GIOELLO Nick <br />From: GILLESPIE Scott N <br />Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 9:02 AM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R; FAVREAU Eric J <br />Subject: RE: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential <br />The site plan on this project has evolved. It is not uncommon for a supplemental technical report to have <br />figures from previous iterations. It strikes me as a question of what is current and less about technical <br />merits. I would ask the applicant to address this. They should update the figures and recommendations in the <br />geotech report if they do not reflect the current site plan. That way we all know what the current and proposed <br />for review. Most importantly, that it's all consistent. <br />Hope that helps, <br />Scott <br />From: GIOELLO Nick R <br />Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:13 PM <br />To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us>; FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Subject: FW: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential <br />Scott, Eric, <br />I'm not sure what to do with these questions. Perhaps we say at this point the analysis of the Geotech report will be <br />addressed in the staff report. I'm guessing they have someone who can read a Geotech Like Gunnar coming up with <br />these questions, it just doesn't seem like something the average citizen would be looking at. Perhaps your referral <br />comments can discuss (or dismiss) if they are valid or not? <br />Nick <br />From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 9:29 AM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@Ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Becky Dorsey <rdorseV@uoregon.edu>; Cathy Johnson <br /><cdiohnson6172msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@Vahoo.com> <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 />