|
<br />
<br />.".."''' 'l~': ".-,l..":i:~'''''':r.''"l.--l.!
<br />.....k'..~ ~ I ~. '~F..."" (...-,", .7~' it...
<br />')~ :~ ..: \\ i: ...' "'~~.,~ ;:'6.....,/,.,."'~!_'tl!r.i:'-i,.,
<br />. ;(1 ......;. .,', .'*fIt . ....,t...f':,," 'f'r !! .:~-..,..'jw..
<br />...", .... .. ..... ' 'J.., .. _._ WO'
<br />- . 1". ...'.' ", ...-._,~ .'.......;. aPI
<br />
<br />- . ..."\,:(A'.~" ..,'.:,:"~~_ AJ~~~ ~ .A
<br />_} ~. ~....,e' ~ "~
<br />\ . ,",'~
<br />I -, ~! .'r. ......... ...-.........
<br />~~ _'~ ~~ _ 4IC"".::... ~ l,o..-, ,,/-..-~:pt' .--' r
<br />_.,~ ....~.:t:i:!..::':;::;r~..H P" ..i~~'J,,)J!,,:>:- '.",";;;'~, ~!1.? "" - '-':"#.~:"~.. ,.,.....t..'.. ~__._ '--:....-r, . --,.
<br />...~~ .~-. r-'" .... _ . .u.___~...t~ . .~~'._ , ..._~. ~ -, '_~_...._.,
<br />~'\" :.... ..;...""... ; 'oJ:o:.. ..- ~-~..(.....' ,><, '" ~,- -. .;'....... ,"' .,' '-
<br />. . - : ;I~ -;.,<-oiIf"".......~ .,:~ .-". .' .:- ..,--,,,. ...' ..- . ' ~. I
<br />~....."......,.~.~~ .'.~"ct.~,O' . ~. . ' __,.., '7"' * "'.
<br />......." 'oJ...... ..-. ". ..........,.- '\~
<br />
<br />
<br />. ~~:,::~:~::,,:::..~~-:~ :~. MW:"'~;:~~,~.::~
<br />
<br />;",\ MI\R Z 0 198n . !~, \:.
<br />~~~~[~~'~\l~EE~\I~~ ct~
<br />
<br />--,
<br />
<br />
<br />Mr. Larry A. Muller
<br />Muller Engineering Company,
<br />7000 West Fourteenth Avenue
<br />Lakewood, Colorado 80215
<br />
<br />Inc.
<br />
<br />Dear Lar ry:
<br />
<br />SUBJECT: City/County Comments on Geotechnical Report and Rio Grande Levee
<br />Improvements, Phase I - Preliminary Design
<br />
<br />Terry Haugen, Charles Manzanares, Gary Suiter and myself have reviewed the
<br />Preliminary Design for Phase I Improvements and the Geotechnical Report from
<br />Chen and AssocIates. .These comments were transmitted to MIke Dungan on
<br />March 17, by telephone.
<br />
<br />GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
<br />The report notes on page 6, that Holes 2 and 9 were the only borings not drilled
<br />directly on the levee.
<br />
<br />A field survey conducted on March 14 revealed that the following test holes were
<br />not drilled on the levee:
<br />(2) 3' off the land side of the levee
<br />(6) 15' off the land sIde of the levee
<br />(9) 15' off the land side of the levee
<br />(10) no levee exists In thIs area
<br />(11) 5' off the land side of the levee
<br />(12) I' off the land side of the levee.
<br />
<br />The report noted that Hole 7 could not be drilled due to access problems. In
<br />additIon, our survey failed to locate Hole 8, though we have been assured that
<br />It is in the area shown on Fig. A-l, map,
<br />
<br />The only test holes drilled directly on the levee In crItical design areas were
<br />1, 3, 4, 5, and 13. Whether five holes are sufficient to base design plans on
<br />should be addressed in some manner. It Is the opinIon of City/County staff that
<br />the misrepresentation of soil samples taken from the levee have damaged the
<br />credibility of that report. We have had one property owner In the Phase I area
<br />who reviewed the geotechnical investigation and noted the shortcomings of the
<br />field work performed.
<br />
|