Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Application APPLICANT 5/5/2020
Submittal Transmittal AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC 1 12965 SW Herman Rd. Suite 100 Tualatin, OR 97062 FROM: Chris Goodell AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC TO: Andrew Limbird 12965 SW Herman Rd. City of Springfield Suite 100 225 Fifth Street Tualatin, OR 97062 Springfled OR 97477 chrisg@aks-eng.com United Statesalimbird@springfeld-or.gov 503-563-6151 541-726-3784 PROJECT: Marcola Meadows Springfield DATE SENT: 5/5/2020 7736 SUBJECT: Final Master Plan Modification - ID: 00069 Phasing PURPOSE: For Review VIA: Info Exchange REMARKS: Good morning Andy, Attached is the Final Master Plan Phasing Modification for Marcola Meadows in Springfield. We will be in contact with Shannon inyour office about payment for this submittal. Please let us know if you have any trouble downloading the files or if you need any additional information. Thank you, Chris Goodell, AICP, LEEDAP- Associate AKS ENGINEERING & FORESTRY, LLC 12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100 1 Tualatin, OR 97062 P: 503.563.61511 F: 503.563.61521 www.aks-crsixom I chase®aks-ene.corn Offices in: Bend, OR I Keizer, OR I Tualatin, OR I Vancouver, WA NOTICE: This conmmmcation may codotn privileged or other confidenfial igbrnddion If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply a -tail mul int ediately rklete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. AKS Engineering and Forestry shag act be liable for any changes nude to the electronic data tranzrferred. Distribution ofelectronic data to others is proMbited without the express written consent ofAKSEnipmering and Forestry. CONTENTS QTY: DATED DESCRIPTION: ACTION: 1 5/5/2020 7736 20200505 Marcola Meadows MP Phasing Mod Plans - 22x34.pdf Page 1 of 2 Submittal Transmittal DATE: 5/5/2020 ID: 00069 QTY: DATED DESCRIPTION: ACTION: 1 5/5/2020 7736 20200505 Marcola Meadows MP Phasing Modification - Final.pdf COPIES Shannon Morris (City of Springfield) Chris Goodell (AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC) Marie Holladay (AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC) Lawrence Pankey (AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC) Vu Nguyen (AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC) Monty Hurley (AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC) Michelle Swartout (AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC) Cassondra Simic (AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC) Page 2 of 2 Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan Phasing Modification Date: May 2020 Submitted to: City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Owner/Applicant: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC 9550 SW Clackamas Road Clackamas, OR 97015 AKS Job Number: 7736 KIK ENGINEERING & FORESTRY 12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100 Tualatin, OR 97062 (503)563-6151 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary.................................................................................................................2 Summary of Modifications to Final Master Plan: ..................................................................................... 2 II. Site Description/Setting..........................................................................................................2 III. Applicable Review Criteria......................................................................................................3 SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE..................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 5 THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS......................................3 Section 5.13-100 Master Plans............................................................................................. 3 5.13-120 Preliminary Master Plan—Submittal Requirements.........................................3 5.13-125 Preliminary Master Plan — Criteria.....................................................................8 5.13-135 Final Master Plan — Modifications................................................................... 12 IV. Conclusion............................................................................................................................15 Exhibits Exhibit A: City Application Form and Checklist Exhibit B: Preliminary Plans Exhibit C: Property Ownership Information Exhibit D: Lane County Assessor's Maps Exhibit E: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Map Exhibit F: Preliminary Stormwater Report Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan Phasing Modification Submitted to: City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Property Owner/Applicant: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC 9550 SW Clackamas Road Clackamas, OR 97015 Applicant's Consultant: AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC 12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100 Tualatin, OR 97062 Contact: Chris Goodell, AICP, LEEDAl Email: chrisg@aks-eng.com Phone: (503) 563-6151 Site Location: Northwest of the intersection of Marcola Road and 3V Street Lane County 17023000; Adjusted Tax Lot 1800 Assessor's Maps: 17032511; Adjusted Tax Lot 2300 Site Size: *100 acres Springfield Land Use Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed -Use Districts: Commercial (MUC) Metro Plan Diagram MDR, Commercial, and Nodal Development (ND) Area Designations: AVC Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Pagel I. Executive Summary The subject site has been the subject of previous land use permits over many years, most relevantly, a ±100 -acre Master Plan in 2008 (the Marcola Meadows Master Plan). In 2018, a Modification to the Marcola Meadows Master Plan was approved by the City of Springfield. More recently, (December 2019) a 170 -lot residential subdivision (for single-family detached homes) was approved for the northernmost ±23 -acre portion of the property. To date, the project has yet to break ground; however, Phase 1A of the subdivision is currently in the final engineering plan review stage with an anticipated construction start date in the spring/summer of 2020. Efforts are currently underway to modify the Marcola Meadows Master Plan to provide for a number of specifically planned project elements, including a church, school, and multi -family homes, in addition to the detached homes described above. In conjunction with these updates, recently submitted property line adjustment and partition applications are intended to facilitate ownership transactions that are expected to help fund needed site and infrastructure improvements associated with the project. The partition application (currently under review) involves dividing the property into three parcels matching future phase boundaries/land uses that will be more clearly illustrated in a future master plan modification submittal. Finally, preceding the efforts described above, this application involves a streamlined master plan modification to update the approved phasing configuration (and allow for updates to the approved stormwater management system design). Approval of this updated Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan application will result in a basis for the evaluation of the phases of planned development, including future subdivision application submittals for Phases 113, 2A, and 2B. Therefore, this application is necessary to resolve infrastructure sequencing and allow continued progress regarding construction plans (in the northern portion of the site). Furthermore, the timely implementation of the planned improvements will benefit the community by providing needed homes and increasing connectivity in the area. In summary, this application involves the following modifications intended to facilitate successful development of the project site: Summary of Modifications to Final Master Plan: • Updates to the phase boundaries (for Phases 113, 2A and 2B) • Renumbering of lots (to correspond with updated phasing) • Updates to the approved stormwater drainage report This application includes the City application forms, written materials, and preliminary plans necessary for City staff to review and determine compliance with the applicable approval criteria. The evidence supports the City's approval of the application. II. Site Description/Setting The Marcola Meadows Master Plan site (adjusted Tax Lots 1800 and 2300) includes a total area of ±100 acres, and its configuration is based upon a previously submitted Property Line Adjustment (PLA) application (in process). As shown on the Preliminary Plans in Exhibit B, the scope of this modification impacts Phases 3-7 in the northeastern portion of the site. AVO Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Paget The subject site fronts on Marcola Road on the south side of the site and 31" Street on the east side. The site is vacant, flat, and currently exists as a grassy field. The property is currently classified with Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed -Use Commercial (MUC) zoning designations. Description of Surrounding Area Area Jurisdiction Zoning Land Uses North City of Springfield Public Land & Open Space (POS) Public/Institutional (i.e. educational facility) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential South City of Sprits ield Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential East City of Springfield Light Medium Industrial (LMI) Industrial West City of Springfield Low Density Residential [UDR) Residential Community Commercial (CC) Public/Institutional (i.e. medical facilities, future church, etc.) 111. Applicable Review Criteria The Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan Modification was approved by the City of Springfield as Local File No. 811-18-000054-TYP (Master Plan). Specific staff findings and conditions of approval required by the modified final master plan document are referenced in Section 5.13-125, and throughout this narrative, to assert compliance with the approval criteria. SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 5 THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS Section 5.13-100 Master Plans 5.13-120 PrefiminaryMaster Plan —Submittal Requirements The Preliminary and Final Master Plan applications sha0 be prepared by a professional design team. The applicant shall select a project coordinator. All related maps, excluding vicinity and detail maps, shall be at the sane scale. A Preliminary Master Plan shall contain all of the elements necessary to demonstrate compliance with the applicable provisions of this Code and shall include, but not be limited to: Response: This application is a Final Master Plan Modification subject to the provisions of Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.13-135. The Master Plan Modification Submittal Requirements Checklist notes that all of the following items must be submitted. This narrative section explains the reason for omitting certain materials from the project submittal, as well as why this submittal does not constitute a new preliminary master plan. A. General Submittal Requirements. The applicant sha0 submit a Preliminary Master Plan that includes all applicable elements described below and a native generally describing the purpose and operational characteristics of the proposed development. The narrative shall include: Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 AKIR Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page 1. The existing Metro Plan designation and zoning. Where the proposed Master Plan site is within an overlay district, Plan District or Refinement Plan, the applicable additional standards shall also be addressed; 2. Thelocation and proposed number ofeesidential units and/or square footage ofcommercial, industrial and/or public uses; 3. The density or intensity ofproposed uses, including applicable Floor Area Ratios (FARs); and 4. The applicant shall attach: a. A map depicting existing zoning and land uses within 300 feet of the proposed Master Plan boundary; b. A Vicinity Map drawn to scale depicting existing bus stops, streets, driveways, pedestrian connections, fire hydrants and other transportation/fire access issues within 300 feet ofthe proposed Master Plan site; and c. A legal description of the property within the proposed Master Plan boundary. Response: This application package includes the applicable submittal items listed above. The updated phasing plan necessitates this modification application but does not otherwise affect findings made previously by City staff and/or conditions of approval relevant to specific zoning district standards. This application intends to comply with the standards of the underlying zoning and overlay districts (i.e. MUC, MDR, and ND Area Overlay) and includes a map depicting the existing zoning designations. Please see the narrative for Section 5.13-125, master plan approval criteria, for further justification of omission from the submittal. B. A Site Assessment ofthe entire proposed Master Plan site that precisely maps and delineates the existing conditions on the site. Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. Information required for adjacent properties may be generalized to show the connections to physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the following information, as applicable: 1. A full size map depicting the proposed Master Plan boundary together with existing lot/parcel fines; 2. The 100 -year floodplain and Roodway boundaries on the proposed Master Plan site, as specified in the latest adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter ofMap Amendment or Letter ofMap Revision; 3. The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in Section 3.3-200 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department 4. Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, wetlands as specified in Section 4.3-117, rock outcroppings and watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WLQW) Map and their riparian areas on file in the Development Services Department In the latter case, the name, location, dimensions, direction of Bow and top of bank shall be depicted. If the proposed Master Plan site is located within 150 feet ofthe top ofbank ofany WQLW or within 100 feet ofthe top ofbank AVC Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page of any WQLW direct tributary, a Riparian Area Premed on Report is required; Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County. A Geotechnical report prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall be submitted concurrently if the Soils Survey indicates the proposed Master Plan site has unstable sods and/or a high water table; and Existing elevations and contours Response: This application package includes the applicable information above to assess the existing conditions on the subject site. The updates to phase boundaries are clearly indicated on the Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B. Please see Exhibit E for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Map and information. C. A Grading Plan which includes: existing and proposed elevations and where 2 or more feet of fill or grading is anticipated for portions of, or the entire proposed Master Plan site. On hillsides, the plan shall show pad sites and their relationship to the public right-of-way with existing contours at one -foot intervals and percent of slope. In areas where the percent ofslope is 10 percent or more,ontours may be shown at 5 -foot -intervals. Response: The Preliminary Plans include a Preliminary Grading, Excavation, and Demolition Plan illustrating the applicable information above. D. A Sweetwater Management Plan diagram which includes the stormwater management system for the entire proposed Master Plan site and any impacts on adjacent properties. The plan shall contain the following components: 1. Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations; 2. Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns; 3. The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including, but not limited to: drain fines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainageways to be retained and/or modified; 4. Existing and proposed elevations, site grades and contours; and 5. A stormwater management system plan avith supporting calculations and documentation as specified in Section 4.3-110 shall be submitted supporting the proposed system. The plan, calculations and documentation shall be consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. E. A Wastewater Management Plan with maps and a narrative depicting the location and size of existing and proposed wastewater Facifities avith supporting calculations and documentation consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. F. A Utilities Plan with maps and a narrative depicting the location and size of existing and proposed water, electrical, gas and telephone service; and the location of existing and required traffic control devices, fire hydrants, street fights, power poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units and similar public Facilities. AVC Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Pages Response: The Preliminary Plans include the applicable stormwater/wastewater management and utility information listed above. The updates to phase boundaries are clearly indicated on the Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B. Please see the narrative for Section 5.13-125. G. A conceptual Landscape Plan with maps and a narrative illustrating proposed landscaping for the entire proposed Master Plan site, including, but not limited to: where existing vegetation is proposed for preservation, especially riparian and wetland areas and trees; installation of vegetative buffering; street trees; general landscaping; and a percentage range for the total amount of required open space, broken down by the type of open space, public and private, as applicable. A conceptual Landscape Plan is more appropriate at the Master Plan level. A detailed Landscape Plan will be required during the Site Plan Review application process required to implement the Final Master Plan. H. An Architectural Plan with maps. I. A Parking Plan and Parking Study. J. An On -sire Lighting Plan depicting the location and maximum height of all proposed exterior fight fixtures, both free standing and attached. Response: At this time, updates to the phase boundaries between Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B are necessary to implement the stormwater management design and needed public facilities for a portion of the site. As described in this written narrative, efforts are underway to modify the Marcola Meadows Master Plan to provide for a number of specifically planned project elements, including a church, school, and multi -family homes. As such, the plans described above are more appropriately included within the future Master Plan Modification submittal, which will include a comprehensive plan, zoning map, and metro plan diagram amendments related to specific changes in land use. Landscape, architectural, parking, and lighting plans will be subject to those future updates and are not included at this time. K A Public Right-of-Way/Easement/Pubfic Place Map depicting the reservation, dedication, or use of the proposed Master Plan site for public purposes, including, but not limited to: rights-of-way showing the name and location of all existing and proposed public and private streets within or on the boundary of the proposed Master Plan site, the right-of-way and paving dimensions, and the ownership and maintenance status, ifappficable, and the location, width and construction material of all existing and proposed sidewalks; pedestrian access ways and trails; proposed easements; existing casements; parks; open spaces, including plazas; transit facilities; and school sites. Response: The Preliminary Plans include the applicable information listed above. The updates to phase boundaries are clearly indicated on the Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B. L. ATra(fic Impact Study, as specified in Section 4.2-105A.4., the scope ofwhich may be esmbfished by the Public Works Director. The Traffic Impact Study shall contain maps and a narrative depicting projected transportation impacts, including, but not limited to: the expected number of vehicle trips that may be generated by the proposed development (peak and daily); an analysis of the impact of vehicle trips on the adjacent street system; and proposed mitigation measures to limit any projected negative impacts. Mitigation measures may include improvements to the street system itself or specific programs and strategies to reduce traffic impacts such as AVO Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page encouraging the use of public transit, carpools, vanpools, and other alternatives m singleoccupant vehicles. Response: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the scope of this modification is limited to updating the phase boundaries between Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B. This application does not modify the configuration of the planned public street system as originally approved in 2008, or the anticipated traffic patterns generated by the development area. Therefore, the transportation system capacity is not impacted. Please see the narrative for Section 5.13- 125, master plan approval criteria, for further justification for omitting a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) from this application submittal. M. A Phasing Plan. The Phasing Plan shall illustrate the proposed location of buildings, streets, utilities and landscaping. Phasing shall progress in sequence that provides street connectivity between the various phases and accommodates other required public improvements such as wastewater Facilities, smrmwater management, electricity and water. The Phasing Plan shall consist of maps and a narrative with an overall schedule or description of on -/off -sire phasing including, but not Gmited to: the type, location and timing of proposed uses, building locations; proposed public Facilities including on -/off-site streets and traffic signals or other traffic control devices and utilities with the designation of construction and maintenance responsibility; estimated start/completion dates with a proposed type of financial guarantee, including, but not fimited to a bond, letter ofcredit, joint deposit or other security in a form acceptable to the City, submitted by the property owner,a future buyer and/or a developer, to ensure planned infrastructuimprovements will occur with each phase, if necessary, or when required by the City, affected local agency or the State (the formal submittal of a required guarantee typically occurs during the Final Master Plan review process and/or development implementation); a statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling releasing (if known at the time of Preliminary Master Plan submittal) of all or portions of the proposed development (where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall also include the applicant's intentions whether the applicant or others will construct the homes); and the relationship of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and open space requirements to the proposed phasing. Response: The purpose of this application is to update the phasing configuration approved in the Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan. The updates to phase boundaries are clearly indicated on the Preliminary Phasing Plan, in Exhibit B, and described in the narrative for Section 5.13-125. N. Neighborhood Meeting Summary. The applicant shall submit a summary of issues raised at the neighborhood meeting as specified in Section 5.13-117. Response: This application involves a final master plan modification subject to the provisions of SDC 5.13-135 and the applicant is therefore not required to conduct a neighborhood meeting. O. A copy of all proposed and any existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that may control development, if applicable. Response: The updated phasing plan necessitates this modification application but does not otherwise affect findings made previously by City staff and/or existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that may control development. Therefore, the materials are not applicable. AIM Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page P. Annexation. A general schedule of proposed annexation consistent with the phasing plan, if applicable. Response: This application involves property currently within the City of Springfield; therefore, annexation materials are not included or applicable. Q. The Director may require additional information necessary to evaluate the proposed development, including, but not limited to: 1. An ESEE analysis, as may be needed to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, for site attributes that may not be on an adopted City inventory; 2. A wedand delineation approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands shall be submitted concurrently with the Preliminary Master Plan application, where there is a wetland on the proposed Master Plan site; and 3. Historical and/or archaeological studies. Response: An economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis and historical/archaeological studies are not relevant to the application. R. Any concurrent land use applications as specified in Subsections 5.13-116B. (6238) Response: This application is not associated with concurrent land use applications as defined in Section 5.13-116B. 5.13-125 Preliminary Master Plan — Criteria A Preliminary Master Plan shall be approved, or approved with conditions, if the Approval Authority finds that the proposal conforms with all ofthe applicable approval criteria. A. Plan/Zone Consistency. The existing or proposed zoning shall be consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable text. In addition, the Preliminary Master Plan shall be in compliance with applicable City Refinement Plan, Conceptual Development Plan or Plan District standards, policies and/or diagram and maps. Response: The subject site is currently designated with MDR and MUC zoning and ND area overlay. The existing zoning is consistent with the current Metro Plan Diagram and applicable text. As demonstrated in this application, the Preliminary Final Master Plan Modification intends to be in compliance with the SDCs and applicable Plan District standards. The purpose of this modification is to update the configuration of the phasing schedule; therefore, consistency with Plans/Zones will remain unchanged. The approval criterion is satisfied. B. Zoning District Standards. The Preliminary Master Plan shall be i compliance with applicable standards of the specific zoning district and/or overlay district. Response: The updated phasing plan necessitates this modification application but does not otherwise affect findings made previously by City staff and/or conditions of approval relevant to specific zoning district standards. This application does not contain substantive changes that would affect its compliance with the standards ofthe underlying zoning and overlay districts (i.e. MUC, MDR, and ND). The Preliminary Plans illustrate Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 AKq Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page compliance with the applicable standards discussed above. Therefore, the approval criterion is satisfied. C. Transportation System Capacity. With the addition of traffic from the proposed development, there is either sufficient capacity in the City's existing transportation system to accommodate the development proposed in all figure phases or there avill be adequate capacity by the time each phase of development is completed. Adopted State and/or local mobility standards, as applicable, shall be used to determine transportation system capacity. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with any conditions of approval from aMetro Plan diagram and/or text amendment regarding transportation and all applicable transportation standards specified in SDC Chapter 4. Response: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the scope of this modification is limited to updating the phase boundaries between Phases 18, 2A, and 2B. In 2018, the Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan was approved and found to adequately accommodate the planned capacity generated by the project. The TIS associated with the 2018 approval demonstrates compliance with the applicable transportation standards specific in the SDC. The updated phasing plan necessitates this modification application but does not otherwise affect findings made previously by City staff and/or conditions of approval relevant to transportation system impacts and/or capacity constraints. Consistent with Finding 17 (Master Plan), this modification application does not significantly modify the configuration of the planned public street system as originally approved in 2008, or the anticipated traffic patterns generated by the project. Therefore, the transportation system capacity is not impacted and Criterion C is met. D. Parking. Parking areas have been designed to: facilitate traffic safety and avoid congestion; provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity avithin the property and to nearby transit stops and public areas. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with all applicable vehicular and bicycle parking standards specified in SDC Chapter 4. Response: This application does not involve modifications which affect on-site parking areas. The updated phasing plan, necessitating this modification application, does not otherwise affect findings made previously by City staff and/or conditions of approval relevant to vehicular or bicycle parking. Findings 19 and 20 (Local file no. 811-18-000054-TYP: Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan Modification) remain consistent with this modification application. The Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B provides for connectivity of the public street system internal to the site and to perimeter public streets. Vehicle and bicycle parking for multi -family residential and various land uses will be reviewed and approved incrementally as detailed site plans are advanced for those portions of the site. Therefore, Criterion D is satisfied. E. Ingress -egress. Ingress -egress points have been designed to: Facilitate traffic safety and avoid congestion; provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the property and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; and minimize driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable City and State regulations. The Preliminary Master AIR! Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 AMAMMO Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page Plan shall also comply with all applicable ingress/egress standards specified in SDC Chapter 4. Response: As shown on the Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B, the single-family residential housing access points on N 31a Street are consistent with what is shown on the approved Preliminary and Final Master Plans. Ingress -egress points have been designed to facilitate safe and efficient traffic, provide connectivity within and from the site, and minimize driveways on 3P' Street (functionally classified as a Minor Collector street). The approval Criterion E is satisfied; this application does not involve modifications which affect off-site traffic. F. Availability of Public U6fi6cs. Evsting public wifides, including, but not limited to, water, electricity, wastewater facifides, and stormwater management facilities either have sufficient capacity to support the proposed development in all future phases adequately, or there will be adequate capacity available by the time each phase of development -is completed. The Public Works Director or appropriate utility provider shall determine capacity issues. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with applicable utility standards specified in SDC Chapters 4 and 5. Response: The updated phasing plan necessitates this modification application but does not otherwise affect findings made previously by City staff and/or conditions of approval relevant to sanitary sewer, water, or utility impacts and/or capacity constraints. Specifically, Findings 23 and 45 assert there is adequate infrastructure capacity planned to be provided to the site. However, this application involves updates to the approved stormwater management design and associated public facilities. Condition of Approval 7 requires the Applicant to "design and build each phase's public stormwater system through the City's PIP [performance improvement project] process in accordance with the approved drainage report" This application involves updates to the approved stormwater management design. As modified, stormwater runoff for Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B is directed toward the facility in the northwestern portion of the site (Tract D). The phase boundaries and lot numbers are updated in accordance to allow for the construction of said public facilities in a logical manner. Please seethe Preliminary Stormwater Report, in Exhibit F, forfurther details. Public utilities are planned to be provided concurrently with each phase in accordance with the SDC. This modification is in compliance with Criterion F. G. Protection of Physical Features. Physical features, including, but not limited to slopes 15 percent or greater with unstable soil or geologic conditions, areas with susceptibility to flooding, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock oummppings and open spaces and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235- 240 shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with applicable physical feature protection standards specified in SDC Chapter 4. Response: The purpose of this modification is to update the phase boundaries as shown on the Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B. The site is generally flat and currently exists as a Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 AKIR Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page 30 grassy field. Finding 45 states "the property is currently vacant and the only notable physical feature on the site is the existing linear drainage channel (Pierce Ditch)." This application does not involve updates to the Pierce Ditch (it remains as shown in the 2018 Modified Master Plan), and therefore will not change the status of natural features on the site. Approval of this application is in accordance with the finding made previously by City staff and there are no associated conditions of approval. Criterion G is met. H. Phasing Plan. The Phasing Plan shall: demonstrate that the construction of required pubfic facilities shall occur in a logical sequence, either in conjunction with, or prim to each phase, or that there are appropriate financial guarantees as specified in Subsection 5.13-120M. to ensure the phased pubfic Facilities construction vAl occur. Response: As described in this written document,there is a comprehensive master plan modification effort underway that is planned for submittal in the near future. This application involves modifications to the phase boundaries approved in the Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan. Due to the project's stormwater management design and topographic constraints, surface stormwater runoff (for Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B) will be directed toward the facility in the western portion of the site. That said, the phase boundaries are updated to allow for the construction of public facilities in a logical manner, as follows: The phasing plan for Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan is intended to allow for appropriate market absorption into the City of Springfield. The configurations of Phases 1A, 1B, and 2 are responsive to various points of infrastructure connection, detailed as follows: Phase IA begins at the east property boundary to allow the extension of underground utilities from the intersection of W Street and N 31" Street into the subdivision and moves south to implement stormwater facilities. The design of Phase 1B is a result of secondary access implementation and planned stormwater management; the phase moves west to construct Tract D, the largest of the stormwater facilities, and is then directed to the southwest to implement road and utility infrastructure improvements. Phase 2A moves east to continue utility sequencing and connect road infrastructure. The phasing plan is designed to be carried out in a manner that provides necessary public improvements for each phase as it moves forward. Adjacent Use Protection. The proposed Preliminary Master Plan contains design, elements including, but not limited to landscaping/screening, parking/traffic management, and rnuld-.nodal transportation that Emit and/or mitigate identified conflicts been the site and adjacent uses. Response: This application does not involve modifications which affect adjacent use protection including provisions related to landscaping, screening, parking/traffic management, or multi -modal transportation routes. As illustrated on the modified Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B, the updates impact phase boundaries internal to the site (Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B). The updated phasing plan, necessitating this modification application, does not AVO Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page 11 affect Finding 53 made by staff and there are no relevant conditions of approval. Therefore, this application is consistent with Criterion I. 5.13-135 Final Master Plan —Modifications A proposed Final Master Plan modification, or a proposed modification to a Master Plan approved prior to the effective date of this regulation, shall be processed under the applicable procedures described below. B. The following modifications to the FinalMaster Plan shall be processed under Type II procedure, unless the Director determines that the proposed .modification should be reviewed as a Type III procedure, based on the proposed size of the Master Plan site; and/or the availablfity/capacity of public facilities; and/or impacts to adjacent properties including, but not fimited to noise and traffic. These modifications include a request 1. By the applicant if a proposed permitted non-residential use, for ample, a church or a school, affects the approved FinalMaster Plan residential density; Response: This application does not involve a change in use that affects the approved Final Master Plan residential density. The modification listed above is not relevant. By the applicant for 10 percent or greater increases or decreases in the overall gross floor area of commercial, industrial or public buildings; the number of dwelling units; building height, and the location or building .pass ofthe primary structure (as defined in this Code); Response: This application does not include modifications to the overall gross floor area of buildings, the number of dwelling units permitted, or building height/placement. The modifications listed above are not relevant. By the applicant for increases or decreases in the amount ofappmved or required parking by a Factor of10 percent orgrearer. The applicant shall provide a new parking analysis related to the proposal; Response: This application does not include modifications to the amount of approved parking. The modifications listed above are not relevant. By the applicant for a Zoning Map amendment or Discretionary Use application; Response: This application does not include a zoning map amendment or discretionary use application. The modifications listed above are not applicable. By the applicant for proposals thatwudd increase the number ofPM peak -hour vehicular trips by 10 percent or greater, except in cases where a trip cap has been imposed on development of the property. Where such a trip cap is in effect, a modification of the land use decision that imposed the trip cap shall be required. In all cases, the applicant shall provide a Traffic Impact Analysis supporting the proposal; Response: This application does not involve a 10 percent or greater increase in the number of PM peak -hour vehicle trips. The updated phasing plan necessitates this modification application but does not otherwise affect findings made previously by City staff and/or AIR! Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page 12 conditions of approval relevant to transportation system impacts and/or capacity constraints—and therefore will not impact traffic generation. The above modification is not applicable. By the applicant to alter the placement of interior streets by 10 percent or greater from their approved location, as long as the modification maintains the connectivity established by the approved Final Master Pan; Response: This application does not alter the placement of interior streets by 10 percent or greater from the approved locations or affect connectivity established by the approved final master plan. The above modification is not relevant. By the City or the applicant when essential public infrastructure cannot be provided; Response: This master plan modification provides essential public infrastructure concurrent with the planned phasing schedule and the modification listed above is not applicable. By the applicant to modify the Master Plan phasing schedule for a specific phase of development when the proposed change affects the construction of scheduled public improvements; Response: This application involves modification to the Marcola Meadows Master Plan phasing configuration and schedule and will affect the construction of scheduled public infrastructure improvements, as described above. The modified Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B illustrates the modifications described as follows: Updates to the approved drainage report phase boundaries, and renumbering of lots The phase boundaries between Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B are reconfigured to allow for updates to the approved stormwater management design. As modified, stormwater runoff (for the subject phases) is directed toward the facility in the northwestern portion of the site (Tract D). The phase boundaries and the associated lots are updated to allow for the construction of said public facilities in a logical manner. Public utilities are planned to be provided concurrently with each phase in compliance with the SDC. By the applicant for extension of the Final Master Plan time limit beyond the maximum approved time limit of7 years or the extension permitted in Subsection B.3., above. In no case shall the extension exceed 15 years from the date of Final Master Plan approval as specified in Subsection 5.13-133C. An extension request shall be filed in writing with the Director at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the initial 7 year period or any subsequently approved extensions. The time line extension will be granted provided the applicant has made reasonable progress in the implementation of the Final Master Plan and public services and facilities remain available; Response: This application involves modification to the Marcola Meadows Master Plan phasing configuration and schedule. Pursuant to Subsection 5.13-133C, the existing Marcola Meadows Master Plan approval included a time extension granted until July 25, 2023, at which time the final master plan is set to expire. The Applicant would like to pursue options to further extend the timeline to progress the implementation of the final master plan. Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 AKIR Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page 13 10. By the applicant for a change to the approved Final Master Plan boundary. Response: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan Boundary remains consistent with the original boundary on the approved plans. The modification listed above is not relevant. C. Proposed Final Master Plan modifications other than those described in Subsections A. and B., above, shall require the submittal ofa newPrefiminary Master Plan application. Response: This application involves updating approved phase boundaries, a modification described in Subsection B above. Therefore, the submittal of a new Preliminary Master Plan application is not warranted. D. The following .modifications to the Final Master Plan do not require subsequent land use review and are allowed upon issuance of a building permit, ifrequired: 1. Building interior improvements; 2. Exterior improvements associated with existing buildings that do not evolve a change in Boor area, subject to all applicable base zone development and design standards and relevant conditions of approval as approved in the Final Master Plan; 3. Installation of new echanical or electrical equipment, or .modification of existing equipment, subject to all applicable base zone development and design standards and relevant conditions of approval as approved in the Final Master Plan; and/or 4. Routine maintenance of existing buildings, facilities and landscaping. Response: This application does not include modifications listed above (which do not require subsequent land use review). The subsection is not relevant. E. A Pre -Submittal Meeting application, as specified in Section 5.1-120C., is required prior to the formal submitral of the Final Master Plan modification application. Response: It is understood that a pre -submittal meeting application is required prior to the Final Master Plan Modification submittal. The criterion can be met. F. For all Final Master Plan modification applications described in Subsections A and B, above, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following: 1. Anyapplicable PreliminaryMaster Plan criteria ofapproval specified in Section 5.13-125; and 2. Any other applicable standard of this Code that may be required to justify the proposed .modification. Response: This written document demonstrates compliance with the applicable provisions of the SDC and specifically addresses the approval criteria within Section 5.13-125. The updates to phase boundaries are clearly indicated on the Preliminary Phasing Plan in Exhibit B. The criteria are satisfied. AVO Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page 14 G. The Master Plan procedures in Appendix 3 of this Code regarding Master Plan Modifications and/or newMaster Plans shall apply to properties within the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District, Section 3.4-700, until these regulations are updated. Response: The subject site is not within the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District. The criterion is not applicable. IV. Conclusion The required findings have been made, and this written narrative and accompanying documentation demonstrate that the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City of Springfield Development Code. The evidence in the record is substantial and supports approval of this application. AIM Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan May 2020 Phasing Modification— City of Springfield Page 15 AKq Exhibit A: City Application Form and Checklist City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Final Master Plan Modification �SPRINGFIELD AA. OREGON Application Type (Applicant: check one) Pre -Submittal Final Master Plan Modification: Tr Final Master Plan Modification Type I: ❑ Final Master Plan Modification Type II: ❑ Final Master Plan Modification Type III: ❑ Required Project Information (Applicant., complete this section) Applicant Name: Marcola Meadows Nei hborhood LLC Phone: Please contact consultant Company: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC Fax: Please contact consultant Address: 9550 SE Clackamas Road Clackamas OR 97015 Applicant's Rep.: Consultant: Chris Goodell Phone: (503) 563-6151 Company: AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Fax: (503) 563-6152 Address: 12965 SW Herman Avenue Suite 100 Tualatin OR 97062 Property Owner: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC Phone: N/A Company: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC Fax: N/A Address: 9550 SE Clackamas Road Clackamas OR 97015 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17032511/17023000 1 TAX LOT NOS : 2300 1800 Property Address: No situs, northwest of Marcola Road and 31st Street Size of Property: +/- 100 acres Acres ® Square Feet ❑ Approved Use of Property: Various residential and commercial uses Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Modification: Update the configuration of approved phasing boundaries. Si natures: Please sign and Drint your name and date in the acicirociriate box on the next pace. Required Project Information (City Intake Staff., complete this section) Associated Applications: Signs: Pre -Sub Case No. 81 1 -20 -000087 -PRE Date:05/05/2020 Reviewed by: Case No.: Date: Reviewed by: Application Fee: 421 Technical Fee: $ 1 Postage Fee: TOTAL FEES: $ 421 PROJECT NUMBER: 811-18-000047-PROJ Final Master Plan Modification 10.14.13 kl 1 of 8 Owner Signatures This application form is used for both the required pre -submittal meeting and subsequent complete application submittal. Owner signatures are required at both stages in the application process. An application without the Owner's original signature will not be accepted. undersigned acknowledges that the information in this application is correct and. accurate for scheduling of the Pre- Submittal Meeting. +�Date: rl J �� Signature I represent this application to be complete for submittal to the City. Consistent with the completeness check performed on this application at the Pre -Submittal Meeting, 1 affirm the information identified by the City as necessary for processing the application is provided herein or the information will not be provided if not otherwise contained within the submittal, and the City may begin processing the application with the Information as submitted. This statement serves as written notice pursuant to the requirements of oRs 227.178 pertaining to a complete application. Date: Signature A $7,333.35 fee is included: $6,547 (Type II Master Plan Modification) $327.35 (5% Tech Fee) $459 (Postage) Final Master Plan Modification 10.14.13 kl 2 of 8 Final Master Plan Modification Application Process 1. Applicant Submits a Final Master Plan Modification Application to the Development & Public Works Department • The application must conform to the Final Master Plan Modification Submittal Requirements Checklist on pages 5-6 of this application packet. • Planning Division staff screen the submittal at the front counter to determine whether all required items listed in the Master Plan Amendment Submittal Requirements Checklist have been submitted. • Applications missing required items will not be accepted for submittal. 2. City Staff Conduct Detailed Completeness Check • Planning Division staff conducts a detailed completeness check within 30 days of submittal. • The assigned Planner notifies the applicant in writing regarding the completeness of the application. • An application is not deemed technically complete until all information necessary to evaluate the proposed development, its impacts, and its compliance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code and other applicable codes and statutes have been provided. • Incomplete applications, as well as insufficient or unclear data, will delay the application review process and may result in denial. 3. Decision Process A. Type I - Ministerial • A type I decision is made without public notice and without a public hearing since there are clear and objective approval criteria and/or development standards that do not require the use of discretion. • Decisions address all the applicable approval criteria and/or development standards. • Applications may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. • The City mails the applicant and any party of standing a copy of the decision, which is effective on the day it is mailed. • The decision issued is the final decision of the City and may not be appealed. B. Type II - City Staff Review the Application and Issue a Decision • A Type II decision, made after public notice, but without a public hearing, unless appealed, is issued within 120 days of submittal of a complete application. • Mailed notice is provided to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property being reviewed and to any applicable neighborhood association. In addition, the applicant must post one sign, provided by the City, on the subject property. • There is a 14 -day public comment period, starting on the date notice is mailed. • Applications are distributed to the Development Review Committee, and their comments are incorporated into a decision that addresses all applicable approval Final Master Plan ModifKation 10.14.13 kl 3 of 8 criteria and/or development standards, as well as any written comments from those given notice. • Applications may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. • The City mails the applicant and any party of standing a copy of the decision, which is effective on the day it is mailed. • The decision issued is the final decision of the City but may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the Planning Commission or Hearings Official. C. Type III - Planning Commission or Hearings Official Review the Application, Hold a Public Hearing, and Issue a Decision • This is a Type III decision and thus is made after a public hearing. • A notice is posted in the newspaper, and notice is mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property being reviewed and to any applicable neighborhood association. In addition, the applicant must post one sign, provided by the City, on the subject property. • Written comments may be submitted to the Development & Public Works Department through the day of the public hearing or comments may be provided in person during the public hearing. • Applications are distributed to the Development Review Committee. • After a public hearing, the Planning Commission or Hearings Official issues a decision that addresses all applicable approval criteria and/or development standards, as well as any written or oral testimony. • Applications may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. • The City mails the applicant and any party of standing a copy of the decision, which is effective on the day it is mailed. • The decision issued is the final decision of the City but the Planning Commission's decision may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Council, and the Hearings Official's decision may be appealed within 21 calendar days to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Final Master Plan Modification 10.14.13 kl 4 of 8 Master Plan Modification Submittal Requirements Checklist NOTE: ALL of the following items MUST be submitted for BOTH Pre -Submittal and Submittal. If you feel an item on the list below does not apply to your specific application, please state the reason why and attach the explanation to this form. PI see the written narrative included for information related to submittal materials which are not applicable. Application Fee - refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee calculation formula. A copy of the fee schedule is available at the Development & Public Works Department. The applicable application, technology, and postage fees are collected at the time of complete application submittal. Master Plan Modification Application Form Copy of the Deed Copy of a Preliminary Title Report issued within the past 30 days documenting ownership and listing all encumbrances. Narrative - explaining the proposed modification and any additional information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken, including findings demonstrating compliance with the Preliminary Master Plan criteria described in SDC 5.13-125. The required to justify the proposed modification. The narrative shall include: • The existing Metro Plan designation and zoning. Where the proposed Master Plan site is within an overlay district, Plan District or Refinement Plan, the applicable additional standards shall also be addressed; • The location and proposed number of residential units and/or square footage of commercial, industrial and/or public uses; • The density or intensity of proposed uses, including applicable Floor Area Ratios (FARs); and • TI7@ applicant shall attach: A map depicting existing zoning and land uses within 300 feet of the proposed Master Plan boundary; *�A Vicinity Map drawn to scale depicting existing bus stops, streets, driveways, pedestrian connections, fire hydrants and other transportation/fire access issues within 300 feet of the proposed Master Plan site; and leA legal description of the property within the proposed Master Plan boundary N/A ❑ One additional copy of the plan which has been reduced to 8 1/2' x 11" to be mailed as part of the neighboring property notification packet; where applicable - not needed for Type I. THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY DUE TO PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS. N/A❑ Four (4) Copies of the Master Plan Modification Sets for Pre -Submittal OR Three (3) Copies of the Master Plan Modification Sets for Submittal to include the following: OThe Scale appropriate to the area involved and sufficient to show detail of the plan and related data, such as 1" = 30', 1" = 50' or 1" = 100', north arrow, and date of preparation; all related maps, excluding vicinity and detail maps, shall be at the same scale; Site Assessment of the entire proposed Master Plan site that precisely maps and delineates the existing conditions on the site. Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. Information required for adjacent properties may Final Master Plan ModifKation 10.14.13 kl 5 of 8 be generalized to show the connections to physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the following information, as applicable: Full size map depicting the proposed Master Plan boundary together with existing lot/parcel lines; N/A ❑ The 100 -year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the proposed Master Plan site, as specified in the latest adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision; �ihe Time of Travel Zones, as specified in Section 3.3-200 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development & Public Works -,,Department; Iff Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, wetlands as specified in Section 4.3-117, rock outcroppings and watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW) Map and their riparian areas on file in the Development & Public Works Department. In the latter case, the name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank shall be depicted. If the proposed Master Plan site is located within 150 feet of the top of bank of any WQLW or within 100 feet of the top of bank of any WQLW direct tributary, a Riparian Area Protection Report is required; Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County. A Geotechnical report prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall be submitted concurrently if the Soils Survey indicates the proposed Master VVPIan site has unstable soils and/or a high water table; and Existing elevations and contours Grading Plan which includes: existing and proposed elevations where 2 or more feet of fill or grading is anticipated for portions of, or the entire proposed Master Plan site. On hillsides, the plan shall show pad sites and their relationship to the public right-of- way with existing contours at one -foot intervals and percent of slope. In areas where the percent of slope is 10 percent or more, contours may be shown at 5 -foot intervals. estormwater Management Plan diagram which includes the stormwater management system for the entire proposed Master Plan site and any impacts on adjacent properties. The plan shall contain the following components: N/Aoof drainage patterns and discharge locations; Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns; The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including, but not limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainage ways to be retained and/or Nff Existing and proposed elevations, site grades and contours; and Yk stormwater management system plan with supporting calculations and documentation as specified in section 4.3-110 shall be submitted supporting the proposed system. The plan, calculations and documentation shall be consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Wastewater Management Plan with maps and a narrative depicting the location and size of existing and proposed wastewater facilities with supporting calculations and documentation consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. utilities Plan with maps and a narrative depicting the location and size of existing and proposed water, electrical, gas and telephone service; and the location of existing and Final Master Plan ModifKation 10. 14.13 kl 6of8 required traffic control devices, fire hydrants, street lights, power poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units and similar public facilities. N/AE] Conceptual Landscape Plan with maps and a narrative illustrating proposed landscaping for the entire proposed Master Plan site, including, but not limited to: where existing vegetation is proposed for preservation, especially riparian and wetland areas and trees; installation of vegetative buffering; street trees; general landscaping; and a percentage range for the total amount of required open space, broken down by the type of open space, public and private, as applicable. A conceptual Landscape Plan is more appropriate at the Master Plan level. A detailed Landscape Plan will be required during the Site Plan Review application process required to implement the Final Master Plan. N/A❑ Architectural Plan with maps, including: ❑ Building elevations, overall commercial, industrial or public floor areas, the number of dwelling units, building height, number of stories and the building location or building mass of the primary structures (as defined in this Code); ❑ Illustrative examples of applicable SDC design standards and building materials may be considered conceptual. In this case, this requirement, if changed in the future, will not require Final Master Plan modification as specified in Section 5.13-135; and ❑ Narrative providing sufficient information to describe the proposed Architectural Plan. N/A❑ Parking Plan shall be submitted for all proposed development and shall contain the following information: ❑ Location and number of proposed parking spaces; ❑ On-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation; ❑ Access to streets, alleys and properties to be served, including the location and dimensions of existing and proposed driveways and any existing driveways proposed to be closed; ❑ Location and number of proposed bicycle spaces; ❑ The amount of gross floor area applicable to the parking requirements for the proposed use; and ❑ Location and dimensions of off-street loading areas, if any. ❑ Parking study, for other than single-family developments, with maps and a narrative depicting projected parking impacts, including, but not limited to: projected peak parking demand; an analysis of peak demand compared to, or use of, the proposed on-site and off-site supply; potential impacts to the on -street parking system and adjacent uses; and proposed mitigation measures, if necessary. N/A[-] On -Site Lighting Plan depicting the location and maximum height of all proposed exterior light fixtures, both free standing and attached. Public Right-of-Way/Easement/Public Place Map depicting the reservation, dedication, or use of the proposed Master Plan site for public purposes, including, but not limited to: rights-of-way showing the name and location of all existing and proposed public and private streets within or on the boundary of the proposed Master Plan site, the right-of-way and paving dimensions, and the ownership and maintenance status, if applicable; and the location, width and construction material of all existing and proposed sidewalks; pedestrian access ways and trails; proposed easements; existing easements; parks; open spaces, including plazas; transit facilities; and school sites. Final Master Plan ModifKation 10.14.13 kl 7 of 8 N/A ❑ Traffic Impact Study, as specified in Section 4.2-105A.4., the scope of which may be established by the Public Works Director. The Traffic Impact Study shall contain maps and a narrative depicting projected transportation impacts, including, but not limited to: the expected number of vehicle trips that may be generated by the proposed development (peak and daily); an analysis of the impact of vehicle trips on the adjacent street system; and proposed mitigation measures to limit any projected negative impacts. Mitigation measures may include improvements to the street system itself or specific programs and strategies to reduce traffic impacts such as encouraging the use of public transit, carpools, vanpools, and other alternatives to single occupant vehicles. Phasing Plan which shall illustrate the proposed location of buildings, streets, utilities and landscaping. Phasing shall progress in a sequence that provides street connectivity between the various phases and accommodates other required public improvements such as wastewater facilities, stormwater management, electricity and water. The Phasing Plan shall consist of maps and a narrative with an overall schedule or description of on -/off-site phasing including, but not limited to: the type, location and timing of proposed uses, building locations; proposed public facilities including on - /off -site streets and traffic signals or other traffic control devices and utilities with the designation of construction and maintenance responsibility; estimated start/completion dates with a proposed type of financial guarantee, including, but not limited to a bond, letter of credit, joint deposit or other security in a form acceptable to the City, submitted by the property owner, a future buyer and/or a developer, to ensure planned infrastructure improvements will occur with each phase, if necessary, or when required by the City, affected local agency or the State (the formal submittal of a required guarantee typically occurs during the Final Master Plan review process and/or development implementation); a statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing (if known at the time of Preliminary Master Plan submittal) of all or portions of the proposed development (where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall also include the applicant's intentions whether the applicant or others will construct the homes); and the relationship of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and open space requirements to the proposed phasing. N/A ❑ Neighborhood Meeting Summary of issues raised at the neighborhood meeting as specified in Section 5.13-177. N/A ❑ Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. A copy of all proposed and any existing covenants, conditions and restrictions that may control development, if applicable. N/A ❑ Annexation. A general schedule of proposed annexation consistent with the phasing plan, if applicable. N/A ❑ Additional Information that may be required by the Director as necessary to evaluate the proposed development, including, but not limited to: N/A- An ESEE analysis, as may be needed to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, for site attributes that may not be on an adopted City Inventory; N/A• A wetland delineation approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands shall be submitted concurrently with the Preliminary Master Plan application, where there is a wetland on the proposed Master Plan Site; and N/A• Historical and/or archeological studies. N/A ❑ Any concurrent land use applications as specified in Subsections S.13-1168. Final Master Plan ModifKation 10. 14.13 kl 8 of 8 AKq ad a Exhibit B: Preliminary Plans MARCOLA MEADOWS FINAL MASTER PLAN VICINITY MAP I"=2000' MODIFICATION TO PHASES 113, 2A, AND 213 LAND USE PLANNING / CIVIL ENGINEERING / SURVEYING/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE: AKS ENGINEERING & FORESTRY, LLC CONTACT: CHRIS GOODELL 12965 SW HERMAN ROAD, SUITE 100 TUALATN, OR 97062 PH: 503-563-6151 FAX: 503-563-6152 PROJECT PURPOSE: LAND USE APPUCAnCN TO MODIFY N APPROVED PHASING BOUNDARIES SHEETINDEX SITF MAP P01 COVER SHEET WITH SITE AND VICINITY MAPS P02 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN P02A EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN P02B EXISTING CONDIRONS PLAN P02C EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN P02D EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN P02E EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN PO2F EXISTING CONDNIONS PLAN P02G EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN P03 EXISTING ZONING PO4 EXISTING METRO PLAN DIAGRAM P05 PRELIMINARY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH PLAN P06 PREUMINARY PHASING PLAN P07A PRELIMINARY DIMENSIONED SUBDPASION PLAT P07B PRELIMINARY DIMENSIONED SUBDIVISION PLAT POU PREUMINARY GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, AND GRADING PLAN P09 PREUMINARY COMPOSITE UIUTY PLAN P10 PRELIMINARY STREET PLAN AND CROSS SECTIONS P10A PREUMINARY STREET PUN P10B PREUMINARY STREET PUN P11A PREUMINARY STREET PROFILES P11B PRELIMINARY STREET PROFILES HORIZONTAL DATUM: A LOCAL DATUM PLANE SCALED FROM OREGON STATE PLANE SOUTH 3602 NAD83(2011) EPOCH 2010.0000. THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES WERE DERIVED FROM THE TRIMBLE VAS NOW NETWORK EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT, UNDEVELOPED LAND PROJECT LOCATION: SPRINGFIELD OREGON, NORTH OF MARCOLA ROAD AND WEST OF 31ST STREET OWNER / APPLICANT: MARCOLA MEADOWS NEIGHBORHOOD, LLC 9550 SE CLACKAMAS ROAD CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: TAX LOT 1800 LANE COUNTY TAX MAP 17.02.30 TAX LOT 2300 LANE COUNTY TAX MAP 17.03.25AA LEGEND EASING rtmuurs ri¢ 0 PROPOSED � sNw oNni arix ar EXISTING PROPOSED minas rw[ Slal dLW Gld BAiI smai wLw !an mw r•c xmwn a � sinal oaw uuxuc • • wnux uuNm P Gs faux o 0 T wnux NEIFx = Gs vuW m • xNxx vxW . ar •a Nxaa E- oaec xa vxLa . unurc ruc IA AIFAY VNN .Q ,� POMF VWLi 0 swruv xwrx uxw ar o vaNrn.uxcnni ax til e snrtxry svEx naNu[ o • wNm vmmu sa 4 T mNaxunaa vuar © m s uan 0 • r/LaMGnGs wcna an p Nwam ® ® mNaxunGs xssN o mra-Nar uxe - - DIM— mV UNE vraun uxc awe rlrE a Gvaaxr uvon ma ua m m m fAM m voNu ua - - - --- - - --- .. .. ..— OxING,KI6IIF - - - -m- - - -m- —^ ^— GS OxC - - - --- - - ---—'.—'.—^- 51(Po, [KNIT LIE m m —m..— AWMAY SEE SHEET P02E j �I I i 2 N v .. U. LILYNI /H PLV® m NN M.N. AS SI69A AISI mlc 41E OYIXIY m9YlRl m.1m I." u6Placm.AimLucnoxwA Sw[rxoum $NEi.8 xmm Q 11 mI1p1NE R n L¢ImUw IM6 V YAAAN FIk3t. M] fl NUMI6f WM. 81161 R M m�.V PL411R Ai 1m 19O 51m[l. Il6 it F/3f m IIF I9XIm Of 3901 SmEL 19.1 fi SUM Of M mllm R A -SWAY, AVO 38 f! XmM Of YlLlf! RYE xAaW I$ Am Ax uLWAnm m 6mn REr qAw m� s xmmnA mnA6 A IEtA wu nw6 sa16B Rw OEVII M mIN FLIE YNI WQ NLiQ9m1164]I IDI0.lIX0. SIAIE RINL N1V611A1L31m6 mR4ID IRV n2 nWnL xs xm lona. 3 YIBIIfS 910WI IAE BA49 m ULYPdNX4 Mln IOGIf uravlm As Fxowm ar ollFps. uo FAmum rtn Vlun LOGIL nmEi Nu. IDTP95Lpl]]91 IM IDT]]99. n[ Mm . . NAT o ..1 A1 m1.Jnums LI THE euw axmACXI9s Are msarlsmE 609 Manxc xL Llmixc worms RYm m mu -II m¢m¢nm A n[16ttR.NNLimWmx xLSm SNA mMILmmO O.WMIIs %IN PRPIAm ar Bu4Rm ENmmA1G NA. f@fJal! mis ANI . PER . N. I[m1m f191.1 RPoI m JANAM 1. AHI A[MdAL LFREAWAL 16SmI➢ILL Ux ILnIN'EAN0BANY NWBPSEI m /M vIWFA1L 4 6mm1m, xn n tlLssxmAmwMY If FR AND SA ml mL oxxn. 6oBOAas WAr m BmYFLwv AND mmw If mRa1m xm ne mA19xc WRewX 99.aa m mLnm m 6m uixlm Rnv1 m mxsm�. 6. axetil ll I is 1 mor. ]. RIES As. 6M... OY.. PLAY N91 ACftl .I - WES BY YAn-1 ENGIN 'n mm r...9 ANI 126£X0 m .WLYBr n, iPN. neE LImLnAs N xoi W Br Axs LNPEFWX6 A iPi91PC n6IEO. 1s 48ELi w.. .IREcnm aBe Graz PRS NAMft�...Bq'v'AnAB'69 Y¢mM .I..Tm 0Zm .N,ffiuoa'm^W 1mn'm IUU R%bMX III 9 TAX LOT 700 m ury Im114V TAX LOT 604 Y m u.w Imn9v TAX LOT 900 'Px YW 1.1.1 r TA% LOT 1000 TA% LOT 1100 ,� I m xu Imalw Tu YN' IA[Iw) 'a w M N TAX LOT 1500 — a`-- D6U— OA«R.— ELECTK—A _ r— _-- a / r' I N� / 6 I F / / I SEE SHEET -P= TAX TAX LOT 1300 m wonNl9N TAX LOT 1400 iM YW IiPlIP3J cm. l.V YV 1]ORI911 a 1 Ix X00 1N3 f X00 i I fM: oflunNr j TAX LOT 300 I I rax xv Immwa I IX � IAA: W.aa I➢G Iy: 1 .Salwrti III I E N I4i97 \Y nl I TAX LOT 1302 iM YW lmalwl� Vi LWAER OIM1flI1Y IX Itl CIXIC I I'a}1. oxxar SEE SHEET -P02C le 46].6x (g TAX LOT 400 rAx lnn lmn9v �A4M4i FxM !wo a ImAr¢ xxwx TAX LOT 500 IYYM 1IP119V TAX LOT 600 \cam R WG16 >- IX Sx11N ( IEIL1 IY IR@] [N-4. I �� III l[ Nr: MR�- II � I TAX LOT 629 j1t wAxE.Ym 1.1.4 1 TAX LOT 6000 lY YM I]0111a1 ggWIL 90} NOLL ¢� TAX LOT 5900 e L TPx YW Im[IPJ., d. M ilk 1T.R F N 1NAS (CQ F NI: 160.N (B'n) TAX LOT 5800 ar lun Imavon X00 X00 fM: .—J F lUl: 166W TAX Lor 1800 axP.. rAx wn Imam IX � IAA: W.aa I➢G Iy: 1 AR 61]r Li 49NSFlG fA4 E N I4i97 xN6Y ell--ao-NNSI-mrl IE Nr: waw SEE SHEET -P02C le 46].6x (g TAX LOT 400 rAx lnn lmn9v �A4M4i FxM !wo a ImAr¢ xxwx TAX LOT 500 IYYM 1IP119V TAX LOT 600 \cam R WG16 >- IX Sx11N ( IEIL1 IY IR@] [N-4. I �� III l[ Nr: MR�- II � I TAX LOT 629 j1t wAxE.Ym 1.1.4 1 TAX LOT 6000 lY YM I]0111a1 ggWIL 90} NOLL ¢� TAX LOT 5900 e L TPx YW Im[IPJ., d. M ilk 1T.R F N 1NAS (CQ F NI: 160.N (B'n) TAX LOT 5800 ar lun Imavon �I X00 X00 �00 �I 2 i p7T03'LSS� — —_�_—�— TAX LOT TAX LOT 800 m u.w rn TAX LOT ]00 ru u.w 1m4W s T.LOT 500 ux m�Tw ru urn lroizw x iX iY W➢ITA1H1{ _ s,,,,,,,, -- m Ipps TAX LOT 300 f Nlill vsnn_M1nMT 400M)1511gg�T 500 €1)Ok511 Y SEE SHEET -P020 2 cezw TWO le cean s7 TAX LOT 2300 ..1. SEESHEET-P020 TAX LOT 1500 ru uw lmaw S _ 1�s•93� mr-- I i 9 SEE SHEET- MM SEE SHE ET-P02A SEE SH EET-P02E SEE SHEET - P �0® 000 00� 00� Amo mom mmm mom Amo mom �mm moo Wim® moo® Amo mmo ��m m�0 mem mm0 I I TAX LOT 900 ILI lY YM�IR)EII �� LOT Tm YM I TM Iwns11n PUSU TAX LOT 1100 1M YM 1TUall iuXY�OTm�vs� zoo' welt unulr ux aTMR PGT If'numx MXmM TAX LOT 1300 / rM YM IAWNI 1 AX LOT 1 i Tm xM I., nNO WM PnmulTMR MKv Rfm 6 PMX 41J11! I TAX LQF 2300 f \ID9� TMJIW aNLll YI \LQk 61s Wx NT "'S" 4AIXaM GA W I XxYPY BII-ffi�5FM11% N L SEE SHEET -P02F TAX LOT 1800 \ — YPF p xn 11 un Baa $/��tiYl�urc- nlm I SEE SHEET -POW xr\ _—__—_—___ 1 a a a SEE SHEET -P02F mE1M9R ME [91 PX.) SCPLE: I'�50 fEEi IQl'm Wi0.V15 16 ® INRI 6mIlOE ID IO3W [fm110.5 A SEE SHEET -PCW 1 — —� — — — — — — — — TAX LOT 500 YIP TN511 iA% LOT 600 I T YM 1A9511 W TAX LOT. 700 O T.V W➢ \\ J TAX LOT 800 I@� � I I ns Wr Iwnml g P I TAX LOT 900 ILI lY YM�IR)EII �� LOT Tm YM I TM Iwns11n PUSU TAX LOT 1100 1M YM 1TUall iuXY�OTm�vs� zoo' welt unulr ux aTMR PGT If'numx MXmM TAX LOT 1300 / rM YM IAWNI 1 AX LOT 1 i Tm xM I., nNO WM PnmulTMR MKv Rfm 6 PMX 41J11! I TAX LQF 2300 f \ID9� TMJIW aNLll YI \LQk 61s Wx NT "'S" 4AIXaM GA W I XxYPY BII-ffi�5FM11% N L SEE SHEET -P02F TAX LOT 1800 \ — YPF p xn 11 un Baa $/��tiYl�urc- nlm I SEE SHEET -POW xr\ _—__—_—___ 1 a a a SEE SHEET -P02F mE1M9R ME [91 PX.) SCPLE: I'�50 fEEi IQl'm Wi0.V15 16 ® INRI 6mIlOE ID IO3W [fm110.5 A 8 SEE SHEET- P02C / I IFI N I IE 9x 1.Ni IE IN N4M (11 If We vein w �--rj`zr_—— `. PAIL sP�a4 2 I YMP fAmEXi PB W I wL Xa I aw III w TAX LOT 1800 oac.E p I_�I11—J Ta YI➢IAiXOo ! M22 L1tt a AkPMiaNMHTHM / Im u cVY nNKx ell—eo-aomsl—nm /�. AI: 1)AP9 � p SIM Y unNn w. IF N: N3W (65) flIY IT.II 1[ Wn Nlw (811) IE Ik If6.41 (16i Pn xs-alar (w11u17 IE Wi: Nus lr p m a TAX LOT 1901 A: �mN m uw l]msw IE R vaN (r0 If N N6N .(im IE N (1Y9E) .. IEN (IBY) IE WP. Iw.N (11'XY) E Ik W T OPxKmnp F MI (10'EE) W E I 158f5 (11'1[) TAX LOT 101 TPN YW IRQ]0E) SEE SHEET -MW TAX LOT 105 t 1 i /'� ���' ��A ♦ is Ivr 1]P!W!] I �I I TAX LOT 4200 i `J 1M 414.r� ♦ 1[ N Nas Ieesl . %. �pP^ laoo' Halt uwn \ .. .. � � I I If Wr ws.0 (wil) Ea: cross (lo'sa 2. 9Nn E W3 nrom TVW J Nu. nlw E 1 114 (ov I 0, F} IE IN NNI,('TV I wa WMP'. Iw Oi OLIO IE WL W.17 III "s,111: NT ( X Ww. NNW TAX LOT 104 p sa zx I a Ib].Y (IY31 p SW MI ly: 1]Aw / IE N 96J Ss bSIMI m xi TIT. 111, 471 sl IY11 E Ix: n1m •: / _ IE WC 1%W l^I) E N MI.N IE11) w "— uuzllnf z �..__--..---.�.-------------_ E Wr: w.m Nzt]IEx WT: IwxB (fYl IXSW YX wNa w al: 47415 ♦ YlN 0.alt S1NIMt If Ix: w in sfYFR FA01dr Wt If A lNaw (9'p ooa xa el-wna — —1 L I If W3 NONs le -WI PARKWAY—_—_ --_--- I TAX LOT 102 TIS W 1]w.Wd SEE SHEET -P020 I~11 I `RDl PINI{�SI�YyIWTXY �' ��WB�i1\ LfG N1FAfl�l \ \ � E N MR.E-0 (241( E WI: 462. (ux SEE SHEET - P020 9k 4Efl1] XX WXEYIY y / mmo i IFN N1.74 If IX: NI%Ov MSM LBJ 6 �rl "—,q© IE Wi 16114A =m IE WL W 94 W6W (wt) rnq R �rl "—,q© =m TAX LOT 2300 � \ 8 lAV Y.1P 1]0)E11 AS4 81514R.tl / PEP q!!6 SfldRIE14 W$F /� O110P BII-3I-WIViI-/1X1% 3 3 I/ m E N MR.E-0 (241( E WI: 462. (ux TAX LOT 1800 lIM YV I101Y1A IAEP: NRR.VR.SS RR q1Y Li 5L9X6F10 Gl4 YAHP en -w -W Wsl-mvl IXSIYq \ 9F IBA1e °Dim SEE SHEET - P020 9k 4Efl1] XX WXEYIY y / mmo i IFN N1.74 If IX: NI%Ov MSM LBJ 6 �rl "—,q© IE Wi 16114A =m IE WL W 94 W6W (wt) rnq R �rl "—,q© =m �YWJ•....IIE mt m(w'q 8 i TAX LOT 300 3 3 0= < F�HRe, , re¢6N�R4 Elle x6aa (lett --� IAE511 __ FR F� FR _ ______ TAX LOT 1800 lIM YV I101Y1A IAEP: NRR.VR.SS RR q1Y Li 5L9X6F10 Gl4 YAHP en -w -W Wsl-mvl IXSIYq \ 9F IBA1e °Dim -irl� =e a g I ashen �, o�liur S IE .4i 041) IE wi 4e14 (EYY/ 1 1 SCI]E' 1'=50 rtET TAX LOT 9700 E 1M YM I)N'dl4 NICSR50IX%YIll 9k 4Efl1] XX WXEYIY y mmo IFN N1.74 If IX: NI%Ov MSM LBJ 6 �rl "—,q© IE Wi 16114A =m IE WL W 94 W6W (wt) rnq R �rl "—,q© =m �YWJ•....IIE mt m(w'q 8 TAX LOT 300 3 3 0= < F�HRe, x9 k IAE511 FR F� FR -irl� =e a g I ashen �, o�liur S IE .4i 041) IE wi 4e14 (EYY/ 1 1 SCI]E' 1'=50 rtET TAX LOT 9700 E 1M YM I)N'dl4 mmo �rl "—,q© =m �rl "—,q© =m �rl "—,q© =m I E..'N, 11,15 Nx i SEE SHEET -MM I��1,11 — TAX LOT 1400 lY Y.1P I]0.@511 III I lwT 3 E..'N, 11,15 Nx i SHEET I��1,11 _i�I�l III I lwT 3 TAX LOT 1000Q <a n mmws AY XM I]Nm14I 1. NNAW5 10 WN, Jw12 m — _ NNWWS z 10.1573 KMWs 13 10%]4 fAA1Et - �� 0 SR1kMBYTA% 4415m —01115) 10 1NS7 uyI1 1 —'I — — — — — — � mac un e1�m]2 5EM% 5) E2 m w ��AX-Ki�2300-� iY IM: NAN rN xV 1]Ni511 E N 15]]1 I1np / -118% \11 IAFA N15 ME4 025) 1 / HER arcawham cAw fAmExr vm ] /—slls'mc}} -ilea -- __x151en 811-xo-l�oml-reml \ g'xmmv Wiz= , L SEE SHEET -P0 1HE xkB1A 1 I lwT 3 TAX LOT 1000Q IN557 mmws AY XM I]Nm14I 1. NNAW5 10 WN, Jw12 r=2$�I�gIRa J-1 NNWWS 12 10.1573 KMWs 13 10%]4 fAA1Et - �� 0 SR1kMBYTA% 4415m —01115) 10 1NS7 uyI1 LOT 1100Mn ort 1-&' QMdY6 z rAx NwT1100 — — _ _ — rp Tian L —w6__ < ` ao==E rs baXonxnlm ow'• $. 1300 3s o isg � 1�we 11FA ral. w1B� vm me w 94nm]� �' ru wa ImRs1] gaa i mD :�=9 a pmwr We la IE lx: waas lB'll)15mB1 J �ey �� �&R rna �� rn� III AHpil0.11 IE Ix: MEot IB'q I]MB)I iia-{r1P)_ mW WNC WA EXT�_II � p5M0 MIR o s C {igE yGGGGGGy I \'mXPklm m eE LONX mnx --______ ____eptnoc m +�+� V IM: IBGM = _ IE Wi WYII I%'Y) _ _ _ Io Iom1 I I I TA% LOT 1400 RD STREET �y-----�'� I y I— IX°wx TIX xnv lmusl] LM XP 9s -ml% L MW' YHIMY SEMA swlPER wRN pg]pll lq pa xa I awl uxX \ XSNxF1T PER REEL 19X 94y]B] 1 l {Ex[( TAX LOT 10000 TAX LOT 1800 1 ,R „n 9421x1 1 ra wn 1ronsls � I I lio• vw rA: xw lmma] sI �\ (a m vnrur am'm valor 6�IXmNx 1 I� I FA4NpT IfN Ppi Alk M]89 1 a MIaA[ vAx' i i - E x 16Bs] UB's IIII TAX LOT 1700 I i m Nw Innsrs Tax LOT 1101 19]-1 I ]p Lvr Imus] 6 E WI: ISlm (15'E) %W WIRED ¢l N. 94 3 `a p Afil NR YOL a IOASi Q Na ill y-I� A:o-n — T5' e' �a : I rax Lor loon 2 I IIII I E N: 15AN (1P'q IX 5.0]851 . rAC W➢ ImL51] FW2 W.9)(19Y) pSIN IM E E AI: NS% '.I IXSMO III u $ x x IBOYI_ �f IE w1m ( --IS'P6 IY %C x W]9yx� b If EPun ISi14II (S IE N: WII ]6'q IE x 1599] �6q mux xIE wN91E- We uv.W 1%'x) IE Ix: =(9'Si IIII (w laA I R. Ni. 45B.ro lyl �I pmux Ean: Nnw( `9 IENIX:%M PIR U1Oe'x) 18'X1 IIII p LRNX { — x _ _ pmux [ Wax W29113'S) IX E w. N]d0 (5m) III IlC : ImHIzIm'Sq ) l ET EiWm an: ayssq I GTREx224EI1( WI.--c114sm].ce l%lm'0' IXrnp mM Iw96 I fYSwA" E Ix: %Su OYx) ar i4BWsi j 1) I} TAX170 \_j�j 1HE xkB1A Inc ml @) lwT 3 10 IN557 mmws 10 1. NNAW5 10 WN, INIXI21.1R r=2$�I�gIRa o3 NNWWS 12 10.1573 KMWs 13 10%]4 IE Wr 12 - �� m_ 4415m —01115) 10 1NS7 uyI1 W ort 1-&' QMdY6 IB I W mwmos E w u9u (9'f) Nwm R6UWS Z yIj Fw WWIBYIb g«_ 2affi OE6UM i JQI E N IS485 (NEER) EWI: IfflM(10Y) � g� C' a �y�y' I x ID 14 � mmws N 10%4B NNWWS yxll 99 10. mmws I TAX LOT 4000]p NNWWS IS 10%73 I 8 f NNWWS N IwE i!&E 1HE xkB1A Inc ml @) 1WN' R6UW5 10 IN557 mmws 10 1. NNAW5 10 WN, mmws 14 1. NNWWS 12 10.1573 KMWs 13 10%]4 Wli&UR 12 MRS mminn m_ 4415m WMdYS 10 1NS7 0NW73la 10 1. QMdY6 IB lm5n mwmos m Nwm R6UWS 14 1,1YO mmws 12 2affi OE6UM 14 MEm mmws N 1. W.M 14 1m5S mmws N 10%4B NNWWS M 10. mmws 8 1. NNWWS IS 10%73 mN Ws 8 MW NNWWS N W%9 mmws m 10151 NNWWS 8 MMS m mWs 10 Im99 OE6W15 S M%5S OE?AMIs 10 ST NE rY_ Em rY: PLOS Tm". rm ME 66A MUC _1 -I :_ I 1 LDR _ CC LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LM) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) r�Y _ rY1T COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE (PLOS) _-- -------------------------- MIXED USE COMMERCIAL (MUC) _--_----_---------D HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) a. D r r� y� i i LMI I LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LM) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) r�Y _ rY1T COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE (PLOS) MIXED USE COMMERCIAL (MUC) LIGHT -MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL (LMI) HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) a. q�. r r� LMI I SCALE I'=IW iEET WIM IM@M'YiY � LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LM) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE (PLOS) MIXED USE COMMERCIAL (MUC) LIGHT -MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL (LMI) HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) SCALE I'=IW iEET WIM IM@M'YiY � LDR I -� .- POS n OTRICPL BOARD E'r ELE BfR e u �w..=r _ — W PIER PND 4 ' -� Sd� E11E£N6 4 fi ra : — Y.@ ILI D IIII Y„Y R I N I w'°ID — I I I iE • I CYC• _a� Ygl PI Iry r �Q• _— _— EUGENE -SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM DESIGNATIONS COMMERCIAL �'� LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL " MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL j LMI PARKS AND OPEN SPACE .e COMMERCIAL — — — — LIGHT -MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL MDR �.. .. =e T T— T — — ~COLA ROAD ' HEAVY INDUSTRIAL k 9 c Ti OVERLAYS I NODAL DEVELOPMENT AREA SCALE I'=IW iEET WIM IM@M'CiY � Ip�q, ' uEcmaieowv e a ^ ' '= � waexFwPV`"u,v 1._�-- ALQ� SIMIMNf.WY �_" n 1 a I y n e= ee n .a m= _ NEPPIN I� .• Y e �B 61 — P% T10Wm iu WG "l 1)—R—bW If R --- 1 Tj Isv- d y._ aPxm I ' '�Vts4b I. 1' HE N0. 011 -20 -000066 -ME 11-2E 2 ' • iAY IAii LJDW AY YM IJN-AW fllf W YM 17- 2 -M -M PflE �,C,.T wmi. j 1 ;/ . yn y�•. � � f � v� a i., I '. yrs �.. �i aim <.1. 1� •��lawAP10 SEPLE: 1'150 fEEi aNI TA I v Ft, I :. If R --- 1 Tj Isv- d y._ aPxm I ' '�Vts4b I. 1' HE N0. 011 -20 -000066 -ME 11-2E 2 ' • iAY IAii LJDW AY YM IJN-AW fllf W YM 17- 2 -M -M PflE �,C,.T wmi. j 1 ;/ . yn y�•. � � f � v� a i., I '. yrs �.. �i aim <.1. 1� •��lawAP10 SEPLE: 1'150 fEEi I ±9.26 AC TAX LOT 1500 TY u.N t)a,= - - EUGENE W ATEP AND TAX LOT 2300- - DAPD rM uM 11.D _ - 3MCTC ELELTPICAL B - - TA% LOT 1600 33 32 31 rM u.w n.OL1XC 43 42 41 dD 39 99 3] 3fi 35 1 30 5 50 49 m 47 WSTPEET 54 53 ` TRACTD ! SrPiuwPld fPaury _ ss �16s 55 5] I I p %49 ] 1 nI �I �IB0I 81 lez I8= 17 �9819]I-8I I944— — pAa�`11 91198189 os raa 189 +m 107 116-- e � _ o T(111 �I122 123 ra1;1] 118 "91 128 121;1 IW Pop� OLIN IIiL 59 EC g1 fit fi3 111 112 lla "- 152 1s1 1s8 19a 149 1. 147 1' • �I 158 +s] 156 15s 154 1581 I /. ..�� ■ 163 162 161 168 1s9 c e Q gTPEET _ — - . • :II 19e 1m 166 19s —■ :. �: _: �������• � kk � ISO 00 ■ ■ LN LOT im ■ rM uM 17ce w IAk MS A➢ES ■ ■ ■ ■ TAX LOT 500 TAC NV I)p,. TAX LOT T11. T. 17 o� q5900 __60002ABA900A5600M- V 8'TgFET ,-7— ■ DSTREET -- r TAX LOT 109 iM NM 1).MYAA ■I ■ TAX LOT 200 ■ 1M NW I].OLSflA ■ I r ■ o ■ ■L- ■ DSTREET -- r 38 I� 35..Iitaw s 1xu00 F Tl� N.) W ETRE _- - �e arg 83..94 g" Ino In a a a I e 1 1att - 3150 F S3BM F nar, par 0007 15.M wm' nm g S 58B 9] a a w.m w.m wm $ %9 $9w s8"3emF las '39ms . I Ls g $� $3934 $8b4 :3900F _ xlas 3wYs-w.W_-_-n.ar -Ipm iu _ n n 1 _-nm--am�-_np0pENTPSTREET mNN�-� _ _ I z - 1� js.m- ,.am-- �nm- - a 133$ 130a 295.1 F 29n � 1 wm-- $ 132 ws F 131INg 8 An F 1 8 $ 1M$ 127$ 'SBy 9Wo0S lsoo4 S.AnF noo' wwm w WOY nar w'ar Dm i 1,23 & 'm 4 i1'' 4 1m v AMIV nOP war C w13 41 9i0tl nm wm $ ,4p g F Tuve 4 r Y mm R 30 1 nar war V 141 iA.. ✓ a IF .m.- 4-�a 0Fp ___ �y 1 war m am K yy ffi'9m2s nar ,4] � $ $, 9 � 49 $ 3n0 F :..w9 F -p0', Y�'w- xnvtmw 5xW 1$g 15g1s0 a1N i1n43'An4 %C1 �a119 �9•fi �•n ,s, g F:woo�1N� 2�22gQ aT 1 9,w0 S VWQFJLS 'Apw-a._'a� -nar- ..war. ap3" I f -w.m- 9a Nw �� `g 1 mt wN 5'- 6DIMLm a Net TM LOT im loom10'PEMlPa.9F111 L N®19 . 5 I a$ -a O- I ¢F I I TAX LOT 6000 TO W➢11.02YB4 TAX LOT 5900 rN WP I .tl . I TAX LOT 5800 ra. YN n.azNm v STREET �I TAX LOT 1500 u _ _ - IN lAV 4c snm o9.Nn4 e.LmFI15 p]q a 4W TAX LOT 1600 IN IMTM'M^I I9 - - rAL YV IJA2IYF 1 IW WA -TER ARD m MI9F I] EUGENE .PRD B eNIOIVe IIN a w ELE.iR1.AL I9Y 1 m 9nm xmm 1 .1111 a.m' nm esm am .a a eWW nm am MIe'll wow a 1 nm nm n g x32 a. s pC7G]N C 9LQ 38 I� 35..Iitaw s 1xu00 F Tl� N.) W ETRE _- - �e arg 83..94 g" Ino In a a a I e 1 1att - 3150 F S3BM F nar, par 0007 15.M wm' nm g S 58B 9] a a w.m w.m wm $ %9 $9w s8"3emF las '39ms . I Ls g $� $3934 $8b4 :3900F _ xlas 3wYs-w.W_-_-n.ar -Ipm iu _ n n 1 _-nm--am�-_np0pENTPSTREET mNN�-� _ _ I z - 1� js.m- ,.am-- �nm- - a 133$ 130a 295.1 F 29n � 1 wm-- $ 132 ws F 131INg 8 An F 1 8 $ 1M$ 127$ 'SBy 9Wo0S lsoo4 S.AnF noo' wwm w WOY nar w'ar Dm i 1,23 & 'm 4 i1'' 4 1m v AMIV nOP war C w13 41 9i0tl nm wm $ ,4p g F Tuve 4 r Y mm R 30 1 nar war V 141 iA.. ✓ a IF .m.- 4-�a 0Fp ___ �y 1 war m am K yy ffi'9m2s nar ,4] � $ $, 9 � 49 $ 3n0 F :..w9 F -p0', Y�'w- xnvtmw 5xW 1$g 15g1s0 a1N i1n43'An4 %C1 �a119 �9•fi �•n ,s, g F:woo�1N� 2�22gQ aT 1 9,w0 S VWQFJLS 'Apw-a._'a� -nar- ..war. ap3" I f -w.m- 9a Nw �� `g 1 mt wN 5'- 6DIMLm a Net TM LOT im loom10'PEMlPa.9F111 L N®19 . 5 I a$ -a O- I ¢F I I TAX LOT 6000 TO W➢11.02YB4 TAX LOT 5900 rN WP I .tl . I TAX LOT 5800 ra. YN n.azNm v STREET �I IN'JUM a Mrs I.I. LVm9]fll N5MMII.Is m slm 0 N.. .p0 NL45IR RININ6 RWSS MS 6 MOl W 6PoY 1203ar fIMY %Ai IM Is .m m Leo Im WI'kl' nmOYic .1u YlFlems 5x v03sr w muM. EASEMENTLE.ENO u r mun rw5ur IN aYn-F-rnr 4c snm o9.Nn4 e.LmFI15 IN'JUM a Mrs I.I. LVm9]fll N5MMII.Is m slm 0 N.. .p0 NL45IR RININ6 RWSS MS 6 MOl W 6PoY 1203ar fIMY %Ai IM Is .m m Leo Im WI'kl' nmOYic .1u YlFlems 5x v03sr w muM. I'ME MI oR£ VINI M. Iplm p]q a 4W N9$T IN IMTM'M^I I9 6 lw XVWW IW 5105YS V II n m MI9F I] ISM eNIOIVe IIN a w NWIV I9Y NreWIIIA m 9nm xmm a.oS .1111 a.m' m m[d eWW Car MIe'll wow a RHIC YXW wIP M1 WV ale m enar t^A'tI• .au sm9'n11 aN• m eHm' wipY all- RaZ1AY aIV ao 565W IVN• ILn 1 W41" 11, aln TA'w• rnM'dX w-00' a9 m3av nsrr n aax naalrx ON m ms9v 5arm aJ/+' smwmr na' a. mSm' Iww I'm ml IMIll Iw ]i59r 5•- a52 a_51 SItto4 a'mY _ m L S 115] S ]fIB 4 SiOY- m 54 ]b114 - ww6 -wW )M(dB) " 3fiM 4 "SM.• --- x.ar-ETRE _ 71WTD ,�pa5ypo' 4 Nm-- (;` = a 89 & Toa 71 S.SY I 99 5 37.a o s 3].eao 4 =']'B00 s $ wBs es $ $ 3A®s d', Elm 4 tauP am, $ wW wW $ mar S SI IOW' wW $ '$ $ 3Sm04 a w11' war $ $ 1� $105 a330W4 104 $. $.107 $SM =lmOs 51 it $ IN ailm]4 =1NY4 t! S 57 $ I $ IS aA 00 S i w 4 a a 37.1m4 YI.IS 4 - - - -- WW 1�1 _ SS fl Iaa'- taBq pEN_VA=-�i fb' _ SW-- ll�-Mm- A, - 8 FL 82 $1 ..�$Am4 r1 164 nLM. I wm7�_ 1 I I I IY"r4Y8P G41pE I I 151 '*159 8158g8eoms =AWOS 3I,WOS � II ,'-9W.-�„M+ =y1JWE�4 S TbY-- �' 6V 'Nm.- wM KMNDER a TAX LOT 1910 i1Y WP II -W -Y iO YEA am Mas WALE: EASEMENT LEGEND RF R9IC UPM dSID11 XM RPR-fI-MY NOTE ME P�L4 Ef M5 %9YINAR Wd4'JFO A®4HP1 FUi Is 10 9p11 Wi PIF19P5 .T YEAS im RWINC R N, MS5 XOi .1X IIX.LL PNIl iSlp6W PAi MY Is NOi N 4 Vy0 im 9.B1fY R.PM1SS .1LL PaluWs.P vYPcr W ppx2. aau Trac aPu nous mu PI9P1 TAX LOT 2300 TAX LOT 1500 B.aP mxsY iAV YM IJ.WIIW i.V YV 1Ital4G � ' mm'm' IA11' - 1 BAY - - TAX LOT 1600 1XpCTc syar wa n'ar M _ - IYY. YW 11.tlLIBS 6d 412 war 15,OY WTNSIY 115' 4.04R XW. 1551' �'� 39 8.38 7.1504' $40g IN X rSTW g`:AaH a41 31Am4 - — BOARD war Xar $a g_ 43 g. s 3AW04 - ELEDTRIDA tam, IN Is]'Iralw ]i59r 5•- a52 a_51 SItto4 a'mY _ m L S 115] S ]fIB 4 SiOY- m 54 ]b114 - ww6 -wW )M(dB) " 3fiM 4 "SM.• --- x.ar-ETRE _ 71WTD ,�pa5ypo' 4 Nm-- (;` = a 89 & Toa 71 S.SY I 99 5 37.a o s 3].eao 4 =']'B00 s $ wBs es $ $ 3A®s d', Elm 4 tauP am, $ wW wW $ mar S SI IOW' wW $ '$ $ 3Sm04 a w11' war $ $ 1� $105 a330W4 104 $. $.107 $SM =lmOs 51 it $ IN ailm]4 =1NY4 t! S 57 $ I $ IS aA 00 S i w 4 a a 37.1m4 YI.IS 4 - - - -- WW 1�1 _ SS fl Iaa'- taBq pEN_VA=-�i fb' _ SW-- ll�-Mm- A, - 8 FL 82 $1 ..�$Am4 r1 164 nLM. I wm7�_ 1 I I I IY"r4Y8P G41pE I I 151 '*159 8158g8eoms =AWOS 3I,WOS � II ,'-9W.-�„M+ =y1JWE�4 S TbY-- �' 6V 'Nm.- wM KMNDER a TAX LOT 1910 i1Y WP II -W -Y iO YEA am Mas WALE: EASEMENT LEGEND RF R9IC UPM dSID11 XM RPR-fI-MY NOTE ME P�L4 Ef M5 %9YINAR Wd4'JFO A®4HP1 FUi Is 10 9p11 Wi PIF19P5 .T YEAS im RWINC R N, MS5 XOi .1X IIX.LL PNIl iSlp6W PAi MY Is NOi N 4 Vy0 im 9.B1fY R.PM1SS .1LL PaluWs.P vYPcr W ppx2. IHAX w m H m m Q z a 0 z Q O V N LL Q C O m 2 Cl) Z LU Cf) <nCL O LUaJcc �WMO } W G z JAIL Q � LL J z LU CL Cn EX 0 40 G, us xu >B rt WAufmm 95 1®/M ommn YPI aau Trac aPu nous mu PI9P1 Plum Ps B.aP mxsY Iu1' le]IYav un PX Bal' mm'm' IA11' S2'IY]Y'/12]S 07 BAY I MW IA15 163W&V MIT M APY m r IN WTNSIY 115' PB IN NNW IN X rSTW Lm Am' A7NN Iffi V.1 Sm CP Ew www IN Is]'Iralw IN "W I. MV.N IN tlJ IN WWW IN 16TTxvw EN IN WWW IN JSE1Y Sffi' LN 3W IIwr ISW STNWS wW C6 ISW' MpMr W6' KIwWVKP' W ISW' $ 41 NW' 41--II.9T o WW WWW Yi ImwmE 3]$ CA IV WWm' 8ffi .rWI3W CD AW mrwo 8ffi ImV.1 BW CM ]SW 14h u6 Slf./9Y Inu' 4R ]ioY RYY Hi 54'MIIh BW' IHAX w m H m m Q z a 0 z Q O V N LL Q C O m 2 Cl) Z LU Cf) <nCL O LUaJcc �WMO } W G z JAIL Q � LL J z LU CL Cn EX 0 40 G, us xu >B rt WAufmm 95 1®/M ommn YPI �I 1 I III 'iii it �i III NOT rvx aosnlc mlmlva xor �r gram a ms xXx. mvm m mE 6mnxc o�anoxs sFErs ryoz-vox). LEGEND z nmxc aMaFvt uvrc ra m M aloaui6q m x.x�v Ergnx6 gmuxo Wxrow O M uawwola. Wllmacia wu Wow6nrt MM unnr AM[m. Evsnxc 6muxo Wllmx (s 6TJ x Ku]h Ein'IN6 anon SrtN[mx: uo RI6Gx 1 ^SOSrIm M6MU qWM fMIgF (16� IIKKFQ[UO UMr. MMCRP 91NL 0.QII41E xM MBF6 g10.6U W11W11 (54� unlrc xarolx. 4IFF1li fpS (16 S IILCIILFq F9LR m IRNWj) ♦ xLaurz Exane ME xmxrzn Xxo wlu Xu�E 6glxo xEiFW1ECgM Mx aM, amxXCIM sMu 6max.ss xm MWx� gUHt QNSIAUCMM plAxl[S u,urc xmn gSIUHD!A/. B0.1nxtt S S6NN Yx MYW[ MSMG C GA\f1Mi fNLL i61ILi IXME1E M191WI NG IIF 10 rt [[Igl1m IX ME MN MIN Orc 65RxMYlD N sruE e. 6Mrz6rEwnm unurc, i. xwzE�ar n: corn soi x Rlf/hr%6GIF FpsnX611Ni RlE O]IIRICI61191xL W[�XAIF MM MM' FMY.IXR SCALE: 1"=Bq fEEi g. xYAErPrl6GIF Etl6AX6 ipZ ® M Rlf/h ElElN6 gI01 w""''" � n. [uo,[ Emnlc IMEs, sE mu x Ols sl¢n Im raE MIH6 NOT rvx aosnlc mlmlva xor �r gram a ms xXx. mvm m mE 6mnxc o�anoxs sFErs ryoz-vox). LEGEND Ergnx6 gmuxo Wxrow O M --- Evsnxc 6muxo Wllmx (s 6TJ —_.6� M6MU qWM fMIgF (16� MBF6 g10.6U W11W11 (54� —61� 4IFF1li fpS (16 S IILCIILFq F9LR m IRNWj) —.— xEiFW1ECgM � gUHt QNSIAUCMM plAxl[S gSIUHD!A/. B0.1nxtt IXME1E M191WI NG 13 IMzs m avux 14 O � r TAX -IM 500 �.--' TPP YW I].W.199 TAX LOT 1500 - _ ELE'- - _ _ 1Px uev n.Rl TAX LOT 2300 __--_�«.---�'"'- CTR,C_ - - - - PLBORR �Rpy I T X T 600u EM u.w n.RxzAm � _.�:--.�^' WPTER PNS _ -«�- ._ aJ "EUGENE _ - - 31 -- 32 � --�--- - - - -'•- M � W STREET" - � _ ___ _ - - �_ T�0 r nMl STREET 82 83 r 1 1 _� ]3 ]4 ]srrr 1� prl uQ T9 92 91 B9 B -Q rl I 629 sm vul pmru (M) _ B1 1M YPP mAcro � - g� 9D eT �II � WI:I ,l.(QIN.D sroYRlAlm IAIIID - � � M uTa x"9X T2 B _ _ LATA% LOT 6000 69 TO ' y, 94 93 ♦ wE 0,F1 - r � II jr J lur u.w,l.o2xeP ss rr 65 66 fiT 59 swEr nRE OM u'.188 99 99 smN otw m)_FENYPSTREET - - nGji6p TAX, 10 10B 185 10A 1� X02 1011r I � _ I 4 IDN NAP I].02.10d, 132 �T 128 129 131 134 139 138 13] �� r i n _ ki I I I 2a u YMO] 5800 _ - - usrtwmr Yw IMl o ,sxpGBL^ 00 141 140 R sI4W MNWTRM - xPSRwmr 4orYE ,ID 1211, 1 1 14p 143142 - TAX f_ - — SEMB uhY80P1 11 116 11] 118 119 151 150 149 148 14] 48 � - V STRFIET� _ IY it r xAsxWThP rERxf/l (M7 111 112 113 110 6 ' _ _ u I� 16]fi1 165660 1fi0159158 �WQ���Q 1531'.1 X11"-rR98+H _ /pc��ic flQ �I IAVF TA%04LOT j 1fi3 1fi2 1fi1 G r 1 _ L Tnx uw 6 R 188 188 u4Pu (M) - .I 1)02THP > NR lMl1_ __ _ smN NAx IVRwIE (MI .I i I STREET snRu ° utw REa Nro 1T'^1 �I 1 TAX LOT 109 y rAx Yw nA2]YA I I6_ I b. TAX LOT 200 I TAXA0M8W . * TAY Wn nA25HP I I T. W= .I I .VEA MD P➢2S _ I I oPaan u9YwT.l � TAX LOT T 300 I I TPx urn II U STREET I I � — I rA3R9A9rt Nwoe (nq _ _ I I 3 TAX LOT I I �I i I �i 1900 I]A2]�HP WTMINEMs. I I I .�TII*�� �. II TAXLOT 00 _ _ PIERCE$R1RRY IXIBB41 i1YV t]M..IOBA I I � _ _ _ _ D=m.I I I •----•-- / /I 3 All TAX ruLOT ].ma®A NNIECIromslNc u' W��T6 =� I I IIPs,EW'TR 1RN]IE RW EGAXG SNDA! I I 91RY umuA wr NOTEB: Ws N} 6I-SN1B _..1 _ _ R6 M LNB ORFP� NImX2F$FM $f.AIE: 1- W FEET — — — — — — WR% �X5�1RrCRM�WL. Mf WMA TAX LOT 500 --- TAX LOT 1500 -"—- �_ W Y.w n.mlxc _'_'"-T*%lU7 1600 __ AX LOT 600 ----- ------------ - _ _ - lIM YAP 1].%.IM lil Y16. _ AS YM I].W.1 _"--___ ICAL BO An PR TAX LOT 2300---------_- TER PND ELECTR ]AY YW nANYY _ _ � � . TBRCTC � EUGENE WP ..602 _ OPEN SPACE TAX LOT _" __ __ _-------- _ 36 3 - -_ __ _ _ __ ____ ____ __ _ 3 3 3g 3] 38 1 " 01 48 39 42 - � a3 1 �_ '65 d STREET her } __ ,___ - ___ _— --_—_ 52 s+ 58 1 . rAx Nr . � I naz 9fD WSTRFZT _ �� � 53 _ __ - { 9 A% LOT __ _ %j1j r azIpIyIJ 8384 II T9ACf0 ]4 smuY9n T.wurc _n Q - 93 ��11MM 2 C� e " a TAX LOT 6000 xwa1 1 �I 66 66 fi] 68 fig TB plf Wc�l uD 9fi 95 90 g3 91 } Z,4 tAx lw nmmA 56 _I E4 189 188 18] 18fi � 185 !IN ST 1 _ FENYP REET _I�'- _ _ ��� � Ax lw noz f � I 1A% LOT 59 5] I 18 _ I 132 133 1 m YV ll.. i Y 1• 123 +24�� TAX LOT M 12] 128 129 +38 131 142 141 +� 139 — T ■ � TN - IY �Yg�gd��.,l 83 111 112 113 114 115 11fi 6, __ _ ,ae 147 +M ,as ,44 �T1's9 ao B, +� ss s4 ,sa ¢}' s, ,w ,4s 'a. — __— 1 _ 3 - � ° L. VV STREET W 1,52 _ -' •� •I 11�ro P n \ t 1fis 1fi4 ,fi3 ,fit Pfn7Q I— �; 188 16] 1fifi II STpSET �� Imo_ le+ro YN n E _ Av avm ItW ro �I Tax LOT log TAX LOT no 7wvu Km IN,x I I rAx Nn nmmA ru VIAS MV Mme+ :aro � asv I I j g A/C P.1\Eqi . V 1I � .I I b TAX LOT �OA1941f SINN } II 1 REMAINDER OF nY4u sw'" �I 1 I TAX LOT 1800 ,,A� xenN eAouM .I 1 TAT 300 .w 1 1 Rax IAw 0:1 I7ozY6A 1 I (YYG 1W TS . I I x.nsT sYxT _ 1 _ 1 1 p��5/�- ■ - 7W PE F -17M RE SYY--],Y rl-I - 0.W NW p1m IpM 6w ' YW YW M16 YpN 0.W I.M1 --- -- I.M I.Y'�+ IbY NM �•-IAY SW l`A' ( + SW i v\ / V 60Y A9Y ( AAC PAMW SY .A\•Y}j N I.xu zoos zm I.sY mYxT / 13Y xmx zrox I.sY \�' � PJIDB'SMP flISE A]( 9RWNf p]YS1E glyN xN1a 5A BA4 Pcn no_��c MQQI[9[f1VWl $P/p.W yx) 9TMCA® WW S✓IE' t'=W fEEi YCVE: Y"I? I MO dI11FR aS:PL l"Elo'S 4x Y111p Y SIFT Yttl P��aSp;akxA. I 1 FENYA STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE N 31ST STRE ET ALI GNMENT TABLE iN1lN] S1A➢M RIbJS IfNCM mU j �1• Fn4 ]amm Nn.]J mISMSM fm __�_ ____ Aum 531m'3YX [a ll.. RAW _ __ � ru Yv ]ralxu 1[ RI] ISUMV TAX LOT 1500 111YN __ ��� _ _ 9]i31' Im.O IMV WV, lAX YM 1)02195--------------- _ _ 1AI9Xm _ SBI',YSIv [n ------------------- _ TAX LOT 1600 M31Y 91YYNb �- 2NMm lY Y.N 1].m.IBS ITA% LOT 600 mffim' mm sNYN'Y Fm xw31.n 1mN' Xm1MXT ----------------------- BOARD ELECTRICAL C NPTEB PND EUGENE TAX LOT p�� flQ 602 31 32 33 ¢ Ixrt@3MN " 1I..Y� 1 36 3a y ...., ... ..... 3T _ nam r n INM B __ W t ly ]-...... _gdN SWF£I INFA01flIFNR a a a 1 'SN ISIAflMmm NSSa�EIi p{' _ _ MARW EIISMG - SI INmA]MSTSfI, TAXLOT - - 5'mNMn arew le Om 85 I 629 93 180 91 g a IAT1 IX lEm.1b t PIGJp3G 9Q 1 B] a a a anrsrnw I I 5 99 -a mm rtxrA sNm I 92 IT MO s11 • TAX LOi 6000 YW I].mSM 94 93 S OIIiIE 95 51®11 u1ReE1x1Y1 AllLR— 96 XZX OM g � 99 ffi PAtID bU J90° l mXA ,9A1 �" FENVA� LOT 5900 _ iTAX O YAP 1]mAflA 4 , 1 Gil, 1 A. g _ 1 5 aao _... _ - 135 13fi 134 ❑ O F - L> 133 132 g mdx s]mrllNmmmMlrs ------ _ - P1° ii wµxm _ . 131 IN IHn nA¢ TAX LOT 5600 - I 1ID 1Z8 in mra TM PIP 17.02L%OA 136 126 I9 papgG Im 123 P X 13° PAND bN 8 _. _ _ 142 141 139 1 �� _ ■I g pG7�gG I43 145 ,a4 emmblx '' `o �—.e.. ■f IOIOJ _ 1 ,m ,49 ,M 14T �.:� EET VB/1 IRwo ■ Xwo VSTgEET 150 SUN�uA ONI t I �{ ... •. � ,� ¢ mMSIXnm °d sm[I YPmtvvlrs ■ -- ¢- SIA 16afiGm X TSi SIREi ■ _ _ _,A [no smlr xrtm nmrs SIA INMA AM R. . sa Iwmm v mar ■I TAX LOT 104 ■ 15Np =5]A IHSAmvSMFE] I - - lY NAP 1]m.%AA ■I 6ri �a5 ■ ■I �m T0. ■ B REMAINDER OF ■ ■ T, a TAX LOT IWO ■� �- 'I m Y.w 1]m'm TAX LOT 109 ' ■I IAY YW I]m]mA FENYA STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE N 31ST STRE ET ALI GNMENT TABLE iN1lN] S1A➢M RIbJS IfNCM mU ¢M° rAYpl Fn4 ]amm Nn.]J mISMSM fm an.n amm' w]s5 NMH• Aum 531m'3YX FENYA STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE TM]Xr WAM RMA YMIN mU XIi9 A BAS fn loam IN1B ml'AYM11 fa Iwwla 19wu' MIVY3A^N 39TH PLACE ALIGNMENT TABLE STAYI 0.W5 IfNiM mrA pRl I'MUNT •�°� fns INmm mn' mVZV Fns mull 97E mISMY W STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE zO°N WIMI RM5 °MMMIA aNW r.'=' F11 1MWm IX1LQm NGw Nm9/tlMV [a ll.. RAW m,31' 1[ RI] ISUMV Fm 111YN ILEX} Ina' 9]i31' Im.O IMV WV, 9N 1h 1AI9Xm 11514 SBI',YSIv [n 1N%.A) M31Y 91YYNb to 2NMm MB' My mffim' mm sNYN'Y Fm xw31.n 1mN' Xm1MXT V STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE 1w STAIRY RNLLS a1MX mu afb rMm, •�° fR IX1LQm IXlLd 1@4lR(Y EG ll mW .0 xp'Y 247W imXJln fm IMS6x RAW 14W IYUV Nl.n S]ASYY(Y fno 1AI9Xm 1m.]( m1Y2SAY I i 1 1 I I � I I 1 1 1 I EE I I 11 11 REMAINDER OF TAX LOT 1800 1 1 TAx IUv noxm 1 I 5 W STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE 1 TAX LOT 1500 ANXUS IgCM [6IA TAX WP 17min IM �1T Fn Ia013mImm FM ------" TAX LOT 2300 rAx Nw nAS.zIPo SfIYYM11 _ _--------- -"--- –" " TIMOTO V, nAmm ,,w _ ---' -- OPEN SPACE 12=P W.1) WI ' n11]A " ELECTRIGALSGARG YISYN• _R _..... m99'M11 AND EUGENE WAS IAIN.PB __.. IIVY AD 39 —___–_-- fis 42 41 NIIl' SI W >Hsxev 45 ]X5Y ® nm 4T MA,sIRG uPwKLlps __- YHM.n 48 SIA I.. RRE PMA. �• _ -- _ 91X1>MT $p STA IWWA]XSIRET. a 51 53 $4 — + �— _ B - Tw / Ogl �- n �' E11 An sIIRIf 5 mNgM m3TW O1R � _" _ s D]cSrt T• –_– QLXMII OX') T$ T4 T3 ISI 71 72 I 88 H 85 O - 5$ te1WW�� u u' PAM bM r18p� 99 + ' I 181 185 104 ,m 102 CL I I VAm1T� a6 HNYA SPSE 187 .. .. I IN SIA 1230.10 PIFMf-PAIIXXAY- 5] 84 „8 ID9 M PAM bM fuo s1RfT IMPmKMFNrs 9im9118NYk1I RE3- -- .{ .• ._. __ - SIA I FENYA SEETI 23 max(" 119 �I 11T 118 o I I m _..- :. _.____ _ 11$ 118 � _ _----- 0o SIPF£] M@aVmMM I E W . bM 114 P� �/� 111 112 113 VIA rl C5/%�' ' ' Sq xNP1.681ENYP S1XL[I I 82 c�JIS WQ�� BFtlx Sm[ -C xPNw10 U� I, $9 srA Iwoo.m }HIII Y�,S 1152 = STA 2HB2A fdYA SIREI s TMT I - 154 0 ISE �tO2157 153 'i 6 158 188 159 __-- 181 IB SAM M111- S 164 182 _. F ,ea 187 188 -- lfirm nG I Mo sMff]IN"PLA Is su MM _ —__ ------ STREET V� A I..IS IMG T' > =su xassu vsmEr - MID SMI AM1vlplw4 6 _1 -Ton INIs STA x 11. v sIXFfT ! 1 — _ r �A� x _ I i 1 1 I I � I I 1 1 1 I EE I I 11 11 REMAINDER OF TAX LOT 1800 1 1 TAx IUv noxm 1 I 5 W STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE 1 SIAPM ANXUS IgCM [6IA ¢M9 IM �1T Fn Ia013mImm FM P+..P.4 NaiaX SfIYYM11 NPAMN V, nAmm ,,w Am 12=P W.1) WI (Lx n11]A 1nw ma' YISYN• INAS m99'M11 FTI IAIN.PB IIVY AXI fis INm.n NIIl' SI W >Hsxev uaY ]X5Y evoVDC nm s'I>NX fn YHM.n 1mM 91X1>MT V STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE FENYA STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE 1=1 I MAlgl XMm — bA MS9 iMM11rARW fn lamm ww �MYMY FM P+..P.4 NaiaX SfIYYM11 V STREET ALIGNMENT TABLE FAIYM WDIS IMCM MR (IN IM911A31¢9 Fn lamm AMM NaiaX t. IIImSO SAW mw "W N]m Sl IY to l,+K0 mw 14210' n'%M NI.]i SJNYAmY Qn0 wil ImL)f AI'1YJP11 FIE ERCPARKWAY ALIGNMENT TABLE p,R(� iNllll, VA0 WAS SAM MTA ¢KA I''Ablr@I Asa Fm A— -A, 91XIPffiF ITS I.. I Mbar mNY}CF WTN PLACE ALIGNMENT TABLE i SIAINN nMM IMEN E6u aM9 n11911A)1l9 Fns lamm mwu mfm/iS)Yffiif 16135 IUm ]H50 ]Hm 2.. ]Nm 2.. ]Nm 2.. 2 .m 11150 111W aTY50 aTYm "+W 11+00 10150 1&00 "+W IJ+W I6+W I6+00 "+W 15+00 JOW 14I W STREET Har. Scale: 1'= 50' Vert Scale: 1'= 10' ■■■■■■■■■■■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■til■■. ■■■■■■■■■■■Ili•ttt■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■�■■ ' ii�oh■rl��s�iirCi�rG��■ii■iiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiii���!ilii tI■tl■■��■t■■■■■■■t■■■■■■■■■!®:�■■■���������..�ra::iii ■�i��iill Y�'i'i■■■■■■■■■■■i�E!■■■■■■iiii�iiiii��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■'�i��l■ 16135 IUm ]H50 ]Hm 2.. ]Nm 2.. ]Nm 2.. 2 .m 11150 111W aTY50 aTYm "+W 11+00 10150 1&00 "+W IJ+W I6+W I6+00 "+W 15+00 JOW 14I W STREET Har. Scale: 1'= 50' Vert Scale: 1'= 10' . x«m 2].50 xl.m 2x.50 xz.m a+so a+M xMSa xMm 191so 1NM 181so 1&M n+so n+M 161so 1&M 1s1so 1eM0 1Mso 1HM 131so 13Hd 1'H5v 1RHd n.m n.m FENYA STREET Har. Scale: 1°= 50' Vert Scale: 1"= 10' ■■■■■■■■■■■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■til■■. ■■■■■■■■■■■Ili•ttt■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■�■■ ' ii�oh■rl��s�iirCi�rG��■ii■iiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiii���!ilii . x«m 2].50 xl.m 2x.50 xz.m a+so a+M xMSa xMm 191so 1NM 181so 1&M n+so n+M 161so 1&M 1s1so 1eM0 1Mso 1HM 131so 13Hd 1'H5v 1RHd n.m n.m FENYA STREET Har. Scale: 1°= 50' Vert Scale: 1"= 10' ]MW 9150 9Ha T1150 91W aN. 21+. .1. AHa lNw INW .5a I&W 17+50 17IW I.5a INW 15 w lN. 1.w INW IM`A IMW 1.w i.. 11150 I1Ha 1.w Ia1W V STREET Har. Scale: P= 50' Vert Scale: 1'= 10' u1w u1m r15a r.m V STREET Hor. Scale: 1"= 50' Vert Scale: 1'= 10' 11. 11. 1HW 1.. lH. IH'd 70TH PLACE Hor. Scale: 1"= 50' Vert. Scale: 1'= 10' 11■■■■■■Ilir�r��■�■■■■■■11111■ , 11■■��I�!�1111111■I■■■■■■1111■ =ii!■i■li■■■■■■■rut ' 11■■■■■■■1111■ 1■■�iiSam ��il�i111�� �l■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■!l■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■C■■■C■a■■ems NONE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■\11 1 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MENNEN Eiomomm ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�!■■■■■��iil'ilii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!!���1 ]MW 9150 9Ha T1150 91W aN. 21+. .1. AHa lNw INW .5a I&W 17+50 17IW I.5a INW 15 w lN. 1.w INW IM`A IMW 1.w i.. 11150 I1Ha 1.w Ia1W V STREET Har. Scale: P= 50' Vert Scale: 1'= 10' u1w u1m r15a r.m V STREET Hor. Scale: 1"= 50' Vert Scale: 1'= 10' 11. 11. 1HW 1.. lH. IH'd 70TH PLACE Hor. Scale: 1"= 50' Vert. Scale: 1'= 10' is am 1.. IHM fl S. 1.. 141. 1NW 1M. 1HW 1HSa IHW PIERCE PARKWAY Hoc Scale: 1"= 50' Vert Scale: 1'= 10' 11■■■■■■Ilir�r��■�■■■■■■11111■ , 11■■��I�!�1111111■I■■■■■■1111■ =ii!■i■li■■■■■■■rut ' 11■■■■■■■1111■ 1■■�iiSam ��il�i111�� is am 1.. IHM fl S. 1.. 141. 1NW 1M. 1HW 1HSa IHW PIERCE PARKWAY Hoc Scale: 1"= 50' Vert Scale: 1'= 10' IOM Ia45a 1110] Mer 1N 1]150 11+11MME etAftN1E MO F5egM18 SII N SIREI Q INEb ONMIY Mm 28TH PLACE Hoc Scale: 1'= 50' Vert. Scale: 1"= 10' ' ' 11■■■■■■■1111■ 1■■�iiSam ��il�i111�� IOM Ia45a 1110] Mer 1N 1]150 11+11MME etAftN1E MO F5egM18 SII N SIREI Q INEb ONMIY Mm 28TH PLACE Hoc Scale: 1'= 50' Vert. Scale: 1"= 10' AKq Exhibit C: Property Ownership Information Lane County Clerk 2019-057709 Lane County Deeds & Records 12/17/2019 01:24:05 PM RPRDEEDCnt-1 StI CASHIER 04 3pages WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: $15.00511.00510.00$61.00 $97.00 Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC 9550 SE Clackamas Road Clackamas, Oregon 97015 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED For valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, MIDFIRSTBANK,a federally chartered savings association ("Grantor'), conveys to MARCOLA MEADOWS NEIGHBORHOOD LLC, an Oregon limited liability company ("Grantee"), the following real property situated in City of Springfield, County of Lane, State of Oregon, together with all appurtenant interests, benefits, rights, and privileges and any improvements located thereon (collectively, the "Property"). See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Subject to all current taxes and assessments, all matters of record, and all matters that would be revealed by an accurate ALTA Survey or physical inspection of the Property, Grantor agrees to warrant and defend Grantee's title to the Property against the acts of Grantor, but none other. DATED as ofDecember/7, 2019. MidFirst Bank, a federally chartered savings association EIIioU sen Its: Senior Vice President :IF UM1II.14111 k1 as. County of Maricopa ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Mgday of December, 2019, by Elliot Jensen, a Senior Vice President of Mid First Bank, a federally chartered savings association, for the purposes therein contained. Notary Public ADRIANA MOLDOVAN No" Public - SIM GfArixuN MARICOPACOLI MY � Expires DeremW 2k 2010 Exhibit "A" Legal Description of Property That certain real property situated in County of Lane, State of Oregon and legally described as follows PARCEL 1: BEGINNING ATA POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARCOLA ROAD, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 890 57' 30" EAST 2611.60 FEET AND NORTH 000 02' 00" WEST 45.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE FELIX SCOTT JR. D.L.C. NO. 51 IN TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARCOLA ROAD SOUTH 890 5730" WEST 1419.22 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF LAND PARTITION PLAT NO. 94-P0491; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARCOLA ROAD AND RUNNING ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF NORTH 000 02'00" WEST 516.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF NICOLE PARK AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN FILE 74, SLIDES 30-33 OF THE LANE COUNTY OREGON PLAT RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID NICOLE PARK NORTH 89- 57' 30" EAST 99.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NICOLE PARK; THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID NICOLE PARK NORTH 000 02'00" WEST 259.82 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NICOLE PARK, THENCE ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID NICOLE PARK SOUTH 890 58'00" WEST 6.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOCH LOMOND TERRACE FIRST ADDITION, AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN BOOK 46, PAGE 20 OF THE LANE COUNTY OREGON PLAT RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID LOCH LOMOND TERRACE FIRST ADDITION NORTH 000 02'00" WEST 112.88 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUSTIN PARK SOUTH, AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN FILE 74, SLIDES 132-134 OF THE LANE COUNTY PLAT RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID AUSTIN PARK SOUTH NORTH 890 58'00" EAST 260.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID AUSTIN PARK SOUTH, THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID AUSTIN PARK SOUTH NORTH 000 02'00" WEST 909.69 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID AUSTIN PARK SOUTH, SAID POINT BEING ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED JULY 31, 1941 IN BOOK 359, PAGE 285 OF THE LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LAST DESCRIBED TRACT NORTH 790 41' 54" EAST 1083.15 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE LAST DESCRIBED TRACT AND THE EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO R. H. PIERCE AND ELIZABETH C. PIERCE AND RECORDED IN BOOK 238, PAGE 464 OF THE LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LAST DESCRIBED TRACT SOUTH 000 02'00" EAST 1991.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN LANE COUNTY, OREGON. PARCEL 2: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 753, 3470.24 FEET SOUTH AND 1319.9 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FELIX SCOTT DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 82, IN TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, AND BEING 866 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY TO R. D. KERCHER BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 189, PAGE 268, LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; THENCE WEST 1310 FEETTO A POINT 15 LINKS EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE FELIX SCOTT DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 82, NOTIFICATION NO. 3255, IN TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH AND 15 LINKS DISTANT FROM SAID WEST LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM A DISTANCE OF 2304.76 FEET TO A POINT 15 LINKS EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM, THENCE EAST FOLLOWING ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 278 A DISTANCE OF 1310 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF SAID COUNTY ROAD NO. 278 DUE SOUTH OF THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH FOLLOWING THE CENTER LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD NO. 753 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN LANE COUNTY, OREGON; EXCEPT THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE EUGENE-WENDLING BRANCH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF EUGENE, RECORDED IN BOOK 359, PAGE 285, LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; ALSO EXCEPT BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 1589.47 FEET SOUTH AND 1327.33 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, LANE COUNTY, OREGON, SAID POINT ALSO BEING OPPOSITE AND 20 FEET EASTERLY FROM STATION 39+59.43 P.O.S.T., SAID STATION BEING IN THE CENTER LINE OF THE OLD ROUTE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 142-5 (FORMERLY NO. 753); THENCE SOUTH 0- 11' WEST 183.75 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 840 45' WEST 117.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 790 30' WEST 48.37 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE RELOCATED SAID COUNTY ROAD. 742-5; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 316.48 FOOT RADIUS CURVE LEFT (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 390 03'35" EAST 261.83 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 269.94 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, IN LANE COUNTY, OREGON; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO LANE COUNTY RECORDED OCTOBER 19, 1955, RECEPTION NO. 68852, LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO LANE COUNTY RECORDED JANUARY 20, 1986, RECEPTION NO. 86-02217, LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THAT DEED TO WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1992, RECEPTION NO. 92-68749, AND CORRECTION DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 09, 1993, RECEPTION NO. 93-08469, LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THAT DEED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 22, 1993, RECEPTION NO. 93-60016, LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPT MARCOLA ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK, AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN FILE 75, SLIDES 897, 898 AND 899, LANE COUNTY PLAT RECORDS, LANE COUNTY, OREGON. PARCEL 3: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, PARKING AND SIGN PURPOSES AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT, RECORDED APRIL 22, 1994, RECEPTION NO. 94-29763, LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 4 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND PARKING AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS, RECORDED MARCH 17, 1989, RECEPTION NO. 89- 11762, AS AMENDED BY THAT CERTAIN FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS, RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 1989, RECEPTION NO. 89-49055, AS MODIFIED BY THAT CERTAIN RESTATED DECLARATION RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS, RECORDED MAY 10, 1991, RECEPTION NO. 91-21698, ALL OF LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. NOTE: THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS CREATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2008 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance First American ISSUED BY Commitment First American Title Insurance Company COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued By FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY NOTICE IMPORTANT -READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY'S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. COMMITMENTTO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I -Requirements; Schedule B, Part II -Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, SntAmerican Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska Corporation (the "Company"), Commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I -Requirements have not been met within 90 days after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company's liability and obligation end. First American Title Insurance Company Dersds J. Gitmom Pneidont / t 4 y �P. fiO�s41/-877/ Jolla, S. RPMnson secretary If this jacket was created electronically, it constitutes an original document. This page is only a part ofa 2016 AL TAO fammibrnent for Title Insurance issued by FrstAmenran Trtk Insurance Company. This Cbrumt brantis not valid without the Mobce; the Gmmibrent to Issue Foley; tie Conmb nt Conditions; Schedule 4 Schachule B Yard-Requiarrenhi Schedule 8, Yart II-&ceptiore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative diereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted under license Bonn the American Land Title Association. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a) "Knowledge" or "Known": Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records. (b) "Land": The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that bylaw constitute real property. The term"Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Landis to be insured by the Policy. (c) "Mortgage": A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law. (d) "Policy": Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (e) "Proposed Insured": Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment (f) "Proposed Policy Amtount": Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (g) "Public Records": Records established understate statutes at the Comrntnent Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (h) "Title": The estate or interest described in Schedule A. 2. Ifall of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, this Commitment tennnates and the Company's liability and obligation end. 3. The Company's liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: (a) the Notice; (b) the Comrnbnent to Issue Policy; (c) the Commitment Conditions; (d) Schedule A; (e) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and (f) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions. 4. COMPANY'S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Comrnbnent at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Data, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. S. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY (a) The Company's liability under Comrnbrent Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured's actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company's delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured's good faith reliance to: (i) comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; (ii) eliminate, with the Company's written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or (iii) acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. (b) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matterand did not notify the Company about it in writing. (c) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (d) The Company's liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured's actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(axi) through 5(axiii) or the Proposed Policy Amount (e) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any. (f) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (g) In any event, the Company's liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy. This page is only a partofa2016AL TAO Commitment for Tide Insumoe issued by FrstAmenra Title Insurance Company. This Commilnautis not valid without the Notim; the Commitment io Issue PoLcy; tie Commitment Conditons; Schedule Po Sdieduk B Pad -Requi evrenh,; Schedule 3,, Pad II-&reptore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative diersol) is msi iced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are oiohibited. Regnned underlicanse hom the Amenan Land Title Association. S. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT (a) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may crake a claim under this Commitment (b) Any claim must be bared in contract and must be restricted solely to the terns and provisions of this Commitment (c) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matterof this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment (d) The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement orobligation to provide coverage beyond the terns and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (e) Any amendment orendorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company. (f) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company's only liability will be under the Policy. 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company's agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company's agent for the purpose of providing closing orsetdement services. B. PRO -FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro -forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro -fomes policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro -forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. This page is only a partofa2016AL TAO Commitment for Title Insurance issued by FrstAmrxoan Tek Insurance Company. This Commitr v;tis riot valid without the Notice; the Conmiment io Issue PoLcy; tie Commitment Condisons; Schedule 4 Sdieduk B Pad -Requi erren5; Schedule 8, Pad II-Erceptlore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative diereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlianse hom the American Land Title Association. ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance First American ISSUED BY Schedule A First American Title Insurance Company Trelom on Identification Data for reference only., Issuing Agent: First American Title Insurance Company National Issuing Office: 2425 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300, Commercial Services Phoenix, AZ 85016 Issuing Office's ALTA& Registry ID: Loan ID No.: Commitment No.: NCS-935055A-PHX1 Issuing Office File No.: NCS-935055A-PHX1 Property Address: Lane County, OR, Springfield, OR Revision No.: SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: March 24, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. 2. Policy to be issued: (a) 0 2006 ALTA& Owners Policy Proposed Insured: To Be Determined Proposed Policy Amount: $TBD $TBD (b) 0 2006 ALTA& Loan Policy Proposed Insured:To Be Determined Proposed Policy Amount: $TBD $TBD (c) ❑ ALTA& Policy Proposed Insured: Proposed Policy Amount: $ 3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee Simple 4. The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company S. The Land is described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By: Authorized Signatory If there are any questions concerning this Commitment, please contact: This page is only a pwtofa 2016AL TAO Commtnrent for Title Insurance isuedby FrstAmenran Tibe lasumncsCompany. This Comnxbentis not valid wibwut the Notice; the Commibrent w &see PoLcy; tie Commibrent Conditions; Schedule a Shcedule B pard-Requirr n5; Schedule 8, part II-&capbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Fenn (or any derivative lien ol) is msoiced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlicense horn the Amencen Land Title Association. Angelique Sizemore at asizemom@fimtam.com First Amencan Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 2425 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 (602)567-8100 phone This page is only a partofa 2016AL TAO Comnrihrent for Title Insurance issued by FrstAmenran Me Insurance Company. This ComnribrePtis not valid without the Notice; the Commibrent io Issue PoLcy; tie Commihrent Conditions; Schedule 4 Schedule B Pad -Requi ernen5; Schedule 8, part II-&cepbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Pori (or any derivative lien ol) is resbiced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good slanting as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlicense from the Amencen Land Title Association. ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance Frrst American ISSUED BY Schedule BI & BI First American Title Insurance Company . u r6I7'idfSS3rii�t78�[N.'SxlTf}SY_a9:lfl SCHEDULE B, PART Requirements All of the following Requirements must be met: 1. The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. 2. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. 3. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. 4. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. This page is only a pwtofa 2016 AL TAO Commihnentfor Title Insurance isuedby RrstAmenra Tek Insurance Company. This Commitnevtis wt valid wiHwut the Notice; the Conm irrent w Issue PoLcy; tie Conmi nt Condibons; Schedule 4 Sdedule B Yard-Requiar n5; Schedule 8, Yart II-&ceptore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Pori (or any derivative lien ol) is resaiced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good sending as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlicense ham the Annericen Land Title Association. " ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance First American HUED BY Schedule BI & BII (Cont. First American Title Insurance Company . u r�I7'idISS3r7i�t78�[N.'$xi147.Y_a9:�fl SCHEDULE B, PART II Exceptions THIS COMMITMENT DOES NOT REPUBLISH ANY COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terns and provisions of any lease or easement identified in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, or claims of easement, not shown by the Public Records; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 4. Any encroachment (of existing improvements located on the Land onto adjoining land or of existing improvements located on adjoining land onto the Land), encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. S. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor, material or equipment, unless such lien is shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy and not otherwise excepted from coverage herein. 6. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter that appears for the first time in the Public Records or is created, attaches, or is disclosed between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Schedule B, Part I -Requirements are met. 7. Water rights, claims to water or title to water, whether or not such rights are a wetter of public record. 8. City liens, if any, of the City of Springfield. This page is only a pwtofa 2016 AL TAO Commihrnent for Title Insurance isuedby RrstAmenran Tek InsuranceCompany This Commitnevtis rwt valid wiHwutthe Nobon; the Conm irrentto Issue PoLcy; tie Commitrmnt Conditions; Schedule 4 Sdiedu/e B pard-Requirerren5; Schedule 8, part II-&cepbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative lien ol) is rest iced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlicame from the Amerian Land Title Association. Note: There are no liens as of March 17, 2020. Al outstanding utility and user fees are not liens and therefore are excluded from coverage. 9. Rights of the public and of governmental bodies in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying below the mean high water mark of slough and the ownership of the State of Oregon in that portion lying below the high water mark of slough. (Affects Parcel I) 10. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits of streets, roads and highways. 11. Easement, including terms and provisions Contained therein: Recording Information: May 01, 1919 in Book 119, Page 560, Deed Records of Lane County, Oregon In Favor of: Benham Imigation Company For: None Shown Affects: Parcels I and II 12. Easement, including terms and provisions Contained therein: Recording Information: July 17, 1919 in Book 121, Page 66, Deed Records of Lane County, Oregon In Favor of: Benham Imigation Company For: to Construct and maintain a ditch Affects: Parcel I 13. Easement, including terms and provisions Contained therein: Recording Information: March 16, 1925 in Book 142, Page 450, Deed Records of Lane County, Oregon In Favor of: City of Eugene, Oregon, a Municipal Corporation, by and through the Eugene Water Board For: right of way Affects: Parcels I and II 14. Easement, including terms and provisions Contained therein: Recording Information: July 12, 1937 in Book 188, Page 452, Deed Records of Lane County, Oregon In Favor of: The City of Eugene, a municipal corporation, by and through the Eugene Water Board For: electric transmission line Affects: Parcel I 15. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 17, 1961, Reception No. 50778 In Favor of: City of Springfield For: None Shown Affects: Parcels I and II 16. Covenants, Conditions, restrictions and/or easements; but deleting any Covenant, Condition or restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, Color, religion, sex, handicap, family status, or national origin to the extent such Covenants, conditions or restrictions violate Title 42, Section 3604(c), of the United States Codes: Recording Information: March 17, 1989, Reception No. 89-11762 (Affects Parcel I) Modification and/or amendment by instrument: Recording Information: October 31, 1989, Reception No. 89-49055 This page is only a pwtofa 2016AL TAO Comnrihrent for Title Insurance issued by FrstAmenran Trtk Insurance Company. This Comnrihrantis not valid without the Notice; the Commihrent io Issue PoCry; tie Commihmnt Condiboni Schedule 4 Schedule B partl-Requiar nA,; Schedule 8, part II-&cepbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (every denvahve lien ol) is resaiced to ALTA licensees and ALTA rrrerriters in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlicense horn the Amencen Land Title Association. Modification and/or amendment by instrument: Recording Information: May 10, 1991, Reception No. 91-21698 Modification and/or amendment by instrument: Recording Information: November 02, 1994 as Instrument No. 1994-77951 17. Easement, including terms and provisions Contained therein: Recording Information: March 20, 1989, Reception No. 89-11838 In favor of: Springfield School District No. 19 For: None Shown Affects: Parcel I 18. Covenants, Conditions, restrictions and/or easements; but deleting any Covenant, Condition or restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, Color, religion, sex, handicap, family status, or national origin to the extent such covenants, Conditions or restrictions violate Title 42, Section 3604(c), of the United States Codes: Recording Information: May 10, 1991, Reception No. 91-21696 (Affects Parcel I) Modification and/or amendment by instrument: Recording Information: October 01, 1993 as Instrument No. 1993-62649 Modification and/or amendment by instrument: Recording Information: October 12, 1993 as Instrument No. 1993-65168 19. Easement, including terms and provisions Contained therein: Recording Information: September 22, 1993 as Instrument No. 199 3-600 16 In favor of: City of Springfield For: None Shown Affects: Parcel II 20. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 25, 1994 as Instrument No. 199 4-2 198 1 In favor of: City of Springfield For: None Shown Affects: Parcel II 21. Reciprocal Easement Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof: By and Between: Allan H. Pierce and James L. Hershner, trustees under the Wills of Ralph H. Pierce and Elizabeth C. Pierce, deceased Recording Information: April 22, 1994 as Instrument No. 1994-29763 22. Declarations of Restrictions, including terns and provisions thereof. Recorded: October 19, 2007 as Instrument No. 2007-071865 23. Covenants, Conditions, restrictions and/or easements; but deleting any Covenant, Condition or restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, family status, or national origin to the extent such covenants, Conditions or restrictions violate Title 42, Section 3604(c), of the United States Codes: Recording Information: July 03, 2008 as Instrument No. 2008-039321 This page is only a pwtofa 2016AL TAO Camnrihrent for Title Insurance issued by FrstAmenran Trtk Insurance Company. This Comnribrantis not valid without the Notice; the Commibrent io Issue PoLcy; tie Commihrent Condiboni Schedule 4.Sdedde B Pbrtl-Requiarren5; Schedule 8, part II-&cepbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (every denvative lien ol) is resbiced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good slanting as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlicense from the Amencen Land Title Association. Modification and/or amendment by instrument: Recording Information: August 17, 2018 as Instrument No. 20 18-0 38 50 1 24. The Villages at Marcola Meadows Final Master Plan, including terms and provisions thereof. Recorded: July 25, 2008 as Instrument No. 2008-0043041 Modification and/or amendment by instrument: Recording Information: August 07, 2015 as Instrument No. 2015-039630 25. Easement, including terms and provisions Contained therein: Recording Information: June 11, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009-031683 In Favor of: City of Springfield, acting by and through its Springfield Utility Board For: right of way 26. Declaration of Restriction, including terms and provisions thereof. Recorded: August 17, 2018 as Instrument No. 2018-038502 27. Declaration of Restriction and Consent, including terms and provisions thereof. Recorded: August 17, 2018 as Instrument No. 2018-038503 28. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC Grantee/Beneficiary: Construction Loan Services, LLC Trustee: Trustee Service, Inc. Amount: $6,179,644.05 Recorded: December 17, 2019 Recording Information: Instrument No. 20 19-05 77 10 Note: This Deed of Trust Contains Line of Credit privileges. If the current balance owing on said obligation is to be paid in full in the forthcoming transaction, confirmation should be made that the beneficiary will issue a proper request for full reconveyance. The beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust has been assigned to Builders Capital Opportunity Fund, LLC, by Assignment recorded February 24, 2020, as Instrument No. 2020-009040. 29. Any Conveyance or encumbrance by Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC should be executed pursuant to their Operating Agreement, a copy of which should be submitted to this office for inspection. 30. Unrecorded leases or periodic tenancies, if any. 31. There are various ongoing closures and inaccessibility of certain records in Counties and municipalities across the county due to the COVID-19 Emergency. If unable to record documents in the Public Records due to closure or inaccessibility, execution of a Declaration of Understanding and Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement Due to the COVID-19 Emergency is required by the partes to the contemplated transaction. Contact the Company prior to closing as additional requirements and/or exceptions may be added based on the facts and circumstances of the transaction. -END OF EXCEPTIONS - This page is only a pwtofa2016AL TAO Comnxhrent for Title Insurance issued by FrstAmenra Trtk Insurance Company. This Comnxhrentis not valid without the Notice; the Commibrent io Issue PoLcy; tie Coa m trvent Conciibons; Schedule 4.Schachule B partl-Requiarnenh,; Schedule 8, part II-&cepbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative dieneol) is resbiced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlicense ham the American Land Title Association. INFORMATIONAL NOTES NOTE: We find no netters of public record against TBD that will take priority over any trust deed, mortgage or other security instrument given to purchase the subject real property as established by ORS 18.165. NOTE: Taxes for the year 2019-2020 PAID IN FULL Tax Amount: $63,147.72 Map No.: 17-02-30-00-01800 Property ID: 0113785 Tax Code No.: 01900 (Affects Parcel II) NOTE: Taxes for the year 2019-2020 PAID IN FULL Tax Amount: $54,360.36 Map No.: 17-03-25-11-02300 Property ID: 1517653 Tax Code No.: 01900 (Affects Parcel I) NOTE: This Preliminary Title Report does not include a search for Financing Statements filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, or in a county other than the county wherein the premises are situated, and no liability is assumed if a Financing Statement is fled in the Office of the County Clerk covering Fixtures on the premises wherein the lands are described other than by metes and bounds or under the rectangular survey system or by recorded lot and block. NOTE: According to the public record, the following deed(s) affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 24 months of the effective date of this report: Special Warranty Deed recorded December 17, 2019 as Instrument No. 2019-057709, MidFirst Bank to Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC. Situs Address as disclosed on Lane County Tax Roll Not Yet Assigned, Springfield, OR 97477 The exceptions to coverage 1-5 inclusive as set forth above will remain on any subsequently issued Standard Coverage Title Insurance Policy. In order to remove these exceptions to coverage in the issuance of an Extended Coverage Policy the following items are required to be furnished to the Company; additional exceptions to coverage may be added upon review of such information: Survey or alternative acceptable to the Company Affidavit regarding possession Proof that there is no new construction or remodeling of any improvement located on the Land. In the event of new construction or remodeling the following is required: i. Satisfactory evidence that no construction liens will be fled; or ii. Adequate security to protect against actual or potential construction liens; iii. Payment of additional premiums as required by the Industry Rate Filing approved by the Insurance Division of the State of Oregon This page is only a pwtofa 2016AL TAO famnrihrent for Title Insurance issued by FrstAmenran Trtk Insurance Company. This Commthbra Ptis not valid without the Notice; the Commihrent io Issue PoLcy; tie Commihrent Condiboni Schedule 4 Schedule B partl-Requaerren5; Schedule 8, part II-&cepbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (every derivative dienml) is resaiced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlianse from the American Land Title Association. ISSUED BY FrrstAmerlc$n First American Title Insurance Company .,' e-I Exhibit A File No: NCS-935055A-PHX1 File No.: NCS-935055A-PHX1 The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Lane, State of Oregon, and is described as follows PARCEL 1: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARCOLA ROAD, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89e 57 30" EAST 2611.60 FEET AND NORTH 000 02'00" WEST 45.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE FELIX SCOTT JR. D.L.C. NO. 51 IN TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARCOLA ROAD SOUTH 890 57' 30" WEST 1419.22 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF LAND PARTITION PLAT NO. 94-F0491; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARCOLA ROAD AND RUNNING ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF NORTH 000 02'00" WEST 516.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF NICOLE PARK AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN FILE 74, SLIDES 30-33 OF THE LANE COUNTY OREGON PLAT RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID NICOLE PARK NORTH 890 57' 30" EAST 99.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NICOLE PARK; THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID NICOLE PARK NORTH 000 02' 00" WEST 259.82 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NICOLE PARK, THENCE ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID NICOLE PARK SOUTH 890 58'00" WEST 6.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOCH LOMOND TERRACE FIRST ADDITION, AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN BOOK 46, PAGE 20 OF THE LANE COUNTY OREGON PLAT RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID LOCH LOMOND TERRACE FIRST ADDITION NORTH 000 02'00" WEST 112.88 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUSTIN PARK SOUTH, AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN FILE 74, SLIDES 132-134 OF THE LANE COUNTY PLAT RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID AUSTIN PARK SOUTH NORTH 890 58' 00" EAST 260.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID AUSTIN PARK SOUTH, THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID AUSTIN PARK SOUTH NORTH 000 02'00" WEST 909.69 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID AUSTIN PARK SOUTH, SAID POINT BEING ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED JULY 31, 1941 IN BOOK 359, PAGE 285 OF THE LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LAST DESCRIBED TRACT NORTH 790 41'54" EAST 1083.15 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE LAST DESCRIBED TRACT AND THE EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO R. H. PIERCE AND ELIZABETH C. PIERCE AND RECORDED IN BOOK 238, PAGE 464 OF THE LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LAST DESCRIBED TRACT SOUTH 000 02'00" EAST 1991.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN LANE COUNTY, OREGON. PARCEL 2: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 753, 3470.24 FEET SOUTH AND 1319.9 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FELIX SCOTT DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 82, IN TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, AND BEING 866 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY TO R. D. KERCHER BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 189, PAGE 268, LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; THENCE WEST 1310 FEET TO A POINT 15 LINKS EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE FELIX SCOTT DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 82, NOTIFICATION NO. 3255, IN TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH AND 15 LINKS DISTANT FROM SAID WEST LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM A DISTANCE OF 2304.76 FEET TO A POINT 15 LINKS EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM, THENCE EAST FOLLOWING ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 278 A DISTANCE OF 1310 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF SAID COUNTY ROAD NO. 278 DUE SOUTH OF THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH FOLLOWING THE CENTER LINE OF SAID This page is only a pwtofa 2016 AL TAO Comnrihrent for Title Insurance issued by FrstAmenra Trtk Insurance Company. This Comnrihreotis not valid without the Notice; the Commihrent to Issue Poky; tie Commihrent conditions; Schedule 4 Schedule B partl-Requiarren5; Schedule 8, part II-&cepbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative dienml) is resaiced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are oichihited. Reprinted under license Bonn the Americen Land Title Association. COUNTY ROAD NO. 753 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN LANE COUNTY, OREGON; EXCEPT THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE EUGENE-WENDLING BRANCH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF EUGENE, RECORDED IN BOOK 359, PAGE 285, LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; ALSO EXCEPT BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 1589.47 FEET SOUTH AND 1327.33 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, LANE COUNTY, OREGON, SAID POINT ALSO BEING OPPOSITE AND 20 FEET EASTERLY FROM STATION 39+59.43 P.O.S.T., SAID STATION BEING IN THE CENTER LINE OF THE OLD ROUTE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 142-5 (FORMERLY NO. 753); THENCE SOUTH 00 11' WEST 183.75 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 840 45' WEST 117.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 790 30' WEST 48.37 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE RELOCATED SAID COUNTY ROAD. 742-5; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 316.48 FOOT RADIUS CURVE LEFT (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 390 03' 35" EAST 261.83 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 269.94 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, IN LANE COUNTY, OREGON; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO LANE COUNTY RECORDED OCTOBER 19, 1955, RECEPTION NO. 68852, LANE COUNTY OREGON DEED RECORDS; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO LANE COUNTY RECORDED JANUARY 20, 1986, RECEPTION NO. 86-02217, LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THAT DEED TO WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1992, RECEPTION NO. 9238749, AND CORRECTION DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 09, 1993, RECEPTION NO. 93-08469, LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THAT DEED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 22, 1993, RECEPTION NO. 93-60016, LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPT MARCOLA ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK, AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN FILE 75, SLIDES 897, 898 AND 899, LANE COUNTY PLAT RECORDS, LANE COUNTY, OREGON. PARCEL 3: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, PARKING AND SIGN PURPOSES AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT, RECORDED APRIL 22, 1994, RECEPTION NO. 94-29763, LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. 9_1:iNiwl AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND PARKING AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS, RECORDED MARCH 17, 1989, RECEPTION NO. 89-11762, AS AMENDED BY THAT CERTAIN FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS, RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 1989, RECEPTION NO. 89-49055, AS MODIFIED BY THAT CERTAIN RESTATED DECLARATION RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS, RECORDED MAY 10, 1991, RECEPTION NO. 91-21698, ALL OF LANE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. NOTE: THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS CREATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2008. This page is only a partofa2016AL TAO Comnrihrent for Title Insumnre issued by FrstAmenra Trtk Insurance Company. This Comnrihrentis not valid without the Moboe; the Commihrent to Issue PoLcy; tie Commihrent Condiboni Schedule 4.Sdiachule B Pad -Requhr nen5; Schedule 8, part II-&repbore. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is mst iced to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. NI other uses are Prohibited. Reprinted underlicense from the Amencen Land Title Assodaton. AKq Exhibit D: Lane County Assessor's Maps TAXATIODONLYN.E.114 N.E.114SEC.25T.17S. R.M. W.M. Lane County r =ioa EE .,mN. --� m. .m m®� 019-00 1m, 17032511 SECTION 30 117S. R.2W. W.M. 17023000 SUBJECT SITE Lane County r'=aaa �„— Li j �� _ mSAN.a„me�m� SEE MA Ims«. ME r:ar000000 0000 ccs E-1 sI 12. EE _._ - m. m AMm — — see•�c l ¢• s 19-01 seerwc €€ rm �z �` 21. s” y �m Amo nnk me de m AM=4 ,®e� 019-091 _ � ! 1�. yea mW j Amo .e a� SEE A' nmvm IS -71 '+a rQ19-00 _ �t I r � Al c; m _' s u E MAP EI c —vm ��h w. ......,=...m....m..-T. SEE -1 Immu� xs e� — — — „®ems �I EE ®— „ax�� . SEEMA __ — — Tse 17023000 „ee� m — — S. W.114 N.E.114 SEC. 25 T.17S. R.M. W.M. 17032513 Lane County SPRINGFIELD r=mv SPRINGFIELD 17032513 AKq Exhibit E: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Map yenta Ave y i3, m Olt. st ' Hayden Bridge u o` ` 9 P m.. Firth Ave i 118 i ' -sY Marcola - MarcoldRd I cr O 1' rAW N n: ` � a WSt 105A� v sl \ 108G `11 9 w " 1 \ u sl 4 ` y A� Marcola Soil Map—lane County Area, Oregon 1,5W Natural Resources Mb Soil Survey 4 /2020 3i Conservation Serves National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area.fureens (Ad) ® Spal Area The sal surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 0 Araaralnrerest(AOI) d army Spot 1:20,099. Sols Very Sony Sp&Warning: Sal Map may not be valid at this scale. 0 Sol Map Unit Polygons � VJIX S p a Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause ,.,. Sol Mep Unit Ones misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Soil Map Unit Points contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Special line Features Special Point Features scale. Lg Blowout Water F.W. Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map ® Borrow Put measurements. Trensponation Clay Spot Rats Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service 6 Closed Depression Web Soil Survisi Ny Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG385T) Graces Pit r,/ US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Gravely Sp& z. Major Roads projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Landfill Loral Roads Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if mare A Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required, Background Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography This productfrom the USDA-NRCS certified tlaW as is gens) of the version tlate(s) listed below. version list .�. Mune or Quant' Soil Survey Area: Lane County Area,1D,Oregon ® Miscellaneous Water 2D19 Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 19, 2019 ® Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales y, Rock Outcrop 1:Wp00orlarger. Saline Spot Dates) aerial images were photogrephetl: Jun 12, 2019 Jun 19, 2019 Sandy So& • The orihophoto or other base map on which the sal lines were e Several Eroded Sp& compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some mina D Sinkhole shilfng of map unit boundaries may be evident. Slide or Slip Sodic Sp& 1,5W Natural Resources Mb Soil Survey 4 /2020 3i Conservation Serves National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of Sal Map�ane County Area, Oregon Map Unit Legend LSUA Natural Resources Wab Sal Survey 4 12020 iMi Conservation Serme National Cooperative Scil Survey Page 3 a 3 Map Unit Synibd Map Urii Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 75 Malabon silly day loam 37.8 11.9% 76 Malaboni rban land complex 57.2 18.0% 100 Oxley gravelly sit loam 24.2 7.6% 101 Oxley4 rban land cernplex 0.4 0.1% 105A Pengra sit loam, i to 4 percent slopes 5.2 1.7% low Philornalh cobbly silly day, 310 12 percent slopes 1.7 0.5% 118 Salan gravelly silt loam 140.3 44.2% 119 Salan-Urban land complex 49.7 15.6% W Wales 0.9 0.3% Totals for Arm of Interest 317.6 100.0% LSUA Natural Resources Wab Sal Survey 4 12020 iMi Conservation Serme National Cooperative Scil Survey Page 3 a 3 AKq Exhibit F: Preliminary Stormwater Report Date: May 2020 Client: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC Engineering Contact: Vu Nguyen, PE Monty Hurley, PE, PLS Prepared By: Vu Nguyen, PE Engineering Firm: AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC 12965 SW Herman Road Suite 100 Tualatin, OR 97062 AKS Job Number: 7736 RENEWAL DATE: 6/30/2021 ENGMEIItING & FGRESrttY www.aks-eng.com Contents 1.0 Purpose of Report .....................................................................................................................2 2.0 Project Location/Description....................................................................................................2 3.0 Regulatory Design Criteria........................................................................................................2 3.1. Stormwater Quantity Management Criteria.....................................................................................2 3.2. Stormwater Quality Management Criteria.......................................................................................3 4.0 Design Methodology.................................................................................................................3 5.0 Design Parameters....................................................................................................................3 5.1. Design Storm.....................................................................................................................................3 5.1.1. On -Site Inlet and Conduit Sizing............................................................................................3 5.1.2. Upstream and Future Basins.................................................................................................3 5.2. Predeveloped Site Topography and Land Use..................................................................................3 5.2.1. Site Topography....................................................................................................................3 5.2.2. Land Use................................................................................................................................3 5.3. Soil Type............................................................................................................................................ 3 5.4. Infiltration Test Result.......................................................................................................................4 5.5. Post -developed Site Topography and Land Use...............................................................................4 5.5.1. Site Topography....................................................................................................................4 5.5.2. Land Use................................................................................................................................4 5.5.3. Post -Developed Input Parameters........................................................................................4 6.0 Calculation Methodology..........................................................................................................4 6.1. Proposed Stormwater Conduit Sizing and Inlet Spacing...................................................................4 6.2. Proposed Stormwater Quality and Quantity Design........................................................................4 Appendices Appendix A: Vicinity Map Appendix B: Existing Conditions Map Appendix C: Post -Developed Catchment Map and Detail Appendix D: Post -Developed Hydrograph and Flow Information -10 -year Storm Event Appendix E: Emergency Overflow Calculations Appendix F: Soils Information from NRCS Soil Survey of Lane County, Oregon Appendix G: Relevant Information from the City of Springfield and Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds by NRCS Appendix H: Geotechnical Information Report w110 Marcola Meadows Phase 1B, 2A, and 2B May 2020 Preliminary Stormwater Report Page 1 Preliminary Stormwater Report MARCOLA MEADOWS PHASES 1B, 2A,AND 2B, SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 1.0 Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to analyze the effect development of Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B of Marcola Meadows will have on the downstream stormwater conveyance system, document the criteria the proposed stormwater system was designed to meet, identify the sources of information on which the analysis was based, detail the design methodology, and document the results of the analysis. 2.0 Project Location/Description The development is located on a portion of Tax Lot 1800 of Lane County Assessor's Map 17032511. The subject site is located west of 31"Street between V and W Streets in the City of Springfield, Oregon. Total area of Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B is approximately ±19.4 acres. The site area generally slopes less than 1 percent towards the north-northwest corner. Existing stormwater runoff flows into an existing 18 -inch culvertthat crosses under the public pathway in the north. Stormwater runoff from this development will be collected and routed to the low impact development (LID) stormwater facility and will be completely infiltrated up to the 10 -year design storm. Only overflow (more than the 10 -year design storm) stormwater runoff will be discharged to the existing 18 -inch culvert under the public pathway. 3.0 Regulatory Design Criteria 3.1. Stormwater Quantity Management Criteria According to Section 4.3-110.E of the Springfield Development Cade Any development with a stormwater threshold management requirement of 1,000 square feet of impervious surface area shall be required to employ stormwater management practices consistent with the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams. The following stormwater management practices may be required in order to relieve demand on the City's piped drainage system, alleviate future costs of treating the piped discharge, promote water quality, preserve groundwater and the vegetation and rivers it supports, and reduce peak storm flows: 1. Temporary ponding of water; 2. Permanent storage basins; 3. Minimizing impervious surfaces; 4. Emphasizing natural water percolation and natural drainageways; S. Preventing water flowing from the street in an uncontrolled fashion; 6. Stabilizing natural drainageways as necessary below drainage and culvert discharge points for a distance sufficient to convey the discharge without channel erosion, as permitted/allowed by City, State and Federal regulations; 7. On-site filtration or skimming of run-off, that will enter natural drainageways to maintain water quality; 8. On-site constructed wetlands; and AVC Marcola Meadows Phase 18, 2A, and 2B May 2020 Preliminary Stormwater Report Page 2 9. The riparian area boundary, as specified in Subsection 4.3-115A., maybe utilized to meet City on- site stormwater management requirements for flood control and water quality treatment provided the design is complementary to and supportive of the primary objective of a properly functioning riparian habitat condition. Where the riparian boundary is not of sufficient size to meet these on-site requirements, the additional area needed shall be located contiguous to the riparian boundary to form a consolidated stormwater feature for operational and maintenance efficiencies and that is designed to be compatible with and complementary to the riparian area boundary." 3.2. Stormwater Quality Management Criteria According to Section 3.02 of the City's 2012 Engineering Design Standards & Procedures Manual (EDSPM), "All public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post -developed BMPs [Best Management Practices] that in combination are designed to achieve at least 70 percent reduction in TSS [Total Suspended Solids] in the runoff generated by that development" 4.0 Design Methodology The Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) Method was used to design the stormwater facility. This method uses the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Type 1A rainfall distribution and 24-hour precipitation. HydroCAD computer software aided in the analysis. Representative runoff curve numbers (CN) were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Urban Hydrologyfar Small Watersheds Technical Release 55 (1986). 5.0 Design Parameters 5.1. Design Storm 5.1.1. On -Site Inlet and Conduit Sizing Stormwater inlets for the site will be placed at locations that will adequately control stormwater runoff from streets. The main stormwater pipes will be sized with Manning's equation, based on peak flows for the 2 -year (3.3 inches), 24-hour storm event. 5.1.2. Upstream and Future Basins Stormwater runoff from part of the future phase basins (Catchment 2S) will drain to the planned LID stormwater facility of this development for stormwater quality/quantity management. 5.2. Precieveloped Site Topography and land Use 5.2.1. Site Topography The site area generally slopes less than 1 percent towards the north-northwest corner. The vegetative cover of the site consists of grass, trees, and brush. 5.2.2. Land Use Currently, the property is vacant and covered with grass and brush. 5.3. Soil Type The soil on site is classified as Salem gravelly silt loam (hydrologic group "B") by the NRCS Soil Survey for Lane County. Information on these soil types is provided in Appendix F. AVC Marcola Meadows Phase 1B, 2A, and 2B May 2020 Preliminary Stormwater Report Page 3 5.4. Infiltration Test Result Per the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Redmond Geotechnical Services and dated March 4, 2019 (provided in Appendix H), the results of the field infiltration testing have indicated that the upper clayey, sandy silt (ML) and underlying silty and gravelly sand to sandy gravel with cobbles (SM/GM) deposits have minimum measured infiltration rates on the order of 3.0 inches per hour and 18.0 inches per hour, respectively. The report recommended using the design infiltration rate of 1.5 inches per hour for subgrade with soil type ML and 9.0 inches per hour for subgrade with soil type SM/GM to design the stormwater infiltration and disposal systems for this project. A safety factor of two (2) was used to calculate the above recommended design infiltration rates. 5.5. Post -developed Site Topography and Land Use 5.5.1. Site Topography The post -developed site topography will be altered from the predeveloped site topography to allow for the construction of public streets, single-family homes, and other associated infrastructure and features. 5.5.2. Land Use The post -developed land use will consist of 139± lots single-family homes in Phases 1B, 2A, and 2B, public streets, and stormwater facility. 5.5.3. Post -Developed Input Parameters Appendix D provides the HydroCAD reports and input parameters that were generated for the analyzed storm events with respect to the site improvements contributing to the drainage basins. According to Section 3.2-215 of the Springfield Development Code, "In the SLR, MDR or HDR Districts, a lot/parcel of 3,000 or less than 4,500 square feet shall have a maximum impervious surface coverage of 60 percent" The average lot area in Phase 1B, 2A, and 2B is approximately 3,700 square feet; therefore, each lot was assessed with 2,220 square feet of impervious area. 6.0 Calculation Methodology 6.1. Proposed Stormwater Conduit Sizing and Inlet Spacing The main stormwater conduit pipes will be sized using Manning's equation for the 2 -year, 24-hour storm event. Stormwater inlets will be placed at locations to adequately convey stormwater runoff from the streets. 6.2. Proposed Stormwater Quality and Quantity Design Stormwater runoff from the site will be treated and infiltrated by the planned LID stormwater facility. The bottom of the LID stormwater facilities will be covered in plants with a growing medium (minimum 12 inches), sand filter medium (6 inches), and a layer of drain rock (30 inches thick) below it. Stormwater will be filtered and infiltrated up to the 10 -year (4.3 inch) design storm through the vegetated surface and drain rock section to the maximum extent practical, recharging groundwater and mimicking predevelopment hydrologic conditions. The drain rock section was utilized to provide temporary storage volume and reach the subgrade with soil type SM/GM that has a tested infiltration rate of 18.0 inches per hour. However, the LID stormwater facility has been designed with the maximum infiltration rate of 2.5 inches per hour due to the growing medium section. Overflow structures in the LID stormwater facility will provide discharge of the overflow stormwater runoff (flow greater than 10 -year design storm) into the existing downstream conveyance system. AVO Marcola Meadows Phase 1B, 2A, and 2B May 2020 Preliminary Stormwater Report Page This project has been designed to meet City of Springfield stormwater quality and quantity management criteria, as described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the EDSPM. 6.3 Emergency Overflow Calculations The emergency overflow weir was sized to convey the 100 -year storm event, assuming stormwater facility cannot provide infiltration. Overflow stormwater runoff from the stormwater facility will sheet flow across the bank and downhill to an existing culvert. Calculations are included in Appendix E. AVC Marcola Meadows Phase 18, 2A, and 2B May 2020 Preliminary Stormwater Report Page 5 AK Appendix A: Vicinity Map mylIs] 1LlIIvaviF.Al N.T.S. ,lr AK Appendix B: Existing Conditions Map D� MN CJ ARR � C3LQ��f--_� nrs mV = PIERCE WELLHEAD Ofr p9JC/�1gG9�gy�} � J F 8 � Ofr p9JC/�1gG9�gy�} � J AKq Appendix C: Post -Developed Catchment Map and Detail s ET _- PIERCE WELLHEAD --- -T g w - — - x '--- N Ell _ a " �I I - _ O LL_ Im I:e Im 0 I � " / A m j _ /A / V / ✓ �� cn 3 Z o Z o Ta 1XY 1 =V _ r jl jl■ W asLu me is ieoo MV17 a w O (29 w G Lu a N W \ LU 0 LL JIMI i UJZ -el _ e• AK Appendix D: Post -Developed Hydrograph and Flow Information -10 -Year Storm Event (D�sw 1(2 Basin of Phases 1 B, 2A, LID Stormwater Facility Future Basin &2B Subcat Reach m Link 7736 Master Minor Post Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (sq -ft) (subcatchment-numbers) 308,580 98 2,220 sf of Impervious Area per Lot (139 Lots) (1) 190,920 98 2,220 sf of Impervious Area per Lot (86 Lots) (2) 487,820 61 Grass cover> 75% (1, 2) 203,900 98 Pavement and Pathway (1, 2) 1,191,220 83 TOTAL AREA 7736 Master Minor Post Type lA 24 -hr 10 -Year Rainfall=4.30" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCADOR 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.16 hrs, 301 points Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchmentl: Basin of Phases 1 B, 2A, & 2B Subcatchment2: Future Basin Runoff Area=769,720 sf Runoff Depth=2.87" Tc=10.0 min CN=61/98 Runoff=10.94 cfs 184,072 cf Runoff Area=421,500 sf Runoff Depth=2.66" Tc=10.0 min CN=61/98 Runoff=5.44 cfs 93,586 cf Pond SWF: LID Stormwater Facility Peak Elev=463.48' Storage=105,920 cf Inflov --6.38 cfs 277,658 cf Outflow=2.31 cfs 277,634 cf Total Runoff Area = 1,191,220 sf Runoff Volume = 277,658 cf Average Runoff Depth = 2.80" 7736 Master Minor Post Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.30" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: Basin of Phases 1B, 2A, & 2B Runoff = 10.94 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 184,072 cf, Depth= 2.87" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.16 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 308,580 98 2,220 sf of Impervious Area per Lot (139 Lots) * 164,000 98 Pavement and Pathway * 297,140 61 Grass cover > 75% 769,720 84 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: Basin of Phases 1B, 2A, & 2B Hytlrngraph 12-10.94 cfs ■��°" „ T-yP-P-IA 24-F1r 10-Year Rainfa11=4307 Runoff Area=769,710 .5f Runoff Volume=1$4,072 cf s T Runoff Qepth=2!87" _ s Tc_=;10.0 min s CN=61 /88 4 i Time (hours) 7736 Master Minor Post Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.30" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: Future Basin Runoff = 5.44 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 93,586 cf, Depth= 2.66" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.16 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 190,920 98 2,220 sf of Impervious Area per Lot (86 Lots) * 39,900 98 Pavement and Pathway * 190,680 61 Grass cover > 75% 421,500 81 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: Future Basin Hytlrogre h 5.44 cfs ■ rw�x TyRe'r1A-24-hr- 10-bear kainfal1=4.3& RLncxff Area=421,500 sf- Rundff Volume=93,586 cf ___'Runoff Depth=2.66!' Tp=10.0 miu Time (hours) 7736 Master Minor Post Type IA 24 -hr 10 -Year Rainfall=4.30" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond SWF: LID Stormwater Facility Inflow Area = 1,191,220 sf, Inflow Depth = 2.80" for 10 -Year event Inflow = 16.38 cfs 8.01 hrs, Volume= 277,658 cf Outflow = 2.31 cfs 20.51 hrs, Volume= 277,634 cf, After= 86%, Lag= 749.8 min Primary = 2.31 cfs 20.51 hrs, Volume= 277,634 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.16 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 463.48' @ 20.51 hrs Sud.Area= 36,829 sf Storage= 105,920 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 491.4 min calculated for 277,634 cf (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 490.9 min ( 1,194.3 - 703.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 458.00' 207,714 cf Custom Stage Data (Pyramidal)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Sud.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (%6) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 458.00 32,800 0.0 0 0 32,800 461.90 32,800 40.0 51,168 51,168 35,625 462.00 32,800 100.0 3,280 54,448 35,698 463.00 35,500 100.0 34,141 88,589 38,497 464.00 38,300 100.0 36,891 125,480 41,401 465.00 41,100 100.0 39,692 165,172 44,312 466.00 44,000 100.0 42,542 207,714 47,327 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 458.00' 2.500 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area #2 Primary 465.50' 50.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 rimary Out Flow Max=2.31 cfs @ 20.51 hrs HW=463.48' (Free Discharge) =Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.31 cfs) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) 7736 Master Minor Post Type IA 24 -hr 10 -Year Rainfall=4.30" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond SWF: LID Stormwater Facility Ti.. (n..,r ) ■ mnw ■ R.... AKq Appendix E: Emergency Overflow Calculations (D�sw 1(2 Basin of Phases 1 B, 2A, LID Stormwater Facility Future Basin &2B Subcat Reach m Link 7736 Master Minor Overflow Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (sq -ft) (subcatchment-numbers) 308,580 98 2,220 sf of Impervious Area per Lot (139 Lots) (1) 190,920 98 2,220 sf of Impervious Area per Lot (86 Lots) (2) 487,820 61 Grass cover> 75% (1, 2) 203,900 98 Pavement and Pathway (1, 2) 1,191,220 83 TOTAL AREA 7736 Master Minor Overflow Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (all nodes) Line# Node In -Invert Out -Invert Length Slope n DiamNVIdth Height Inside -Fill Number (feet) (feet) (feet) Mffl) (inches) (inches) (inches) 1 SWF 463.77 462.38 76.3 0.0182 0.013 18.0 0.0 0.0 7736 Master Minor Overflow Type lA 24 -hr 100 -Year Rainfall=5.20" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCADOR 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.16 hrs, 301 points Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchmentl: Basin of Phases 1 B, 2A, & 2B Subcatchment2: Future Basin Runoff Area=769,720 sf Runoff Depth=3.62" Tc=10.0 min CN=61/98 Runoff=13.94 cfs 232,359 cf Runoff Area=421,500 sf Runoff Depth=3.39" Tc=10.0 min CN=61/98 Runoff=7.03 cfs 119,149 cf Pond SWF: LID Stormwater Facility Peak Elev=465.61' Storage=190,891 cf Inflov-20.97 cfs 351,508 cf Outflow=4.54 cfs 166,255 cf Total Runoff Area = 1,191,220 sf Runoff Volume = 351,508 cf Average Runoff Depth = 3.54" 7736 Master Minor Overflow Type IA 24 -hr 100 -Year Rainfall=5.20" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: Basin of Phases 1B, 2A, & 2B Runoff = 13.94 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 232,359 cf, Depth= 3.62" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.16 hrs Type IA 24 -hr 100 -Year Rainfall=5.20" I_1i�f4ii=NII * 308,580 98 2,220 sf of Impervious Area per Lot (139 Lots) * 164,000 98 Pavement and Pathway * 297,140 61 Grass cover > 75% 769,720 84 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: Basin of Phases 1B, 2A, & 2B ■ Ru�orr 14 ---- Type IA -24 -or 13 100 -Year Rainfall=5�2 ' 12 11 Runoff Area=769,74 gf a ' R_unoff Vol ume=232,35 a s 9 Runoff Depth=3.62" I--Tc=10.0 min s , --, --CN=61/98 -------------s Tim. (hours) 7736 Master Minor Overflow Type IA 24 -hr 100 -Year Rainfall=5.20" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: Future Basin Runoff = 7.03 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 119,149 cf, Depth= 3.39" Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.16 hrs Type IA 24 -hr 100 -Year Rainfall=5.20" Area (sf) CN Description * 190,920 98 2,220 sf of Impervious Area per Lot (86 Lots) * 39,900 98 Pavement and Pathway * 190,680 61 Grass cover > 75% 421,500 81 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: Future Basin Hytlrngraph 7.0 ■ wax 3 cfs T Typq IA 24-I r 100 -Year Rainfall=5!20' Runoff Area=421,500 sf Runoff Volume=119,149 cf a Runoff Depth=3.39" Tc=10.0 min - I CN=61/98 Time (hours) 7736 Master Minor Overflow Type IA 24 -hr 100 -Year Rainfall=5.20" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond SWF: LID Stormwater Facility Inflow Area = 1,191,220 sf, Inflow Depth = 3.54" for 100 -Year event Inflow = 20.97 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 351,508 cf Outflow = 4.54 cfs @ 11.57 hrs, Volume= 166,255 cf, After= 78%, Lag= 213.5 min Primary = 4.54 cfs @ 11.57 hrs, Volume= 166,255 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.16 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 465.61' @ 11.57 hrs Surf.Area= 42,865 sf Storage= 190,891 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 614.8 min calculated for 166,255 cf (47% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 325.9 min ( 1,028.3 - 702.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 458.00' 207,714 cf Custom Stage Data (Pyramidal)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq -ft) (%6) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq -ft) 458.00 32,800 0.0 0 0 32,800 461.90 32,800 40.0 51,168 51,168 35,625 462.00 32,800 100.0 3,280 54,448 35,698 463.00 35,500 100.0 34,141 88,589 38,497 464.00 38,300 100.0 36,891 125,480 41,401 465.00 41,100 100.0 39,692 165,172 44,312 466.00 44,000 100.0 42,542 207,714 47,327 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 458.00' 0.010 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area #2 Device 3 465.50' 50.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #3 Primary 463.77' 18.0" Round Existing Culvert L= 76.3' RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 463.77' / 462.38' S= 0.0182'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf rimary Out Flow Max -4.42 cfs @ 11.57 hrs HW=465.61' (Free Discharge) =Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) 3 Existing Culvert (Passes 4.41 cfs of 8.89 cfs potential flow) L2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 4.41 cfs @ 0.78 fps) 7736 Master Minor Overflow Type IA 24 -hr 100 -Year Rainfall=5.20" Prepared by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC Printed 4/132020 HydroCAM 10.00-22 s/n 01338 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond SWF: LID Stormwater Facility ■ mnw ■ R.... AKq Appendix F: Soils Information from the NRCS Soil Survey of Lane County, Oregon USDA United States Department of Agriculture MRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Lane County Area, Oregon April 10, 2020 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://wwwnres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offces.sc.egw..usda.gwAocator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http:llw ..nres.usda.govlwps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey orwet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poody suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is ajoint effort ofthe United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................ 10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit Descriptions......................................................................................... 11 Lane County Area, Oregon............................................................................. 13 118—Salem gravelly silt loam..................................................................... 13 Soil Information for All Uses............................................................................... 14 Soil Properties and Qualities.............................................................................. 14 Soil Qualities and Features............................................................................. 14 HydrologicSoil Group................................................................................. 14 References............................................................................................................ 19 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform orwith a segment ofthe landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments ofthe landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of howthey were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions ofthe kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system oftaxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. Afterthe soil Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in noway diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drewthe boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs showtrees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. Custom Soil Resource Report ; a Soil Map a � ti ti 9H9 � 9YlA 9YY1 9110 9127 91H] 912tl 81]01 91110 919] 3 3 hops 6:1:2,,M Rp� m A Ia1E M(11"x 85')x. & p N Jaz a a m i9 zao a A U m 9 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Araa oflNxea (AOI) Spot Areas The soil surveys Ilial comprise your AOI were mapped at 0 Area oflo arest(AOI) 0 Stan S pa 120,000. &oris 0 Sol Map Unit Pdygans 4% Very Starry Spot Warning: Sol Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot ,.�. Sol Map Unit tines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Soil Map Unit Punts 6 Other misunderstanding ofthe detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Speual tine Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Special Pant Pappas. contrasting ing soils that could have been shown at a more detailed V Blowout WaerFaerrras scale, scale. I Streams and Canals Borrow Pit Trare orratim Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Clay Spot }}{ Rails measurements. O Closed Depression w/ Interstate Highways Source Map: Natural Resources Conservation Sill � a Oral Pic � Routes Well, Soil Survey URL: Gravely Spa Coordinate System: VVeb Mercalor(EPSG:385y) Major Roads ® landfill Local Roads Maps from the VVeb Soil Survey are based on the VVeb Mercator A lava Row projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts eack4aaM distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Metal orswamp . Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more .R Mine or Quarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required, O Miscellaneous Water This product is gamended from the USDA-NRCS certified data as C Perennial Water oflhe version details) listed below. V Rock Outcrop Shc Survey Area: Lane County Area, Oregon + Seine Spot Survey Area Data: Verson 18, Sep 10, 2019 Sandy Spot Sal map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales O Servaely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger. Sinkhole Dales) aerial images were photographed: Jun 12, 2019—Jun Slide or Slip 19, 2D19 Sodic Spa The orth ophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably difflts from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a resull, some minor 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in noway diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into Iandforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. 11 Map Unit Symbol Map uril Name Acres in AOl Percent of AOl 118 SM. giuv iy ak b. 19.4 199.9% Talals fa Area of lil. sl 19.4 199.9% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in noway diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into Iandforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general fads about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Lane County Area, Oregon 118—Salem gravelly silt loam Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol. 2340 Elevation: 300 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation. 40 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 52 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period. 165 to 210 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Salem and similar sails. 85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Salem Setting Landform: Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material. Gravelly mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly silt loam H2 - 7 to 26 inches: gravelly clay loam 1-13 - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderatelyhighto high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to watertable: More than 80 inches Frequencyofflooding. None Frequencyofpording. None Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s Land capability classification nonirrigated): 2s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Forage suitability group. Well drained < 15% Slopes (G002XY0020R) Hydric soil rating. No 13 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Hydrologic Soil Group 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 ofwater 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 ofwater transmission. 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement ofwater 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 thoroughlywet. 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. 15 Custom Soil Resource Report a Map—Hydrologic Soil Group a � N 9H9 � 9YlA 9YY1 9110 9127 91H] 912tl 81]01 91110 919] 3 3 hops 6:1:2,,M Rp� m A Ia1E p(11"x 85')x. & p N Jaz a a m i9 zao a A U m 16 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Anse d lrcxaer(Aol) 0 C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 0 Areadlntereet lAOl) CID 120,000. Sells Foil Relirg Polygons ■ D blaming: Sol Map may no be Ialid at this scale. - A 0 Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause AID Nkrer Fast. mie ofthe tl of mapping and soil B r Streams and Canais placsantling maccreas f line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of do Trans>osaian contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed 0 BID }}{ Rails scale. 0 C M Interstate Hl ghways 0 CID Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map N US Routes measurements. D MajorRcads L Not rated or nd availabl a Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Bill Local Roads Vieb Soil Survey URL Soil Rating Lines Coordinate System: web Mercata(EPS(3:3857) Background ^� A Aerial Photography Maps from the Soil Survey are band on theMbMercator ^, AID h pr di projeoion, which preserves direoion and shape but distorts B distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more .y BID accurate calculations of distance or area are required, y C This product is genereted from the USDA-NRCS certified data as .y CID ofthe version date(s) listed below. N D Shc Survey Area: Lane CountyArea, Oregon .. Not rated or rot v sable Survey Area Data: Verson 16, Sep 10, 2019 Soil Rating Points 0 A Sol map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,0DD or larger. 0 AID 0 B Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 12, 2019—Jun 19, 2D19 0 BID 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 chiflinn of man inil hrimilmil may he Pmda t 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Table—Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Railing Acres in A01 Percent of A01 118 Salem gravelly silt loam B 19.4 198.9% Totals for Area of 1Merest 19.4 190.0% Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. . None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher 18 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://w ..nres.usda.gw wWportall n res/d etail/national/soi I s/?cid=nres 142p 2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www. nres. usda. gov/wp s/p ortal/nres/d etail/national/soi I s/?cid=n res 142p 2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www. nres. usda. gov/wp s/p ortal/nres/d etail/national/soi I s/?cid=n res 142p 2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http:/Aw .nres.usda.gwlwps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=n res 142p 2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http:/A v ..nres.usda.gwlwps/portal/nres/ detail/nationalAand use/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 19 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http:llw ..nres.usda.govtwps/portal/ n res/d etail/soil s/sci entists/?cid=n ms142p 2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http:/Av .nres.usda.gwtwps/portal/nres/detail/national/soilso cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// waw.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf 20 Appendix G: Relevant Information from Technical Release 55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds by Natural Resource Conservation Service and City of Springfield Chapter Eatinnating R..noff Technical Release55 Urban Hydrology forSmall Watersheds Table 2-2a Runoffcurve numbers for urban auras V Cover description Cover type and hydrologic condition Curve numbers for ----hydrologic soil group Average percent impervious area zi A B C D Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established) Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.)W: Poor condition (grass cover < 50%) Fair condition (grass cover 50% to 7596) Good condition (grass cover> 75%) hnpervious areas: Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. (excluding rightof-way). Streets and roads: Paved; curbs and storm sewers (excluding right-o&way) . Paved; open ditches (including rightof-way) Gravel (including vight-of--way) . Dirt (including right-of-way). Western desert urban areas: Natural desert landscaping (pervious areas only) S ..................... Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier, desert shrub with 1- to 2 -inch sand or gravel mulch and basin borders)...................................................................... Urban districts: Commercial and business Industrial Residential districts by average lot size: 1/8 acre or less (town houses) 1/4 acre 1/3 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre Developing urban areas Newly graded areas (pervious areas only, no vegetation) s'______ - Idle lands (CN's are determined using cover types 77 86 91 94 r Average mnoffcendition, and h=0.25. a The averagepviventimpervious ones shown was used W devebp the compostte CN's. Other aes ionmeas one as follows: imperious areas one goodhycermeaedniihedmN'sf system, combustions b andperviousmeasone considered equivalentto open apace lin good hydrologic condition CN's for other combuiatione ofcondrtions may be computed using Rgone 23 or 2-0. s CN's shown are equivalent to tiros, of pasture Composite CN's may be computed for other combinations of open space cover type. Composite CN's for natural desert landscaping should be computed using figums 23 or 24 based on ihemnarnous areapercentig (CN =98) and the pervious aura CN. The pervious ones CN's are assumed equivalent W desert smub in poor hydrologic condition. a Composite CN's to use for the design of temporary measuas durh,g grading and ceristivetion should be computed using fgure23 or 24 based on thedegce of development(impervious a ra percentage) and the CN's forthe newt galled pervious areas. (210 -VI -TR -55, Second Ed., June 1986) 2-5 68 49 79 69 86 79 88 84 39 0 1.188 74 80 98 98 (.l 98 83 98 89 98 92 98 93 76 72 85 82 89 87 91 89 63 77 85 88 96 96 96 96 85 72 89 81 92 88 94 91 95 93 65 38 77 61 85 75 90 83 92 87 30 25 57 54 72 70 81 80 86 85 20 12 51 46 68 65 79 77 84 82 77 86 91 94 r Average mnoffcendition, and h=0.25. a The averagepviventimpervious ones shown was used W devebp the compostte CN's. Other aes ionmeas one as follows: imperious areas one goodhycermeaedniihedmN'sf system, combustions b andperviousmeasone considered equivalentto open apace lin good hydrologic condition CN's for other combuiatione ofcondrtions may be computed using Rgone 23 or 2-0. s CN's shown are equivalent to tiros, of pasture Composite CN's may be computed for other combinations of open space cover type. Composite CN's for natural desert landscaping should be computed using figums 23 or 24 based on ihemnarnous areapercentig (CN =98) and the pervious aura CN. The pervious ones CN's are assumed equivalent W desert smub in poor hydrologic condition. a Composite CN's to use for the design of temporary measuas durh,g grading and ceristivetion should be computed using fgure23 or 24 based on thedegce of development(impervious a ra percentage) and the CN's forthe newt galled pervious areas. (210 -VI -TR -55, Second Ed., June 1986) 2-5 Chapter EstimatingEmoff Teilink lRelesse55 Urban 1(ydrology for Small Watersheds Table 2-2b Runoff curve numbers for cultivated agricultural lands p I Average mnoffconi ition, and ],-0.2S 2 Crop residue cover applies only ifresidue is on at least 596 of the surface throughout the year. 3 Hydraulic cendition is based on combination factors that affect infiltration and runoff, inchohin (a) density and canopyof vegetative areas, (b) amountof yesnround coves, (c) amount of gone or close -seeded legumes, (d) percent of residuecova on iheland surface (good -_20%) and (e) degree ofsurfnce roughness. Poor: Factors rtnpaa iMdtation and tend W increase runoff. Good: Factum moos age average and better than average iMdtmtion and tend W decrease runoff. 2� (210 -1/I -TR -55, Second Ed., June 1986) Curve numbers for _---------- Cover description -----------_ ---- hydrologic soil group ---- Hydrologic Cover type Treatnrenty conditions' A B C D Fallow Bare soil — 77 86 91 94 Crop residue cover (CR) Poor 76 85 90 93 Good 74 83 88 90 Row crops Straight row (SR) Poor 72 81 88 91 Good 67 78 85 89 SR+CR Poor 71 80 87 90 Good 64 75 82 85 Contoured (C) Poor 70 79 84 88 Good 65 75 82 86 C+CR Poor 69 78 83 87 Good 64 74 81 85 Contoured & terraced (C&T) Poor 66 74 80 82 Good 62 71 78 81 C&T+CR Poor 65 73 79 81 Good 61 70 77 80 Small grain SR Poor 65 76 84 88 Good 63 75 83 87 SR+CR Poor 64 75 83 86 Good 60 72 80 84 C Poor 63 74 82 85 Good 61 73 81 84 C+CR Poor 62 73 81 84 Good 60 72 80 83 C&T Poor 61 72 79 82 Good 59 70 78 81 C&T+CR Poor 60 71 78 81 Good 58 69 77 80 Close -seeded SR Poor 66 77 85 89 orbroadcast Good 58 72 81 85 legumes or C Poor 64 75 83 85 rotation Good 55 69 78 83 meadow C&T Poor 63 73 80 83 Good 51 67 76 80 I Average mnoffconi ition, and ],-0.2S 2 Crop residue cover applies only ifresidue is on at least 596 of the surface throughout the year. 3 Hydraulic cendition is based on combination factors that affect infiltration and runoff, inchohin (a) density and canopyof vegetative areas, (b) amountof yesnround coves, (c) amount of gone or close -seeded legumes, (d) percent of residuecova on iheland surface (good -_20%) and (e) degree ofsurfnce roughness. Poor: Factors rtnpaa iMdtation and tend W increase runoff. Good: Factum moos age average and better than average iMdtmtion and tend W decrease runoff. 2� (210 -1/I -TR -55, Second Ed., June 1986) Chapters Estimatingllunoff Technical Release55 Urban Hydrology fnrSmell Watersheds Table 2-2c Runoffcurve numbers for other agricultural bonds Cover description Cover type Hydrologic condition A Curve numbers for hydrologic soil group ----- B C D Pasture, gmssland, or range,contimmus Poor 68 79 86 89 forage for grazing. v Fair 49 69 79 84 Good 39 61 74 80 Meadow—continuous grass, protected from — 30 58 71 78 grazing and generally mowed for hay. Brush—brash-weed-grass mixture with brush Poor 48 67 77 83 the major element. v Fair 35 56 70 77 Good 30 v 48 65 73 Woods gone combination (orchard Poor 57 73 82 (86 or tree farm). Y Fair 43 65 76 �2 Good 32 58 72 78 Woods.& Poor 45 66 77 83 Fair 36 60 73 79 Good 30 v 55 70 77 Farmsteads—buildings, lanes, driveways, — 59 74 82 86 and surrounding lots. I Average runoff mndition, and L = 0.25. z Poor: <50%) ground coverorheavily grazed with no mukh. Fair: 50 W 75%gmund cover end not heavily grazed. (Mod: > 7596gmund cover end light(yoronly occasionally grazed. 3 Poor: <50%gmund cover. Fair: 50 W 75%gmund cover. (Mod: >75%gmund cover. 4 Actual reeve number is less than W; use CN= W for mnoffcomputations. s CN's shownwere computed for areas with Metwoods and Weigmss(pesture)cover. Other combmatkns of condhlonsmay be computed from the CN's Iorwoods end pasture. 3 Poor: Forestlin,smallhew,andbmsharedaoyedbyhearygrazirgomgu bumrtg. Fair: Woods are grazed but notbumed, and some forest litterrovers the soil. Good: Woods are protected from grazing, and litter and brush adequately cover the soil. (210 -VI -TR -55, Second Ed., June 1986) 2-7 Chapters Eatimating Euvoff Techrdcal Release 55 Urban hydrology for Smell Watersheds Table 2-2d Runoff curve numbers for and and semiarid rangelands 1/ Pinyon -juniper pinyon, juniper, or both; grass understory. Poor Fair Good Sagebrush with grass understory. Poor Curve numbers for Fair _---------_ Cover description ------------_ Good _---_ hydrologic sWI group ---- Poor greasewood, creosotebush, blackbrush, homage, Hydrologic palo verde, mesquite, and cactus. Good Cwer type condition?/ As' B C D 51 63 70 Herbaceousmixtureof grass, weeds, and Poor 80 87 83 low -growing brush, with brush the Fair 71 81 89 rumorelement. Good 62 74 85 Oak-aspen—mountain brush mixture of oak brush, Poor 66 74 78 aspen, mountain mahogany, bitter brush, maple, Fair 48 57 63 and other brush. Good 30 41 48 Pinyon -juniper pinyon, juniper, or both; grass understory. Poor Fair Good Sagebrush with grass understory. Poor 85 Fair Good Desert shrub—major plants include saltbush, Poor greasewood, creosotebush, blackbrush, homage, Fair palo verde, mesquite, and cactus. Good I Average rwoff condition, and l„=0.25. For range an hound regions, use table 22c 2 Poor. <W%ground cover (litter, grass, and brush overetory). Fair: 30 W 70%groundcowr. Goad: > 7095 ground cover. a Clove numbers for group Ahave been developed only for desert sluub. 2S (210 -V -TR -55, Second Ed., June 1986) 75 85 89 58 73 80 41 61 71 67 80 85 51 63 70 35 47 55 63 77 85 88 55 72 81 86 49 68 78 84 2/4/2020 3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards Springfield Development Code Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames CHAPTER 3 LAND USE DISTRICTS Section 3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts 3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards The following base zone development standards are established. https://qn e.ustn es/spdngfielddevelopmenV 1/3 Residential Zoning District Development Standard Low DensitySmall Residential (LDR) Lot Residential (SLR) Medium Density I Residential MDR High Density Residential (HDR) Standard Lotr/Paite/s Minimum Area East-West Streets 14,500 sq. R. 13,000 sq. R. 14,500 sq. ft. (15) 14,500 sq. ft. (15) North-South Streets 15,000 sq. ft. 13,000 sq. R. 15,000 sq. ft. 15 5,000 sq. ft. 15 Minimum Street Frontage East-West Streets 145 feet 30 feet 45 feet (15) 145 feet (15) North-South Streets 160 feet 30 feet 60 feet SS 60 feet 15 Duplex Comer Lots/Parcels Min./Max. Area (1)6,000 sq. R. 6,000 sq. R. 6,000 sq. ft. (15) 6,000 sq. ft. (15) Maximum Area 2 10,000 . R. 19,000 sq. R. 19,000 sq. ft. 19,000 sq. ft. Minimum Street Frontage East-West Streets45 feet 45 feet 45 feet (15) 45 feet (15) North-South Streets 60 feet 60 feet 60 feet (15) 60 feet (15) Panhandle Lots/Parcels (See § 3.2-220 Additional Panhandle Lot/Parcel Development Standards) 5ingle Panhandle (16) Not permitted (16) (16) Minimum Area in Pan Portion 4,500 sq. ft. Not applicable 4,500 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. Minimum Street Frontage 20 feet Not applicable 20 feet 20 feet Mul[iple Panhandles (16) Not permitted (16) (16) Minimum Area in Pan Portion 4,500 sq. ft. Not applicable 4,500 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. Minimum Street Frontage 26 feet total, each individual frontage is based upon the number of panhandles. Not applicable 26 feet total, each individual frontage is based upon the number of panhandles. 26 feet total, each individual frontage is based upon the number of panhandles. Lots/Parcels on Bulb Portion of Cul -de -Sac Minimum Area 6,000 feet 3,000 sq. ft. 6,000 fee[ (15) 6,000 feet (15) Minimum Street Frontage 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet (15) 35 feet (15) Lots/Parcels Within the Hi//side Development Overlay District (§ 3.3-5BBJ < 15% Slope Not permitted Minimum Area 10,000 sq. R. Not applicable 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Street Frontage 60 feet Not applicable 60 feet 60 feet 15 to 25% Slope Not permitted Minimum Area 10,000 sq. R. Not applicable 10,000 sq. R. 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Street 90 feet Not applicable 90 feet 90 feet https://qn e.ustn es/spdngfielddevelopmenV 1/3 2/4/2020 3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standanis Development Low Density I Small Lot I Medium Density High Density Stands I Residential (LDR) I Residential (SLR) I Residential (MDR) I Residential (HDR) Minimum Street 1150 feet I Not applicable 1150 feet 1150 feet Minimum Street 1200 feet I Not applicable 1200 feet 1200 feet Lot/Parcel Area The creation of new lots/parcels in the City's urbanizable area shall be either 10 acres, 5 acres, or shall meet the area standards of this Section when approved through the partition process specified in Section 5.12-100. Maximum Lot/Parcel 45Mo 60°h 45°h 17 45%(17) Coverage 3 Minimum Setbacks for Primary Structures and Accessory Dwelling Units (4)(5)(7)(8)(9)(10)(19) Front Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Street Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Interior Yard Setbacks 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Without Zero Lot Line Interior Yard Setbacks 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet With Zero Lot Line Front Yard Setback: 18 feet measured along the driveway from: Garages and Carports 1. The property line fronting the street or the back of the sidewalk, whichever is closest to (6) the face of the garage or carport; or 2. The property line fronting the street or the back of the sidewalk, whichever is closest to the far wall of the garage or carport where the face of the structure is perpendicular to the street. 3. Where a garage or carport faces a panhandle driveway, the 18 feet is measured from the inner travel edge (pavement or gravel) within the panhandle to the face of the structure. Alley Access: Garage For new alleys the setback is 5 feet measured from the edge of the alley; for existing alleys that are less than 20 feet wide, the setback is 3 feet. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall not be located between any front or street side yards of a primary structure and shall be set back at least 3 feet from interior side and rear lot/parcel lines. Panhandle and Duplex All setbacks for panhandle lots/parcels are based on the orientation of the front and rear of Lots/Parcels the dwelling occupying the lot/parcel. All setbacks for duplexes on corner lots/parcels are based upon the front yard of each unit established by the street or streets for address purposeS. Base Solar Standards Section 3.2-225 11 Max. Building Height 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet (11)(12)(13)(14)(16) (1) 6,000 square feet in area for a duplex corner lot/parcel in all residential districts. This standard may only be increased as specified in (2), below. (2) 10,000 square feet in the LDR District as specified in this Section and Section 4.7-140. 9,000 square feet in area for a duplex corner lot/parcel In the SLR, MDR and HDR District as specified in this Section and Section 4.7-140. These maximum areas shall apply only when the property owner intends to divide the lot/parcel with the intent to create separate ownership for each half of the duplex. https://qn e.ustn es/spnngfielddewlopmenV 2/3 2/4/2020 3.2-215 Bass Zone Devslopmenl standards (3) The 45 percent coverage standard applies to covered structures only. On lots/parcels with more than 15 percent slope or above an elevation of 670 feet, the maximum impervious surface inclusive of structures, patios, and driveways, shall not exceed 35 percent, unless specified in Section 3.3-500. In the SLR, MDR or HDR Districts, a lot/parcel of 3,000 or less than 4,500 square feet shall have a maximum impervious surface coverage of 60 percent (4) Determination of all yard setbacks for duplexes on corner lots/parcels are based upon the front yard of each unit as established by the streets used for address purposes. (5) All setbacks shall be landscaped, unless a setback is for a garage or carport. (6) Accessory structure exceptions to setback standards: (a) Stand-alone garages and carports shall meet the street side yard, interior side yard and rear yard setback standards of the primary structure. (b) Group C accessory structures are permitted within setbacks as specified in Section 4.7-105E. (7) Where an easement is larger than the required setback standard, no building or above grade structure, except a fence, may be built upon or over that easement. (8) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City engineering standards, the Metro Plan (including the TransPlan), or the City's Conceptual Street Plan, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of any building permit that increases parking requirements. (9) Architectural extensions may protrude into any 5 -foot or larger setback area by not more than 2 feet. (10) General exceptions to setback standards: (a) Attached dwellings (zero lot line) on individual lots/parcels; and (b) A dwelling constructed over the common property line of 2 lots/parcels, where there is a recorded deed restriction. (c) In multifamily developments, the setback standards in Section 3.2-240 shall take precedence. (11) See Section 3.2-225 for residential building height limitations for solar protection. In the SLR District, solar protection for abutting LDR properties is required only for those lots/parcels north of the proposed development. (12) Incidental equipment may exceed the height standards. (13) Height limitations within the Hillside Development Overlay District may be removed provided the additional height does not exceed 45 feet and the base residential solar standards are met. (14) In the MDR and HDR Districts, the building height may be increased to 50 feet as specified in Subsection 3.2-240D.3.c. (15) In the MDR and HDR Districts, lot area and dimensions may be reduced through the subdivision application process as long as density and open space standards can be met. (16) Panhandle driveways are permitted where dedication of public right-of-way is impractical. Panhandle driveways shall not be permitted in lieu of a public street. In order to comply with the density requirements in the applicable residential zoning district, a private easement, as specified in Section 3.2-2208, may be permitted in lieu of the handle because the minimum lot/parcel size is determined based only on the pan square footage calculation. (17) In the MDR and HDR Districts, lot coverage standards may be increased to comply with the density requirements in the applicable residential zoning district. (18) Special building height standards may be established in Nodal Development Overlay or other special district standards (e.g., Glenwood Plan District), as determined through Refinement Plan and/or Master Plan processes and/or the permitted building height may be regulated by number of stories or floors. (19) Accessory dwelling units may be located up to 5 feet from an alley. If the accessory dwelling is located above an alley access garage, or the existing garage is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the setback for the garage from the alley also applies to the accessory dwelling unit, even if it is less than 5 feet. (6384; 6376; 6286; 6238; 6211) View the mobile version. https:ilgnade.us/nodes/spnngfielddewlopmenV 3M AKq Appendix H: Geotechnical Investigation Report GROTECHPIICAL SERVICES Geotechnical Investigation and Consultation Services Proposed Marcola Residential Development Site Tax Lot No's. 1800 and 2300 Marcola Road and 31st Street Springfield (Lane County), Oregon for Brownstone Development Project No. 1721.002.G March 4, 2019 IRREDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES March 4, 2019 Mr. Randy Myers Brownstone Development P.O. Box 2201 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Dear Mr. Myers: Re: Geotechnical Investigation and Consultation Services, Proposed Marcola Residential Development Site, Tax Lot No's. 1600 and 2300, Marcola Road and 31st Street, Springfield (Lane County), Oregon Submitted herewith is our report entitled "Geotechnical Investigation and Consultation Services, Proposed Marcola Residential Development Site, Tax Lot No's. 1800 and 2300, Marcola Road and 31st Street, Springfield (Lane County), Oregon". The scope of our services was outlined in our formal discussions with Mr. Randy Myers of Brownstone Development on January 7, 2019. Written authorization of our services was provided by Mr. Randy Myers of Brownstone Development on January 24, 2019. During the course of our investigation, we have kept you and/or others advised of our schedule and preliminary findings. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this phase of the project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, N J Daniel M. Redmond, P.E., G.E. oaecou President/Principal Engineer 9 eyx 's �ga's c- MFEOtTO 0 . (t�31�p PO BOX 20547 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97294 • FAX 503/286-7176 • PHONE 503/285-0598 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 SCOPE OF WORK 2 SITE CONDITIONS 3 Site Geology 3 Surface Conditions 3 Subsurface Soil Conditions 4 Groundwater 4 INFILTRATION TESTING 5 LABORATORY TESTING 5 SEISMICITY AND EARTHQUAKE SOURCES 6 Liquefaction 7 Landslides 7 Surface Rupture 7 Tsunami and Seiche 7 Flooding and Erosion 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 General 8 Site Preparation 9 Foundation Support 10 Shallow Foundations 10 Floor Slab Support 11 REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Table of Contents (continued) Retaining/Below Grade Walls Pavements Private Parking and Drive Areas Local Residential Streets Collector Streets Pavement Subgrade, Base Course and Asphalt Materials Wet Weather Grading and Soft Spot Mitigation Shrink -Swell and Frost Heave Excavations/Slopes Surface Drainage/Groundwater Design Infiltration Rates Seismic Design Considerations CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND TESTING CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS LEVEL OF CARE REFERENCES ATTACHMENTS Figure No. 1 - Site Vicinity Map Figure No. 2 - Site Exploration Plan Figure No. 3 - Perimeter Footing/Retaining Wall Drain Detail APPENDIX Test Pit Logs and Laboratory Test Data REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 11 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 18 18 19 20 Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No.1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MARCOLA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE TAX LOT NO'S. 1800 AND 2300, MARCOLA ROAD AND 31ST STREET SPRINGFIELD (LANE COUNTY), OREGON Redmond Geotechnical Services, LLC is please to submit to you the results of our Geotechnical Investigation at the site of the proposed new residential development property located to the north of Marcola Road and west of 31st Street in Springfield (Lane County), Oregon. The general location of the subject site is shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure No. 1. The purpose of our geotechnical investigation services at this time was to explore the existing subsurface soils and/or groundwater conditions across the subject site and to develop and/or provide appropriate geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the proposed new residential development project. Based on a review of the proposed and/or conceptual site development plan, we understand that present for the project will consist of the development of a new residential subdivision across much of the central and/or northerly portions of the subject property while the remaining southerly portion of the site will likely be developed into multi -family (apartment) residential properties as well as senior housing and/or commercial/retail properties. We anticipate that the new single-family residential homes will be two (2) and/or three (3) story wood -frame structures with post and beam floors while the multi -family (apartment) buildings will likely be three-story wood -frame structures with concrete slab -on -grade floors. Additionally, we envision that the senior housing and/or commercial/retail structures will range from single- to three-story wood -frame structures with concrete slab -on -grader floors. Support of the new single-family residential structures is anticipated to include both conventional shallow individual (column) footings and strip (continuous) footings. Structural loading information, although unavailable at this time, is anticipated to be fairly typical for this type of two- and/or three- story wood -frame structure(s) and is expected to result in maximum dead plus live continuous (strip) and individual (column) footing loads on the order of about 2.0 to 3.0 kips per lineal foot (klf) and 10 to 2S kips, respectively, while the multi -family and/or commercial/retail structures will likely result in maximum dead plus live continuous (strip) and individual (spread) column -type footing loads on the order of about 2.5 to 4.0 kips per lineal foot (df) and 15 to 75 kips, respectively. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Mibi . 2 MI' 3t4 } I Y.til q tue 6�y' ILS —. _ .1! •_•"—.__ __ it f 4. 50 . 1 a j AenA c r _STfE I 1 1{ .Io I*a oo I 3b�nl 1. I10I9 , 81 4 F —69 r.— ',s "Utz'4: TIM 1 1 g 25 36- S1 SPRINGFIELD QUADRANGLE OREGON 7.5 MINUE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) SCALE 1,24000 j 0 1 MILE INJ 0 1CN 2" XW 4WJ 5000 MW 7000 FEET 1 s o 1 N'FMETEa CONTOUR INTERVAL SO FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 DEPTH CURVES AND SOUNDINGS IN FEET—WILLAMETTE RIVER DATUM SITE VICINITY MAP MARCOLA RESIDENTIAL Project No. 1721.002.G DEVELOPMENT SITE F'Igure No. 1 Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No. 2 Other associated site improvements for the project will include new underground utility services, concrete curbs and sidewalks associated with new paved parking and drive areas as well as new public street improvements. Additionally, we understand that storm water from impervious areas (i.e., roofs and pavements) of the project site will be collected for treatment and/or disposal and will likely include infiltration through various underground detention and/or infiltration (UIC) components designed by the project civil engineer. Earthwork and grading operations associated with bringing the subject property to finish design grades is unknown at this time. However, due to the relatively flat -lying nature of the subject property, we anticipate that the site grading will likely result in cuts and/or fills of about two (2) to four(4)feet. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our geotechnical studies was to evaluate the overall site subsurface soil and/or groundwater conditions underlying the site with regard to the proposed new multi/family construction at the site and any associated impacts or concerns with respect to the new apartment development as well as provide appropriate geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the project. Specifically, our geotechnical investigation included the following scope of work items: 1. Review of available and relevant geologic and/or geotechnical investigation reports for the subject site and/or area. 2. A detailed field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration program of the soil and ground water conditions underlying the site by means of fourteen (14) exploratory test pit excavations. The exploratory test pits were excavated to depths ranging from about seven (7) to eight (8) feet beneath existing site grades at the approximate locations as shown on the Site Exploration Map, Figure No. 2. Additionally, field infiltration testing was also performed within several of the exploratory test pit excavations in general conformance with the EPA and/or City of Springfield/Lane County Encased Falling Head method. 3. Laboratory testing to evaluate and identify pertinent physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils encountered relative to the planned site development and construction at the site. The laboratory testing program included tests to help evaluate the natural (field) moisture content and dry density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, gradational characteristics and Atterberg Limits as well as direct shear strength, consolidation and "R" -Value testing. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No. 3 4. A literature review and engineering evaluation and assessment of the regional seismicity to evaluate the potential ground motion hazard(s) at the subject site. The evaluation and assessment included a review of the regional earthquake history and sources such as potential seismic sources, maximum credible earthquakes, and reoccurrence intervals as well as a discussion of the possible ground response to the selected design earthquake(s), fault rupture, landsliding, liquefaction, and tsunami and seiche flooding. 5. Engineering analyses utilizing the field and laboratory data as a basis for furnishing recommendations for foundation support of the proposed new residential structures. Recommendations include maximum design allowable contact bearing pressure(s), depth of footing embedment, estimates of foundation settlement, lateral soil resistance, and foundation subgrade preparation. Additionally, construction and/or permanent subsurface water drainage considerations have also been prepared. Further, our report includes recommendations regarding site preparation, placement and compaction of structural fill materials, suitability of the on-site soils for use as structural fill, criteria for import fill materials, and preparation of foundation, pavement and/or floor slab subgrades. 6. Development of various flexible pavement design sections for the private access drives and parking areas as well as new public street improvements. Site Geou Available geologic mapping of the area and/or subject site indicates that the near surface soils consist of alluvial soil deposits comprised of silt, sand, and gravel derived from Pleistocene age catastrophic pre -glacial flooding of the Willamette and McKenzie River systems. These alluvial deposits are several to tens of feet in thickness and are underlain at depth by semi -consolidated to consolidated conglomerate gravels. Surface Conditions The subject proposed new single- and/or multi -family development property is generally rectangular in shape and is comprised of two (2) separate tax lots (TL's 1800 and 2300) encompassing a total area of approximately 100 acres. The proposed residential property is roughly bounded to the south by Marcola Road, to the west by 31st Street, to the east by existing and developed single-family residential and commercial properties, and to the north by an abandoned railroad easement. The subject proposed residential development site is presently unimproved and void of any existing structures and/or site improvements. Surface vegetation across the site generally consists of a light to moderate growth of grass associated with a farm crop. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 4 Topographically, the site is characterized as relatively flat -lying (less than 5 percent) terrain descending downward towards the east with overall topographic relief estimated at about two (2) to four (4) feet and is estimated to lie at about Elevation 465 feet. Subsurface Soil Conditions Our understanding of the subsurface soil conditions underlying the site was developed by means of fourteen (14) exploratory test pits excavated to depths ranging from about seven (7) to eight (g) feet beneath existing site grades on February 14, 2019 with a John Deere 200C track -mounted excavator. The location of the exploratory test pits were located in the field by marking off distances from existing and/or known site features and are shown in relation to the proposed new apartment structures and/or proposed site improvements on the Site Exploration Map, Figure No. 2. Detailed logs of the test pit explorations, presenting conditions encountered at each location explored, are presented in the Appendix, Figure No's. A-5 through A-11. The exploratory test pit excavations performed during this study were observed by staff from Redmond Geotechnical Services, LLC who logged each of the test pit explorations and obtained representative samples of the subsurface soils encountered across the site. Additionally, the elevation of the exploratory test pit excavations were referenced from the proposed Site Development Plan prepared by Multi/Tech Engineering Services, Inc. and should be considered as approximate. All subsurface soils encountered at the site and/or within the exploratory test pit excavations were logged and classified in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) which is outlined on Figure No. A-4. The test pit explorations revealed that the subject site is generally underlain by native soil deposits comprised of Lacustrine and Fluvial sedimentary soil deposits of Pleistocene age. Specifically, the subsurface soils underlying the project area consists of a surficial layer of topsoil materials comprised of dark brown, wet, soft, organic to highly organic, sandy, clayey silt which extends to depths of approximately 10 to 14 inches. These topsoil materials were inturn underlain by medium stiff, clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils to a depth of about 4 to 5 feet beneath existing site grades. These clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils contain occasional small gravels and are considered non -expansive and are characterized by relatively low to moderate strength and moderate compressibility. These upper clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils were inturn found to be underlain by gray- brown, very moist, medium dense to dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly sand to sandy gravel with cobbles subgrade soils to the maximum depth explored of eight (g) feet beneath existing site grades. These slightly clayey, silty and gravelly sand to sandy gravel with cobbles subgrade materials are best characterized by relatively moderate to high strength and low compressibility. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered within any of the exploratory test pit explorations (TH-#1 through TH-#14) at the time of excavation to depths of at least eight (g) feet beneath existing site grades. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES LEGEND TH-414 Indicates approximate location of exploratory test hole Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No. 5 However, the static groundwater level reported near the area of the subject site are generally found to lie at about Elevation 455 feet which is approximately ten (10) feet or more below the existing ground surface elevation of the subject site. Further, no surface ponding of water was present across the subject site at the time of our field work. In this regard, although groundwater elevations at and/or below the subject site may fluctuate seasonally in accordance with rainfall conditions and/or associated with levels of the nearby (easterly) seasonal creek and/or drainage basin as well as changes in site utilization, we are generally of the opinion that the static water levels found during our recent field exploration work site typically reflect the high seasonal groundwater level(s) at and/or near to the site. INFILTRATION TESTING We performed field infiltration tests at the site on February 14, 2019. The infiltration tests were performed at depths of about 2.0 and 6.0 feet beneath existing site grades, respectively. The subgrade soils tested at these depths consisted of clayey, sandy silt and/or silty and gravelly sand to, sandy gravel with cobbles, respectively. The field infiltration testing was performed in general conformance with EPA and/or the City of Springfield/Lane County Encased Falling Head Method which consists of driving a 6 -inch inner diameter PVC pipe approximately 6 inches into the exposed soil horizon at each test location. Using a steady water flow, water was discharged into each pipe and allowed to penetrate the subgrade soils. The water level was adjusted over a four (4) hour period and allowed to achieve a saturated subgrade soil condition consistent with the bottom elevation of the surrounding test pit excavation. Following the required saturation period, water was again added into each pipe and the time and/or rate at which the water level dropped was monitored and recorded. Each 6 -inch drop in the water level was recorded until a consistent infiltration rate was observed and/or repeated. Based on the results of the field infiltration testing, we have found that the upper clayey, sandy silt and underlying silty and gravelly sand to sandy gravel with cobbles soil deposits possess ultimate infiltration rates on the order of about 3.0 inches per hour (in/hr) and 18.0 inches per hour (in/hr), respectively. LABORATORY TESTING Representative samples of the on-site subsurface soils were collected at selected depths and intervals from various test pit excavations and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing and/or to aid in the classification of the subsurface soils as well as to help evaluate and identify their engineering strength and compressibility characteristics. The laboratory testing consisted of visual and textural sample inspection, moisture content and dry density determinations, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, gradation analyses and Atterberg Limits as well as direct shear strength, consolidation and "R" -value tests. Results of the various laboratory tests are presented in the Appendix, Figure No's. A-12 through A-18. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 6 SEISMICITY AND EARTHQUAKE SOURCES The seismicity of the southwest Washington and northwest Oregon area, and hence the potential for ground shaking, is controlled by three separate fault mechanisms. These include the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), the mid -depth intraplate zone, and the relatively shallow crustal zone. Descriptions of these potential earthquake sources are presented below. The C5Z is located offshore and extends from northern California to British Columbia. Within this zone, the oceanic Juan de Fuca Plate is being subducted beneath the continental North American Plate to the east. The interface between these two plates is located at a depth of approximately 15 to 20 kilometers (km). The seismicity of the CSZ is subject to several uncertainties, including the maximum earthquake magnitude and the recurrence intervals associated with various magnitude earthquakes. Anecdotal evidence of previous CSZ earthquakes has been observed within coastal marshes along the Washington and Oregon coastlines. Sequences of interlayered peat and sands have been interpreted to be the result of large Subduction zone earthquakes occurring at intervals on the order of 300 to 500 years, with the most recent event taking place approximately 300 years ago. A recent study by Geomatrix (1995) suggests that the maximum earthquake associated with the CSZ is moment magnitude (Mw) 8 to 9. This is based on an empirical expression relating moment magnitude to the area of fault rupture derived from earthquakes that have occurred within Subduction zones in other parts of the world. An Mw 9 earthquake would involve a rupture of the entire CSZ. As discussed by Geomatrix (1995) this has not occurred in other subduction zones that have exhibited much higher levels of historical seismicity than the CSZ, and is considered unlikely. For the purpose of this study an earthquake of Mw 8.5 was assumed to occur within the CSZ. The intraplate zone encompasses the portion of the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate located at a depth of approximately 30 to 50 km below western Washington and western Oregon. Very low levels of seismicity have been observed within the intraplate zone in western Oregon and western Washington. However, much higher levels of seismicity within this zone have been recorded in Washington and California. Several reasons for this seismic quiescence were suggested in the Geomatrix (1995) study and include changes in the direction of Subduction between Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia as well as the effects of volcanic activity along the Cascade Range. Historical activity associated with the intraplate zone includes the 1949 Olympia magnitude 7.1 and the 1965 Puget Sound magnitude 6.5 earthquakes. Based on the data presented within the Geomatrix (1995) report, an earthquake of magnitude 7.25 has been chosen to represent the seismic potential of the intraplate zone. The third source of seismicity that can result in ground shaking within the Eugene and western Oregon area is near -surface crustal earthquakes occurring within the North American Plate. The historical seismicity of crustal earthquakes in this area is higher than the seismicity associated with the CSZ and the intraplate zone. The 1993 Scotts Mills (magnitude 5.6) and Klamath Falls (magnitude 6.0), Oregon earthquakes were crustal earthquakes. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No.7 Liquefaction Seismic induced soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which lose, granular soils and some silty soils, located below the water table, develop high pore water pressures and lose strength due to ground vibrations induced by earthquakes. Soil liquefaction can result in lateral flow of material into river channels, ground settlements and increased lateral and uplift pressures on underground structures. Buildings supported on soils that have liquefied often settle and tilt and may displace laterally. Soils located above the ground water table cannot liquefy, but granular soils located above the water table may settle during the earthquake shaking. Our review of the subsurface soil test pit logs from our exploratory field explorations (TH-#1 through TH-#14) and laboratory test results indicates that the site is generally underlain by medium stiff, clayey, sandy silt and/or medium dense to dense, silty and gravelly sand to sandy gravel to depths of at least 8.0 feet beneath existing site grades. Additionally, groundwater was not encountered at the site during our field exploration work to depths of at least eight (8) feet. As such, due to the anticipated depth to groundwater of approximately 13 feet or more as well as the apparent cohesive characteristics of the upper clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils and/or the medium dense to dense nature of the underlying silty, silty sand and/or silty and gravelly sand to sandy gravel subgrade soils beneath the site, it is our opinion that the native soil deposits located beneath the subject site do not have the potential for liquefaction during the design earthquake motions previously described. A more detailed liquefaction assessment was not part of the scope of work for this Geotechnical Investigation. Landslides No ancient and/or active landslides were observed or are known to be present on the subject site Additionally, due to the relatively flat -lying to gently sloping nature of the subject site, the risk of seismic induced slope instability at the site resulting in landslides and/or lateral earth movements do not appear to present a serious potential geologic hazard. Surface Runture Although the site is generally located within a region of the country known for seismic activity, no known faults exist on and/or immediately adjacent to the subject site. As such, the risk of surface rupture due to faulting is considered negligible. Tsunami and Seiche A tsunami, or seismic sea wave, is produced when a major fault under the ocean Floor moves vertically and shifts the water column above it. A seiche is a periodic oscillation of a body of water resulting in changing water levels, sometimes caused by an earthquake. Tsunami and seiche are not considered a potential hazard at this site because the site is not near to the coast and/or there are no adjacent significant bodies of water. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. S Floodine and Erosion Stream flooding is a potential hazard that should be considered in lowland areas of Lane County and Springfield. The FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) flood maps should be reviewed as part of the design for the proposed new residential structures and site improvements. Elevations of structures on the site should be designed based upon consultants reports, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), and Lane County requirements for the 100 -year flood levels of any nearby creeks and/or streams. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed new residential development and its associated site improvements provided that the recommendations contained within this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The primary features of concern at the site are 1) the possible presence of old and/or abandoned site improvements and/or undocumented surficial fill materials across the site, 2) the presence of the existing surficial topsoil materials across the site, and 3) the moisture sensitivity of the near surface clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils. In regards to the possible presence of old and/or abandoned site improvements and/or undocumented surficial fill materials across the site, we anticipated that some additional site clearing and grubbing will be required where old foundation remnants and/or concrete slabs as well as graveled and/or paved driveways are encountered. With regard to the presence of the existing topsoil materials, stripping depths of between 10 to 14 inches should be anticipated. In regards to the moisture sensitivity of the near surface clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils, we recommend that all site grading and earthwork operations as well as foundation excavation and preparation be scheduled and/or performed during the drier summer months which is typically June through September. The following sections of this report provide specific recommendations regarding subgrade preparation and grading as well as foundation and floor slab design and construction for the new residential development project. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 9 Site Preparation As an initial step in site preparation, we recommend that the proposed new residential development building area(s) and their associated structural and/or site improvement area(s) be stripped and cleared of all existing improvements, any existing fill materials, surface debris, existing vegetation, topsoil materials, and/or any other deleterious materials present at the time of construction. In general, we envision that the site stripping to remove existing vegetation and topsoil materials will generally be about 10 to 14 inches. However, localized areas requiring deeper removals, such as any existing undocumented fill materials and/or old foundation remnants, may be encountered and should be evaluated at the time of construction by the Geotechnical Engineer. The stripped and cleared materials should be properly disposed of as they are generally considered unsuitable for use/reuse as fill materials. Following the completion of the site stripping and clearing work and prior to the placement of any required structural fill materials and/or structural improvements, the exposed subgrade soils within the planned structural improvement area(s) should be inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and possibly proof -rolled with a half and/or fully loaded dump truck. Areas found to be soft or otherwise unsuitable should be over -excavated and removed or scarified and recompacted as structural fill. During wet and/or inclement weather conditions, proof rolling and/or scarification and recompaction as noted above may not be appropriate. The on-site native sandy silty and/or silty sand to sandy gravel subgrade soil materials are generally considered suitable for use/reuse as structural fill materials provided that they are free of organic materials, debris, and rock fragments in excess of about 6 inches in dimension. However, if site grading is performed during wet or inclement weather conditions, the use of some of the on-site native soil materials which contain significant silt and clay sized particles will be difficult at best. In this regard, during wet or inclement weather conditions, we recommend that an import structural fill material be utilized which should consist of a free -draining (clean) granular fill (sand & gravel) containing no more than about 5 percent fines. Representative samples of the materials which are to be used as structural fill materials should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer and/or laboratory for approval and determination of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for compaction. In general, all site earthwork and grading activities should be scheduled for the drier summer months (June through September) if possible. However, if wet weather site preparation and grading is required, it is generally recommended that the stripping of topsoil materials be accomplished with a tracked excavator utilizing a large smooth -toothed bucket working from areas yet to be excavated. Additionally, the loading of strippings into trucks and/or protection of moisture sensitive subgrade soils will also be required during wet weather grading and construction. In this regard, we recommend that areas in which construction equipment will be traveling be protected by covering the exposed subgrade soils with a woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi FW404 followed by at least 12 inches or more of crushed aggregate base rock. IREOMONO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No. 10 Further, the geotextile fabric should have a minimum Mullen burst strength of at least 250 pounds per square inch for puncture resistance and an apparent opening size (AOS) between the U.S. Standard No. 70 and No. 100 sieves. All structural fill materials placed within the new building and/or pavement areas should be moistened or dried as necessary to near (within 3 percent) optimum moisture conditions and compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 (AASHTO T-180) test procedures. Structural fill materials should be placed in lifts (layers) such that when compacted do not exceed about 8 inches. Additionally, all fill materials placed within three (3) lineal feet of the perimeter (limits) of the proposed residential structures and/or pavements should be considered structural fill. All aspects of the site grading should be monitored and approved by a representative of Redmond Geotechnical Services, LLC. Foundation Suaoort Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that the site of the proposed new residential development is suitable for support of the three-story wood -frame structures provided that the following foundation design recommendations are followed. The following sections of this report present specific foundation design and construction recommendations for the planned new residential structures. Shallow Foundations In general, conventional shallow continuous (strip) footings and individual (spread) column footings may be supported by approved native (untreated) subgrade soil materials and/or structural fill soils based on an allowable contact bearing pressure of about 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). However, where higher allowable contact bearing pressures are desired and/or required, an allowable contact bearing pressure of 2,500 psf may be used for design where foundations are supported by a minimum of at least 12 inches of compacted crushed aggregate base rock (granular) fill material. These recommended allowable contact bearing pressures are intended for dead loads and sustained live loads and may be increased by one-third for the total of all loads including short- term wind or seismic loads. In general, continuous strip footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches and be embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade (includes frost protection). Individual column footings (where required) should be embedded at least 18 inches below grade and have a minimum width of at least 24 inches. Total and differential settlements of foundations constructed as recommended above and supported by approved native subgrade soils or by properly compacted structural fill materials are expected to be well within the tolerable limits for this type of wood -frame structure and should generally be less than about 1 -inch and 1/2 -inch, respectively. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No. 11 Allowable lateral frictional resistance between the base of the footing element and the supporting subgrade bearing soil can be expressed as the applied vertical load multiplied by a coefficient of friction of 0.35 and 0.45 for native sandy silt subgrade soils and/or import gravel fill materials, respectively. In addition, lateral loads may be resisted by passive earth pressures on footings poured "neat" against in-situ (native) subgrade soils or properly backfilled with structural fill materials based on an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This recommended value includes a factor of safety of approximately 1.5 which is appropriate due to the amount of movement required to develop full passive resistance. Floor Slab Su000rt In orderto provide uniform subgrade reaction beneath concrete slab -on -grade floors, we recommend that the floor slab area be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of free -draining (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve), well -graded, crushed rock. The crushed rock should help provide a capillary break to prevent migration of moisture through the slab. However, additional moisture protection can be provided by using a 10 -mil polyolefin geo-membrane sheet such as StegoWrap. For Radon mitigation, we recommend 2 inches of sand over a minimum of 4 inches of crushed rock (Size f15) per ASTM C33M-18 (i.e, 1/2"-1" DI w/less than 10% finer than 1/2" and/or approximate 50% void ratio). The base course materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 (AASHTO T-180) test procedures. Where floor slab subgrade materials are undisturbed, firm and stable and where the underslab aggregate base rock section has been prepared and compacted as recommended above, we recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci be used for design. Retaining/Below Grade Walls Retaining and/or below grade walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by native soils or granular backfill materials as well as any adjacent surcharge loads. For walls which are unrestrained at the top and free to rotate about their base, we recommend that active earth pressures be computed on the basis of the following equivalent fluid densities: Non -Restrained Retaining Wall Pressure Design Recommendations Slope Backfill (Horizontal/Vertical) Equivalent Fluid Density/Silt (pcf) Equivalent Fluid Density/Gravel (pcf) Level 35 30 3H:1V 60 50 2H:1V 90 80 For walls which are fully restrained at the top and prevented from rotation about their base, we recommend that at -rest earth pressures be computed on the basis of the following equivalent fluid densities: REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 12 Restrained Retaining Wall Pressure Design Recommendations Slope Backfill (Horizontal/Vertical) Equivalent Fluid Density/Silt (pcf) Equivalent Fluid Density/Gravel (pcf) Level40 35 3H. JV 65 60 2H:1V 95 90 The above recommended values assume that the walls will be adequately drained to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Where wall drainage will not be present and/or if adjacent surcharge loading is present, the above recommended values will be significantly higher. Backfill materials behind walls should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 (AASHTO T-180) test procedures. Special care should be taken to avoid over -compaction near the walls which could result in higher lateral earth pressures than those indicated herein. In areas within three (3) to five (5) feet behind walls, we recommend the use of hand -operated compaction equipment. Pavements Flexible pavement design for the proposed new street improvements for the Marcola residential development project was determined in accordance with the City of Springfield Department of Public Works. Specifically, on February 14, 2019, samples of the subgrade soils from the areas of the proposed new public streets were collected by means of test hole excavations. The subgrade soils encountered in the test holes located across the proposed Marcola residential development site generally consisted of native soils comprised of medium brown, medium stiff, clayey, sandy silt (ML). The subgrade soil samples collected at the site were tested in the laboratory in accordance with the ASTM Vol. 4.08 Part D-2844-69 (AASHTO T-190-93) test method for the determination of the subgrade soil "R" -value and expansion pressure. The results of the "R" -value testing was then converted to an equivalent Resilient Modulus (MRSG) in accordance with current AASHTO methodology. The results of the laboratory "R" -value tests revealed that the subgrade soils have an apparent "R" -value of between 25 and 29 with an average "R" -value of 27 (see Figure No's. A-18 and A-19). Using the current AASHTO methodology for converting "R" -value to Resilient Modulus (MRSG), the subgrade soils have a Resilient Modulus (MRSG) of about 5,291 psi which is classified a "Fair" (MRSG = 5,000 psi to 10,000 psi). In addition to the above, Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) tests were performed along the proposed new interior public street alignments at approximate 200 -feet intervals. The results of the DCP tests found that the underlying native clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils have a DLP value of between 2 to 3 blows per 2 -inches which correlates to a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of between 5 and 12. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No. 13 Using current AASHTO methodology for converting CBR to Resilient Modulus (MMG), the subgrade soils have a Resilient Modulus (MRSG) of between 5,842 and 10,637 psi with an average MRSG of 7,150 psi which is classified as "Fair" (MRSG = 5,000 psi to 10,000 psi). Private Parking and Drive Areas Asphaltic Concrete Crushed Base Rock Thickness (inches) Thickness (inches) Automobile Parking Areas 3.0 8.0 Automobile Drive Areas 3.5 10.0 Note: Where heavy vehicle traffic is anticipated such as those required for fire and/or garbage trucks, we recommend that the automobile drive area pavement section be increased by adding 0.5 inches of asphaltic concrete and 2.0 inches of aggregate base rock. Additionally, the above recommended flexible pavement section(s) assumes a design life of 20 years. Local Residential Streets The following documents and/or design input parameters were used to help determine the flexible pavement section design for any new and/or existing local residential streets: .Street Classification: Local Residential Street . Design Life: 25 years . Serviceability: 4.2 initial, 2.5 terminal . Traffic Loading Data: 100,00018 -kip EAL's . Reliability Level: 90% . Drainage Coefficient: 1.0 (asphalt), 0.8 (aggregate) . Asphalt Structural Coefficient: 0.41 . Aggregate Structural Coefficient: 0.10 Based on the above design input parameters and using the design procedures contained within the AASHTO 1993 Design of Pavement Structures Manual, a Structural Number (SN) of 2.6 was determined. In this regard, we recommend the following flexible pavement section for the construction of new Local Residential Streets: Material Type Pavement Section (inches) Asphaltic Concrete 4.0 Aggregate Base Rock 10.0 REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 14 Collector Streets The following documents and/or design input parameters were used to help determine the flexible pavement section design for improvements to new and/or existing Collector Streets: Street Classification: Collector Street Design Life: 20 years Serviceability: 4.2 initial, 2.5 terminal Traffic Loading Data: 1,000,00018 -kip EAL's Reliability Level: 90% Drainage Coefficient: 1.0 (asphalt), 0.8 (aggregate) Asphalt Structural Coefficient: 0.41 Aggregate Structural Coefficient: 0.10 Based on the above design input parameters and using the design procedures contained within the AASHTO 1993 Design of Pavement Structures Manual, a Structural Number (SN) of 4.1 was determined. In this regard, we recommend the following flexible pavement section for the new improvements to new and/or existing Collector Streets: Material Type Pavement Section (inchesl Asphaltic Concrete 5.0 Aggregate Base Rock 14.0 Pavement Subgrade, Base Course & Asphalt Materials The above recommended pavement section(s) were based on the design assumptions listed herein and on the assumption that construction of the pavement section(s) will be completed during an extended period of reasonably dry weather. All thicknesses given are intended to be the minimum acceptable. Increased base rock sections and the use of a woven geotextile fabric may be required during wet and/or inclement weather conditions and/or in order to adequately support construction traffic and protect the subgrade during construction. Additionally, the above recommended pavement section(s) assume that the subgrade will be prepared as recommended herein, that the exposed subgrade soils will be properly protected from rain and construction traffic, and that the subgrade is firm and unyielding at the time of paving. Further, it assumes that the subgrade is graded to prevent any ponding of water which may tend to accumulate in the base course. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 15 Pavement base course materials should consist of well -graded 1-1/2 inch and/or 3/4 -inch minus crushed base rock having less than 5 percent fine materials passing the No. 200 sieve. The base course and asphaltic concrete materials should conform to the requirements set forth in the latest edition of the Oregon Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. The base course materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 (AASHTO T-180) test procedures. The asphaltic concrete paving materials should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the theoretical maximum density as determined by the ASTM D-2041 (Rice Gravity) test method. Wet Weather Grading and Soft Spot Mitigation Construction of the proposed new public street improvements as well as any private access drives and/or parking areas is generally recommended during dry weather. However, during wet weather grading and construction, excavation to subgrade can proceed during periods of light to moderate rainfall provided that the subgrade remains covered with aggregate. Atotal aggregate thickness of 8 -inches may be necessary to protect the subgrade soils from heavy construction traffic. Construction traffic should not be allowed directly on the exposed subgrade but only atop a sufficient compacted base rock thickness to help mitigate subgrade pumping. If the subgrade becomes wet and pumps, no construction traffic shall be allowed on the road alignment. Positive site drainage away from the street shall be maintained if site paving will not occur before the on -set of the wet season. Depending on the timing for the project, any soft subgrade found during proof -rolling or by visual observations can either be removed and replaced with properly dried and compacted fill soils or removed and replaced with compacted crushed aggregate. However, and where approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, the soft area may be covered with a bi-axial geogrid and covered with compacted crushed aggregate. Soil Shrink -Swell and Frost Heave The results of the laboratory "R" -value tests indicate that the native subgrade soils possess a low to moderate expansion potential. As such, the exposed subgrade soils should not be allowed to completely dry and should be moistened to near optimum moisture content (plus or minus 3 percent) at the time of the placement of the crushed aggregate base rock materials. Additionally, exposure of the subgrade soils to freezing weather may result in frost heave and softening of the subgrade. As such, all subgrade soils exposed to freezing weather should be evaluated and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of the crushed aggregate base rock materials. Excavation/Stones Temporary excavations of up to about four (4) feet in depth may be constructed with near vertical inclinations. Temporary excavations greater than about four (4) feet but less than eight (8) feet should be excavated with inclinations of at least 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or properly braced/shored. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No. 16 Where excavations are planned to exceed about ten (10) feet, this office should be consulted. All shoring systems and/or temporary excavation bracing for the project should be the responsibility of the excavation contractor. Depending on the time of year in which trench excavations occur, trench dewatering may be required in order to maintain dry working conditions if the invert elevations of the proposed utilities are located at and/or below the groundwater level. If groundwater is encountered during utility excavation work, we recommend placing trench stabilization materials along the base of the excavation. Trench stabilization materials should consist of 1 -foot of well -graded gravel, crushed gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 4 inches and less than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. The material should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material and placed in a single lift and compacted until well keyed. Surface Drainaee/Ground Water We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade the site so that drainage waters from the building and landscaping areas as well as adjacent properties or buildings are directed away from the new single- and/or multi -family structures foundations and/or floor slabs. All roof drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff water away from the apartment buildings to a suitable outfall. Roof downspouts should not be connected to foundation drains. A minimum ground slope of about 2 percent is generally recommended in unpaved areas around the buildings. Groundwater was not encountered at the site in any of the exploratory test pits (TH-#1 through TH- #14) at the time of excavation to depths of at least eight (8) feet beneath existing site grades. Additionally, although groundwater elevations in the area may fluctuate seasonally and may temporarily pond/perch near the ground surface during periods of prolonged rainfall, based on our current understanding of the project, we are generally of the opinion that the observed static groundwater levels encountered near the area of the subject site represent the seasonal high groundwater elevation(s) at and/or near to the subject site. As such, based on our current understand of the site grading required to bring the subject site to finish design grades, we are of the opinion that an underslab drainage system is not required for the proposed apartment structures. However, due to the presence of clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils within the foundation bearing level of the proposed new residential structures, we are generally of the opinion that a footing/foundation drainage system should be utilized around the perimeter of the proposed single-family and/or multi -family residential structures. Additionally, a foundation drain is recommended for any below grade footing and/or retaining walls. Atypical recommended retaining wall/footing drain detail is shown on Figure No. 3. Desien Infiltration Rates Based on the results of our field infiltration testing, we recommend using the following infiltration rates to design the storm water infiltration and/or disposal systems for the project: REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Asphalt or landscaping sail as required (slope surface to drain) —a" Note 3 6' seat of compacted native soil (landsca areas only) General Backfill Underslab drain 5' from wall line :.:12'min . Chimney Drainage Zone 12' minimum cover over pipe, B' minimum cover over footing (;CO VC ,FinerFabric ? Drain Gravel Preferred Perforated _ Drain Pipe Location 1L .. 2 SCHEMATIC - NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. Fitter Fabrictobenon-wovengeotedile (Amoco4545,Mimfi1401,1,orequivalent) 2. Lay perforated drainpipe on minimum 0.5% gradient, widening excavation as required. Maintain pipe above 2:1 slope, as shown. 3. Alkgranular backfill is recommended for support ofslabs, pavements, etc.(see ted far structural filo. 4. Drain gravel to be dean, washed 1W to 1%' gravel. 5. General backfill to be onaile gravels, or :"-0 or 1 %'-0 crushed mck compacted! to 92% Modified! Proctor (AASHTO T-180). S. Chimney drainage zone to be 17 wide (minimum) zone of dean washed, medium to coarse send or drala gravel d protected with fiber fabric. Attematively, prefabricated drainage structures (Mimdmin 6000 or similar) may be used. PERIMETER FOOTING/RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL MARCOLA RESIDENTIAL Project No. 1721.002.6 DEVELOPMENT SITE I Figure No.3 Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 17 Subgrade Soil Type Recommended Infiltration Rate clayey, sandy SILT (ML) 1.5 inches per hour (in/hr) silty, gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL (SM/GM) 9.0 inches per hour (in/hr) Note: A safety factor of two (2) was used to calculate the above recommended design infiltration rates. Additionally, given the gradational variability of the on-site subgrade soils across the site, it is generally recommended that field testing be performed during and/or following construction of the on-site storm water infiltration system(s) in order to confirm that the above recommended design infiltration rates are appropriate. Seismic Design Considerations Structures at the site should be designed to resist earthquake loading in accordance with the methodology described in the 2014 and/or latest edition of the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and/or Amendments to the 2015 International Building Code (IBC). The maximum considered earthquake ground motion for short period and 1.0 period spectral response may be determined from the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and/or Figures 1613 (1) and 1613 (2) of the 2009 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) "Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures" published by the Building Seismic Safety Council. We recommend Site Class "C' be used for design per Table 1613.5.2. Using this information, the structural engineer can select the appropriate site coefficient values (Fa and Fv) from Tables 1613.5.3 (1) and 1613.5.3 (2) of the 2012 IBC to determine the maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration for the project. However, we have assumed the following response spectrum for the project: Table 1. IBC Seismic Design Parameters for the Springfield Area Site Ss S1 Fa Fv Sms SMI SDs soi Class C 0.733 0.385 1.107 1.415 0.811 0.545 0.541 0.363 Notes: 1. Ss and S1 were established based on the USGS 2015 mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral acceleration maps for 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years. 2. Fa and Fv were established based on IBC 2015 tables 1613.5.3 (1) and 1613.5.3 (2) using the selected S, and Si values. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 1R CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND TESTING We recommend that Redmond Geotechnical Services, LLC be retained to provide construction monitoring and testing services during all earthwork operations for the proposed new residential development. The purpose of our monitoring services would be to confirm that the site conditions reported herein are as anticipated, provide field recommendations as required based on the actual conditions encountered, document the activities of the grading contractor and assess his/her compliance with the project specifications and recommendations. It is important that our representative meet with the contractor prior to grading to help establish a plan that will minimize costly over -excavation and site preparation work. Of primary importance will be observations made during site preparation, structural fill placement, footing excavations and construction as well as any retaining wall backfill. CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS This report is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee and/or their representative(s) to use to design and construct the proposed new single- and/or multi -family structures and their associated site improvements described herein as well as to prepare any related construction documents. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist and assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions between the explorations and/or across the study area. The data, analyses, and recommendations herein may not be appropriate for other structures and/or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures and/or purposes contact our office. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Additionally, the above recommendations are contingent on Redmond Geotechnical Services, LLC being retained to provide all site inspections and construction monitoring services associated with the site grading and earthwork operations for the project. Redmond Geotechnical Services, LLC will not assume any responsibility and/or liability for any engineering judgment, inspection and/or testing services performed by others. It is the owners/developers responsibility for insuring that the project designers and/or contractors involved with this project implement our recommendations into the final design plans, specifications and/or construction activities for the project. Further, in order to avoid delays during construction, we recommend that the final design plans and specifications for the project be reviewed by our office to evaluate as to whether our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the project. If during any future site grading and construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present beneath excavations, we should be advised immediately so that we may review these conditions and evaluate whether modifications of the design criteria are required. We also should be advised if significant modifications of the proposed site development are anticipated so that we may review our conclusions and recommendations. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.G Page No. 19 LEVEL OF CARE The services performed by the Geotechnical Engineer for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty or other conditions, either expressed or implied, is made. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 1721.002.6 Page No. 20 REFERENCES Adams, John, 1984, Active Deformation of the Pacific Northwest Continental Margin: Tectonics, v.3, no. 4, p. 449-472. Applied Technology Council, ATC -13, 1985, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. Atwater, B.F., 1992, Geologic evidence for earthquakes during the past 2000 years along the Copalis River, southern coastal Washington: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 97, p. 1901-1919. Atwater, B.F., 1987a, A periodic Holocene recurrence of widespread, probably coseismic Subsidence in southwestern Washington: EOS, v. fib, no. 44. Atwater, B.F., 19871h, Evidence for great Holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington State: Science, v. 236, no. 4804, pp. 942-944. Campbell, K.W., 1990, Empirical prediction of near -surface soil and soft -rock ground motion for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant site, San Luis Obispo County, California: Dames & Moore report to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Carver, G.A., and Burke, R.M., 1987, Late Holocene paleoseismicity of the southern end of the Cascadia Subduction zone [abs.]: EOS, v. 68, no. 44, p. 1240. Chase, R.L., Tiffin, D.L., Murray, J.W., 1975, The western Canadian continental margin: In Yorath, C.J., Parker, E.R., Glass, D.J., editors, Canada's continental margins and offshore petroleum exploration: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 4, p. 701-721. Crouse, C.B., 1993a, Ground motion attenuation equations for earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Earthquake Spectra, v.7, no. 2, pp. 201-236. Crouse, C.B., 1991b, Errata to Crouse (1991a), Earthquake Spectra, v. 7, no. 3, p. 506. Darienzo, M.E., and Peterson, C.D., 1987, Episodic tectonic subsidence recorded in late Holocene salt marshes, northern Oregon central Cascadia margin: Tectonics, v. 9, p. 1-22. Darienzo, M.E., and Peterson, C.D., 1987, Episodic tectonic subsidence recorded in late Holocene salt marshes northwest Oregon [abs]: ECS, v. 68, no. 44, p. 1469. EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute), 1993, The March 25, 1993, Scotts Mill Earthquake, Western Oregon's Wake -Up Call: EERI Newsletter, Vol. 27, No. 5, May. Geomatrix, 1995 Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: Final Report to Oregon Department of Transportation, January. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Project No. 3001.038.G Page No. 19 Geologic Map Series (GMS -49), Map of Oregon Seismicity, 1841-1986 dated 1986. Geologic Map (0-06-07) of the Springfield Quadrangle, Lane County, Oregon dated 2007 Grant, W.C., and McLaren, D.D., 1987, Evidence for Holocene Subduction earthquakes along the northern Oregon coast [abs]: FOS v. 68, no. 44, p. 1239. Grant, W.C., Atwater, B.F., Carver, G.A., Darienzo, M.E., Nelson, A.R., Peterson, C.D., and Vick, G.S., 1989, Radiocarbon dating of late Holocene coastal subsidence above the Cascadia Subduction zone -compilation for Washington, Oregon, and northern California, [abs]: EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 70, p. 1331. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1994, Uniform Building Code: 1994 Edition, Whittier, CA. 1994. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1998, Measurement, characterization and prediction of strong ground motion: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics ll — Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, ASCE Geotech. Special Publ. No. 20, p.43-102. Riddihough, R.P., 1984, Recent movements of the Juan de Fuca plate system: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 89, no. B8, p. 6980-6994. Youngs, R.R., Day, S.M., and Stevens, J.L., 1998, Near field ground motions on rock for large Subduction earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II — Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, ASCE Geotech. Special Pub]. No. 20, p. 445-462. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Appendix "A" Test Pit Logs and Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating fourteen (14) exploratory test pits on February 14, 2019. The approximate location of the test pit explorations are shown in relation to the proposed new single- and/or multi -family structures and their associated site improvements on the Site Exploration Map, Figure No. 2. The test pits were excavated using track -mounted excavating equipment in general conformance with ASTM Methods in Vol. 4.08, D-1586-94 and D-1587-83. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from about 7.0 to 8.0 feet beneath existing site grades. Detailed logs of the test pits are presented on the Log of Test Pits, Figure No's. A-5 through A-11. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), which is outlined on Figure No. A-4. The exploration program was coordinated by a field engineer who monitored the excavating and exploration activity, obtained representative samples of the subsurface soils encountered, classified the soils by visual and textural examination, and maintained continuous logs of the subsurface conditions. Disturbed and/or undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained at appropriate depths and/or intervals and placed in plastic bags and/or with a thin walled ring sample. Groundwater was not encountered within any of the exploratory test pits at the time of excavating to depths of at least eight (8) feet beneath existing site grades. LABORATORY TESTING Pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the soils encountered during our subsurface investigation were evaluated by a laboratory testing program to be used as a basis for selection of soil design parameters and for correlation purposes. Selected tests were conducted on representative soil samples. The program consisted of tests to evaluate the existing (in-situ) moisture -density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, gradational characteristics, Atterberg Limits and direct shear strength tests as well as consolidation and "R" value testing. Dry Density and Moisture Content Determinations Density and moisture content determinations were performed on both disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples from the test pit explorations in general conformance with ASTM Vol. 4.08 Part D-216. The results of these tests were used to calculate existing overburden pressures and to correlate strength and compressibility characteristics of the soils. Test results are shown on the test pit logs at the appropriate sample depths. REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES A-2 Maximum Dry Densi Two (2) Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site clayey, sandy silt subgrade soils in accordance with ASTM Vol. 4.08 Part D-1557. This test was conducted to help establish various engineering properties for use as structural fill. The test results are presented on Figure No. A-12. Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit (LL) and Plastic Limit (PL) tests were performed on representative samples of the clayey sandy silt subgrade soils in accordance with ASTM Vol. 4.08 Part D-4318-85. These tests were conducted to facilitate classification of the soils and for correlation purposes. Test results appear on Figure No. A-13. Gradation Analvsis Gradation analyses were performed on representative samples of the subsurface soils in accordance with ASTM Vol. 4.08 Part D-422. The test results were used to classify the soil in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The test results are shown graphically on Figure No's. A-14 and A-15. Direct Shear Strength Test One (1) Direct Shear Strength test was performed on a remolded sample of the clayey, sandy silt subgrade soil at a continuous rate of shearing deflection (0.02 inches per minute) in accordance with ASTM Vol. 4.08 Part D-3080-79. The test results were used to determine engineering strength properties and are shown graphically on Figure No. A-16. Consolidation Test Consolidation testing was performed on a relatively undisturbed and/or remolded sample of the clayey, sandy silt subgrade soil to help assess the compressibility characteristics of the near surface subgrade soils in general conformance with ASTM Vol. 4.08 Part D-2435-80. Conventional loading increments of 100, 200, 400,... 12,800 psf were applied after the 100 percent time of primary consolidation was identified and defined for each loading increment. The sample was unloaded and allowed to rebound after the completion of the loading sequence. Deflection versus time readings were recorded for all load increments from 100 through 12,800 psf. The deflection corresponding to 100 percent primary consolidation was plotted on the consolidation strain versus consolidation pressure curve, which is presented on Figure No. A-17. REDmOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES A-3 "R" -Value Test Four (4) "R" -value tests were performed on remolded subgrade soil samples in accordance with ASTM Vol. 4.08 Part D-2844. The test results were used to help evaluate the subgrade soils supporting and performance capabilities when subjected to traffic loading. The test results are shown graphically on Figure No's. A-18 and A-19. The following figures are attached and complete the Appendix: Figure No. A-4 Figure No's. A-5 through A-11 Figure No. A-12 Figure No. A-13 Figure No's. A-14 and A-15 Figure No. A-16 Figure No. A-17 Figure No's. A-18 and A-19 Key To Exploratory Test Pit Logs Log of Test Pits Maximum Dry Density/Expansion Index Atterberg Limits Test Results Gradation Test Results Direct Shear Strength Test Results Consolidation Test Results "R" value Test Results REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DEFINITION OF TERMS U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4° 31, SAND GRAVEL SILTS AND CLAYS COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE GRAIN SIZES SANDQGRAVELS AND NON -PLASTIC SILTS BLOWS/FOOTf VERY LOOSE PRIMARY DIVISIONS LOOSE ERODE SECONDARY DIVISIONS 10 -30 DENSE 33 - 50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 SYMBOL 1 - 2 8 -16 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 - 32 GRAVELS OVER 4 CLEAN GW Wall graded gravels, gravel-santl mixtures, little or no a GRAVELS fines. C'P Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures, little or y w 0 J MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN O i OF COARSE 5% FINES) no fines. GRAVEL GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-sih mixtures, non -plastic fines. Q7 E p FRACTION IS w LARGER THAN WITH z° 2 LLQ vt N0. 4 SIEVE FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, Elastic fines. (7 2 i ¢ w SANDS C LEAN SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS V1 tto =is tu MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. Qtt r OF COARSE 5% FINES) SANDS SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines. O ow FRACTION IS 0 SMALLER THAN WITH NO, 4 SIEVE FINES SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. SILTS AND CLAYS ML Ino, ani0 ills and very fine sands, rock flour, Silty or chayey line Sands or clayey silts J _ LLo w in with slight plasticity. O cu C L mor anic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly 0 LL ¢ w LIQUID LIMIT IS clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. a Z tu w LESS THAN 50% OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. 2 0 2 4a. s SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic sins micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or Silty soils, elastic silts. O LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high Elasticity. fat clays. z Q Q r GREATER THAN 50% OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4° 31, SAND GRAVEL SILTS AND CLAYS COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE GRAIN SIZES SANDQGRAVELS AND NON -PLASTIC SILTS BLOWS/FOOTf VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 LOOSE 4 -10 MEDIUM DENSE 10 -30 DENSE 33 - 50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 CLAYS PLASTIC SILTS STRENGTH# BLOWS/FOOT+ VERY SOFT 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 SOFT 1/4 - 1/2 2 - 4 FIRM 1/2 - 1 4 - 8 STI HE 1 - 2 8 -16 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 - 32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY 1 Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. (1-3/8 inch I.D.) arth spoon (ASTM 0-1586). flUnciSni ed compressive strength in loos/Sq. ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test (ASTM D-1586), pocket penetrometer, torvam, or visual observation. KEY TO EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOGS Unified Soil Classification System ASTM D-2487) REDMOND MARCOLA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE GEOTECHNICAL ]W SERVICES Springfield, Oregon PO box20547 • P11T1AND. OReGON 97294 PROJECT NO. DATE Figure A-4 1727.002.6 3/04/19 BACKNOECOMPyyANV: Excavating BUCKETBIZE: 24 inches DATE: 2/14/19 `ww mf< iWrW' wF >>Emerald of Fl w =iX OO fO ug J N o? SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NO. TH-H1 ELEVATION D ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) X 22.5 ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels 6 SM Gray -brown, very moist, medium dense to X 14.1 GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 8.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of +D exploration +6 TESTPITNO. TH-N2 ELEVATION a ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels Gray -brown, very moist, medium dense to 6 SM GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 7.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of exploration +D JI6 LOO OF TEST PIT! PROJECTNO. 1721.002.G MARCOLA DEVELOPMENT SITE FIGURE NO. A-5 REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES BACKHOECOMPANV: Emerald Excavating BUCKETSIZE, 24 inches DATE: 2/14/19 wW aE: 0 W m<F < zw Wf c T of _� W c Qr miry z L00 iu o? SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NO. TH-q3 ELEVATION ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) X 23.1 ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels s SM Gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly X 14.0 SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 8.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of 10 exploration 1s TESTPITNO. TH-#4 ELEVATION 0 ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels Gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to s SM GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 7.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of exploration 10 iL 15 LOO OF TEST PITS PROJECTNO. 1721.002.G MARCOLA DEVELOPMENT SITE FIGURE NO. A-6 REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES BACKHOECOMPANV: Emerald Excavating BUCKETSIZE. 2¢ inches DATE: 2 1¢ 19 ZF cLL 0 w> J �a " FF w O > F °w= a wf w "zx Me N y� SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NO. TH-#5 ELEVATION ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) X 25.2 Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium ML stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels 5 X 13.7 SM GM Gray -brown, very moist, medium dense to dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 8.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of 10 exploration 15 TESTPITNO. TH-#6 ELEVATION 0 ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels Gray -brown, very moist, medium dense to 5 SMI GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 7.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of exploration 10- 15 LOO OP TEST PITT PROJECT No. 1721 .002.G MARCOLA DEVELOPMENT SITE FIGUPE NO. A-7 REOMONO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES BACKHOECOMPANY: Emerald Excavating SUCKETSIZE: 2¢ inches DATE: 2 1¢ 19 ww aQ " iw p ay& pw p W, Nix 00 fO CS _ uy SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NO. TH-)/7 ELEVATION -0- ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) x 2¢.¢ ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels 5 SM Gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to x 12.9 GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 8.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of 10 exploration 15 TESTPITNO. TH-H8 ELEVATION D ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels Gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to 5 SMt GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 7.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of exploration 10 LL5 LOO OF TEST PITS PROJECTNO. 1721.002.G MARCOLA DEVELOPMENT SITE FIGURENO, A-8 REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES SACKHOECDMPANY: Emerald Excavating BUCKET SIZE: 29 inches DATES 2 /14 /19 wSOILw r G o DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NO. TH-//9 ELEVATION F4. ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) X ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels Gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to 5 SMI X 14.7 GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 7.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of exploration to 15 TESTPITNO. TH-k10 ELEVATION a ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels s SM Gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 8.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of tC exploration 11 LOO OF TEST PITS PROJECTNO. 1721.002.G MARCX)LA DEVELOPMENT SITE FIGURENO. A-9 REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES BACKHOECOMPANY: Emerald Excavating BUCKET SIZE: 24 inches DATE: 2114/19 uw pw 0 w «mw ma N > wf rcG Ow-00 c QH ��x gu R._ cgi� �y 02 SOIL DESCRIPTION TESTPITNO. TH-q11 ELEVATION ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) X 23'3 ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels Gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly 5 X 14.8 SMI GM SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 7.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of exploration 10 is TESTPITNO. TH-#12 ELEVATION 0 ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels s SMI Gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 8.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of 10 exploration 15 LOO OF TEST PITS PROJECTNO. 1721.002.G I MARCOLA DEVELOPMENT SITE FIGURE No. A-10 REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES BACKHOECOMPANY: Emerald EXcavatin BUCKET sIZE: 24 inches DATE: 2/14/19 dw<LL CLL 0 - w N > y« W" 0 ¢Z& DW 0 ter- 00% �D gu Jy y2 ML SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NO. TH-#13 ELEVATION Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, Clayey SILT (Topsoil) X 23.4 ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels Gray -brown, very moist, medium dense to s SMI X 14.1 GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 7.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of exploration 10- 15 TESTPITNO. TH-p14 ELEVATION 0 ML Dark brown, wet, soft, organic, sandy, clayey SILT (Topsoil) X 24.2 ML Medium brown, very moist to wet, medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT with occasional gravels s SMI Gray -brown, very moist, medium dense to GM dense, slightly clayey, silty and gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL with cobbles Total Depth = 8.0 feet No groundwater encountered at time of 10 exploration s LOO OR TEST PITS PROJECTNO. 1721.002.G I MARCOLA DEVELOPMENT SITE PIGURENO. A-11 REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS SAMPLEMAXIMUM LOCATION SOIL DESCRIPTION DRY DENSITY (Kf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) TH-#1 Medium brown, clayey, sandy SILT 108.0 16.0 @ with occasional gravels 2.0' TH-#11 Medium brown, clayey, sandy SILT 107.0 17.0 @ with occasional gravels 2.0' EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION INITIAL MOISTURE 1%1 COMPACTED DRY DENSITY I Pcfl FINAL MOISTURE (%) VOLUMETRIC SWELL (%) EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSIVE CLASS. IMAXIMUM DENSITY& EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 40 20 Q 60 SVMROL O TH-q1 2.0 22.5 28.5 3.9 50 CH P TH-q11 2.0 23.3 CL 4.4 76.2 ML MH OH ML or OL ML e V K W D Z 30 F U F J n 10 7 a 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 00 100 LIQUID LIMIT (%)WATER KEY BORING SAMPLE NATURAL LIQUID PLASTICITY PASSING AQUI DITY UNIFIED SOIL SYMBOL NO. DEPTH LIMIT INDEX NSIEVPO INDEX CLASGIFICATION CONTENT C fee [l % % 1 11 PLASTICITY CHART AND DATA /R�EDMOND GEOTECHNICAL MARCOLA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE Springfield, Oregon SERVICES r Po ©ox 20547 • PORTLAND. ONEGON 97294 PRQIECT NO. DATE Figure A-1 3 � 1721.002.G 3/04/19 40 20 Q SVMROL O TH-q1 2.0 22.5 28.5 3.9 76.9 CH P TH-q11 2.0 23.3 CL 4.4 76.2 ML MH OH ML or OL ML SVMROL O TH-q1 2.0 22.5 28.5 3.9 76.9 ML a TH-q11 2.0 23.3 30.2 4.4 76.2 ML APPARENT COHESION (C) APPARENT ANGLE OFINTERNAL FRICTION Medium brown, clayey, sandy SILT (ML) (Remolded) eoRiuc No.. TH- 1 DEPTH ll.b f.L EVA TION IIID TEST RESULTS r : l01 2.5 TEST NUMBER 2 3 4 NOFMPL TEESSIDE 11,111 0.5 1.5 2.5 SHEAR STRENGTH NSF) O 5 0.9 1 .5 INITIAL HBO CONTENT (ql FINAL HO CONTENT 1961 INITIAL DHV DENSITY (PCF) g Q 98.0 2.0 Y1.5 rn w Ir r a =1.0 0.5 0.5.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 NORMAL PRESSURE(KSF) SAMPLE DATA DESCRIPTION DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA REDMOND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES PO Box 20547 • POYTLP.NE1, OYITON 97294 MARCOLA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE Springfield, Oregon PROJECT NO DATE Fiyure A-16 1721.002.G 3/04/19 Medium brown, clayey, sandy SILT (ML) (Remolded) eoRiuc No.. TH- 1 DEPTH ll.b f.L EVA TION IIID TEST RESULTS r : l01 FINAL DRI DENSITY PCFl sT RPiN RPre_ 0.02 inches per minute TEST DATA TEST NUMBER 2 3 4 NOFMPL TEESSIDE 11,111 0.5 1.5 2.5 SHEAR STRENGTH NSF) O 5 0.9 1 .5 INITIAL HBO CONTENT (ql FINAL HO CONTENT 1961 INITIAL DHV DENSITY (PCF) g Q 98.0 COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN KSF 10 10, 0 4 F x U W x z .. e � o z x a U L4 z 1z 0 w U a w a fs 20 BORING TH-#1 DESCRIPTION clayey, sandy SILT (ML) DEPTH (ft) 2.0 LIQUID LIMIT 28.5 SPEC. GRAVITY :2.5 (assumed) PLASTIC LIMIT 24.6 MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID CONTENT (z) (Pcf) SATURATION RATIO INITIAL 17.0 98.0 85.5 FINAL 11.3 108.8 93.7 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA REDMOND MARCOLA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE GROTECNNICAL Springfield, Oregon SERVICES PRO ECT NO DATE 1 PO Box 20547 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97294 Figure A-1 7 1721.002.G 3/04/19 RESULTS OF R (RESISTANCE) VALUE TESTS SAMPLE LOCATION: TH-#1 SAMPLE DEPTH: 2.0 feet bgs Specimen A B C Exudation Pressure (psi) 219 329 431 Expansion Dial (o.000l ") 0 0 1 Expansion Pressure (psf) 0 0 3 Moisture Content (%) 17.1 14.9 10.4 Dry Density (pcf) 98.4 102.2 107.6 Resistance Value, "R" 17 30 41 "R" -Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure = 29 SAMPLE LOCATION: TH45 SAMPLE DEPTH: 2.0 feet bgs Aim Specimen A B C Exudation Pressure (psi) 208 326 439 Expansion Dial (0.0001") 0 0 1 Expansion Pressure (psf) 0 0 3 Moisture Content (%) 18.6 14.9 10.9 Dry Density (pcf) 96.2 100.1 106.7 Resistance Value "R" 15 26 36 "R" -Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure = 25 A-18 RESULTS OF R (RESISTANCE) VALUE TESTS SAMPLE LOCATION: TH-#11 SAMPLE DEPTH: 2.0 feet bgs Specimen A B C Exudation Pressure (psi) 213 323 427 Expansion Dial (o.000l") 0 0 1 Expansion Pressure (psf) 0 0 3 Moisture Content (%) 18.4 14.8 10.8 Dry Density (pcf) 96.9 100.3 106.8 Resistance Value, "R" 15 27 37 "R" -Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure = 26 SAMPLE LOCATION: TH-#14 SAMPLE DEPTH: 2.0 feet bgs Specimen A B C Exudation Pressure (psi) 211 322 431 Expansion Dial (0.0001") 0 0 1 Expansion Pressure (pst) 0 0 3 Moisture Content (%) 17.2 15.1 10.8 Dry Density (pcf) 97.5 101.8 107.3 Resistance Value "R" 17 29 39 "R" -Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure = 28 A-19