility or service is not already serving the site, this demonstration requires evidence of at least one of the following: (a) Prior written commitment of public funds by the appropriate public agencies. (b) Prior acceptance by the appropriate public agency of a written commitment by the applicant or other party to provide private services and facilities. (c) A written commitment by the applicant or other party to provide for offsetting all added public costs or early commitment of public funds made necessary by development, submitted on a form acceptable to the city manager. Wastewater service: See A & O Engineering Utility Plan Sheet C – 2.0. Transportation service: All roads in the project will meet city standards, as shown on the A & O Engineering Stormwater and Grading Plan Sheet C – 1.0 and Civil Details Sheet C – 3.0. The applicant anticipates that the City will consent, prior to the time of the hearing, for the applicant to develop all streets, and to make them private streets. Stormwater service: See A & O Engineering Stormwater and Grading Plan Sheet C – 1.0. Water service: See A & O Engineering Plan Utility Plan Sheet C – 2.0. Electrical service: EWEB has confirmed to the property owner that service can be supplied to the development site. (7) PUDs proposed on development sites that are two acres or larger must comply with either subparagraph (a) or (b), below: (a) The PUD is located within 1/2-mile of a public park, public recreation facility, or public school (determined using the shortest distance as measured along a straight line between a point along the perimeter of the development site and a point along a property line of a public park, public recreation facility, or public school); or (b) The PUD shall provide common open space within the development as follows: 1. Common Open Space Area. a. If the average lot area is equal to or greater than the minimum lot area of the base zone, then the PUD shall provide common open space within the development site equal to a minimum of 10 percent of the net acres of the development site or 14,500 square feet, whichever is greater. b. If the average lot area is below the minimum lot area of the base zone, then the PUD shall provide common open space within the development site equal to a minimum of 15 percent of the net acres of the development Emily Estates PUD P a g e | 25 site or 14,500 square feet, whichever is greater. For the purpose of this subparagraph, net acres means the total development site area minus area(s) for public or private streets. In no case shall the common open space requirement exceed one acre. The net area of the subject property is approximately 2.39-acres/ 103,847 square feet – the overall area minus the private street. In compliance with EC 9.8325(7)(b)(1.)(a.) the proposed PUD will provide common open space (Tract B) with an area of 33,422 square feet which is ~32% of the net acres proposed for development. 2. Common open space shall be provided in one separate tract of land, except that developments providing more than 29,000 square feet of common open space may include up to three common open space tracts provided no tract is less than 14,500 square feet. Common open space is provided in one separate tract of land – Tract B. 3. Ownership of the common open space tract(s) must be dedicated to all lot or parcel owners within the development site. Ownership of Tract B will be dedicated to all owners of the lots within the development site and managed via a Homeowner’s Association. 4. Each common open space tract must include a portion with minimum dimensions of 70 feet by 70 feet. Tract B includes a large portion of the site area with minimum dimensions that exceed 70 feet by 70 feet. 5. Except where each lot or parcel in the development abuts one or more of the common open space area(s), common open space tracts must have a minimum of 10 feet of lot frontage along an existing or proposed public way or private street. The common open space tract maintains s a minimum of 10 feet of lot frontage along Hawkins Lane. 6. Common open space tracts do not have to meet lot standards. Noted. (c) For proposals that include multiple-unit development, compliance with subparagraph (a) or (b) shall constitute compliance with the requirements of EC 9.5500(9). The proposed PUD does not include multiple-unit development. (8) For any PUD located within or partially within the boundaries of the South Hills Study, the following additional approval criteria apply: (a) No development shall occur on land above an elevation of 901 feet except that either middle housing or one single- unit dwelling may be built on any lot in existence as of August 1, 2001. The subject property is not located above 901 feet. (b) Development on any portion of the development site located above 900 feet elevation shall be set back at least 300 feet from the ridgeline unless there is a determination by the city manager that the area is not needed as a connection to the city’s ridgeline trail system. For purposes of this section, the ridgeline shall be considered as the line indicated as being the urban growth boundary. No portion of the development site is located above 900 feet. Real Property Tax Lot Record Lane County Assessment and Taxation Print Date: Jun 29, 2026 In preparation of these records, every effort has been made to offer the most current, correct, and clearly expressed information possible. Nevertheless, inadvertent errors in information may occur. In particular but without limiting anything here, Lane County disclaims any responsibility for typographical errors and accuracy of this information. The information and data included on Lane County servers have been compiled by Lane County staff from a variety of sources, and are subject to change without notice to the User. Lane County makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding the quality, content, completeness, suitability, adequacy, sequence, accuracy, or timeliness of such information and data. The legal descriptions contained herein are for tax lot purposes only. Included in this report: A listing of documents affecting ownership and/or property boundary changes.1. The scanned tax lot record image and any legal description changes made since .2. Map & Tax Lot 1804024304600 Status Active Current Parcel/Account Current TCA 0710481 00400 Document #Type Date Effective Year Tax Lot Acres 2026-018701 Warranty Deed 06/10/2026 2026 2.98 Comments: 2017-039286 Warranty Deed 07/27/2017 2017 2.98 Comments: 2016-061197 Bargain and Sale Deed 12/05/2016 2017 2.98 Comments: Description Card 2.98 Comments: MAIN OFFICE 675 OAK STREET, SUITE 100 EUGENE, OREGON 97401 PH: (541) 687-2233 * FAX: (541)485-0307 FLORENCE OFFICE 715 HWY 101 * FLORENCE, OREGON 97439 MAILING: PO BOX 508 * FLORENCE, OREGON 97439 PH: (541) 997-8417 * FAX: (541)997-8246 VILLAGE PLAZA OFFICE 4750 VILLAGE PLAZA LOOP, SUITE 100 EUGENE, OREGON 97401 PH: (541) 653-8622 * FAX: (541) 844-1626 STATUS OF RECORD TITLE REPORT PINERIDGE CONSTRUCTION LLC Date: AUGUST 19, 2026 ATTN: MICHAEL SORRIC Our No: CT-0354002 Your No: -- Charge: $300.00 As requested, Cascade Title Co. has searched our tract indices as to the following described real property: ( A T T A C H E D ) and as of: AUGUST 11, 2026 at 8:00 A.M., we find the following: Vestee: PINERIDGE CONSTRUCTION LLC, an Oregon limited liability company Said property is subject to the following on record matters: 1. Property taxes in an undetermined amount, which are a lien but not yet payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2026-2027. 2. Permit and Easement, including the terms and provisions thereof, granted City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, for the use and benefit of the Eugene Water & Electric Board, by instrument recorded November 17, 1975, Reception No. 1975-050328, Lane County Official Records. 3. Conveyance of Slope Easement, including the terms and provisions thereof, granted the City of Eugene, a municipal corporation of Lane County, State of Oregon, by instrument recorded May 9, 1980, Reception No. 1980-023735, Lane County Official Records. 4. Deed of Trust, including the terms and provisions thereof, executed by Pineridge Construction LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Grantor, to Western Title & Escrow Company, Trustee, for the benefit of Richard J. Sorric, Trustee of the Richard J. Sorric Trust Agreement dated May 13, 2021, and any amendments thereto, Beneficiary, dated June 3, 2026, recorded June 11, 2026, Reception No. 2026-018702, Lane County Deeds and Records, to secure payment of a note in the amount of $600,000.00. NOTE: Taxes, Account No. 0710481, Assessor's Map No. 18 04 02 4 3, #4600, Code 4-00, 2025-2026, in the amount of $5,215.65, PAID IN FULL. *0354002* Order No. 0354002 Page 2 This report is to be utilized for information only. This report is not to be used as a basis for transferring, encumbering or foreclosing the real property described. The liability of Cascade Title Co. is limited to the addressee and shall not exceed the premium paid hereunder. CASCADE TITLE CO., by: nb/rh: Title Officer: KURT BEATY Order No. 0354002 Page 3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Beginning at an iron pin marking the 1/4 corner between Sections 2 and 11 in Township 18 South, Range 4 West of the Willamette Meridian; run thence South 89° 35’ East along said section line 330.0 feet; thence North 0° 21’ 30” East 661.80 feet; thence North 89° 35’ West 36.04 feet, to a point in the centerline of County Road No. 682 and 1037 as relocated in 1950; thence along the centerline of said County Road on a 955.27 foot radius curve right (the chord of which bears South 11° 49’ West 60.16 feet); thence South 13° 27’ West 75.2 feet; thence on a 230.74 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which bears South 41° 12’ West 214.87 feet); thence South 68° 57’ West 35.10 feet; thence on a 179.03 foot radius curve left (the long chord of which bears South 35° 27’ West 197.63 feet); thence South 1° 57’ West 192.1 feet, to the end of said County Road; thence South 89° 35’ East 26.7 feet to the point of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon. EXCEPT: The Westerly 20.0 feet, which is Easterly and parallel to the above described centerline of said County Road, in Lane County, Oregon. MAP NO. 18-04-02-43 THIS MAP/PLAT IS BEING FURNISHED AS AN AID IN LOCATING THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LAND IN RELATION TO ADJOINING STREETS, NATURAL BOUNDARIES AND OTHER LAND, AND IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND DEPICTED. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE IS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED BY ENDORSEMENT, IF ANY, THE COMPANY DOES NOT INSURE DIMENSIONS, DISTANCES, LOCATION OF EASEMENTS, ACREAGE OR OTHER MATTERS SHOWN THEREON. CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Hawkins Lane Subdivision 2870 Hawkins Lane Eugene, Oregon 97405 Lane County Parcel No. 1804024304600 Prepared for: Mr. Michael Sorric Pineridge Construction, LLC CORE GeoEngineering Project No. 26-1156 August 20, 2026 Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon i | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Eugene Site Development Standards: Geological and Geotechnical Analysis .................................................................. 1 2.1.1 Level Two Analysis EC 9.6710(5)(b) ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.1.2 Clear and Objective Housing EC 9.6710(6) ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 South Hills Study Policies EC 9.9630(3)(c) .............................................................................................................. 3 3.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING ....................................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 REGIONAL SEISMIC SETTING ............................................................................................................................................. 5 4.1 Cascadia Subduction Zone ................................................................................................................................................ 5 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Soil Descriptions ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 5.2 Expansive Soils and Shrink Swell Potential ........................................................................................................................ 7 5.3 Depth to Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 9 6.1 Earthquake Hazard Review ............................................................................................................................................... 9 6.2 Seismic Site Class and Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters ....................................................................................... 9 6.3 Soil Liquefaction .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 6.4 Landslides and Global Slope Stability .............................................................................................................................. 11 6.4.1 LiDAR Review ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 6.5 Flood Hazard ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 6.6 Erosion Hazard ................................................................................................................................................................ 12 6.7 Radon Hazard .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 7.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 13 7.1 Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 13 7.2 Keyways, Benching, and Subdrains for Fill Slopes ........................................................................................................... 14 7.3 Engineered Fill Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 15 7.4 Excavation Conditions and Utility Trench Backfill Recommendations ............................................................................ 16 7.5 Wet Weather Earthwork Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 16 7.6 Lateral Earth Pressures ................................................................................................................................................... 17 7.7 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 19 7.8 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ................................................................................................................................................ 20 7.9 Potential Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................................................ 21 7.10 Foundation Drains ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 8.0 ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 22 8.1 Subgrade Preparation ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 8.2 Wet Weather Construction Pavement Section ............................................................................................................... 23 9.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................... 24 10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon ii | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 LIST OF APPENDICES Figures Exploration Logs Soils Laboratory Results Site Plans Site Research Photographic Log LIST OF FIGURES 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Aerial and Exploration Map 3 Site Plan and Exploration Map 4 LiDAR Imagery 5 LiDAR Imagery and Landslide Inventory 6 Typical Keyway, Benching, and Fill Slope 7 Typical Perimeter Footing Detail Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 1 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION This report presents the findings and conclusions of a preliminary geologic hazard assessment and geotechnical engineering study conducted by CORE GeoEngineering, LLC (CORE) for the referenced project. The purpose of the study was to assess subsurface conditions, characterize geologic and geotechnical conditions, and provide recommendations for the proposed development. The investigation was performed in accordance with Proposal No. P26-1154, dated July 17, 2026, and subsequent approvals of our proposal and General Terms and Conditions. 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION As indicated on Figures 1 through 3, the subject site is located at 2870 Hawkins Lane in the South Eugene area of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, and is identified as Lane County Tax Lot 4600 (Assessor's Map No. 18-04-02-43; Tax Lot 1804024304600). The property encompasses approximately 2.98 -acres and is bordered to the west and northwest by Hawkins Lane, to the east by existing residential properties, and to the south by undeveloped land. The site was previously developed with a single-family residence and associated improvements that were removed sometime after 2005, and the property is currently undeveloped and vegetated with mixed trees, brush, and grasses. Topography across the site slopes moderately down to the north and northwest, with elevations ranging from approximately 722 to 807 feet AMSL (NAVD 88). The property is located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 18 South, Range 4 West, Willamette Meridian. The site latitude and longitude are 44.026381, -123.137337. The site is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and the regulatory jurisdictional agency is the City of Eugene, Oregon. Based on our review of the preliminary site plan prepared by A & O Engineering, L.L.C., dated August 12, 2026 (see Site Plans in report appendix), CORE understands that the proposed development will consist of a 10-Lot residential subdivision supporting construction of new single-family homes, a new public street (Videra Drive) extending east from Hawkins Lane, new underground utilities, and a stormwater facility located within Tract A. The planned homes are expected to be two-story structures constructed with wood framing above typical spread footings. Individual lots are anticipated to be left at existing grade at the time of plat development, with lot grading to be performed by others during the individual home construction process. We anticipate cuts and fills associated with the proposed development. At this time site planning is preliminary and a grading plan has not yet been prepared. We understand that retaining walls may be proposed as part of the development. Once a grading plan has been prepared, we recommend that site-specific retaining wall design be performed. During home building we recommend that lot by lot geotechnical evaluation be conducted on a case-by-case basis relative to the proposed development plans and soil conditions at each building lot. 2.1 Eugene Site Development Standards: Geological and Geotechnical Analysis CORE understands that, based on site topography and geologic hazard mapping, a geological and geotechnical analysis is required as part of the tentative subdivision application, in compliance with City of Eugene Code (EC) 9.6710, Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. Because the site is a proposed subdivision with slopes equal to or greater than 10 percent, a Level Two Analysis is required under EC 9.6710(5)(b). This report presents a compilation of record geological data, analysis of site characteristics, subsurface investigation and testing to establish soil types and distribution, and a discussion of site and Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 2 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 soil characteristics in relation to the proposed development, including identification of potential problems and recommendations for design and construction techniques consistent with the standards applicable to the development. We further understand the applicant intends to pursue approval under the Clear and Objective Housing provisions of EC 9.6710(6). Accordingly, this report has been prepared to also address the items described under EC 9.6710(6)(a) through (6)(c). In addition, this report provides a review of the anticipated on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development by a qualified engineering geologist, in compliance with the South Hills Study Policies of EC 9.9630(3)(c). The subsections below cross-reference each required item to the report section where it is addressed. The results of our study and recommendations for site development are presented below. 2.1.1 Level Two Analysis EC 9.6710(5)(b) A Level Two Analysis under EC 9.6710(4)(b) consists of a compilation of record geological data, analysis of site characteristics, subsurface investigation and testing to establish soil types and distribution, and a report that includes site and soil characteristics in relation to the proposed development, identification of potential problems, and recommendations for design and construction techniques. The report sections addressing each required item are identified below. • Compilation of record geological data, including published geologic mapping, soil survey data, and geologic hazard mapping, is presented in Section 3, Regional Geologic Mapping; Section 6, Geologic Hazard Review; and the Site Research Appendix. • Analysis of site characteristics is presented in Section 2, Site and Project Description; Section 3, Regional Geologic Mapping; Section 4, Regional Seismic Setting; Section 5, Field Exploration and Subsurface Conditions; and Section 6, Geologic Hazard Review. • Subsurface investigation and testing to establish soil types and distribution is presented in Section 5, Field Exploration and Subsurface Conditions, with supporting exploration logs and laboratory results in the Appendix. • Site and soil characteristics in relation to the proposed development and identification of potential problems are presented in Section 5, Field Exploration and Subsurface Conditions; Section 6, Geologic Hazard Review; and Section 7, Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations. • Recommendations for design and construction techniques are presented in Section 7, Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations, including Section 7.1, Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations; Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations; and Section 7.9, Potential Retaining Walls. 2.1.2 Clear and Objective Housing EC 9.6710(6) The applicant intends to pursue approval under the Clear and Objective Housing provisions of EC 9.6710(6). The report sections addressing each item required under EC 9.6710(6) are identified below. • Identification of any portion of the site located in an area of moderate or high landslide susceptibility on the Eugene Landslide Hazard Map, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(a), is Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 3 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 presented in Section 6.4, Landslides and Global Slope Stability, with supporting hazard mapping in the Site Research Appendix. • The statement regarding stability problems and the site conditions listed under EC 9.6710(6)(b), including slopes 20 percent or greater, springs or seeps, depth of soil to bedrock, soil types, variations in soil types, open drainage ways, and fill, is addressed in Section 5, Field Exploration and Subsurface Conditions, and Section 6.4, Landslides and Global Slope Stability. • Review of the suitability of the proposed lot layout, street locations, and proposed locations for utilities, driveways, parking areas, and buildings, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(1), is presented in Section 6.4, Landslides and Global Slope Stability; Section 7.1, Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations; and Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations. • Recommended modifications to the proposed lot layout, street locations, and building locations to mitigate the identified hazards and site conditions, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(2), are presented in Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations, including slope setback recommendations for Lots 6, 7, and 10, and Section 7.9, Potential Retaining Walls. • Methods for safely addressing the identified landslide hazards and site conditions, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(3), are presented in Section 6.6, Erosion Hazard; Section 7.1, Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations; Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations; and Section 7.9, Potential Retaining Walls. • Recommendations for additional geotechnical analysis for future buildings or improvements on the development site and on the proposed lots, as required under EC 9.6710(6)(c)(4) and (5), are presented in Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations. 2.1.3 South Hills Study Policies EC 9.9630(3)(c) EC 9.9630(3)(c) requires review of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development by a qualified engineering geologist. This review is provided in Section 6, Geologic Hazard Review, and Section 7, Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations. The report sections addressing this requirement are identified below. • Review of on-site and off-site slope stability and landslide impacts, including the mapped landslides in the site vicinity and the steep slope within Tract B, is presented in Section 6.4, Landslides and Global Slope Stability, and Section 6.4.1, LiDAR Review, with supporting hazard mapping in the Site Research Appendix. • Review of on-site geologic hazards, including seismic, liquefaction, flood, erosion, and radon hazards, is presented in Sections 6.1 through 6.7, Geologic Hazard Review. • Recommendations for site development to address the identified on-site and off-site impacts, including grading, drainage, erosion control, slope setbacks, and site preparation, are presented in Section 7, Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations, including Section 6.6, Erosion Hazard; Section 7.1, Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations; and Section 7.7, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 4 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 Because a grading plan has not yet been prepared for the proposed development, this review of on-site and off-site impacts is preliminary and is based on the existing site conditions and the preliminary site plan. Once a grading plan has been prepared, CORE should conduct additional review of the proposed grading, cut and fill slopes, and drainage to complete the evaluation of on-site and off-site impacts and to provide any additional recommendations necessary to address those impacts. 3.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING The property is located within the southern portion of the Willamette Valley, a broad structural and depositional basin bounded by the Coast Range to the west and the Western Cascades to the east. The regional geology consists primarily of Quaternary alluvial and fluvial deposits derived from the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers, composed of unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt, and clay deposited in channel, overbank, and floodplain environments. These surficial sediments typically overlie Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks associated with the Western Cascades and marine sequences of the Coast Range. The region’s geologic framework reflects the long-term influence of Cascadia Subduction Zone tectonics, which have produced broad uplift, folding, and associated earthquake hazards. Additionally, Pleistocene glacial outwash, episodic flooding, and volcanic input have contributed to the heterogeneous character and variable engineering properties of near-surface soils throughout the Eugene area. Geologic mapping1 indicates that the site is directly underlain by volcanic rocks of the western Cascade Range (Tvw), of Miocene and Oligocene age. This unit consists of lava flows, tuff, breccia, pyroclastic material, and volcaniclastic sediments of variable composition, and composes much of the western Cascade Range in the study area. It includes the Little Butte Volcanics of Peck and others (1964) in Oregon, and is locally intruded by small stocks, dikes, and sills. Consistent with this mapping, our subsurface exploration encountered weathered claystone and siltstone bedrock beneath residual fat clay soils across the site, grading from soft, weathered rock (ODOT hardness R1) at shallow depth to harder, less weathered rock (R2 to R4) with depth. The Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS, 2026 Website]) indicates that near-surface soils at the site are mapped predominantly as Dixonville silty clay loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes (map unit 41C), with Philomath cobbly silty clay, 12 to 45 percent slopes (map unit 108F) mapped along the eastern portion of the property. Both series are poorly drained and are assigned to Hydrologic Soil Group D, indicating a very slow infiltration rate and high runoff potential. The Dixonville series is mapped with depth to bedrock of approximately 66 centimeters and depth to the seasonal high-water table greater than 200 centimeters, while the Philomath series is mapped with a shallower depth to bedrock of approximately 36 centimeters. Based o n our observations during subsurface exploration, the mapped boundary of the 108F unit appears to extend too far east relative to actual conditions, and the highly expansive fat clay soils encountered on-site are more consistent with the eastern portion of the property than the mapped unit boundaries indicate. 1 Generalized Geologic Map of the Willamette Lowland, US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1424-A, Gannett and Caldwell, 1998. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 5 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 4.0 REGIONAL SEISMIC SETTING At least one major fault zone capable of generating damaging earthquakes is thought to exist in the vicinity of the subject site consisting of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. 4.1 Cascadia Subduction Zone The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a major geological feature that extends from northern California through Oregon to British Columbia, where the Juan de Fuca Plate is being subducted beneath the North American Plate. Located approximately 50 to 70 miles off the coast of Oregon, this subduction process has shaped the region's tectonic activity and geologic history, created the Cascade Range, and contributed to significant historic volcanic and seismic activity. The collision between these tectonic plates builds immense pressure that is periodically released in powerful earthquakes releasing centuries of accumulated tectonic stress, including the potential for devastating megathrust earthquakes. Additionally, the subduction process has generated uplift and deformation of coastal areas, as well as driving volcanism in the Cascade Range. The Cascadia Subduction Zone has the potential to produce extremely large earthquakes, with magnitudes reaching up to 9.0 or higher. Geological evidence from sediment cores, tsunami deposits, and coastal uplift suggests that the Cascadia Subduction Zone has experienced repeated cycles of large earthquakes, with the last major event occurring in 1700. Models based on past events indicate that the zone could produce an earthquake with a magnitude ranging between 8.0 and 9.0, causing widespread damage not only in Oregon but throughout the Pacific Northwest. This high-magnitude earthquake could trigger powerful tsunamis, liquefaction, landslides, and severe shaking, significantly impacting both coastal and inland areas. Scientists consider the Cascadia Subduction Zone one of the greatest seismic hazards in North America. 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface explorations for this report were conducted on August 6, 2026. Six exploratory test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) were excavated at the site using a Komatsu PC138 US LC tracked excavator equipped with rock teeth, reaching a maximum depth of approximately 13 feet below ground surface (bgs). A CORE engineering geologist provided full-time observation during the explorations, recording key data such as soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence. Soils were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and the ODOT rock hardness classification system. Samples collected during the explorations were stored in relatively air-tight plastic bags. After each test, the pits were loosely backfilled with onsite soil. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3. It is important to note that the exploration locations were determined in the field by pacing or measuring distances from visible property corners and other site features indicated on the provided plans. Therefore, the exploration locations should be considered approximate. Summary exploration logs are attached. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual subsurface logs represent approximate boundaries between different soil types, but actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions described are specific to the dates and locations of the explorations and may not be Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 6 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 representative of other areas or times. A summary of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered during the explorations is provided below. 5.1 Soil Descriptions Topsoil: At the locations of our subsurface explorations, the ground surface was primarily vegetated with grasses, Rhododendrons, poison oak, and Oak trees. Test pit exploration indicated that the near-surface soils primarily consist of approximately 14 to 24 inches of brown, soft, moist, moderately to highly organic topsoil containing abundant fine and coarse roots. At test pits TP-1 and TP-3, the topsoil classified as Organic Fat CLAY (OH); at test pits TP-4, TP-5, and TP-6, the topsoil classified as Lean CLAY (OL). The depth of the organic topsoil layer should be expected to increase where trees are present, as coarse roots were observed extending to depths of approximately 24 inches below the ground surface at the location of test pit TP-1. No topsoil was observed at test pit TP-2, which was located at the former home site. Undocumented Fill: Undocumented fill was encountered beneath the topsoil at the locations of test pits TP-4, TP-5, and TP-6, and at the ground surface at test pit TP-2, located at the former home site. The approximate extent of the identified undocumented fill is shown on Figures 2 and 3. The fill encountered at test pits TP-4, TP-5, and TP-6 consisted of medium stiff, dry, low-plasticity Lean CLAY containing abundant basaltic cobbles and boulders up to approximately 36 inches in diameter, extending to approximate depths of 3 to 5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The fill at test pit TP-6 also contained 3/4-inch-minus crushed aggregate and remnants of old gas and storm piping. The fill encountered at test pit TP-2 consisted of demolition debris, including subrounded gravel and concrete fragments within a silty soil matrix, extending to a depth of approximately 2.5 feet bgs. The distribution and variable character of the undocumented fill across the site suggests multiple fill events of differing source materials associated with prior site development. The fill material is not considered suitable for support of planned improvements in its existing condition and will require removal or remediation prior to construction. Fat CLAY (CH): Underlying the topsoil at test pits TP-1 and TP-3, soils consisted of red brown, stiff to very stiff, moist, highly plastic, highly expansive Fat CLAY (CH). The soil type was observed to extend to approximate depths of 5 feet bgs. The anticipated extent of the highly expansive Fat CLAY is shown on Figures 2 and 3. Pocket penetrometer measurements indicated unconfined compressive strengths ranging from approximately 2.0 to greater than 4.5 tons/ft². Sieve analysis conducted in accordance with ASTM D6913 and D1140, Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation of Soils Using Sieve Analysis), indicated 87.0 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Atterberg Limit testing conducted in accordance with AASHTO T-89 and T-90 indicated a liquid limit of 81 and a plasticity index of 51. An in- situ moisture content of 28.4 percent was measured on a representative sample collected from test pit TP-1. The soil type classified as A-7-5(51) according to AASHTO standards. Weathered CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE: Underlying the Fat CLAY and undocumented fill, soils transitioned to weathered claystone and siltstone bedrock. At test pit TP-1, the material consisted of red brown, medium dense, moist, high-plasticity CLAYSTONE (CH) with blocky fragments and a waxy texture, displaying ODOT rock hardness increasing from R1 to R3 with depth, in accordance with the ODOT Rock Hardness Classification System (Table 1). At test pits TP-3, TP-4, TP-5, and TP-6, the material consisted of light brown, weathered, medium dense to dense, non-plastic SILTSTONE (ML) with blocky fragments and Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 7 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 orange staining that broke apart with a hammer, displaying ODOT rock hardness increasing from R1 to R4 with depth. At test pit TP-2, the material consisted of light brown, dense, cemented sandstone conglomerate containing dark, angular basalt gravel to cobbles, displaying ODOT rock hardness of R2 to R4; this conglomerate was observed only at test pit TP-2. Digging conditions became progressively harder with depth, with practical refusal of excavation encountered at approximately 7 to 9 feet bgs at test pits TP-2, TP-5, and TP-6. Sieve analysis indicated 53.9 to 90.0 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Atterberg Limit testing indicated the CLAYSTONE at test pit TP-1 classified as A-7-6(29) with a liquid limit of 56 and a plasticity index of 28, while the SILTSTONE at test pit TP-4 was non-plastic and classified as A-4(0). In- situ moisture contents of 24.4 and 17.2 percent were measured on representative samples collected from test pits TP-1 and TP-4, respectively. See the attached test pit logs provided in the appendix of this report and the ODOT Rock Hardness Classification Chart presented in Table 1 for additional detail. Table 1. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Rock Hardness Classification Chart ODOT Rock Hardness Rating Field Criteria Unconfined Compressive Strength Typical Equipment Needed for Excavation Extremely Soft (R0) Indented by thumbnail <100 psi Small excavator Very Soft (R1) Scratched by thumbnail, crumbled by rock hammer 100-1,000 psi Small excavator Soft (R2) Not scratched by thumbnail, indented by rock hammer 1,000-4,000 psi Medium excavator (slow digging with small excavator) Medium Hard (R3) Scratched or fractured by rock hammer 4,000-8,000 psi Medium to large excavator (slow to very slow digging, typically requires chipping with hydraulic hammer or mass excavation) Hard (R4) Scratched or fractured w/ difficulty 8,000-16,000 psi Slow chipping with hydraulic hammer and/or blasting Very Hard (R5) Not scratched or fractured after many blows, hammer rebounds >16,000 psi Blasting 5.2 Expansive Soils and Shrink Swell Potential As noted above, subsurface explorations encountered highly plastic, highly expansive Fat CLAY (CH) soils at test pits TP-1 and TP-3, generally beneath approximately 1.5 feet of surface soils and extending to approximate depths of 4 to 4.5 feet below ground surface. Atterberg Limit testing on a representative sample from test pit TP-1 indicated a liquid limit of 81 and a plasticity index of 51, corresponding to a "high" to "very high" expansion potential. The anticipated extent of the highly expansive Fat CLAY across the site is shown on Figures 2 and 3; however, expansive soils may be present outside of these mapped areas, and the boundaries shown are approximate and based on our test pit observations. These soils exhibit significant volume change with variations in moisture content, shrinking as they dry and swelling as they become wet. This shrink-swell behavior can generate vertical and lateral ground movement, particularly where seasonal moisture fluctuations occur within the active zone beneath a structure. If left unmitigated, this movement can lead to differential heave and settlement, cracking and distress in foundations, slabs-on-grade, pavements, and flatwork, and damage to shallow utilities. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 8 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 Because this report is preliminary and home construction is to be undertaken by others, individual lots will require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the time of building permit application. For lots within the areas of anticipated highly expansive Fat CLAY shown on Figures 2 and 3, we recommend that additional expansion index testing be conducted in accordance with ASTM D4829 to characterize the expansion potential at each building site. Where highly expansive soils are confirmed beneath planned structures, we recommend that the expansive Fat CLAY be over-excavated to a depth of at least 4 feet below the bottom of footings and replaced with 3/4-inch-minus crushed aggregate compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T-180. The over-excavation and structural fill pad should extend laterally at least 4 feet beyond the foundation on all sides. This approach is intended to remove the expansive soils from the zone influenced by foundation loading and from the zone in which seasonal moisture change would otherwise generate vertical and lateral pressures against the foundation elements. The recommendations presented herein are contingent on the expansive Fat CLAY being fully removed from beneath and adjacent to the foundation elements to the limits specified above. CORE should observe the foundation over-excavation at the time of construction on each affected lot to verify that the expansive Fat CLAY has been removed to the specified limits and that the exposed bearing materials are consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report. If expansive soils are encountered at or below the planned over-excavation depth, the over-excavation will need to be deepened, or the foundation recommendations revised, at CORE's direction. If subsurface conditions are found to differ from those described in this report, CORE should be contacted to review the conditions and update or revise our recommendations as necessary. 5.3 Depth to Groundwater Subsurface explorations were conducted on August 6, 2026, during the dry season typical of late summer in western Oregon. Observed soil moisture conditions were moist throughout the near-surface soils at all exploration locations. No groundwater seepage was observed in any of the six test pits, which extended to depths of up to approximately 13 feet below ground surface. The absence of observed groundwater is consistent with the dry-season timing of our explorations and the low-permeability, fine-grained soils and weathered bedrock encountered at the site. Although groundwater was not encountered during our explorations, seasonal perched water conditions should be anticipated during the wet season, particularly at the contact between the overlying low- permeability fine-grained soils and the underlying weathered bedrock. The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey maps a shallow seasonal high-water table for portions of the site vicinity, and perched water may develop where downward infiltration is impeded by the expansive Fat CLAY and weathered claystone and siltstone. Perched water conditions may require management in trench and foundation excavations performed during the wet season. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 9 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD REVIEW We conducted a preliminary review of mapped geologic hazards at the property to evaluate potential risks, including seismic activity, landslide susceptibility, slope stability, erosion, flooding, and groundwater conditions that could affect the safety and feasibility of future development. Our assessment involved analyzing a range of geological data sources, including the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) geohazard database, available geologic maps, geotechnical reports, and site-specific investigation through field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. The conclusions and recommendations offered are intended to help guide development strategies aimed at promoting the safety and stability of the proposed project. A summary of our findings from the geologic hazard review is outlined below. Hazard mapping and other site research are presented in the Site Research Appendix. 6.1 Earthquake Hazard Review The DOGAMI Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards database was reviewed to evaluate seismic hazards at the subject site. The DOGAMI Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake (CSZE) instrumental intensity map indicates the site would experience Very Strong (MMI VII) ground shaking during a full Cascadia Subduction Zone rupture. For the probabilistic 2,475-year return period earthquake (2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years), which incorporates ground shaking contributions from all regional seismic sources, the site is mapped within a Severe (MMI VIII) intensity zone. The DOGAMI probability of damaging earthquake shaking map estimates a 5 to 10 percent probability of damaging shaking at the site. 6.2 Seismic Site Class and Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters The DOGAMI Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer indicates the site is located in an area designated as seismic Site Class C. Our subsurface explorations extended to a maximum depth of approximately 13 feet below ground surface, and we reviewed available well logs from the site vicinity. Based on our subsurface observations, document review, and the shallow weathered claystone and siltstone bedrock encountered during exploration, we recommend Site Class C as defined in ASCE 7-22, Chapter 20, Table 20.2-1, which is characterized by average shear wave velocities (Vs) of greater than 1,450 to 2,100 ft/s in the upper 100 feet. This recommendation is consistent with the DOGAMI seismic site class mapping for the subject site. Site class determination may be confirmed by shear wave velocity testing per ASCE 7-22, Chapter 20, Section 20.3 if required by the project design team. Design seismic parameters for the site were determined using the USGS Seismic Design Maps tool (ASCE 7 -22) and are summarized in Table 2 below based on Site Class C. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 10 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 Table 2: Recommended Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters (ASCE 7-22) Parameter Value Description Location (Lat, Long) Degrees: 44.026381, -123.137337 Site coordinates Risk Category: II Seismic risk category Site Class: C Site classification based on soil conditions Seismic Design Category D Determined based on Risk Category, SDs, and SD1, per ASCE 7-22 Table 11.6-1 and 11.6-2 VS30 ~530 m/s The shear-wave velocity used for the user- specified site class, in units of m/s PGAM 0.47 g The Geometric-Mean Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEG) peak ground acceleration for the user-specified Site Class, in units of g. Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: 0.2 Sec Short Period, Ss 0.87 g The MCER spectral response acceleration at 0.2 seconds for Site Class BC, in units of g. 1.0 Sec Period, S1 0.39 g The MCER spectral response acceleration at 1 second for Site Class BC, in units of g. Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE R) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: SMS 1.0 SMS = 1.5x SDS, the risk targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration for short periods and the user-specified site class. SM1 0.56 SM1 = 1.5x SD1, the MCER spectral response acceleration for 1 second and the user- specified site class. Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: SDs 0.67 g The design spectral response acceleration for short periods and the user-specified site class, in units of g. SD1 0.37 g The design spectral response acceleration for 1 second and the user-specified site class in, units of g. Additional Parameters: TS 0.557 S TS = SD1/ SDs in seconds, for construction of the two-period design spectrum. T0 0.111 S T0 = 0.2 x TS, in seconds, for construction of the two-period design response spectrum. TL 16 S The long-period transition period, in seconds, for construction of the two-period design response spectrum. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 11 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 6.3 Soil Liquefaction The DOGAMI Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer indicates the risk of soil liquefaction at the subject site is very low to none during a design earthquake event. Liquefaction occurs when saturated, cohesionless soils such as loose sands and non-plastic silts lose strength due to earthquake-induced pore pressure buildup, causing the soil to temporarily behave as a viscous fluid. Liquefaction susceptibility is primarily controlled by soil type, relative density, plasticity characteristics, depth to groundwater, and intensity of ground shaking. Subsurface explorations at the site encountered stiff to very stiff, highly plastic Fat CLAY (CH) soils and undocumented fill underlain by weathered claystone and siltstone bedrock, with practical refusal of excavation encountered at depths of approximately 7 to 13 feet below ground surface. Clay soils of high plasticity are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to their cohesive nature and resistance to pore pressure buildup during seismic loading, and competent bedrock is not subject to liquefaction. No groundwater was observed within the explorations. Based on the clayey soil conditions, the presence of shallow weathered bedrock, and the lack of groundwater observed within the explorations, the overall potential for soil liquefaction at the site is considered low. The potential for liquefaction-induced ground surface rupture and lateral spreading is also considered low, given the shallow bedrock and the cohesive, high-plasticity nature of the overlying soils. 6.4 Landslides and Global Slope Stability The DOGAMI Statewide Landslide Information Layer for Oregon (SLIDO) and the Eugene Landslide Hazard Map were reviewed to evaluate landslide hazards at the subject site. SLIDO does not map any active or pre-historic landslide deposits on the subject property. Two pre-historic (greater than 150 years old) mapped landslides are identified in the site vicinity, Eugene No. 658 (complex movement, approximately 22-foot failure depth) and Eugene No. 1073 (earth flow, approximately 25-foot failure depth), both located several hundred feet east of the property and not encroaching onto the site. The Eugene Landslide Hazard Map identifies the site as having a Moderate relative landslide risk. DOGAMI landslide susceptibility mapping indicates the site has Moderate susceptibility to deep-seated landslides and Low to Moderate susceptibility to shallow landslides, with areas of Moderate to High shallow susceptibility mapped along the steeper slopes to the north and east. The majority of the developable portion of the site consists of gently to moderately sloping ground underlain by expansive fine-grained soils and weathered claystone and siltstone bedrock. A steep slope of approximately 45 percent is present within Tract B along the northern and eastern portion of the property, which was not explored as part of this investigation and is proposed to remain undeveloped. No indications of active instability, such as scarps, tension cracks, hummocky ground, or displaced vegetation, were observed within the developable portion of the site during our field reconnaissance. Based on our review of hazard mapping, the absence of mapped landslides on the property, our subsurface findings, and our site observations, it is our qualitative opinion that the potential for deep-seated slope instability affecting the developable portion of the site is low, provided that development avoids or is appropriately set back from the steep slopes within Tract B. Grading, cut and fill slopes, and surface and subsurface drainage should be designed to maintain stability, and the steep slope area within Tract B should be protected from concentrated drainage, undercutting, and placement of uncontrolled fill. Footing-to-slope Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 12 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 setbacks for buildings constructed near the top of descending slopes should be determined on a case-by- case basis at the time of individual lot development. 6.4.1 LiDAR Review We reviewed available LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) imagery of the site and surrounding area utilizing DOGAMI LiDAR data as shown in Figures 4 and 5. LiDAR imagery is highly effective for identifying landslide features and subtle geomorphic indicators due to its ability to capture precise topographic details, even in vegetated areas. By removing vegetation and other surface obstructions, LiDAR creates a bare-earth model that enhances the visibility of geologic features including scarps, hummocky terrain, and displaced material that may be indicative of past or active slope instability. The LiDAR imagery depicts the developable portion of the subject property as gently to moderately sloping terrain. A steep slope of approximately 45 percent is evident within Tract B along the northern and eastern portion of the property, descending toward Hawkins Lane, consistent with the topography observed during our field reconnaissance. The surrounding area is characterized by hillside terrain typical of the South Eugene hills. No distinct landslide head scarps, arcuate failure features, hummocky terrain, or other indicators of past or active slope movement are evident within the developable portion of the subject property. The two pre-historic landslides mapped in the site vicinity (Eugene No. 658 and No. 1073) are visible in the LiDAR imagery several hundred feet east of the property and do not encroach onto the site, as shown in Figure 5. The terrain morphology within the developable portion of the site is relatively smooth and consistent with natural hillslope processes, and the LiDAR imagery is consistent with the landslide susceptibility mapping reviewed for the site. 6.5 Flood Hazard The DOGAMI Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards database indicates that the site is located outside of the FEMA 100-Year flood zone. 6.6 Erosion Hazard During our field exploration, we did not observe soil or topographic conditions that would be highly susceptible to erosion. In our opinion, the primary erosion risk will arise during construction in areas where vegetation has been cleared. Erosion can be minimized by implementing the project's erosion control plan, which should include the use of straw wattles, fiber rolls, and silt fences. These measures should remain in place throughout site preparation and construction. Particular attention should be given to erosion control along the steep slope within Tract B and at the interface between disturbed areas and the descending slope, where concentrated runoff should be prevented from discharging onto the slope face. Additionally, erosion and sedimentation can be further reduced by promptly re-vegetating disturbed areas and staging construction to limit the exposure of large portions of the site at one time. Immediate or temporary protection can be provided by covering exposed areas with mulch or erosion control netting, while permanent stabilization should be achieved by seeding with an approved grass mix or hydroseeding with a seed-mulch-fertilizer blend. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 13 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 6.7 Radon Hazard The DOGAMI radon hazard zoning mapping indicates that the subject site is located within an area of low radon potential. Radon is a naturally occurring, colorless, and odorless radioactive gas produced by the decay of uranium in soil and rock, which can accumulate in enclosed spaces such as basements and crawl spaces. Based on the low mapped radon potential, radon is not considered a significant hazard at the subject site. Notwithstanding the low mapped potential, radon concentrations can vary locally, and testing of completed structures by a qualified radon measurement professional can be performed if desired by the property owner or builder. 7.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our site investigation indicates that the proposed residential subdivision is geotechnically feasible, provided that the recommendations outlined in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Based on our understanding of existing site conditions and the proposed development, the primary geotechnical concerns are the presence of highly expansive Fat CLAY (CH) soils across portions of the site and the presence of undocumented fill soils, both as depicted on Figures 2 and 3, along with the steep slope within Tract B. Because this report is preliminary and home construction is to be undertaken by others, individual lots will require site-specific evaluation at the time of building permit application, as described in the following sections. 7.1 Preliminary Site Preparation Recommendations All proposed construction areas and locations designated for engineered fill should be thoroughly cleared of organic and inorganic debris. Remnants of the former home site, including the existing well house, demolition debris, and any associated buried structures or utilities, should be removed from areas proposed for development. Any inorganic debris and organic matter generated during clearing should either be removed from the site or stockpiled for use in landscaping and non-structural areas. Organic- rich soils and root zones should be stripped from all construction areas and areas designated for engineered fill and structural foundations. All stripping and clearing operations should be observed and documented by the soil engineer or their representative. The depth of topsoil stripping is expected to range between approximately 14 and 24 inches, with the final removal depth determined through field observation following stripping. Stripping depths will likely increase where trees are present, with stumps and root zones potentially extending to at least 3 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Undocumented fill was encountered at test pits TP-2, TP-4, TP-5, and TP-6, extending to depths of approximately 2.5 to 5 feet bgs, as depicted on Figures 2 and 3. The undocumented fill soils are not considered suitable for support of structures, roadways, or engineered fill in their existing condition and should be thoroughly removed from areas proposed for grading, building construction, and roadway construction prior to placement of structural fill or building elements. The fill soils may potentially be suitable for reuse as engineered fill, provided they are processed to remove oversized material and debris, moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture, free of organic material exceeding approximately 5 percent by weight, and compacted in accordance with the project specifications described in Section 7.3, Engineered Fill Recommendations. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 14 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 Highly plastic, highly expansive Fat CLAY (CH) soils were encountered across portions of the site as depicted on Figures 2 and 3. Because this report is preliminary and home construction is to be undertaken by others, lots within the areas of anticipated highly expansive Fat CLAY will require site-specific evaluation and additional expansion index testing at the time of building permit application. Where highly expansive soils are confirmed beneath planned structures, we recommend that the expansive Fat CLAY be over-excavated to a depth of at least 4 feet below the bottom of footings and replaced with 3/4 -inch- minus crushed aggregate compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T-180. The over-excavation and structural fill pad should extend laterally at least 4 feet beyond the foundation on all sides. The completed over-excavation should be observed by the soil engineer prior to placement of aggregate to verify that the expansive Fat CLAY has been removed to the specified limits and that the exposed bearing materials are consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report. Additional detail is provided in Section 7.7, Foundation Recommendations. Areas designated for placement of structures and engineered fill should be scarified and recompacted before structural fill is placed. Keying and benching may be necessary in portions of the project where engineered fill is placed on existing slopes of 15 percent or steeper, as described in this report. Prior to placing engineered fill, the underlying soils should be moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and recompacted in accordance with project specifications for engineered fill. The native soils are moisture-sensitive and may become difficult to work during wet conditions. Excavation and subgrade preparation are best performed during dry weather. If subgrade stabilization proves challenging, options such as over-excavation, placement of granular material, or cement or lime treatment of the subgrade may be considered. Excavation spoils consisting of the native Fat CLAY are considered unsuitable for reuse as structural engineered fill and should be removed or used only in landscaping and non-structural areas. CORE GeoEngineering should be present on site to observe subgrade preparation prior to placement of engineered fill. 7.2 Keyways, Benching, and Subdrains for Fill Slopes Keying and benching may be necessary for this project where engineered fills are proposed on hillsides. Engineered fill placed on existing slopes with an incline of approximately fifteen percent or steeper should be constructed using keyways and benches, as illustrated in the attached Typical Keyway, Benching, and Fill Slope Detail (Figure 6). Keyways should have a minimum depth of three feet on the downhill side, to be field verified by the soil engineer, and a minimum width of ten feet. They should be excavated at the toe of the fill slope and extend perpendicular to the downslope direction. If weakened or soft soils are encountered during construction, additional removal may be required. Benches and keyways should generally be horizontal in the downslope direction but may slope up to ten percent along a topographic contour. If keyways slope more than fifteen percent along a topographic contour, benching or alternative configurations approved by the soils engineer or their designated representative will be necessary. Fill slopes should be overbuilt a minimum of three feet and trimmed back to competent material to achieve the final 2H:1V maximum slope face. The exact dimensions, design, and locations of keyways should be finalized during construction under the soil engineer's guidance. If groundwater seepage is encountered during excavation, subdrain trenches should be installed at the back of each bench and keyway as determined by the soil engineer based on field observations during Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 15 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 grading. Subdrains should consist of a minimum 3-inch-diameter ADS Heavy Duty grade (or equivalent) perforated plastic pipe enveloped in a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of 2-inch to ½-inch open- graded gravel drain rock wrapped in non-woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). A minimum gradient of 0.5 percent should be maintained throughout all subdrain pipes and outlets. CORE should inspect keyways, benching, and subdrain installations prior to placement of fill. Subdrains may be omitted at the discretion of the soils engineer. 7.3 Engineered Fill Recommendations All grading for the proposed construction should be performed as engineered grading in accordance with the applicable building code at the time of construction, with the exceptions and additions noted in this report. Site grading must follow the 2024 International Building Code (IBC) and the 2025 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), Chapter 18 and Appendix J. Before placing structural fill, areas designated for fill should be scarified and recompacted. CORE GeoEngineering or a designated representative should observe and document site preparation, soil stripping, and grading activities. Proper testing frequency and earthwork documentation typically require daily observation and testing during stripping, rough grading, and placement of engineered fill. CORE GeoEngineering or a designated representative should be provided with samples of all soil types submitted for use as structural fill prior to placement. We anticipate that structural fill will primarily consist of imported granular crushed aggregate. The undocumented fill soils may potentially be suitable for reuse as engineered fill, provided they are processed to remove oversized material and debris, moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture, free of organic material exceeding approximately 5 percent by weight, and compacted in accordance with the project specifications described herein. The highly expansive Fat CLAY (CH) soils are not considered suitable for reuse as structural engineered fill and should be removed or used only in landscaping and non-structural areas. Imported fill material must be approved by the soil engineer prior to being imported to the site. Oversize material greater than 6 inches in size should not be used within 3 feet of foundation footings, and material greater than 12 inches in diameter should not be used in engineered fill. Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts no thicker than 12 inches using standard compaction equipment. Engineered fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor test method (ASTM D698). Field density testing should adhere to ASTM D6938 standards. One density test should be performed for every 2 vertical feet of fill placed. Since testing is conducted on an on-call basis, the earthwork contractor should be held contractually responsible for scheduling and ensuring the required testing frequency. Site earthwork may be affected by soil moisture and wet weather conditions. Performing earthwork during wet weather will likely require significant use of additional crushed aggregate, cement or lime treatment, or other special measures, resulting in substantially higher costs compared to earthwork conducted in dry conditions. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 16 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 7.4 Excavation Conditions and Utility Trench Backfill Recommendations We anticipate that onsite soils can generally be excavated using conventional heavy equipment. However, weathered claystone and siltstone bedrock and difficult excavation conditions should be anticipated, with practical refusal of excavation encountered at depths of approximately 7 to 13 feet bgs during our explorations. See the attached test pit logs for detail. The weathered bedrock displayed ODOT rock hardness increasing from Very Soft (R1) to Hard (R4) with depth, in accordance with the ODOT Rock Hardness Classification System (Table 1). We anticipate that small or medium-sized excavators will largely be sufficient but may encounter difficulty or even refusal in portions of the site. Large excavators and hydraulic chipping may be needed in some areas. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Actual slope inclinations at the time of construction should be determined based on safety requirements and actual soil and groundwater conditions. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be sloped in accordance with U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926) or be shored. The existing native soils classify as Type B Soil and temporary excavation side slope inclinations as steep as 1H:1V may be assumed for planning purposes. These cut slope inclinations are applicable to excavations above the water table only. Shallow, perched groundwater may be encountered at the site during the wet season and should be anticipated in excavations and utility trenches. Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause some caving and raveling of excavation walls. In such an event, lateral support for the excavation walls should be provided by the contractor to prevent loss of ground support and possible distress to existing or previously constructed structural improvements. Underground utility pipes should be installed in accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D2321 and City of Eugene standards. We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) or equivalent. Initial backfill lift thicknesses for a 3/4-inch-minus crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening underlying flexible pipe. Subsequent lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot. If imported granular fill material is used, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-compaction equipment (e.g., hoe compactor attachments) may be up to 2 feet, provided that proper compaction is being achieved and each lift is tested. Use of large vibrating compaction equipment should be carefully monitored near existing structures and improvements due to the potential for vibration-induced damage. Adequate density testing should be performed during construction to verify that the recommended relative compaction is achieved. Typically, at least one density test is taken for every 4 vertical feet of backfill on each 100-lineal-foot section of trench. 7.5 Wet Weather Earthwork Recommendations Onsite soils are likely to be moisture-sensitive, making them challenging to handle or navigate with construction equipment during wet or freezing weather. Conducting earthwork during dry weather is generally more cost-effective. If earthwork is performed during wet conditions, costly measures, such as the use of imported granular material will be needed to achieve the recommended compaction standards Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 17 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 for fill areas. If earthwork or fill placement must occur during wet weather or when controlling soil moisture is difficult, the following recommendations should be included in the contract specifications. 1. Earthwork should be conducted in small sections to reduce exposure to wet conditions. Excavation and the removal of unsuitable soils should be immediately followed by the placement and compaction of clean engineered fill. Equipment size and type may need to be adjusted to avoid disturbing the soil, and in some cases, a backhoe may be required to minimize subgrade disruption from equipment movement. 2. The construction site should be graded to allow surface water runoff and prevent pooling. 3. Engineered fill material should be clean, granular soil with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and fines should be non-plastic. Alternatively, cement treatment of on-site soils may be used to facilitate work during wet weather. 4. The ground surface should be sealed with a smooth drum vibratory roller or similar equipment, and under no circumstances should it be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Soils that become too wet for compaction should be removed and replaced with clean granular material. 5. A CORE representative should oversee excavation and fill placement to ensure unsuitable materials are removed and proper compaction and drainage are achieved. 6. Erosion control measures, such as geotextile silt fences, straw wattles, and fiber rolls, should be strategically placed to manage runoff and erosion. 7.6 Lateral Earth Pressures Lateral earth pressures on below-grade foundation retaining walls are influenced by several factors, including the slope inclination of adjacent terrain, type of backfill material, level of wall restraint, method and degree of backfill compaction, drainage conditions, and the magnitude and location of any nearby surcharge loads. Active pressure occurs when the wall is allowed to move or rotate slightly away from the soil, reducing the lateral force exerted by the soil. This condition typically results in lower pressures and is used in the design of walls that can tolerate some movement. At-rest pressure applies to walls that are fully restrained and cannot move, such as basement walls, leading to higher lateral forces due to the lack of flexibility. Passive pressure, on the other hand, is the resistance exerted by the soil in front of the wall when it is pushed into the ground. The design recommendations presented in Table 3 are valid for static loading cases only and are based upon in situ soil conditions or compacted granular fill. The recommended earth pressures do not include surcharge loads, hydrostatic pressures, or seismic loads, and assume level backfill and a relatively level base below the wall. These values assume that the recommended drainage provisions are incorporated, and hydrostatic pressures are not allowed to develop against the wall. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 18 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 Table 3: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures: Level Backfill Backfill Material Equivalent Fluid Pressure for Level Backfill Wet Density Drained Internal Angle of Friction At-rest Active Passive Onsite Soils 55 pcf 35 pcf 320 pcf 120 pcf 28° Imported Granular Crushed Aggregate 52 pcf 32 pcf 568 pcf 135 pcf 38° A minimum continuous 12 to 18-inch-thick zone of free-draining, open-graded drain rock and a 3-inch perforated gravity drainpipe is assumed behind retaining walls. Geotextile filter fabric should be placed between the drain rock and backfill soil. The recommended equivalent fluid densities are based on the assumption of free-draining conditions behind the walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Perforated plastic drainpipes should be installed at the base of the wall and connected to an appropriate discharge point to drain water from the gravel zone. The drainpipe should be wrapped in filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or an equivalent, to reduce the risk of clogging. A coefficient of friction of 0.42 may be assumed at the interface between the wall footing base and the underlying subgrade soils. The recommended coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values are provided without a safety factor, so a suitable safety factor should be incorporated into the design. Furthermore, the top 12 inches of soil should be disregarded in passive pressure calculations unless it is protected by pavement or concrete slabs. If the walls are subjected to surcharge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall, they should be designed to account for the additional horizontal pressure. For uniform surcharge loads, a lateral pressure equal to 0.3 times the surcharge pressure should be added to the design. For traffic surcharges, an additional vertical load of 250 psf may be applied, in accordance with local standards and practices. We recommend using the Mononobe-Okabe method for evaluating seismic loading on retaining walls. This method provides a well-established analytical approach for calculating the additional lateral earth pressures induced by seismic forces. It takes into account key factors such as wall height, backfill material, and the seismic acceleration specific to the site. The Mononobe-Okabe method is particularly useful for designing retaining walls to withstand earthquake-induced loads by estimating the active or at-rest pressures under static conditions, and then adding an incremental seismic load. This approach offers a reliable and practical solution for ensuring that retaining walls maintain stability during seismic events. During a seismic event, the lateral earth pressures on below-grade structural walls will increase by an additional amount due to earthquake forces. Using the Mononobe-Okabe method and peak horizontal accelerations appropriate for the site, seismic loading should be modeled by applying the active or at-rest earth pressures previously recommended, along with an additional rectangular-shaped seismic load of 6.5H, where H represents the total height of the wall. Structures should be located a horizontal distance of at least 1.5H away from the back of the retaining wall, where H is the total height of the wall. CORE should be contacted for additional foundation recommendations where structures are located closer than 1.5H to the top of any wall. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 19 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 7.7 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations CORE understands that the proposed development consists of a 10-lot residential subdivision, and that the lots are to be left close to natural grade and sold to builders who will grade the individual lots to their specifications at a later date. The planned homes are anticipated to be one- and two-story wood-framed structures supported on conventional spread footings. Because this report is preliminary and home construction is to be undertaken by others, the recommendations below are provided for planning purposes, and each lot will require site-specific evaluation and a final geotechnical report or lot verification at the time of building permit application. The proposed structures may be supported on shallow spread foundations bearing on competent native soil, weathered bedrock, or engineered fill, provided they are properly designed and constructed according to the recommendations in this report. Foundation design, construction, and setback requirements must adhere to the applicable building codes in effect at the time of construction. To optimize bearing capacity and prevent frost heave, spread footings should be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. If soft or disturbed soil is encountered at the footing subgrade elevation, it should be excavated and replaced with compacted onsite engineered fill or crushed aggregate. The anticipated allowable soil bearing pressure is 1,500 lbs/ft² for footings constructed on competent native soil or engineered fill. This allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short- term, transient conditions such as wind or seismic loading. The coefficient of friction between the on-site soil and poured-in-place concrete is 0.42, without applying any factor of safety. Excavations near structural footings should not encroach within a 1H:1V plane projected downward from the bottom edge of the footings. As described in Section 7.1, lots within the areas of anticipated highly expansive Fat CLAY (CH) shown on Figures 2 and 3 will require additional expansion index testing and, where highly expansive soils are confirmed beneath planned structures, over-excavation of at least 4 feet below the bottom of footings and replacement with 3/4-inch-minus crushed aggregate compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T-180, extending laterally at least 4 feet beyond the foundation on all sides. Footings bearing on the 4-foot-thick crushed aggregate pad constructed where the expansive Fat CLAY has been over-excavated and replaced may use an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 lbs/ft². This allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short-term, transient conditions such as wind or seismic loading. Maximum anticipated total and differential footing movements are expected to be 1 inch and 3/4 inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively, provided the expansive soil mitigation described herein is implemented. Most of the estimated settlement is anticipated to occur during construction as loads are applied. Where homes are constructed near the top of descending slopes, appropriate footing-to-slope setbacks should be developed on a case-by-case basis at the time of individual lot development to maintain foundation support and slope stability. Lots 6, 7, and 10, which are located adjacent to the steep slope within Tract B along the eastern portion of the site, are anticipated to require particular attention to slope setbacks, and building placement on these lots should be evaluated by CORE at the time of building permit Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 20 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 application. Setbacks should be measured in accordance with the applicable building code and confirmed by the soil engineer based on the proposed building location, foundation type, and actual slope conditions exposed during construction. Footing excavations should extend through topsoil, undocumented fill, and any disturbed soil to reach a competent subgrade capable of providing adequate bearing support. All excavations should be neatly trimmed, and any loose or softened soil must be removed from the bottom of the excavation before placing reinforcing steel. Given the moisture sensitivity of the native soils, foundations constructed during wet weather may require over-excavation of the footings, followed by backfilling with compacted crushed aggregate to ensure stability. Following development of the individual lots, a Final Soil Report should be prepared by CORE for each lot to confirm or revise these recommendations as necessary. Additional geotechnical studies and laboratory testing will likely be necessary at the time of individual lot development, particularly on lots within the areas of anticipated highly expansive Fat CLAY. 7.8 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Subgrade preparation for concrete slab-on-grade floors should follow the procedures outlined in Section 7.1, Site Preparation Recommendations, and Section 7.7, Foundation Recommendations. During excavation for foundations and slabs, care should be taken to avoid disturbing the subgrade soils. If the subgrade is compromised whether due to wet weather or construction activity the affected upper soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture-conditioned to within approximately 3 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted in accordance with engineered fill specifications. As an alternative, disturbed soils may be removed entirely and replaced with compacted crushed aggregate to restore subgrade support. For evaluation of the concrete slab-on-grade floors using the beam on elastic foundation method, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 kcf (87 pci) should be assumed for the compacted crushed aggregate anticipated to be present at foundation subgrade elevation following adequate site preparation as described above. This value assumes the concrete slab system is designed and constructed as recommended herein, with a minimum thickness of 8 inches of 1½”-0 crushed aggregate beneath the slab. The total thickness of crushed aggregate will be dependent on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction and should be verified visually by proof-rolling. Under-slab aggregate should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) or equivalent. In areas of the proposed structure where moisture could damage floor coverings or sensitive equipment, suitable vapor barriers and damp-proofing measures should be incorporated into the design. A typical system includes a 10-mil polyethylene vapor barrier placed directly over the capillary break layer. Alternative vapor or moisture control systems may also be appropriate, depending on project -specific requirements. Consultation with qualified design professionals is recommended for selecting and detailing vapor barriers, damp-proofing systems, ventilation strategies, moisture-resistant building Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 21 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 materials, and mold prevention measures, as these considerations fall outside the scope of CORE’s geotechnical services. 7.9 Potential Retaining Walls Based on the sloping site topography and the proposed subdivision grading, we understand that retaining walls may be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements, including road and utility construction, as well as during future lot development performed by others. At this preliminary stage, no retaining wall locations, heights, or configurations have been established. Retaining walls up to 4 feet in height retaining level backfill with no surcharge loading may generally be constructed as standard, non-engineered walls in accordance with the applicable building code and manufacturer recommendations. Retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height (measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall), or any wall of any height that supports sloping backfill, surcharge loads, or foundation loads, should be designed by a qualified engineer once a specific wall layout and grading plan are proposed. Site-specific design parameters, including lateral earth pressures, bearing capacity, sliding resistance, and global stability considerations, will be provided by CORE at that time based on the proposed wall geometry, retained and foundation materials, and any applicable surcharge conditions. All retaining walls should be provided with adequate subsurface drainage to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall, including a perforated drain pipe at the base of the wall discharged to an appropriate outlet. The backfill zone behind retaining walls should consist of crushed aggregate, typically 3/4-inch-minus. The highly expansive Fat CLAY (CH) and other fine-grained onsite soils are not considered suitable for use within the retaining wall backfill zone and should not be placed within the zone of influence behind retaining walls. CORE should review the proposed retaining wall plans and provide design recommendations, and should observe wall construction, whether the walls are constructed as part of the subdivision improvements or during future lot development. 7.10 Foundation Drains Construction should incorporate standard measures for managing subsurface water beneath the structures, including ensuring proper crawlspace drainage with a low-point drain exiting the foundation, covering exposed crawlspace ground with visqueen, and providing adequate crawlspace ventilation through foundation vents. The homeowners should be informed that some slow-moving water in crawlspaces is normal and, with these design features in place, is not typically harmful to the structure. Additionally, downspouts and roof drains should be kept separate from footing drains to minimize the risk of clogging. Roof drainage should be directed to an appropriate discharge point and stormwater system, well away from the building foundations. In accordance with Section 1805.4.2 of the 2025 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) and Section 1805.4.2 of the 2024 International Building Code (IBC), perimeter drains should be installed around foundations constructed with gravel or crushed stone that contains no more than 10 percent material passing through a No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve. These provisions apply specifically to foundations that retain earth and enclose habitable or usable spaces below grade. The drains must discharge into an approved drainage system either by gravity or mechanical means. An exception allows for the omission of a drainage Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 22 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 system if the foundation is placed on well-drained ground or soils composed of a sand and gravel mixture. The soil conditions at the subject site do not appear to meet the criteria for this exception. Perimeter footing drains should be installed for the proposed homes and constructed following the attached Typical Perimeter Footing Detail (Figure 7). These drains consist of 3-inch perforated plastic pipe, embedded in at least 1 cubic foot of clean drain rock per linear foot. The drainpipe and rock should be wrapped in non-woven geotextile fabric (e.g., Mirafi 140N or equivalent) to reduce clogging and prevent soil loss. A minimum slope of 0.5 percent should be maintained throughout the system, including the non- perforated outlet pipe. Footing drains can discharge at the curb or, if slope is insufficient, on the backside of the lots. 8.0 ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION As described above and as indicated on the attached site plans, CORE understands that the proposed development will include construction of new streets to serve the Hawkins Lane subdivision. We understand that the structural pavement section design will be performed by the project civil engineer. Accordingly, the recommendations provided in this section are limited to subgrade preparation and wet- weather construction considerations relevant to the site soils. CORE should be provided with the proposed pavement sections and traffic loading assumptions for review, and should observe subgrade preparation prior to placement of aggregate base, to confirm that the exposed subgrade is consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report. 8.1 Subgrade Preparation Roadway subgrade soils should be compacted and inspected by CORE prior to the placement of crushed aggregate base for pavement. Typically, a proofroll with a fully loaded water or haul truck is conducted by travelling slowly across the grade and observing the subgrade for rutting, deflection, or movement. Any pockets of organic debris or loose fill encountered during ripping or tilling should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. In order to verify subgrade strength, we recommend proof-rolling directly on subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of base course in wet weather. Soft areas that pump, rut, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. As noted above, portions of the site contain variable undocumented fill soils. Subgrade over-excavation may be required to remove these materials. Depending on the final subgrade elevations, additional granular structural fill or cement-treated soil may be needed to achieve the design subgrade elevation and a stable base for the new roadways. If pavement areas are to be constructed during wet weather, the subgrade and construction plan should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of construction so that condition-specific recommendations can be provided. The moisture-sensitive subgrade soils make the site a difficult wet weather construction project. General recommendations for wet weather pavement sections are provided below. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 23 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 During placement of pavement section materials, density testing should be performed to verify compliance with project specifications. Generally, one subgrade, one base course, and one asphalt compaction test is performed for every 100 to 200 linear feet of paving. 8.2 Wet Weather Construction Pavement Section This section presents our recommendations for wet weather pavement sections and construction for new pavement sections at the project. These wet weather pavement section recommendations are intended for use in situations where it is not feasible to compact the subgrade soils to project requirements, due to wet subgrade soil conditions, and/or construction during wet weather. Based on our site review, we recommend a wet weather section with a minimum subgrade deepening of 6 to 12 inches to accommodate a working subbase of additional 1½”-0 crushed rock. Geotextile fabric, Mirafi 500x or equivalent, should be placed on subgrade soils prior to placement of base rock. In some instances, it may be preferable to use a subbase material in combination with over-excavation and increasing the thickness of the rock section. CORE should be consulted for additional recommendations regarding use of additional subbase in wet weather pavement sections if it is desired to pursue this alternative. Cement treatment of the subgrade may also be considered instead of over- excavation. For planning purposes, we anticipate that treatment of the onsite soils would involve mixing cement powder to approximately 6 percent cement content and a mixing depth on the order of 12 to 18 inches. With implementation of the above recommendations, it is our opinion that the resulting pavement section will provide equivalent or greater structural strength than the dry weather pavement section currently planned. However, it should be noted that construction in wet weather is risky and the performance of pavement subgrades depend on a number of factors including the weather conditions, the contractor’s methods, and the amount of traffic the road is subjected to. There is a potential that soft spots may develop even with the implementation of the wet weather provisions recommended in this report. If soft spots in the subgrade are identified during roadway excavation, or develop prior to paving, the soft spots should be over-excavated and backfilled with additional crushed rock. During subgrade excavation, care should be taken to avoid disturbing the subgrade soils. Removals should be performed using an excavator with a smooth-bladed bucket. Truck traffic should be limited until an adequate working surface has been established. We suggest that the crushed rock be spread using bulldozer equipment rather than dump trucks, to reduce the amount of traffic and potential disturbance of subgrade soils. Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the base course materials, which could create pumping, unstable subgrade soil conditions. Heavy and/or vibratory compaction efforts should be applied with caution. Following placement and compaction of the crushed rock to project specifications (95 percent of Modified Proctor), a finish proof-roll should be performed before paving. The above recommendations are subject to field verification. CORE should be on-site during construction to verify subgrade strength and to take density tests on the engineered fill, base rock and asphaltic pavement materials. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 24 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 9.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared specifically for the owner and their consultants for use in the design of this project. While it may be shared in full with prospective contractors for bidding and estimation purposes, the conclusions and interpretations within should not be taken as a guarantee of subsurface conditions. It is important to note that soil and groundwater conditions can vary significantly even over short distances. Variations may exist between exploration points that may not be detected in a geotechnical study. Should site conditions encountered during construction differ significantly from those described in this report, CORE should be contacted to review and, if necessary, revise the recommendations. Adequate geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation should be conducted during construction to ensure that the site conditions align with those indicated by the exploration. If conditions encountered during construction differ from expectations, we will provide revised design recommendations and ensure that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the constraints of the project’s scope, schedule, and budget, CORE has performed these services in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. This work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations of wetlands, hazardous substances, or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at the site. We appreciate the opportunity to assist with this project. Sincerely, CORE GeoEngineering, LLC. EXP 12/31/2026 Benjamin L. Cook, R.G., C.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment and Geotechnical Engineering Report Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon 25 | P a g e CORE GeoEngineering, Project No. 26-1156 Version 2.0, August 20, 2026 10.0 REFERENCES Gannett, Marshall W., and Caldwell, Rodney R., Generalized Geologic Map of the Willamette Lowland, U.S. Department of the interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1998. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., 1995, Seismic design mapping, State of Oregon: Final report to Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon, under Contract 11688, January 1995, unpaginated, 5 pls., scale 1:1,250,000. Geology of the Southern and Southwestern Border Areas of the Willamette Valley, H.E. Vokes, Parke D. Snavely Jr., and Donald A. Myers, United States Department of the Interior Geologic Survey, Oregon State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM 110, 1951. Goldfinger, C., Kulm, L.D., Yeats, R.S., Appelgate, B, MacKay, M.E., and Cochrane, G.R., 1996, Active strike-slip faulting and folding of the Cascadia Subduction-Zone plate boundary and forearc in central and northern Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 223-256. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Statewide Geohazards Viewer, Oregon.gov/dogami/hazvu. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Statewide LiDAR Viewer, gis.dogami.oregon.gov/maps/lidarviewer. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Statewide Landslide Information Database, Oregon.gov/dogami/slido. Seismic Design Maps, seismicmaps.org. United States Geological Survey, USGS Earthquake Hazards Program Website (earthquake.usgs.gov). Web Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P., Werner, K.S., Goldfinger, C., and Popowski, T., 1996, Tectonics of the Willamette Valley, Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 183- 222, 5 plates, scale 1:100,000. CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 FIGURES CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 EXPLORATION LOGS CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 SOILS LABORATORY RESULTS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.) GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction larger than No. 4 sieve size SANDS 50% or more of coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 sieve size Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) GW GP Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines) GM GC Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines) SW SP Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Sands with fines More than 12% fines SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.) SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit less than 50% SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit 50% or greater HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Peat and other highly organic soils GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA cu D 50 D 30 = --greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3 D 10 010 x D50 Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW Atterberg limits below "A" Above "A" line with P.I. between line or P.I. less than 4 4 and 7 are borderline cases Atterberg limits above "A" requiring use of dual symbols line with P. I. greater than 7 cu D 50 D 30 = --greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3 D 10 01o xD60 Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW Atterberg limits below "A" Limits plotting in shaded zone line or P.I. less than 4 with P.I. between 4 and 7 are Atterberg limits above "A" borderline cases requiring use line with P. I. greater than 7 of dual symbols. Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5 percent .................................... GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12 percent .................................. GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent ................... Borderline cases requiring dual symbols PLASTICITY CHART 60 ,,/ � � 50 � CH / / >< 40 V" ALINE: Vp1 = on(LL-20) � 30 >-CL ,,/ MHloH 20 / j:: / 10 ...J CL+ML ./ ML&OL II.. 0 0 I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%) SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES Particle-Size Classification ASTM/USCS AASHTO COMPONENT size range sieve size range size range sieve size range Cobbles > 75 mm greater than 3 inches > 75 mm greater than 3 inches Gravel 75 mm – 4.75 mm 3 inches to No. 4 sieve 75 mm – 2.00 mm 3 inches to No. 10 sieve Coarse 75 mm – 19.0 mm 3 inches to 3/4-inch sieve - - Fine 19.0 mm – 4.75 mm 3/4-inch to No. 4 sieve - - Sand 4.75 mm – 0.075 mm No. 4 to No. 200 sieve 2.00 mm – 0.075 mm No. 10 to No. 200 sieve Coarse 4.75 mm – 2.00 mm No. 4 to No. 10 sieve 2.00 mm – 0.425 mm No. 10 to No. 40 sieve Medium 2.00 mm – 0.425 mm No. 10 to No. 40 sieve - - Fine 0.425 mm – 0.075 mm No. 40 to No. 200 sieve 0.425 mm – 0.075 mm No. 40 to No. 200 sieve Fines (Silt and Clay) < 0.075 mm Passing No. 200 sieve < 0.075 mm Passing No. 200 sieve Consistency for Cohesive Soil CONSISTENCY SPT N-VALUE (BLOWS PER FOOT) POCKET PENETROMETER (UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf) Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard Very Hard 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 30 to 60 greater than 60 less than 0.25 0.25 to 0.50 0.50 to 1.0 1.0 to 2.0 2.0 to 4.0 greater than 4.0 - Relative Density for Granular Soil RELATIVE DENSITY SPT N-VALUE (BLOWS PER FOOT) Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 more than 50 Moisture Designations TERM FIELD IDENTIFICATION Dry No moisture. Dusty or dry. Damp Some moisture. Cohesive soils are usually below plastic limit and are moldable. Moist Grains appear darkened, but no visible water is present. Cohesive soils will clump. Sand will bulk. Soils are often at or near plastic limit. Wet Visible water on larger grains. Sand and silt exhibit dilatancy. Cohesive soil can be readily remolded. Soil leaves wetness on the hand when squeezed. Soil is much wetter than optimum moisture content and is above plastic limit. AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TABLE 1. Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials General Classification (35 Percent or Less Passing .075 mm) (More than 35 Percent Passing 0.075) Group Classification A-1 A-3 A-2 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 Sieve analysis, percent passing: 2.00 mm (No. 10) - - - 0.425 mm (No. 40) 50 max 51 min - - - - - 0.075 mm (No. 200) 25 max 10 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min Characteristics of fraction passing 0.425 mm (No. 40) Liquid limit 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min Plasticity index 6 max N.P. 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min General rating as subgrade Excellent to good Fair to poor Note: The placing of A-3 before A-2 is necessary in the "left to right elimination process" and does not indicate superiority of A-3 over A-2. TABLE 2. Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials General Classification (35 Percent or Less Passing 0.075 mm) (More than 35 Percent Passing 0.075 mm) A-1 A-2 A-7 A-7-5, Group Classification A-1-a A-1-b A-3 A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7-6 Sieve analysis, percent passing: 2.00 mm (No. 10) 50 max - - - - - - - - - - 0.425 mm (No. 40) 30 max 50 max 51 min - - - - - - - - 0.075 mm (No. 200) 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min Characteristics of fraction passing 0.425 mm (No. 40) Liquid limit 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min Plasticity index 6 max N.P. 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min 10 max 10 max 11 min 11min Usual types of significant constituent materials Stone fragments, Fine gravel and sand sand Silty or clayey gravel and sand Silty soils Clayey soils General ratings as subgrade Excellent to Good Fair to poor Note: Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity index of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30 (see Figure 2). AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME <5% fines Cu≥4 and 1≤Cc≤3 GW <15% sand Well-graded gravel ≥15% sand Well-graded gravel with sand Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3 GP <15% sand Poorly graded gravel ≥15% sand Poorly graded gravel with sand fines = ML or MH GW-GM <15% sand Well-graded gravel with silt Cu≥4 and 1≤Cc≤3 ≥15% sand Well-graded gravel with silt and sand fines = CL, CH,GW-GC <15% sand Well-graded gravel with clay (or silty clay) GRAVEL (or CL-ML)≥15% sand Well-graded gravel with clay and sand % gravel >5-12% fines (or silty clay and sand) % sand fines = ML or MH GP-GM <15% sand Poorly graded gravel with silt Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3 ≥15% sand Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand fines = CL, CH,GP-GC <15% sand Poorly graded gravel with clay (or silty clay) (or CL-ML)≥15% sand Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand (or silty clay and sand) fines = ML or MH GM <15% sand Silty gravel ≥15% sand Silty gravel with sand >12% fines fines = CL or CH GC <15% sand Clayey gravel ≥15% sand Clayey gravel with sand fines = CL-ML GC-GM <15% sand Silty, clayey gravel ≥15% sand Silty, clayey gravel with sand <5% fines Cu≥6 and 1≤Cc≤3 SW <15% gravel Well-graded sand ≥15% gravel Well-graded sand with gravel Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3 SP <15% gravel Poorly graded sand ≥15% gravel Poorly graded sand with gravel fines = ML or MH SW-SM <15% gravel Well-graded sand with silt Cu≥6 and 1≤Cc≤3 ≥15% gravel Well-graded sand with silt and gravel fines = CL, CH,SW-SC <15% gravel Well-graded sand with clay (or silty clay) SAND (or CL-ML)≥15% gravel Well-graded sand with clay and gravel % sand ≥5-12% fines (or silty clay and gravel) % gravel fines = ML or MH SP-SM <15% gravel Poorly graded sand with silt Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3 ≥15% gravel Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel fines = CL, CH,SP-SC <15% gravel Poorly graded sand with clay (or silty clay) (or CL-ML)≥15% gravel Poorly graded sand with clay and gravel (or silty clay and gravel) fines = ML or MH SM <15% gravel Silty sand ≥15% gravel Silty sand with gravel >12% fines fines = CL or CH SC <15% gravel Clayey sand ≥15% gravel Clayey sand with gravel fines = CL-ML SC-SM <15% gravel Silty, clayey sand ≥15% gravel Silty, clayey sand with gravel GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME < 30% plus No. 200 < 15% plus No. 200 Lean clay 15-29% plus No. 200 % sand ≥ % gravel Lean clay with sand Pl > 7 and plots CL % sand < % gravel Lean clay with gravel on or above % sand ≥ % gravel < 15% gravel Sandy lean clay "A"-line ≥ 30% plus No. 200 ≥ 15% gravel Sandy lean clay with gravel % sand < % gravel < 15% sand Gravelly lean clay ≥ 15% sand Gravelly lean clay with sand < 30% plus No. 200 < 15% plus No. 200 Silty clay 15-29% plus No. 200 % sand ≥ % gravel Silty clay with sand 4 ≤ Pl ≤ 7 and CL-ML % sand < % gravel Silty clay with gravel Inorganic plots on or above % sand ≥ % gravel < 15% gravel Sandy silty clay "A"-line ≥ 30% plus No. 200 ≥ 15% gravel Sandy silty clay with gravel % sand < % gravel < 15% sand Gravelly silty clay ≥ 15% sand Gravelly silty clay with sand < 30% plus No. 200 < 15% plus No. 200 Silt LL < 50 15-29% plus No. 200 % sand ≥ % gravel Silt with sand Pl < 4 or plots ML % sand < % gravel Silt with gravel below "A"-line % sand ≥ % gravel < 15% gravel Sandy silt ≥ 30% plus No. 200 ≥ 15% gravel Sandy silt with gravel % sand < % gravel < 15% sand Gravelly silt LL -ovendried ≥ 15% sand Gravelly silt with sand Organic -------------------- < 0.75 OL LL -not dried < 30% plus No. 200 < 15% plus No. 200 Fat clay 15-29% plus No. 200 % sand ≥ % gravel Fat clay with sand Pl plots on or CH % sand < % gravel Fat clay with gravel above "A"-line % sand ≥ % gravel < 15% gravel Sandy fat clay ≥ 30% plus No. 200 ≥ 15% gravel Sandy fat clay with gravel % sand < % gravel < 15% sand Gravelly fat clay Inorganic ≥ 15% sand Gravelly fat clay with sand < 30% plus No. 200 < 15% plus No. 200 Elastic silt 15-29% plus No. 200 % sand ≥ % gravel Elastic silt with sand LL ≥ 50 Pl plots below MH % sand < % gravel Elastic silt with gravel "A"-line % sand ≥ % gravel < 15% gravel Sandy elastic silt ≥ 30% plus No. 200 ≥ 15% gravel Sandy elastic silt with gravel LL -ovendried % sand < % gravel < 15% sand Gravelly elastic silt Organic -------------------- < 0.75 OH ≥ 15% sand Gravelly elastic silt with sand LL -not dried Flow Chart for Classifying Coarse-Grained Soils (More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve) Flow Chart for Classifying Fine-Grained Soil (50% or More Passes No. 200 Sieve) Tested By: G. Leatham Checked By: B. Cook Particle Size Distribution Report ASTM D6913 & D1140 PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"% Gravel Coarse % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 5.1 3.0 4.9 87.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM D6913 & D1140)Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Test Remarks Sample Date: Location: Test Pit TP-1 Sample Number: S26-056 Depth: 4 feet Client: Project: Project No:Figure Sieve Size or Diam. (mm.) Finer (%) Spec.* (%) Out of Spec. (%) Pct. of Fines Fat CLAY (CH) 3 2 1.5 1 .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 97.2 94.9 93.2 91.9 90.7 88.9 88.4 87.0 30 81 51 0.2057 CH A-7-5(51) In situ moisture: 28.4% 8/6/2026 Pineridge Construction, LLC Hawkins Lane Subdivision 26-1156 PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= *(no specification provided) CORE GeoEngineering Portland, Oregon Tested By: G. Leatham Checked By: B. Cook LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 CL-ML CL or O L CH or O H ML or OL MH or OH Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 47 WATER CONTENT74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 NUMBER OF BLOWS 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS Project No.Client:Remarks: Project: Location: Test Pit TP-1 Sample Number: S26-056 Depth: 4 feet CORE GeoEngineering Portland, Oregon Figure Fat CLAY (CH)81 30 51 91.9 87.0 CH 26-1156 Pineridge Construction, LLC In situ moisture: 28.4%Hawkins Lane Subdivision Tested By: G. Leatham Checked By: B. Cook Particle Size Distribution Report ASTM D6913 & D1140 PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"% Gravel Coarse % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 2.6 5.0 2.4 90.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM D6913 & D1140)Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Test Remarks Sample Date: Location: Test Pit TP-1 Sample Number: S26-057 Depth: 8 feet Client: Project: Project No:Figure Sieve Size or Diam. (mm.) Finer (%) Spec.* (%) Out of Spec. (%) Pct. of Fines Claystone (CH) 3 2 1.5 1 .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 97.4 93.9 92.4 91.6 90.9 90.5 90.0 28 56 28 0.0766 CH A-7-6(29) In situ moisture content: 24.4% 8/6/2026 Pineridge Construction, LLC Hawkins Lane Subdivision 26-1156 PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= *(no specification provided) CORE GeoEngineering Portland, Oregon Tested By: G. Leatham Checked By: B. Cook LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT PLASTICITY INDEX0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 CL-ML CL or O L CH or O H ML or OL MH or OH Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 47 WATER CONTENT52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NUMBER OF BLOWS 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS Project No.Client:Remarks: Project: Location: Test Pit TP-1 Sample Number: S26-057 Depth: 8 feet CORE GeoEngineering Portland, Oregon Figure Claystone (CH)56 28 28 92.4 90.0 CH 26-1156 Pineridge Construction, LLC In situ moisture content: 24.4%Hawkins Lane Subdivision Tested By: G. Leatham Checked By: B. Cook Particle Size Distribution Report ASTM D6913 & D1140 PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"% Gravel Coarse % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 1.3 12.2 32.6 53.96 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM D6913 & D1140)Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Test Remarks Sample Date: Location: Test Pit TP-4 Sample Number: S26-058 Depth: 6 feet Client: Project: Project No:Figure Sieve Size or Diam. (mm.) Finer (%) Spec.* (%) Out of Spec. (%) Pct. of Fines Siltstone (ML) 3 2 1.5 1 .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 93.8 86.5 78.1 66.1 60.0 53.9 NP NV NP 0.5673 0.3797 0.1062 ML A-4(0) In situ moisture content: 17.2% 8/6/2026 Pineridge Construction, LLC Hawkins Lane Subdivision 26-1156 PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= *(no specification provided) CORE GeoEngineering Portland, Oregon CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 SITE PLANS Microsoft, Vantor, State of Oregon, State of Oregon GEO, Esri, HERE, Garmin, iPC, Lane County GIS, Lane County, LCOG Lane County, Oregon 0 50 10025 Feet ±The information on this map was derived from digital databases on the Lane County regional geographic information system. Care was taken in the creation of this map, but is provided “as is”. Lane County cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records. Current plan designation, zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmed with the appropriate agency. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon WL WL WLWLWLWL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WWSTSTWW WW WW WLST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTST STSTST STST STSTST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST TTTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTWLWL PROJECT No: HORIZ: VERT: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE:REVISIONS: DESIGNED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBMITTALS:A & O Engineering L.L.C. 380 Q ST. SUITE 200 SPRINGFIELD, OR. 97477 PHONE: (541) 302-9790 info@ao-engr.com CIVIL ENGINEERING & SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING EXPIRES 12/26 P R E L I M I N A R Y Site Layout STSTWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSTSTSTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STST STST STSTST STST STST STST STSTSTSTST STST STST STSTSTSTSTSTST STSTST WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLSTST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTST STST STST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTST STSTST STST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTT TTTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTST STSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST GWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL TSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST PROJECT No: HORIZ: VERT: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE:REVISIONS: DESIGNED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBMITTALS:A & O Engineering L.L.C. 380 Q ST. SUITE 200SPRINGFIELD, OR. 97477PHONE: (541) 302-9790info@ao-engr.com CIVIL ENGINEERING & SITEDEVELOPMENT CONSULTING P R E L I M I N A R Y Stormwater & Grading PlanSTSTSSSS WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. (1) Purpose of Geological and Geotechnical Analyses. The purpose of geological and geotechnical analyses is to ensure that public and private facilities in developments in areas of known or potential unstable soil conditions are located, designed, and constructed in a manner that provides for public health, safety, and welfare. (2) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis Required. Except for those activities exempted under EC 9.6710(3) Exemptions from Geological and Geotechnical Requirements, a geological and geotechnical analysis, prepared by an Oregon licensed Engineering Geologist or an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer with geotechnical experience, conforming with standards, procedures and content as defined in the Standards for Geological and Geotechnical Analysis adopted by the city in the manner set forth in EC 2.019 City Manager – Administrative and Rulemaking Authority and Procedures, is required for any of the following: (a) All proposed tentative planned unit development, site review, or subdivision applications on properties with slopes equal to or greater than 5%. (b) All proposed development that includes dedication or construction of a public street or alley or the construction of public drainage systems or public wastewater sewers. (3) Exemptions from Geological and Geotechnical Analysis Requirements. The following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section: (a) Maintenance, operation, reconstruction of existing streets, driveways, and utility lines, provided soil disturbance is limited to a standard utility trench width or the area beneath street and driveway structures. (b) Emergency actions which must be undertaken immediately or for which there is insufficient time for full compliance when it is necessary to prevent or abate any of the following: 1. An imminent threat to public health or safety. 2. An imminent danger to public or private property. 3. An imminent threat of serious environmental degradation. (c) Street and alley dedications that widen existing public right-of-way are exempt from requirements of 9.6710(2)(b). (d) A residential building permit for a lot or parcel that was subject to previous reports and assessments. (e) New construction, building alterations and building additions that will not result in soil disturbance. (f) Activities on land included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Site Development Standards | Eugene Code Page 1 of 3 The Eugene Code is current through Ordinance 20738, passed May 11, 2026. (4)Categories of Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. The analysis required in geological and geotechnical analyses is based on the following categories, and shall be prepared in the manner required in the rules referenced in subsection (2) of this section: (a)A Level One Analysis shall consist of a compilation of record geotechnical data, on-site verification of the data and site conditions, and a report discussing site and soil characteristics in relation to the proposed development and other applicable standards. (b)A Level Two Analysis shall consist of a compilation of record geological data, analysis of site characteristics, sub-surface investigation and testing to establish soil types and distribution, and a report that includes site and soil characteristics in relation to the proposed development, identification of potential problems, and recommendations for design and construction techniques and standards consistent with other standards applicable to the development proposal. (c)A Level Three Analysis shall consist of a Level Two Analysis and additional site-specific geotechnical design of facilities such as, but not limited to, streets, foundations, utilities, retaining walls and structures due to geologic constraints. (5)Applicability of Different Categories of Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. Unless exempt under 9.6710(3), the category of geotechnical analysis required is based on the following: (a)A Level One Analysis shall be required on: 1.All development sites with slopes less than 10% that include construction of public improvements; 2.Subdivision, site review, and planned unit development applications for development sites with slopes greater than or equal to 5% and less than 10%. (b)A Level Two Analysis shall be required on: 1.All development sites with slopes greater than or equal to 10% that include construction of public improvements; 2.Subdivision, site review, and planned unit development applications for development sites with slopes greater than or equal to 10%. (c)A Level Three Analysis shall be required on development sites where the Level One or Two Analysis reveals evidence of existing or potential stability problems or where site conditions such as springs or seeps, depth of soil to bedrock, variations in soil types, or a combination of these conditions, in the opinion of the professional, impact the design parameters of the structure. (6)Clear and Objective Housing. Unless exempt under 9.6710(3), in lieu of compliance with subsections (2), (4), and (5)of this section, applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria shall include a certification from an Oregon licensed Engineering Geologist, an Oregon licensed Geotechnical Engineer, or an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer with geological experience, prepared within ten years of the date of application, that includes the following information: Site Development Standards | Eugene Code Page 2 of 3 The Eugene Code is current through Ordinance 20738, passed May 11, 2026. The Eugene Code is current through Ordinance 20738, passed May 11, 2026. Disclaimer: The city recorder’s office has the official version of the Eugene Code. Users should contact the city recorder’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.eugene-or.gov Hosted by General Code. (a) Identification of any portion of the proposed development site that is located in an area of moderate or high landslide susceptibility as shown on the city’s adopted Eugene Landslide Hazard Map. (b) A statement that the proposed development will not be impacted by existing or potential stability problems or any of the following site conditions: slopes 20 percent or greater, springs or seeps, depth of soil bedrock, soil types, variations in soil types, open drainage ways, fill, or a combination of these conditions. (c) If proposed development will be located in an area identified as moderately or highly susceptible to landslides pursuant to (a), or will be impacted by existing or potential stability problems or any of the site conditions listed in (b), the certification must also include: 1. A review of the suitability of the proposed lot layout, street locations, and proposed locations for utilities, driveways, parking areas, and buildings given the landslide hazards, stability problems, and/or site conditions identified in the certification; 2. Any recommended modifications to the proposed lot layout, street locations, and proposed locations for utilities, driveways, parking areas, and buildings that in the engineer’s opinion, would mitigate the landslide hazards, stability problems, and/or site conditions identified in the certification; 3. Methods for safely addressing the landslide hazards and/or site conditions identified in (a) and (b); and 4. Recommendations, if any, for additional geotechnical analysis for future buildings or improvements on the development site. 5. Recommendations, if any, for additional geotechnical analysis for future buildings or improvements on proposed lots or parcels. If certification is submitted under (6)(c), the application shall include the applicant’s statement that it will develop in accordance with the Engineer’s certification. (Section 9.6710, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02; amended by Ordinance No. 20297, enacted August 11, 2003, effective September 10, 2003; Ordinance No. 20679, enacted November 30, 2022, effective January 1, 2023.) Site Development Standards | Eugene Code Page 3 of 3 The Eugene Code is current through Ordinance 20738, passed May 11, 2026. CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 SITE RESEARCH Soil Map—Lane County Area, Oregon (2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 1 of 34874710487474048747704874800487483048748604874890487492048747104874740487477048748004874830487486048748904874920488810488840488870488900488930488960488990489020489050489080489110489140 488810 488840 488870 488900 488930 488960 488990 489020 489050 489080 489110 489140 44° 1' 38'' N 123° 8' 22'' W44° 1' 38'' N123° 8' 7'' W44° 1' 31'' N 123° 8' 22'' W44° 1' 31'' N 123° 8' 7'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,560 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Lane County Area, Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 24, Sep 10, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 17, 2023—Jun 3, 2023 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Lane County Area, Oregon (2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 41C Dixonville silty clay loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes 6.4 52.9% 102C Panther silty clay loam, 2 to 12 percent slopes 1.0 8.3% 108F Philomath cobbly silty clay, 12 to 45 percent slopes 4.7 38.8% Totals for Area of Interest 12.1 100.0% Soil Map—Lane County Area, Oregon 2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 3 of 3 Depth to Water Table—Lane County Area, Oregon (2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 1 of 34874710487474048747704874800487483048748604874890487492048747104874740487477048748004874830487486048748904874920488810488840488870488900488930488960488990489020489050489080489110489140 488810 488840 488870 488900 488930 488960 488990 489020 489050 489080 489110 489140 44° 1' 38'' N 123° 8' 22'' W44° 1' 38'' N123° 8' 7'' W44° 1' 31'' N 123° 8' 22'' W44° 1' 31'' N 123° 8' 7'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,560 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons 0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 > 200 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines 0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 > 200 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points 0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 > 200 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Lane County Area, Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 24, Sep 10, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 17, 2023—Jun 3, 2023 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Depth to Water Table—Lane County Area, Oregon (2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 2 of 3 Depth to Water Table Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (centimeters)Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 41C Dixonville silty clay loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes >200 6.4 52.9% 102C Panther silty clay loam, 2 to 12 percent slopes 15 1.0 8.3% 108F Philomath cobbly silty clay, 12 to 45 percent slopes >200 4.7 38.8% Totals for Area of Interest 12.1 100.0% Description "Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the soil. It occurs during specified months. Estimates of the upper limit are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table. This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. Rating Options Units of Measure: centimeters Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Beginning Month: January Ending Month: December Depth to Water Table—Lane County Area, Oregon 2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 3 of 3 Hydrologic Soil Group—Lane County Area, Oregon (2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 1 of 44874710487474048747704874800487483048748604874890487492048747104874740487477048748004874830487486048748904874920488810488840488870488900488930488960488990489020489050489080489110489140 488810 488840 488870 488900 488930 488960 488990 489020 489050 489080 489110 489140 44° 1' 38'' N 123° 8' 22'' W44° 1' 38'' N123° 8' 7'' W44° 1' 31'' N 123° 8' 22'' W44° 1' 31'' N 123° 8' 7'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,560 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Lane County Area, Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 24, Sep 10, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 17, 2023—Jun 3, 2023 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Lane County Area, Oregon (2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 41C Dixonville silty clay loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes D 6.4 52.9% 102C Panther silty clay loam, 2 to 12 percent slopes D 1.0 8.3% 108F Philomath cobbly silty clay, 12 to 45 percent slopes D 4.7 38.8% Totals for Area of Interest 12.1 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Hydrologic Soil Group—Lane County Area, Oregon 2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 3 of 4 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, Seismic Site Class Mapping Vantor NEHRP_Site_Class_Map C D E / F August 12, 2026 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:12,000 Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Lane County Area, Oregon 2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 4 of 4 Depth to Bedrock—Lane County Area, Oregon (2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 1 of 44874710487474048747704874800487483048748604874890487492048747104874740487477048748004874830487486048748904874920488810488840488870488900488930488960488990489020489050489080489110489140 488810 488840 488870 488900 488930 488960 488990 489020 489050 489080 489110 489140 44° 1' 38'' N 123° 8' 22'' W44° 1' 38'' N123° 8' 7'' W44° 1' 31'' N 123° 8' 22'' W44° 1' 31'' N 123° 8' 7'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,560 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons 0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 > 200 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines 0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 > 200 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points 0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 > 200 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Lane County Area, Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 24, Sep 10, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 17, 2023—Jun 3, 2023 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Depth to Bedrock—Lane County Area, Oregon (2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 2 of 4 Depth to Bedrock Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (centimeters)Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 41C Dixonville silty clay loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes 66 6.4 52.9% 102C Panther silty clay loam, 2 to 12 percent slopes 107 1.0 8.3% 108F Philomath cobbly silty clay, 12 to 45 percent slopes 36 4.7 38.8% Totals for Area of Interest 12.1 100.0% Depth to Bedrock—Lane County Area, Oregon 2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 3 of 4 Description The term bedrock in soil survey refers to a continuous root and water restrictive layer of rock that occurs within the soil profile. There are many types of restrictions that can occur within the soil profile but this theme only includes the three restrictions that use the term bedrock. These are: 1) Lithic Bedrock 2) Paralithic Bedrock 3) Densic Bedrock Lithic bedrock and paralithic bedrock are comprised of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, which are coherent and consolidated into rock through pressure, heat, cementation, or fusion. Lithic bedrock represents the hardest type of bedrock, with a hardness of strongly coherent to indurated. Paralithic bedrock has a hardness of extremely weakly coherent to moderately coherent. It can occur as a thin layer of weathered bedrock above harder lithic bedrock. Paralithic bedrock can also be much thicker, extending well below the soil profile. Densic bedrock represents a unique kind of bedrock recognized within the soil survey. It is non-coherent and consolidated, dense root restrictive material, formed by pressure, heat, and dewatering of earth materials or sediments. Densic bedrock differs from densic materials, which formed under the compaction of glaciers, mudflows, and or human-caused compaction. If more than one type of bedrock is described for an individual soil type, the depth to the shallowest one is given. If no bedrock is described in a map unit, it is represented by the "greater than 200" depth class. Depth to bedrock is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. Rating Options Units of Measure: centimeters Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Depth to Bedrock—Lane County Area, Oregon 2870 Hawkins Ln., Eugene, Oregon Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/16/2026 Page 4 of 4 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, LIDAR Imagery Vantor August 12, 2026 0 0.04 0.080.02 mi 0 0.07 0.140.04 km 1:3,600 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, Landslide Inventory and LiDAR Imagery Vantor Scarp Head Scarp Deposits Landslide August 12, 2026 0 0.09 0.170.04 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:7,200 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, Landslide Hazard Zoning: Deep Seated Susceptibility Microsoft, Vantor Deep Susceptibility Low susceptibility to deep landslides Moderate susceptibility to deep landlides August 12, 2026 0 0.03 0.050.01 mi 0 0.04 0.090.02 km 1:2,400 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, Landslide Hazard Zoning: Shallow Susceptibility Vantor Shallow Susceptibility Low susceptibility to shallow landslides Moderate susceptibility to shallow landslides High susceptibility to shallow landslides August 12, 2026 0 0.04 0.080.02 mi 0 0.07 0.140.04 km 1:3,600 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, DOGAMI Earthquake Hazard Zoning, P2475 Intensity Map Vantor P2475_Instrumental_Intensity_Map Severe (VIII) Violent (IX) August 12, 2026 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:12,000 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, DOGAMI Earthquake Hazard Zoning, CSZ Intensity Map Vantor CSZE_Instrumental_Intensity_Map Strong (VI) Very Strong (VII) August 12, 2026 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:12,000 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, Seismic Liquefaction Hazard Zoning Vantor Liquefaction_Susceptibility_Map None Moderate Very High August 12, 2026 0 0.09 0.170.04 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:7,200 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, DOGAMI Probability Damaging Earthquake Shaking Vantor Probability_of_Damaging_Shaking_Map 5% - 10% 20% - 30% August 12, 2026 0 0.09 0.170.04 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:7,200 2870 Hawkins Lane, Eugene, Oregon, Radon Hazard Zoning Vantor Radon Potential Low August 12, 2026 0 0.04 0.080.02 mi 0 0.07 0.140.04 km 1:3,600 CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 Test Pit TP-1 Test Pit TP-1 CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 Facing south, old home location, cut bank on east side CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 Test pit TP-2 CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 Existing well house CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 Test pit TP-3 Test pit TP-3 CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 Test pit TP-4 Test pit TP-4 CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 Test pit TP-5 CORE GEOENGINEERING 4207 SE Woodstock Blvd Portland, Oregon 97206 T. (503) 509-9115 www.core-geoengineering.com Project No. 26-1156 CORE GeoEngineering Hawkins Lane Subdivision, Eugene, Oregon August 20, 2026 Test pit TP-6 Test pit TP-6 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I,�� , as the applicant/representative for th� 1 e project, hereby certify that on this �day of �2 =e and correct copy of the notice of neighborhood/applicant meeting, attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein, was mailed to those referenced in accordance with the requirements of the Eugene Code 9. 7007. I further certify that the addresses shown are their regular addresses as determined from the books and records of the Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation and that said Notices were placed in the United States Mail with postage fully prepared thereon. STA TE OF OREGON ) COUNTY OF LANE ) )SS r I Date On this /)t"'-day of Jep-!e.fnhe-r , 2026, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in 1 �n? fo� !he s9id 9ounty and state, personally appeared the within named,J<u_.fr'e K.fACf &f who is known to me to be the identical individual described herein and who executed the same freely and voluntarily. Seal: OFFICIAL STAMP Vanessa Truett NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 1050474 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 8/13/28 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year last above written. Notary Public SUMMARY MEETING NOTES from NEIGHBORHOOD/APPLICANT MEETING Project Name: __Emily Estates PUD & Subdivision_________________________ Applicant Name: __Pineridge Construction, LLC___________________________ Applicant’s Representative/Designated Contact: _Jed Truett_________________ Contact Email:_jed@metroplanning.com_________________________________ Contact Phone:__(541) 302-9830____________________________ Meeting Date: 09/24/2026___ Meeting Time: _6pm_ Meeting Location: _on-site__ Neighborhood Association (if any): __Churchill Area Neighbors (C.A.N.)____________ Brief project description, as presented at the meeting: Subdivision of ~2.98 gross acres of land into 10 Lots, 1 Open Space/Tree Preservation Tract and 1 Stormwater Management Tract_____________________________________________________ Key questions raised at the meeting: ▪ What type/s of housing will be built on the new lots?_____________________________ ▪ Will the current property owner be building out the lots per his plan for these lots to contain single unit dwellings or will he sell the lots in which case middle housing could be developed on the lots? ▪ What can be done to help with the existing traffic issues on Hawkins Lane (people driving_ too fast)? Any concerns or issues that may need follow-up (i.e., more discussion or plan revisions): The neighbors did not request plan revisions or follow-up discussions. They were informed that once the applications are deemed complete, notice from the city will go out at which point neighbors_____ within the area of notice will have an opportunity to communicate issues directly to City of Eugene__ staff. Attached: Reduced site plan of the proposal presented at the meeting. Please note that these summary meeting notes are required to be submitted to the city as part of the project’s land use application materials. NEIGHBORHOOD – APPLICANT MEETING NOTICE & INVITATION Dear Neighbor: You are invited to a Neighborhood – Applicant meeting, hosted by Metro Planning, Inc. on behalf of the applicant and property owner. The meeting will be located on-site at the subject property (please see the attached map and directions) and will introduce you to the tentative subdivision proposal and familiarize you with the subject property. As the applicant’s representative, we invite you to attend this casual, open -forum meeting with us and your neighbors. We will share our preliminary plans, answer questions, and listen to your ideas. Our intention is that you leave feeling informe d and positive about the possibilities this proposal can bring to the community. We hope you can attend! WHAT: Neighborhood–Applicant Meeting WHO: Metro Planning, Inc. (Applicant’s Representative), property owners and residents of the surrounding area, and the Churchill Area Neighbors (C.A.N.) Association. WHEN: Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 6:00 pm WHERE: On-site at the vacant property located on the southeast corner of Hawkins Lane and Videra Drive. (Please see the attached map and directions). Questions? For more information prior to the meeting, please contact Jed Truett or Katie Keidel with Metro Planning, Inc. • Email: jed@metroplanning.com / kkeidel@metroplanning.com • Phone: (541) 302-9830 Thank you, The Metro Planning Team Driving Directions to the Meeting Site Meeting Location: On-site at the vacant lot on the Southwest Corner of Hawkins Lane & Videra Drive (Map & Tax Lot # 18-04-02-43-04600). Pink dot marks the spot on the map below. From Central Eugene / I-5 / Hwy 99: 1. Head west on W. 11th Avenue toward West Eugene. 2. Turn left (South) onto Bailey Hill Road. 3. Turn left (East) onto W. 18th Avenue. 4. Turn right (South) onto Hawkins Lane. 5. Continue up Hawkins Lane for approximately 0.6 miles. 6. The vacant property will be on your right-hand side, exactly at the corner where Videra Drive meets Hawkins Lane. From South/Southwest Eugene (Chambers St / Willamette St area): 1. Take W. 18th Avenue heading West toward the Churchill area. 2. Turn left (South) onto Hawkins Lane. 3. Follow Hawkins Lane south for 0.6 miles until you reach the intersection at Videra Drive. The site is on the southwest corner. Parking & On-Site Logistics: • Where to park: Since the lot is currently unimproved, please park safely along the shoulder of Hawkins Lane or Videra Drive, ensuring neighbors' driveways and passing traffic are not blocked. • What to expect: The meeting will take place rain or shine. To ensure a safe, stable, and accessible environment for all attendees, the meeting will be held entirely on the public sidewalk directly adjacent to the property corner. Look for the Metro Planning team. PROJECT CONSULTATION ATTENDANCE RECORD www.eugene-or.gov/bps Planning & Development 99 W. 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 P 541.682.5086 Form #GI-328 Updated: June 2023 Project: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Project Consultation #: _____________________ Project Location: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Meeting Date/Time: ____________________________________ Meeting Coordinator: ______________________________541-682-5505 Name Email Address Phone Relationship to Project All Project Consultations are conducted virtually. Please be aware that Project Consultation application and materials are public record. Notification of the Project Consultation including the applicant, project materials, and project location are included in a notification process provided to interested parties. Produced using RLID (www.rlid.org) on 06/29/2026 at 12:58 PM Produced using RLID (www.rlid.org) on 06/29/2026 at 12:58 PM Produced using RLID (www.rlid.org) on 06/29/2026 at 12:58 PM Produced using RLID (www.rlid.org) on 06/29/2026 at 12:58 PM Detailed Property Report Site Address N/A Map & Taxlot#18-04-02-43-04600 SIC N/A Tax Account#0710481 Property Owner 1 Pineridge Construction LLC PO Box 23526 Eugene, OR 97402 Tax account acreage 2.98 Mapped taxlot acreage† 3.02 † Mapped Taxlot Acreage is the estimated size of a taxlot as derived from the county GIS taxlot layer, and is not to be used for legal purposes. Map & Taxlot # 18-04-02-43-04600 Business Information RLID does not contain any business data for this address Improvements No assessor photos, assessor sketches or building characteristic information is available for this tax account. Site Address Information No site address associated with this tax account number General Taxlot Characteristics Geographic Coordinates X 4227711 Y 870980 (State Plane X,Y) Latitude 44.0265 Longitude -123.1372 Zoning Zoning Jurisdiction Eugene Eugene Parent Zone R-1 Low-Density Residential Land Use Code Description data not available data not available General Land Use Code Description data not available data not available Detailed Land Use Taxlot Characteristics Incorporated City Limits Eugene Urban Growth Boundary Eugene Year Annexed 1964 Annexation #Unknown/No ID Approximate Taxlot Acreage 3.02 Approx Taxlot Sq Footage 131,551 Plan Designation Metro Plan Map Eugene Neighborhood Churchill Area Neighbors Census Tract 4405 Census Block Group 1 Septic data not available Well data not available Landscaping Quality Poor Historic Property Name N/A City Historic Landmark?No National Historical Register?No Adjacent to Local Access Road No Service Providers Fire Protection Provider Eugene Springfield Fire Ambulance Provider Eugene Springfield Fire Ambulance District WC Ambulance Service Area West/Central LTD Service Area? Yes LTD Ride Source? Yes Environmental Data Produced by Metro Planning Inc. on 6/29/2026 at 12:58PM using RLID (www.rlid.org)Page 1 of 4 Code Description X Areas determined to be outside of 500-year flood. FEMA Flood Hazard Zone FIRM Map Number 41039C1120F Community Number 039C Post-FIRM Date data not available Panel Printed?No Soil Map Unit#Soil Type Description % of Taxlot Ag Class Hydric % 41C Dixonville Silty Clay Loam, 3 to 12 Percent Slopes 55%3 0 108F Philomath Cobbly Silty Clay, 12 to 45 Percent Slopes 45%6 0 Soils Schools Code Name School District 4J Eugene Elementary School 522 McCornack Middle School 519 Kennedy High School 540 Churchill Political Districts Election Precinct 1894 City Council Ward E8 City Councilor Randy Groves County Commissioner District 5 (East Lane) County Commissioner Heather Buch EWEB Commissioner Tim Morris LCC Board Zone 4 Lane ESD Board Zone data not available State Representative District 14 State Representative Julie Fahey State Senate District 7 State Senator James I. Manning Jr. Emerald PUD Board Zone N/A Heceta PUD Board Zone N/A Central Lincoln PUD Board Zone N/A Soil Water Cons. Dist/Zone Upper Willamette / 3 Creswell Water Control District data not available Census Information Census data have been removed from this report. To obtain Census data, please visit www.census.gov. For questions or concerns, please contact support@rlid.org. Liens None. RLID displays liens issued by Cottage Grove, Florence, and Springfield Utility Board. Additional liens can be found in Deeds and Records. Building Permits None Land Use Applications Eugene Land Use Applications Log Number Project Description CI-08-008 Code Interpretation ST-08-014 Subdivision Tentative Eugene Land Use Application Search Page Petitions None Tax Statements & Tax Receipts Account#: 0710481 View tax statement(s) for: 2025 2024 Receipt Date Amount Received Tax Discount Interest Applied Amount 10/30/2025 $5,059.18 $5,059.18 $156.47 $0.00 $5,215.65 11/04/2024 $4,738.03 $4,738.03 $146.54 $0.00 $4,884.57 11/01/2023 $4,171.63 $4,171.63 $129.02 $0.00 $4,300.65 11/14/2022 $4,123.29 $4,123.29 $127.52 $0.00 $4,250.81 11/08/2021 $4,316.73 $4,316.73 $133.51 $0.00 $4,450.24 Tax Receipts Produced by Metro Planning Inc. on 6/29/2026 at 12:58PM using RLID (www.rlid.org)Page 2 of 4 Data source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation Owner/Taxpayer Owner Address City/State/Zip Pineridge Construction LLC PO Box 23526 Eugene, OR 97402 Owners Party Name Address City/State/Zip Pineridge Construction LLC PO Box 23526 Eugene, OR 97402 Taxpayer Data source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation Account Status Status Active Account Current Tax Year Account Status none Remarks none Special Assessment Program N/A Data source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation General Tax Account Information Tax Account Acreage 2.98 Fire Acres N/A Property Class 190 - Residential, potential development, vacant Statistical Class N/A Neighborhood 421500 - Churchill Mixed South Hills Category Land and Improvements Data source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation Township-Range-Section / Subdivision Data Subdivision Type N/A Subdivision Name N/A Subdivision Number N/A Phase N/A Lot/Tract/Unit # TL 04600 Recording Number N/A Data source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation Property Values & Taxes The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals, clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes. Real Market Value (RMV) Total Assessed Value Tax Year Land Improvement Total 2025 $363,974 $0 $363,974 $270,548 $5,215.65 2024 $300,517 $0 $300,517 $262,668 $4,884.57 2023 $239,397 $0 $239,397 $239,397 $4,300.65 2022 $239,397 $0 $239,397 $239,397 $4,250.81 2021 $272,305 $0 $272,305 $255,018 $4,450.24 2020 $265,247 $0 $265,247 $247,591 $4,483.88 2019 $265,247 $0 $265,247 $240,380 $4,365.60 2018 $251,143 $0 $251,143 $233,379 $4,067.22 2017 $260,554 $0 $260,554 $226,582 $3,961.17 2016 $253,490 $0 $253,490 $219,983 $3,865.96 2015 $248,794 $0 $248,794 $213,576 $3,765.77 2014 $239,397 $0 $239,397 $207,355 $3,681.22 2013 $229,936 $0 $229,936 $201,316 $3,569.42 2012 $237,027 $0 $237,027 $195,452 $3,336.93 2011 $262,526 $0 $262,526 $189,759 $3,438.25 2010 $288,346 $0 $288,346 $184,232 $3,401.49 2009 $357,584 $0 $357,584 $178,866 $3,316.32 2008 $319,394 $212,270 $531,664 $289,090 $5,191.07 2007 $295,736 $214,410 $510,146 $280,670 $5,066.99 2006 $215,866 $223,340 $439,206 $272,495 $5,238.99 2005 $169,974 $187,680 $357,654 $264,558 $5,014.92 2004 $147,804 $170,620 $318,424 $256,852 $4,660.58 2003 $134,368 $156,530 $290,898 $249,371 $4,423.80 2002 $121,053 $142,300 $263,353 $242,108 $4,110.33 2001 $118,680 $143,740 $262,420 $235,056 $3,813.52 Produced by Metro Planning Inc. on 6/29/2026 at 12:58PM using RLID (www.rlid.org)Page 3 of 4 2000 $129,000 $139,550 $268,550 $228,210 $3,865.03 1999 $119,440 $145,360 $264,800 $221,563 $3,672.21 1998 $118,260 $143,920 $262,180 $215,110 $3,485.08 1997 $114,820 $148,370 $263,190 $208,845 $3,542.52 1996 $101,610 $141,300 $242,910 $242,910 $3,730.79 1995 $104,750 $127,300 $232,050 $232,050 $3,637.88 Current Year Assessed Value $270,548 Less Exemption Amount * N/A Taxable Value $270,548 * Frozen Assessed Value Data source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation Tax Code Area & Taxing Districts Tax Code Area (Levy Code) for current tax year 00400 Taxing Districts for TCA 00400 City of Eugene Eugene School District 4J Eugene Urban Renewal Downtown Lane Community College Lane County Lane Education Service District Upper Willamette Soil & Water **NOTE Lane County Assessment and Taxation Tax Code Area & Taxing Districts reflect the current certified year. The Billing Rate Document may still reference the prior year’s rates and details until we receive the current report from Lane County. Data source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation Sales & Ownership Changes Sale Date Sale Price Doc #Image Analysis Code Multiple Accts? Grantor(s)Grantee(s) 06/10/2026 $500,000 2026-18701 data not available No Yi Yi Homes LLC Pineridge Construction LLC 07/27/2017 $410,000 2017-39286 Y No Kittrell Edward Jr Yi Yi Homes LLC 12/05/2016 $0 2016-61197 8 No Mountain Ridge Development LLC Kittrell Edward Jr 01/28/2008 $750,000 2008-5129 1 No Siller Robert & June L Mountain Ridge Development LLC Data source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation Produced by Metro Planning Inc. on 6/29/2026 at 12:58PM using RLID (www.rlid.org)Page 4 of 4 Page 2 Curve Number: 82 Land Description: Woods/Grass Combination, Fair Condition, HSG D Time of Concentration: Combination of Sheet Flow and Shallow Concentrated Flow, total of 11.1 minutes The existing site naturally drains to the west to Hawkins Lane at approximate slopes exceeding 15%. Stormwater Calculation Parameters The City of Eugene standards were followed for performing stormwater calculations. HydroCAD software was utilized to perform hydraulic calculations. Below are the parameters used for the stormwater calculations taken from the Eugene Stormwater Management Manual 2025 unless otherwise noted: Water Quality Storm: 1.40 inches for 24 hours 2-Year Storm: 3.12 inches for 24 hours 5-Year Storm: 3.60 inches for 24 hours 10-year Storm: 4.46 inches for 24 hours Flood Control Design Storm: 10-Year Storm per Appendix K-1 of the 2025 ESMM Storm Distribution Type: IA – 24-hour (NRCS SCS Rainfall Distributions) Runoff Method: Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (SBUH) Time of Concentration: 5 Minutes for Post Construction Runoff Design Calculations Hydraulic calculations were performed to ensure stormwater facilities were sized to adequately to convey stormwater off the property without increasing the risk of damage to surrounding infrastructure or impacting local water quality. The stormwater facility is sized to meet treatment and detention requirements set by the City of Eugene. Storage within the proposed filtration stormwater planter is adequate for detention requirements with HydroCAD models simulating the 10-year storm. The proposed development will generate lower peak runoff rates under post-development conditions than the modeled rates from the existing conditions. Water quality requirements are satisfied by routing the total runoff volume from the new impervious surfaces for a Pollution Reduction event for Eugene through the soil media of stormwater facilities HydroCAD software was utilized to determine the runoff volume directed into the proposed facility. Peak flow rates were determined using times of concentration described in the appendix for existing conditions, and a time of concentration of 5 minutes for post-construction conditions. Time of Page 3 concentration was calculated using HydroCAD software with site characteristics including surface elevations, soil type, and surface conditions. Storm Design and Hydraulic Calculations The applicant is proposing to construct a shared filtration stormwater planter for the private development. Due to grading constrains, less than 500 square feet of impervious private street at the entrance from Hawkins Lane is proposed to direct sheet drain into the Hawkins Lane right-of-way. Treated and detained runoff from the filtration stormwater planter is proposed to be piped into a public curb inlet just south of the property within Hawkins Lane as shown on the plans. See the table below for storm facility physical characteristics: Table 1: Filtration Stormwater Planter Physical Characteristics Open Storage Bottom Elev. [Ft] Open Storage Top Elev. [Ft] Area [SF] Depth [Ft] 753.05 755.80 1,613 2.75 In addition to the open storage shown above, the planter will have a 12” deep rock chamber and a 12” thick growing medium below the open storage. The rock chamber will have a perforated pipe to serve as an underdrain. The table below summarizes the pertinent planter elevations including outlet elevations and Hydraulic Grade Line Elevations: Table 2: Planter Outlet Elevations and HGLs 2" Orifice [Ft] 3" Orifice [Ft] 8" Overflow [Ft] Pollution Reduction HGL [Ft] 10-Year HGL [Ft] 754.05 755.05 755.55 753.50 755.50 The data in Table 2 above shows compliance with City of Eugene requirements in a couple of important points: 1. The peak water level during the Pollution Reduction storm event is below any orifice, thus modeling that all stormwater will filtrate through the growing medium, and leave through the underdrain piping. This shows compliance with stormwater treatment requirements of the City of Eugene. 2. The 10-Year storm peak water level is 3” below the Open Storage Top Elevation, thus meeting Eugene’s requirements of 2” of freeboard. Additionally, to be in compliance with Flow Control requirements, pre-construction peak flowrates from the site were analyzed and compared with the modeled post-construction peak flowrates. The table below summarizes the peak flowrates: Page 4 Table 3: Detention/Peak Flowrate Analysis Storm Event Pre-Construction Peak Flowrate [cfs] Post-Construction Peak Flowrate [cfs] 2-Year 0.36 0.26 5-Year 0.48 0.34 10-Year 0.69 0.62 The data in table 3 show that post-construction peak flowrates are detained with the filtration stormwater planter to be equal to or below pre-construction peak flowrates up to the Flood Control Design Storm, thus Eugene requirements for detention are met. Stormwater Facility Variance Due to multiple factors including site topography (on-site slopes that exceed 15%) and available space, it is proposed to construct a filtration stormwater planter with a ponding depth that exceeds 12 inches as required in the 2025 ESMM. With the constraints, a pond is not feasible for this project. The proposal is to construct a stormwater planter with walls around the perimeter, but allow for a ponding depth exceeding 12” as allowed inside of a pond. The proposed planter with an increased ponding depth will still meet stormwater treatment requirements by providing filtration. It also will meet flow control requirements. Therefore, the proposed variance will provide equal results for function as a stormwater planter. Since the depth will exceed 30”, a fall protection fencing will be installed for safety. Also, a ramp entrance will be provided for maintenance crew access to the facility. Conclusion The proposed stormwater drainage plan detailed in this report meets city requirements and will adequately serve the new development. The peak water elevations within the storm facility during the water quality storm do not reach the lowest orifices and thus receive sufficient treatment prior to discharging into the public system. The peak water elevations within the storm facilities during the 10- year design storm models to not exceed the top of the facility and will not cause any damage to the proposed development or surrounding infrastructure. Peak post construction discharge rates from the site are shown to be limited to- or below existing condition peak discharge rates and thus will not increase the burden on any existing City stormwater infrastructure. Appendix • HydroCAD Calculations for Hawkins Ln Subdivision Page 5 • Stormwater Drainage Basin Map • Core GeoEngineering Preliminary Geologic Hazard Assessment & Geotechnical Engineering Report 1S Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) 5S Lot Impervious Areas 6S Impervious Private Street Area 8S Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane 9R Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane 7P Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Routing Diagram for Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC, Printed 9/22/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing (selected events) Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 01-Pollution Reduction Type IA 24-hr Default 24.00 1 1.40 2 2 02 Year Type IA 24-hr Default 24.00 1 3.12 2 3 05 Year Type IA 24-hr Default 24.00 1 3.60 2 4 10 Year Type IA 24-hr Default 24.00 1 4.46 2 Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.011 98 Impervious Driveway (8S) 0.849 98 Impervious Lot Areas (5S) 0.310 98 Impervious Surface (6S) 1.171 82 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG D (1S) 2.342 90 TOTAL AREA Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 1.171 HSG D 1S 1.171 Other 5S, 6S, 8S 2.342 TOTAL AREA Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (selected nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.011 Impervious Driveway 8S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.849 0.849 Impervious Lot Areas 5S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.310 0.310 Impervious Surface 6S 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.171 0.000 1.171 Woods/grass comb., Fair 1S 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.171 1.171 2.342 TOTAL AREA Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-202 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 641 points Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=1.171 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.29"Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions Flow Length=330' Slope=0.2000 '/' Tc=11.1 min CN=82/0 Runoff=0.03 cfs 0.029 af Runoff Area=37,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.18"Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.26 cfs 0.084 af Runoff Area=13,522 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.18"Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.09 cfs 0.031 af Runoff Area=500 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.18"Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Tc=0.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.00 cfs 0.001 af Inflow=0.10 cfs 0.115 afReach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Outflow=0.10 cfs 0.115 af Peak Elev=753.50' Storage=731 cf Inflow=0.35 cfs 0.114 afPond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow Outflow=0.09 cfs 0.114 af Total Runoff Area = 2.342 ac Runoff Volume = 0.144 af Average Runoff Depth = 0.74" 49.99% Pervious = 1.171 ac 50.01% Impervious = 1.171 ac Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-202 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) Runoff = 0.03 cfs @ 8.08 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af, Depth= 0.29" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40" Area (ac) CN Description 1.171 82 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG D 1.171 82 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 112 0.2000 0.20 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.12" Using McCuen-Spiess flow length 1.6 218 0.2000 2.24 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 11.1 330 Total Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.036 0.034 0.032 0.03 0.028 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.02 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40" Runoff Area=1.171 ac Runoff Volume=0.029 af Runoff Depth=0.29" Flow Length=330' Slope=0.2000 '/' Tc=11.1 min CN=82/0 0.03 cfs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-202 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Runoff = 0.26 cfs @ 7.91 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Depth= 1.18" Routed to Pond 7P : Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 37,000 98 Impervious Lot Areas 37,000 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40" Runoff Area=37,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.084 af Runoff Depth=1.18" Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 0.26 cfs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-202 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Street Area Runoff = 0.09 cfs @ 7.91 hrs, Volume= 0.031 af, Depth= 1.18" Routed to Pond 7P : Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 13,522 98 Impervious Surface 13,522 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Street Area Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40" Runoff Area=13,522 sf Runoff Volume=0.031 af Runoff Depth=1.18" Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 0.09 cfs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-202 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 7.82 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Depth= 1.18" Routed to Reach 9R : Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 500 98 Impervious Driveway 500 98 100.00% Impervious Area Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40" Runoff Area=500 sf Runoff Volume=0.001 af Runoff Depth=1.18" Tc=0.0 min CN=0/98 0.00 cfs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-202 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Inflow Area = 1.171 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.18" for 01-Pollution Reduction event Inflow = 0.10 cfs @ 7.82 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af Outflow = 0.10 cfs @ 7.82 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=1.171 ac 0.10 cfs 0.10 cfs Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-202 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Inflow Area = 1.160 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.18" for 01-Pollution Reduction event Inflow = 0.35 cfs @ 7.91 hrs, Volume= 0.114 af Outflow = 0.09 cfs @ 7.20 hrs, Volume= 0.114 af, Atten= 74%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.09 cfs @ 7.20 hrs, Volume= 0.114 af Routed to Reach 9R : Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 753.50' @ 9.34 hrs Surf.Area= 1,613 sf Storage= 731 cf Flood Elev= 755.80' Surf.Area= 1,613 sf Storage= 4,436 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 50.3 min calculated for 0.114 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 50.3 min ( 746.9 - 696.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 753.05' 4,436 cf Open Storage (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 753.05 1,613 0 0 755.80 1,613 4,436 4,436 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 753.05'2.500 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 755.55'8.0" Horiz. 8" Overflow C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Primary 754.05'2.0" Vert. 2" Orifices X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Primary 755.05'3.0" Vert. 3" Orifices X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.09 cfs @ 7.20 hrs HW=753.08' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.09 cfs) 2=8" Overflow ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=2" Orifices ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 4=3" Orifices ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Type IA 24-hr 01-Pollution Reduction Rainfall=1.40"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-202 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=1.160 ac Peak Elev=753.50' Storage=731 cf 0.35 cfs 0.09 cfs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 641 points Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=1.171 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.47"Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions Flow Length=330' Slope=0.2000 '/' Tc=11.1 min CN=82/0 Runoff=0.36 cfs 0.144 af Runoff Area=37,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.89"Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.62 cfs 0.204 af Runoff Area=13,522 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.89"Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.23 cfs 0.075 af Runoff Area=500 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.89"Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Tc=0.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.01 cfs 0.003 af Inflow=0.26 cfs 0.282 afReach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Outflow=0.26 cfs 0.282 af Peak Elev=754.77' Storage=2,777 cf Inflow=0.84 cfs 0.279 afPond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow Outflow=0.26 cfs 0.279 af Total Runoff Area = 2.342 ac Runoff Volume = 0.426 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.18" 49.99% Pervious = 1.171 ac 50.01% Impervious = 1.171 ac Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) Runoff = 0.36 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 0.144 af, Depth= 1.47" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12" Area (ac) CN Description 1.171 82 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG D 1.171 82 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 112 0.2000 0.20 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.12" Using McCuen-Spiess flow length 1.6 218 0.2000 2.24 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 11.1 330 Total Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12" Runoff Area=1.171 ac Runoff Volume=0.144 af Runoff Depth=1.47" Flow Length=330' Slope=0.2000 '/' Tc=11.1 min CN=82/0 0.36 cfs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 16HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.204 af, Depth= 2.89" Routed to Pond 7P : Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12" Area (sf) CN Description * 37,000 98 Impervious Lot Areas 37,000 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12" Runoff Area=37,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.204 af Runoff Depth=2.89" Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 0.62 cfs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 17HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Street Area Runoff = 0.23 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.075 af, Depth= 2.89" Routed to Pond 7P : Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12" Area (sf) CN Description * 13,522 98 Impervious Surface 13,522 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Street Area Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12" Runoff Area=13,522 sf Runoff Volume=0.075 af Runoff Depth=2.89" Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 0.23 cfs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 18HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane Runoff = 0.01 cfs @ 7.81 hrs, Volume= 0.003 af, Depth= 2.89" Routed to Reach 9R : Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12" Area (sf) CN Description * 500 98 Impervious Driveway 500 98 100.00% Impervious Area Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0 Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12" Runoff Area=500 sf Runoff Volume=0.003 af Runoff Depth=2.89" Tc=0.0 min CN=0/98 0.01 cfs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 19HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Inflow Area = 1.171 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.89" for 02 Year event Inflow = 0.26 cfs @ 8.98 hrs, Volume= 0.282 af Outflow = 0.26 cfs @ 8.98 hrs, Volume= 0.282 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=1.171 ac 0.26 cfs 0.26 cfs Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 20HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Inflow Area = 1.160 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.89" for 02 Year event Inflow = 0.84 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.279 af Outflow = 0.26 cfs @ 9.01 hrs, Volume= 0.279 af, Atten= 69%, Lag= 66.7 min Primary = 0.26 cfs @ 9.01 hrs, Volume= 0.279 af Routed to Reach 9R : Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 754.77' @ 9.01 hrs Surf.Area= 1,613 sf Storage= 2,777 cf Flood Elev= 755.80' Surf.Area= 1,613 sf Storage= 4,436 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 181.2 min calculated for 0.279 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 181.3 min ( 848.4 - 667.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 753.05' 4,436 cf Open Storage (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 753.05 1,613 0 0 755.80 1,613 4,436 4,436 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 753.05'2.500 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 755.55'8.0" Horiz. 8" Overflow C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Primary 754.05'2.0" Vert. 2" Orifices X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Primary 755.05'3.0" Vert. 3" Orifices X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.26 cfs @ 9.01 hrs HW=754.77' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.09 cfs) 2=8" Overflow ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=2" Orifices (Orifice Controls 0.17 cfs @ 3.85 fps) 4=3" Orifices ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Type IA 24-hr 02 Year Rainfall=3.12"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 21HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=1.160 ac Peak Elev=754.77' Storage=2,777 cf 0.84 cfs 0.26 cfs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 22HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 641 points Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=1.171 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.87"Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions Flow Length=330' Slope=0.2000 '/' Tc=11.1 min CN=82/0 Runoff=0.48 cfs 0.182 af Runoff Area=37,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.37"Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.72 cfs 0.238 af Runoff Area=13,522 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.37"Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.26 cfs 0.087 af Runoff Area=500 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.37"Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Tc=0.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.01 cfs 0.003 af Inflow=0.34 cfs 0.329 afReach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Outflow=0.34 cfs 0.329 af Peak Elev=755.14' Storage=3,365 cf Inflow=0.98 cfs 0.325 afPond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow Outflow=0.33 cfs 0.325 af Total Runoff Area = 2.342 ac Runoff Volume = 0.511 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.62" 49.99% Pervious = 1.171 ac 50.01% Impervious = 1.171 ac Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 23HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 8.00 hrs, Volume= 0.182 af, Depth= 1.87" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60" Area (ac) CN Description 1.171 82 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG D 1.171 82 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 112 0.2000 0.20 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.12" Using McCuen-Spiess flow length 1.6 218 0.2000 2.24 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 11.1 330 Total Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60" Runoff Area=1.171 ac Runoff Volume=0.182 af Runoff Depth=1.87" Flow Length=330' Slope=0.2000 '/' Tc=11.1 min CN=82/0 0.48 cfs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 24HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Runoff = 0.72 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.238 af, Depth= 3.37" Routed to Pond 7P : Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 37,000 98 Impervious Lot Areas 37,000 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60" Runoff Area=37,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.238 af Runoff Depth=3.37" Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 0.72 cfs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 25HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Street Area Runoff = 0.26 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.087 af, Depth= 3.37" Routed to Pond 7P : Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 13,522 98 Impervious Surface 13,522 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Street Area Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60" Runoff Area=13,522 sf Runoff Volume=0.087 af Runoff Depth=3.37" Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 0.26 cfs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 26HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane Runoff = 0.01 cfs @ 7.80 hrs, Volume= 0.003 af, Depth= 3.37" Routed to Reach 9R : Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 500 98 Impervious Driveway 500 98 100.00% Impervious Area Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.011 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0 Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60" Runoff Area=500 sf Runoff Volume=0.003 af Runoff Depth=3.37" Tc=0.0 min CN=0/98 0.01 cfs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 27HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Inflow Area = 1.171 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.37" for 05 Year event Inflow = 0.34 cfs @ 8.84 hrs, Volume= 0.329 af Outflow = 0.34 cfs @ 8.84 hrs, Volume= 0.329 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=1.171 ac 0.34 cfs 0.34 cfs Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 28HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Inflow Area = 1.160 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.37" for 05 Year event Inflow = 0.98 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.325 af Outflow = 0.33 cfs @ 8.85 hrs, Volume= 0.325 af, Atten= 66%, Lag= 57.0 min Primary = 0.33 cfs @ 8.85 hrs, Volume= 0.325 af Routed to Reach 9R : Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 755.14' @ 8.85 hrs Surf.Area= 1,613 sf Storage= 3,365 cf Flood Elev= 755.80' Surf.Area= 1,613 sf Storage= 4,436 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 179.0 min calculated for 0.325 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 179.2 min ( 842.5 - 663.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 753.05' 4,436 cf Open Storage (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 753.05 1,613 0 0 755.80 1,613 4,436 4,436 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 753.05'2.500 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 755.55'8.0" Horiz. 8" Overflow C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Primary 754.05'2.0" Vert. 2" Orifices X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Primary 755.05'3.0" Vert. 3" Orifices X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.33 cfs @ 8.85 hrs HW=755.14' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.09 cfs) 2=8" Overflow ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=2" Orifices (Orifice Controls 0.21 cfs @ 4.82 fps) 4=3" Orifices (Orifice Controls 0.03 cfs @ 1.00 fps) Type IA 24-hr 05 Year Rainfall=3.60"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 29HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=1.160 ac Peak Elev=755.14' Storage=3,365 cf 0.98 cfs 0.33 cfs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 30HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 641 points Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=1.171 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.60"Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions Flow Length=330' Slope=0.2000 '/' Tc=11.1 min CN=82/0 Runoff=0.69 cfs 0.254 af Runoff Area=37,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.22"Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.89 cfs 0.299 af Runoff Area=13,522 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.22"Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.33 cfs 0.109 af Runoff Area=500 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.22"Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Tc=0.0 min CN=0/98 Runoff=0.01 cfs 0.004 af Inflow=0.62 cfs 0.412 afReach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Outflow=0.62 cfs 0.412 af Peak Elev=755.50' Storage=3,959 cf Inflow=1.22 cfs 0.408 afPond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow Outflow=0.61 cfs 0.408 af Total Runoff Area = 2.342 ac Runoff Volume = 0.666 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.41" 49.99% Pervious = 1.171 ac 50.01% Impervious = 1.171 ac Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 31HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) Runoff = 0.69 cfs @ 8.00 hrs, Volume= 0.254 af, Depth= 2.60" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46" Area (ac) CN Description 1.171 82 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG D 1.171 82 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 112 0.2000 0.20 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.12" Using McCuen-Spiess flow length 1.6 218 0.2000 2.24 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 11.1 330 Total Subcatchment 1S: Existing Conditions (Pre-Construction) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46" Runoff Area=1.171 ac Runoff Volume=0.254 af Runoff Depth=2.60" Flow Length=330' Slope=0.2000 '/' Tc=11.1 min CN=82/0 0.69 cfs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 32HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Runoff = 0.89 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.299 af, Depth= 4.22" Routed to Pond 7P : Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46" Area (sf) CN Description * 37,000 98 Impervious Lot Areas 37,000 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5S: Lot Impervious Areas Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)1 0 Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46" Runoff Area=37,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.299 af Runoff Depth=4.22" Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 0.89 cfs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 33HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Street Area Runoff = 0.33 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af, Depth= 4.22" Routed to Pond 7P : Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46" Area (sf) CN Description * 13,522 98 Impervious Surface 13,522 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 6S: Impervious Private Street Area Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46" Runoff Area=13,522 sf Runoff Volume=0.109 af Runoff Depth=4.22" Tc=5.0 min CN=0/98 0.33 cfs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 34HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane Runoff = 0.01 cfs @ 7.80 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Depth= 4.22" Routed to Reach 9R : Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46" Area (sf) CN Description * 500 98 Impervious Driveway 500 98 100.00% Impervious Area Subcatchment 8S: Driveway Direct Drain to Hawkins Lane Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.013 0.012 0.011 0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46" Runoff Area=500 sf Runoff Volume=0.004 af Runoff Depth=4.22" Tc=0.0 min CN=0/98 0.01 cfs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 35HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Inflow Area = 1.171 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.22" for 10 Year event Inflow = 0.62 cfs @ 8.30 hrs, Volume= 0.412 af Outflow = 0.62 cfs @ 8.30 hrs, Volume= 0.412 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 9R: Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=1.171 ac 0.62 cfs 0.62 cfs Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 36HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Inflow Area = 1.160 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.22" for 10 Year event Inflow = 1.22 cfs @ 7.90 hrs, Volume= 0.408 af Outflow = 0.61 cfs @ 8.31 hrs, Volume= 0.408 af, Atten= 50%, Lag= 24.6 min Primary = 0.61 cfs @ 8.31 hrs, Volume= 0.408 af Routed to Reach 9R : Discharge to Public Curb Inlet 70416 in Hawkins Lane Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 755.50' @ 8.31 hrs Surf.Area= 1,613 sf Storage= 3,959 cf Flood Elev= 755.80' Surf.Area= 1,613 sf Storage= 4,436 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 165.5 min calculated for 0.408 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 165.7 min ( 824.0 - 658.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 753.05' 4,436 cf Open Storage (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 753.05 1,613 0 0 755.80 1,613 4,436 4,436 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 753.05'2.500 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 755.55'8.0" Horiz. 8" Overflow C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Primary 754.05'2.0" Vert. 2" Orifices X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Primary 755.05'3.0" Vert. 3" Orifices X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.61 cfs @ 8.31 hrs HW=755.50' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.09 cfs) 2=8" Overflow ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=2" Orifices (Orifice Controls 0.25 cfs @ 5.64 fps) 4=3" Orifices (Orifice Controls 0.27 cfs @ 2.76 fps) Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.46"Hawkins Subdivision HydroCAD 7-6-2026 Printed 9/22/2026Prepared by A&O Engineering LLC Page 37HydroCAD® 10.20-9a s/n 04993 © 2026 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 7P: Filtration Storm Planter (Overflow 30" Above Flowline) Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 32313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=1.160 ac Peak Elev=755.50' Storage=3,959 cf 1.22 cfs 0.61 cfs WL WL WLWLWLWL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WWSTSTWW WW WW WLST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTST STSTST STST STSTST STSTST STSTST STSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST TTTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTWLWL PROJECT No: HORIZ: VERT: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE:REVISIONS: DESIGNED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBMITTALS:A & O Engineering L.L.C. 380 Q ST. SUITE 200 SPRINGFIELD, OR. 97477 PHONE: (541) 302-9790 info@ao-engr.com CIVIL ENGINEERING & SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING EXPIRES 12/26 P R E L I M I N A R Y Drainage BasinsDRIVEWAY DIRECTDRAIN TO HAWKINS LANE500 SFIMPERVIOUS PRIVATE STREET AREA13,522 SFASSUMED 4,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 4,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 4,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 4,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 3,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 3,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 3,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 4,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 4,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACEASSUMED 4,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS SURFACETOTAL ASSUMED LOTIMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 37,000 SFNOTES:1. SHOWN IMPERVIOUS AREAS ARE PRELIMINARY, AND ARESUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. AREASSHOWN WERE FOR PRELIINARY MODELING OF THE SHOWNFILTRATION STORMWATER PLANTER. IF IMPERVIOUS AREASCHANGE FROM THIS MAP, SIZING OF THE PROPOSEDSTORMWATER SYSTEM WILL NEED TO BE REVISITED TO ENSUREPROPER SIZING.2. PERVIOUS SURFACES WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THESTORMWATER ANALYSIS.