PS: I think that°s it for "unanswered emails" that I know about. We have one new email from just this <br />AM from Faris re: public works. I also have a couple of questions out to Faris & CW on some older <br />inquiries. When I hear back from them, I'll forward to you or file in the "answered" column at this end. <br />Thanks as always for your help. As we are all busy getting our thoughts on paper, it seems like a <br />good time to recap - before we get into the holidays when people could be harder to track down. Talk <br />with you soon. <br />Forwarded Message <br />From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue(d~yahoo.com> <br />Toe GIOELLO Nick R. <nick.r.gioello ,ci.euaene.or.us> <br />Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uore on.edu>; Cathy Johnson <br /><cdiohnson017 c-)rnsn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgarnesue yahoo.corn>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2 ahoo.com> <br />Seat: Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 9:29:53 AM PST <br />Subject: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential <br />Hi Nick. The Geotech Report prepared by Branch Engineering dated 2/6/17 (and the three page <br />letter update dated May 30, 2017) discuss landslide potential in the southeast area of the proposed <br />project. The site plan labeled Figure 1 in the report shows an original routing for the private drive <br />(Cupola Drive) as traversing the steep lots #15 through 20 (old site plan) and terminating at Capital <br />at the most southerly end of the PUD. Figure 2 in the report shows a revised site plan eliminating this <br />routing for Cupola and leaving a singular loop road connecting to Capital. This revised Cupola route is <br />to the north of the existing house and 3 unit apartment. The Figure 2 site plan also shows an <br />rectangular open space between Lots 18 & 19 where none existed on Figure 1. (Note that Figure 2 is <br />also somewhat dated and has incorrect lot numbers compared to the current site plan in the 8/22/17 <br />application.) The 5/30/17 three page supplement to the Geotech Report indicates at the bottom of <br />page one "one location in the southeast portion of the site was mapped as the upper section of a <br />landslide area; subsequent site design omitted development in this area." <br />Was the site plan change "city driven"? Does your department and/or the city have any <br />documentation that you could provide to our committee regarding this change to the site plan?? <br />Another member of our committee may have some more specific questions for you in this regard over <br />the coming days. Thanks as always for your assistance. <br />Sorry that this question is a little past the 9 AM guideline. Took me awhile to "pen it." <br />Susan Hoffman <br />541-654-5458 (home) <br />