Loading...
Geotechnical Report.pdfCOBALT GEOSCIENCES January 30, 2019 Marionokafeneo.net RE: Limited Geologic Evaluation Proposed Deck lol Main Street Edmonds, Washington Cobalt Geosciences, LLC P.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, Washington 98028 In accordance with your authorization, Cobalt Geosciences, LLC has prepared this letter to discuss the results of our limited geologic evaluation of the seismic hazard at the above -referenced location. Site & Project Description The site is located at lol Main Street in Edmonds, Washington. The site consists of one rectangular shaped parcel (No. 00434401300101) with a total area of o.11 acres. The property is situated in the long direction from west-northwest to east-southeast. For the purposes of this report, actual direction of west-northwest will refer to west (toward Puget Sound). Figure 1 shows the property area, surrounding properties, and recent and previous exploration locations. The western portion of the property is developed with a commercial building (restaurants) and attached deck. The eastern portion is an asphalt paved parking lot. The site is nearly level with minimal landscaped or vegetated areas. The entire property is mapped as a seismic hazard area. The proposed development includes an approximate 8 feet wide deck structure located along the western side of the building, generally abutting an existing deck. The site is bordered to the north by a commercial development, to the east by Sunset Avenue, to the south by Main Street, and to the west by BNSF rail lines and right-of-way. Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions The site is situated near the shoreline of Puget Sound. In this area, beach deposits and fill overlie dense to very dense Whidbey Formation. Beach deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense mixtures of sand, gravel and silt deposited by tidal fluctuations. These materials usually consist of eroded and reworked native soils. Whidbey Formation includes dense to very dense layers of silty -sand, silt and clay, along with poorly graded sands with gravel. These materials are usually exposed near the base of Puget Sound bluffs. We excavated a hand boring in the area of the proposed deck, west of the existing deck. We encountered approximately 6 inches of gravel by about 2.5 feet of loose to medium dense, silty - fine to medium grained sand with gravel (Fill). This layer was underlain by approximately 8 feet of loose to medium dense mixtures of fine to medium grained sand with gravel with areas of silt and organics (Beach Deposits). This layer was underlain by dense, fine grained sand with silt www.cobaltgeo.com (2o6) 331-1097 Attachment 4 January 30, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Limited Geologic Evaluation (Whidbey Formation?), which continued to the termination depth of the hand boring, about 12.5 feet below grade. Groundwater was not observed in the excavation. We have reviewed geoprobe and hollow stem auger borings conducted by Kane Environmental and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on or very near the property. In general, these borings encountered areas of fill underlain by up to 15 feet of beach deposits in areas west of Sunset Avenue. The beach deposits were underlain by dense to very dense Whidbey Formation. The relevant logs are attached at the end of this report. Geologic Hazards The site is located within a mapped seismic hazard area. This designation is likely due to the presence of fill and relatively loose beach deposits that overlie dense to very dense Whidbey Formation. Based on our exploration and nearby boring logs, the overall subsurface profile corresponds to a Site Class D as defined by Table 1613.5.2 of the 2015 International Building Code (2015 IBC). A Site Class D applies to an overall profile consisting of dense to very dense soils within the upper loo feet. We referenced the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program Website to obtain values for Ss, S,, FQ, and F,,. The USGS website includes the most updated published data on seismic conditions. The site specific seismic design parameters and adjusted maximum spectral response acceleration parameters are as follows: PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration, in percent of g) Ss 127.10% of g S, 49.8o% of g FA 1.00 Fv 1.502 Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motions by soft/loose soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high groundwater table. The relatively dense glacially consolidated materials that underlie the fill and beach deposits site have a very low to low potential for liquefaction. Our subsequent recommendations to utilize driven pipe piles below new foundation elements will essentially mitigate the effect of liquefaction to the new deck to a reasonable level. Due to the limited depth of loose soils, we anticipate that structural distress will be minimal. Relevant items from the City of Edmonds Municipal Code are found below with our discussion in subsequent paragraphs (underlined). A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for assessing a potential geologically hazardous area shall be prepared by a geologist licensed in the state of Washington, with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience preparing reports for the relevant type of hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary, the report detailing the mitigation measures and design of the mitigation shall be prepared by an engineer licensed in the state of Washington, with experience stabilizing slopes with similar geotechnical properties. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.ogo(B). www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097 Attachment 4 January 30, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Limited Geologic Evaluation Mr. Haberman is a licensed geologist engineering geologist and professional engineer (geotechnic:al) with more than 20 years of experience in the Puget Sound region. His resume is attached at the end of this report. B. Area Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for geologically hazardous areas: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; and 2. All geologically hazardous areas within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal. The Droiect includes construction of a deck along the west side of the existing building and deck. The deck structure will likely be supported on shallow foundation elements with typical beam and post construction The entire proper is situated within a seismic hazard area due to the presence of beach deposits which usually consist of loose sands with tidally influenced groundwater at shallow depths. Part IV. Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.o6o Development standards — General requirements. A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and 4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. The DroDosed deck structure supported on driven Dine Diles will not increase the threat of the geological hazard on adjacent properties beyond the predevelopment conditions or affect other critical areas If driven to refusal the proposed pipe piles will essentially eliminate the most significant affects that liquefaction may have on the new deck resulting in a structure that can be designed and implemented as safe for use. Conclusions & Recommendations It is our opinion that the seismic hazards at the site include liquefaction within the upper io to 15 feet below grade. The installation of driven pin piles will effectively mitigate the effects of liquefaction induced settlement around new foundation elements. Depending on the magnitude and duration of certain seismic events, some structural damage could occur and significant repairs may be required. www,cobaltgeo.com (2o6) 331-1097 Attachment 4 January 30, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Limited Geologic Evaluation Foundation Support Pin piles used for the deck structure foundation support may consist of two, three, or four -inch diameter, Schedule 40 or 8o, galvanized steel pipes. Allowable axial compression capacities of 3, 6, and 10 tons may be used for these piles, respectively. The required pile length in order to develop the recommended pile capacity is expected to vary depending on the depth of loose to medium dense soils within the foundation area as well as hammer and pile diameters. For preliminary design purposes, a pile length of about 20 to 25 feet maybe assumed. Three and four -inch diameter piles are typically installed using small (approximately 650 to 1,100 pound) hammers mounted to an excavator. Two-inch piles are typically driven with a portable 140-pound pneumatic hammer. Refusal criteria is the minimum amount of time (in seconds) required to achieve one inch of penetration, and it varies with the size of hammer used for pile driving. Penetration resistance required to achieve the r_.anac_.ities will be determined from the hammer size. The following is a summary of typical driving refusal criteria for different hammer sizes that are commonly used for three and four -inch diameter piles. Hammer Weight�3" Pile Refusal Criteria 4" Pile Refusal Criteria Hammer (lb) / Blows per (seconds per inch) (seconds per inch of minute penetration) Hydraulic TB 650 / 12 20 225 550 - 1100 Hydraulic TB 850 / 10 16 325 550 -1100 Hydraulic TB 1,100 / 6 10 425 550 - 1100 Alternative hammer sizes may be used; however, the contractor should provide adequate information to verify equivalence and refusal criteria. Pile splices may be made with compression fitted sleeve pipe couplers (mechanical couplers). Refusal for two-inch piles should consist of 3 cycles of 6o seconds per inch. Provided that the footings are supported as recommended above, a net allowable bearing pressure Of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design. Isolated footings should have a minimum depth of 24 inches below subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower. If constructed as recommended, the total foundation settlement is not expected to exceed 1 inch. Differential settlement, along a 25-foot exterior wall footing, or between adjoining column footings, should be less than 1/2 inch. This translates to an angular distortion of 0.002. Most settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. www.col)altgeo.com (2o6) 331-1097 Attachment 4 January 30, 2019 Page 5 of 5 Limited Geologic Evaluation Lateral resistance for footings can be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces (neglect the upper 12 inches below grade in exterior areas). The allowable friction factor and allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure values include a factor of safety of 1.5. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A 1/3 increase in the above values may be used for short duration transient loads. Closure The information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined above and for the current site conditions, and should not be used for any other site. This letter was prepared for the sole use of Eli Simmonds. Sincerely, Cobalt Geosciences, LLC vVaahi' �E1�0Nr n WA . r::J`� 'O 4` . ��;etl 54896 P 9L4IP HABERWsAN �Fss/pNAL Phil Haberman, PE, LG, LEG Principal PH/sc Attachments: wmv.cobaltgeo.com Figure 1; Site Plan Hand Boring Historic Boring Logs Resume (2o6) 331-1097 Attachment 4 71 H-2-96 G� NN7l`Y TKK 1WL-� 105 I. ) < A, �, 102 *4 ,� 400 SIB-i Area of Proposed - _ Deck V r N Approximate 5� Approximate 9 Approximate HB-1 Hand Boring H-2-96 WSDOT Boring KSB-3 Kane Geoprobe Boring Location TH-1-92 Location Location Cobalt Geosciences, LLC Proposed Deck SITE PLAN P.O. or 82243 ,'AA ►� ` — ioi Main Street �206 3 1-109 9soZa ) 33 97 • S C I E N C E S Edmonds, Washington FIGURE 1 wvmcobalt",com cobaltgeo(ftmail.com Attac ment 4 Log of Hand Boring HB-1 Date: January 20, 2019 Depth: 12.5' Initial Groundwater: N/A Contractor: Elevation: N/A Sample Type: Grab Method: Hand Auger Logged By: PH Checked By: SC Final Groundwater: N/A o Moisture Content (%) N ii j . 0 6 3 Plastic I Liquid Limil Limit 6 0 � o L > Material Description o m ? o SPT N-Value 0 10 20 30 40 5C Crushed Rockl ---- ---- — --- SM --------------------------------------------- Loose to medium dense, silty -fine to medium grained sand trace gravel, dark yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist. (Fill) -Areas of poorly graded sand — 2 ---" ---- — --- •,, . SP -------------------------------------------- (Loose to medium dense, fine to medium grained sand trace silt. �, yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist. (Beach Deposits) — 4 — 5 .' —6 —7 —8:'•�' — 9 '•• `: —10 .•� .; SP Dense, fine grained sand trace to some silt, yellowish brown — 12 `;j c to grayish brown, moist. (Whidbey Formation) End of Hand Boring 12.5' — 14 —16 Cobalt Geosciences, LLC \ P.O. Box 82243 Proposed Deck Hand R Kenmore, WA 98028 =_ ioi Main Street Boring (206) 331-1097 COE3ALT wwwxobaltgeo. com Edmonds, Washington Log cobaltaeo@Y_tn il,com Aiiacnment 4 HOLE No. H-2-9.6 PROJECT Edmonds Ferry Terminal Overhead Station 1 + 034 Equipment BK 81 Method of Boring Wet Rotary Start Date March 12, 1996 LOG OF TEST BORING Offset 14 m Lt. Casing HW X 10', HQ X 60' AdUkk Washington State 'IA Department of Transportation Job No. OL-2160 S.R. 104 C.S. 3180 Ground El 1 m1 Completion Date March 12, 1996 Sheet 1 of 3 ? t 0 E w m g m - a Standard Penetration Blows/ft 10 20 30 40 SPT Blows/6' (N) F m E yr z° o 2 Z n m n H In a M m J F- Description of Material p 3 v o m E 2 c 1 ' 1 1 ft.=0.3048 m. I 1 I I Surface is sand, gravel and cobbles. I I 1 i I 1 I 1 I I i 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 5 I 1 1 ' t ' 3 D-t GS SP-SM. M.C.=32`Yo ' t ' 3 MC Poorly graded SAND with silt, loose, olive gray, wet, I I I I 4 lensed with patches of gray. 17) Retained 0.4 ft. 2 1 ' I I I 1 l I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I t I I I I 1 10 3 I I I I 4 D-2 GS SP-SM, M.C. =18% 7 Mc Poorly graded SAND with silt, gravel and wood I I I I 6 fragments, rounded, medium dense, very dark gray, (13) homogeneous. 0.3 ft. piece of fresh looking wood at end of sample. I i Retained 1.0 ft. I I I I 1 1 I 4 I t I 1 i I I I I I I 1 I - 16 1 I I I 6 D-3 Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, rounded, — 6 medium dense, very dark gray, homogeneous. 1 1 t 1 8 Retained 0.8 ft. 5 I t I (16) 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I ,• I ( I I —6 I I 1 Attachment 4 LOG OF TEST BORING Washington State HOLE No. H-2-96 vI/ Department of Transportation ,' Sheet 2 of 3 PROJECT Edmonds Ferry Terminal Overhead Job No. OL-2160 25- 30 — 35 — 40 — 45 — E o m — g Standard Penetration Blows/ft 10 20 30 40 SPT Blowsl6' (N) H m E (n Z° o Z a . E F (n — Y .0 y O o J~ Description of Material o U, o E ` N 16 D-4 GS GW-GM, M.C.=8% I I I 14 MC Well graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, t I 1 15 subrounded, dense, dark greenish gray, moist, I I 1 (29) homogeneous. I Retained 0.9 ft. 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 7 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I t 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 10 D-5 GS SP-SM, M.C.=22% I I I I 16 MC Poorly graded SAND with silt, dense, brownish gray 1 17 and olive gray, moist, bedded. 8 i (33) Retained 1.2 ft. 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 11 D-6 Poorly graded SAND with silt, dense, olive gray, g Y. I 1 1 1 1 14 moist, homogeneous. 1 I I 1 19 Retained 1.3 ft. I I I I (33) I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 10 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 9 D-7 Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, I 1 I I 17 subrounded, dense, dark gray, moist, homogeneous. t I 1 I I I '20 No HCI reaction. 11 1 I t I I 1 (37) Retained 1.2 ft. I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 18 D-8 GS SM, M.C. = 14% I I I I 20 MC Silty SAND with gravel, subrounded, dense, dark I 1 1 I 24 gray, moist, homogeneous. No HCI reaction. 1 I I I (44) Retained 1.4 ft. I I I I 1 I 1 I 13 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 t 1 i 1 I 1 1 •� I 1 1 1 I 1 t t p I 1 1 I Attachment 4 HOLE No. H-2-96 PROJECT Edmonds Ferry Terminal Overhead 50 — 55- 60 — 65 — 70 — LOG OF TEST BORING MWWashington State Department of Transportation Sheet 3 of 3 Job No. OL-2160 E Standard SPT F Z o m c m o Penetration Blows/6' m a m Z g o J m Description of Material ; E 2 Blows/ft (N) m ~ c rn to c 10 20 30 o I 25 0-9 Silty SAND with gravel, subrounded, very dense, 1 I 50 gray to dark gray, moist, stratified with silt laminae. —14 . , I , 40 No HCI reaction. — ° 'o . 1 1 1 1 I (90) Retained 1.4 ft. 0' I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I —15 I I I I °. � > • 1 1 I 25 D-10 GS SP-S M, M.C. 17 =°% 29 MC Poorly graded SAND with silt, very dense, very dark 33 gray, wet, homogeneous. 162) Retained 1.4 ft. U —16 • O' I I I 1 1 I I 1 I p. I 23 D-11 Sandy SILT, hard, dark olive gray, moist, bedded. , , , I 16 Silt is laminated, —17 0 1 32 Retained 1.3 ft. . 'o ' I I I ' (48) I I I 1 I I I I —18 0 10 D-12 GS ML, M.C.=42% 14 MC Sandy SILT with fibrous organic material, hard, dark 1 1 I I 27 gray to dark olive gray, moist, bedded silts with 141) AL I laminae of peat. Retained 1.5 ft. 1 , I End of test hole boring at 61.5 ft, below ground —19 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I elevation, I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I Ground elevation not determined. I 1 This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock 1 1 descriptions are derived from visual field I I I I identifications and laboratory test data. —20 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I —21 I I I I I I Attachment 4 LOG OF TEST BORING Washington State .,' Department of Transportation S.R. 104 SECTION Jct. Main st. / Jet. Dayton ave. Job No. OL-1300 Hole No. TH-1-92 Sub Section Signal # 1 _ Cont. Sec. 1748 Station L 11 + 82 Offset 39.0' Lt. Ground El. *SEE LOG Type of Boring Mobile B-61 Casing W.T. El. ** SEE LOG Inspector Date October 13, 1992 Sheet 1 of 2 DEPTH BLOWS PER FT. PROFILE SAMPLE TUBE NOS. DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL o o . °. °. ..� . .0 p °. . o ...Q o . o . . . . . .. STD PEN 1 6 5 7 Medium dense, brown, moist, gravelly, silty. fine to medium SAND. Retained 0.5 ft. 12 ° °. n Q' •' •'a STD PEN 2 40 50/3° Very dense, mottled brown, gravelly, silty to very silty, fine to medium SAND. Retained 0.3 ft. 50/3" .0°. Q .° °. °. °. °. o . e °. . °. STD PEN 3 23 50/5" Very dense, mottled brown, gravelly, silty to very silty, fine to medium SAND. Retained 0.5 ft. 50/5 N °. . °. p .°. O .° ° STD PEN 4 30 50/5° Very dense, mottled brown, gravelly, silty to very silty, fine to medium SAND. Retained 0.3 ft. 50/5" End of Test Hole Boring at -18.9 ft. below ground elevation Continued Next Page FORM 351-003 DOT REVISED 12/79 Attachment 4 AIIIIIIIIIIIIINk LOG OF TEST BORING Washington State .,' Department of Transportation S.R. 104 SECTION Jct. Main st. / Jct. Dayton ave. Job No. OL-1300 Hole No. TH-1-92 Sub Sectlon Signal # 1 _ _ Cont. Sec. 1748 Station L 11 + 82 Offset 39.0' Lt. Ground El. *SEE LOG Type of Boring Mobile B-61 Casing W.T. El. ** SEE LOG Inspector Date October 13, 1992 Sheet 2 of 2 DEPTH BLOWS PER FT. PROFILE SAMPLE TUBE NOS. DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL * Ground elevation: Not determined. ** Water table elevation: Not determined. This is a Summary Log of the Test Hole Boring. Soil descriptions are derived from visual field identifications. n FORM 351-003 DOT REVISED 12/79 Attachment 4 80 KSB-1:2'-4' 80 KSB-1:4-5' 80 t%orinci P ,D P I Desc l-IF"ion 0'-4": Concrete SC 4"-2': Medium brown, medium sand with clay, moist, no N odor. Q SC 2'-4': Medium brown with red mottles, medium sand with clay, moist, slight unidentified odor. o SC 4'-5': Medium brown, medium coarse sand, wood fragment at 5' bgs, very moist, no odor. m 0 0 T L Soil boring ended at 5' bgs. Rotohammer refusal at 5' bgs. Groundwater was not encountered. Logged by: Luke Mortinkosky Hammer Size: NA Depth to Water (first Encountered): NA Driller: ESN Northwest Date Drilled: 9/20/11 Depth to Water (Static): NA Drilling Method: Rotohammer Hole Diameter: 2 inches Sampling Method: Acetate Liner Hole Depth: 5 feet Casing Type: Not Applicable (NA) Well Diameter: NA Annular Pack: NA Well Depth: NA Slot Size: NA Screened Interval: NA So➢s closstiled vsuour L �e Unifleo iass'­jinn System SKANE Phase I &Limited Phase II Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL INC 101 Main Street 3815 Woodland Park Ave. N, Seattle, WA - Edmonds, Washington 206-691-0476 www.kane-environmental.com Soil Boring Log Attachment 4 - Boring hSB-1A Poke 'COI DCSCI'l itlon i 0'-4": Concrete 80 \I SC 4"-2': Medium brown, medium sand with clay, moist, no i—i o_ odor. 80 a SC 2'-3': Medium brown with red mottles, medium sand with clay, moist, slight unidentified odor. 5 o SC 3'-5': Medium brown, medium coarse sand, very moist, no n m 0 odor. T t .3 U O m I Soil boring ended at 5' bgs. Rotohammer refusal at 5' bgs. Groundwater was not encountered. I � Logged by: Luke Mortinkosky Hommer Size: NA Depth to Water (First Encountered): NA Driller: ESN Northwest Date Drilled: 9/20/11 Depth to Water (Static): NA Drilling Method: Rotohammer Hole Diameter: 2 inches Sampling Method: Acetate Liner Hole Depth: 5 feet Casing Type: Not Applicable (NA) Well Diameter: NA Annular Pack: NA Well Depth: NA Slot Size: NA Screened Interval: NA 5oas ciossrl,an v „uy �g the i:ntrFd - � Go=sl rcoion KAN En Phase I & Limited Phase 11 Soil Boring Log Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL INC 101 Main Street 3615 Woodland Park Ave. N, Seattle, WA - Edmonds, Washington 206-691-0476 www.kane-environmental.com Attachment 4 z = - G 1 70 1 95 B-2:6.5—'' eB �a ie Pf 1 r,r,ril-,jinn 0'-3": Asphalt N SW 3"-3': Dark brown, fine and medium sand with some a gravels, slightly moist, no odor. U SW 3'-4.5': Dark brown with red and yellow mottles, fine and medium sand with some gravels, slightly moist, no odor. C ° SM 4.5'-5': Medium brown, medium sand with trace silt, clay and small gravels, moist, no odor. v SM 5'-7.5': Yellowish brown with brown and red mottles, silty sand with small gravels, moist, sweet odor. SP 7.5'-8': Light brown with red mottles, medium sand with trace silt, moist, slight unidentified odor. 3 SC 8'-10': Light brown, medium sand with clay, silt and gravel, moist, no odor. UU ° SP 10'-11': Light brown with dark brown mottles, medium sand m with gravel, dense, dry, no odor. Soil boring ended at 11' bgs. Set stainless steel screen from 8'-11' bgs. Collected groundwater sample, KSB-2:W. ogged by: Luke MGMnkOsky Hammer Size: NA Depth to Water (First Encountered): 8 feet bgs Driller: ESN Northwest Dote Drilled: 9/20/11 Depth to Water (Static): Not Measured Drilling Method: Geoprobe Hole Diameter: 2 inches Sampling Method: Acetate Liner Hole Depth: 11 feet Casing Type: Not Applicable (NA) Well Diameter: NA Annular Pack: NA Well Depth: NA Slot Size: NA Screened Interval: NA Sacs ciaslii; rd usual Ytec Solis Swlen, � Phase I &Limited Phase II Soil Boring Log KAN En Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL INC 101 Main Street 3615 Woodland Park Ave. N, Seattle, WA - 206-691-0476 www.kane-environmental.com Edmonds, Washington Attachment 4 i 0 N - - Bnrinq B P(- of D(-SCi'l,,tiru� 0'-4": Concrete. SP 4"-1: Reddish brown, medium sand, moist, no odor. 1' 3 5'• L' — i 70 v SP — fight brown, medium sand with trace gravel, moist, ,g- U U no odor. o SW 3.5'-6': Medium brown, medium sand with trace gravel, dry, c no odor. 95 _ KSB-3:6.5-7' o SP 6'-7': Medium brown, medium sand with gravel, moist, no -o odor. _ L SM 7'-7.5': Dark brown, medium sand, wet, no odor. KSB-3:7.5-8' I_ 7.5'-8': Very dark brown, decomposing wood, wet, swampy i 3 odor. — o SM 8'-9': Dark brown, medium sand, wet, no odor. 100 Y j U o OL 9'-10': Dark brown, greyish brown, and very dark brown, silty .—i _ I GD I clay, very moist, slight swampy odor. Soil boring began severiy caving in after reaching 10' bgs. Drove water sampler to 19' bgs. Set stainless steel screen from 12'-15' bgs. Collected groundwater sample, KSB-2:W. Logged by: Luke Marfinkosky Hammer Size: NA Depth to Water (First Encountered): NA Driller: ESN Northwest Date Drilled: 9/20/11 Depth to Water (Static): NA Drilling Method: Geoprobe Hole Diameter: 2 inches Sampling Method: Acetate Liner Hole Depth: 11 feet Casing Type: Not Applicable (NA) Well Diameter: NA Annular Pack: NA Well Depth: NA Slot Size: NA Screened Interval: NA ri,—iri- uaiy 1g [he I1*fltl �Ii'S SY=IPm KAN En Phase I & Limited Phase II Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL INC 3615 Woodland Park Ave. N, Seattle, WA - 206-691-0476 www.kane-environmental.com 101 Main Street Edmonds, Washington Soil Boring Log Attachment 4 COBALT G E 0 S C I E N C E S Phil Haberman, PE, LG, LEG Principal Mr. Haberman specializes in geotechnical engineering, geology, and engineering geology and has extensive experience with fluvial and hillslope geomorphology, geologic hazard analysis, subsurface investigations, and retaining system design. Mr. Haberman has over 20 years of experience throughout the Pacific Northwest conducting geotechnical investigations, geologic hazard evaluations, geologic mapping and reconnaissance, retaining wall design, and construction oversight. He has managed and led countless geotechnical projects involving roadways, industrial facilities, utility construction, military installations and bunkers, schools, fire stations, as well as residential, mixed use, and commercial developments; including mid to high rise buildings with multiple levels of below grade parking. Phil has been involved in all types of geologic hazard analysis and mitigation, including slope stability analyses, coal mine hazard/subsidence analyses, liquefaction and seismic hazards, and groundwater mitigation. He has provided expert witness testimony, forensic evaluations, as well as shoring, gravity wall, and reinforced retaining wall design and monitoring. Mr. Haberman is involved in coordinating and supervising subsurface explorations, landslide evaluations, forensic evaluations, infiltration analysis, construction monitoring and inspection, construction plan preparation, specifications and bid document preparation; seepage analyses, and earth dam/levee and embankment design. EDUCATION B.Sc. (Geological Sciences), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1997 LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS Profession Engineer — No. 54896 Licensed Geologist — No. 2513 Licensed Engineering Geologist — No. 2513 Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) Cobalt Geosciences, LLC P.O. Box 82243, Kenmore, WA 98028 cobaltgeo@gmail.com PROJECT EXPERIENCE Coal Creek Park, Bellevue, Washington Conducted numerous geotechnical investigations for the City of Bellevue and provided slope stability analyses, erosion evaluations, and engineering design parameters for use in the construction of numerous bridges and rail systems in Coal Creek Park. Determined setback requirementsfor bridge abutments in an actively incising fluvial environment. Provided coal mine subsidence analyses and slope stability analyses for multiple projects within the Bellevue Parks System. Attachment 4 Phil Habet'1nan i>L. LG_ LEG Principal Proposed Hotels, Snoqualmie & Marysville, Washington Prepared geotechnical investigations for new five story hotels in Snoqualmie and Marysville, Washington. Explored the subsurface soils using borings and test pits and conducted an analysis of potential geologic hazards and mitigation options. Provided foundation andpavement design parameters along with recommendations related to earthwork, grading, infiltration, and utility placement. Medical Office Building, Kent, Washington Conducted a geotechnical investigation in an area with }sigh liquo fnrtiop pntential fnr n not i nffi'ro hililrlinn Drilled and sampled five borings as part of the seismic analyses for use in foundation design consideration. Recommended the use of compacted rock columns to support the new building and reduce the potential effects of liquefaction on the development. Forensic Evaluation, Seattle, Washington Evaluated the soil and groundwater conditions of a three tier retaining wall system within a steep slope and landslide hazard area. Conducted detailed slope stability analyses to determine options to mitigate local instability within the wall systems constructed in the early i9ids. Frances Anderson Center, Edmonds, Washington Evaluated the soil conditions for a new open-air roof structure. Determined foundation parameters for the new stage and roof structure, as well as foundation setback requirementsfrom an adjacent concrete retaining wall. Cobalt Geosciences, LLC P.O. Box 82243, Kenmore, WA 98028 cobaltgeo@gmail.com Proposed Hotels, Vantage, Washington Excavated numerous test pits within a 5 acre parcel to determine depth to bedrock and fill thickness in the area of an old fuel station. Provided a geotechnical report detailing foundation design recommendations and options for site grading to limit blasting of in situ basalt. Mercer Slough Boardwalk Trail, Bellevue, Washington Conducted Cone Penetrometer analysis of a portion of the Mercer Slough to determine depth to bearing soils for pile support of a new boardwalk trail system. Prennrpci n nontorhnion7 nnnhicic ronnrt fnr 7inrinhle diameter piles to support new bridges placed over 6o to 8o feet of very soft peat deposits. Port of Poulsbo Seawall Mitigation, Poulsbo, Washington Provided construction monitoring during fill removal and dead -man anchor placement for updates to an existing seawall. Evaluated soil conditions during construction and provided recommendations to minimize soil loss through the seawall due to tidal fluctuations, groundwater, and surface water from pervious pavements and rain gardens. Attachment 4