Addendum_2_-_2501901.pdf

DATE: July 21, 2025 TO: All Interested Bidders and Other Interested Parties FROM: Hosea Goodwyn, CPP, CPPM, FCCM – Senior Buyer

The City makes the following changes, additions, deletions, information, and/or clarifications and now considers the addendum a part of the Invitation for Bid (IFB) Document. Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this addendum by indicating receipt in the space provided on the Proposal Bid Form. If the bidder has already submitted the Proposal Bid Form to the City’s Purchasing Division, the Bidder should revise their electronic submission to include this addendum. In any case, the submission of a bid is an acknowledgment of receipt of the addendum. The City will construe all bids received as though the Bidder has received and acknowledged the addendum.

Below is the City’s reply to RFIs (Request for Information – a/k/a bid inquiries or questions) submitted by interested parties by the posted deadline to submit RFIs.

Q1. Please provide detailed plans and specifications for all MEP's that contractor shall furnish and install.

A1. Provided in Addendum 1

Q2. Please provide a detailed list of permits provided by the City and what permits contractor shall provide A2. City to provide FDEP and USACE permits. Contractor to provide City of Leesburg Building & Demo Permit.

Q3. What is the anticipated month for the NTP?

A3. Possibly as early as September 2025

Q4. Please confirm City will issue soft NTP for material procurement. Items like the floating dock have a significant fabrication lead time. this lead time should be excluded from the contract time.

A4. City is able to issue a Limited Notice To Proceed for the manufacture/fabrication of dock components.

Q5. Will the City assist contractors with payments of material procurement? In particular the floating dock manufacturers ask for down payment and progress payments. Please confirm the City will allow payment requests made by Contractors for the purchase of floating docks.

A5. City is able to issue progressive payments for Materials Stored in Place and Work Completed.

IFB 2501901

Construction of Venetian Cove Marina Dock Improvement Project

Addendum No. 2

Q6. Please confirm there will be no Builders Risk Insurance Required for this solicitation.

A6. Builders Risk Insurance is not required.

Q7. Is the City of Leesburg going to provide a way to attend the Pre-Bid Meeting virtually either through zoom like the bid opening link or alternate such as Microsoft Teams?

A7. No.

Q8. Is there a site visit scheduled following the Pre-Bid meeting for those in attendance?

A8. Yes.

Q9. Is there currently an estimated mobilization or completion date for work?

A9. Mobilization date will be determined after the contract has been awarded. Contractor will have 160 calendar days to complete after NTP has been issued. (See Time of Contract 3.10.1)

Q10. Please provide Geotechnical Report with Soil Borings.

A10. See attachment

Q11. Please confirm there will be no load test required for the anchorage piles. (no lateral load test).

A11. Confirmed. The vertical blow counts will be observed and approved by the engineer, however there is not a need for lateral load testing.

Q12. Please provide Specification for Deck boards to be used on Floating Dock segments.

A12. Deck boards are subject to the dock manufacturer’s proposal. Manufacturers should optimize cost efficiency with structural durability and aesthetics. The color is to match (as closely as possible) the existing floating dock surface.

Q13. Have USACE and DEP permits been issued? Will they be available at the time of award?

A13. Yes!

Q14. What is the minimum embedment depth required for the concrete and wood piles?

A14. Piles are preliminarily planned for 40’ in total length. Stamped pile plans will be completed in coordination with dock shop drawings, per industry standard.

Q15. Are there any soil borings for this project? Please provide.

A15. See attachment

Q16. Note 10 in the general notes listed on sheet N-1.00 lists a quantity of concrete and wood pile which seems to be inaccurate. Please verify the quantity of concrete and timber pile required.

A16. Stamped pile plans will be completed in coordination with dock shop drawings, per industry standard. The permitted plans allow for up to 15 concrete piles (14” square) and 20 timber piles (8” round). The plans, as shown, include 12 concrete piles and 17 timber piles.

Q17. Can the concrete and timber piles be jetted to within the last 5 feet before being driven with the impact hammer?

A17. The requested installation method does not conflict with any permit conditions. So long as the vertical blow counts are suitable within the last 5 feet, jetting is acceptable.

Q18. What is the finished top elevation required for the concrete and timber piles?

A18. Piles are preliminarily planned for 40’ in total length. The estimate for the top elevation based on the permitted drawings is approximately +73.50’ NAVD88. Stamped pile plans will be completed in coordination with dock shop drawings, per industry standard.

Q19. Reference Sheet CM-1.00. What is the length of proposed Dock A and Dock B?

A19. See proposed dimensions below:

Q20. Items 8 and 9 on the quantity sheet reference utilities to be furnished and installed yet there is not any information to what those utilities are and what is required. Please provide utility types, quantities, sizes, technical data, section details, etc. required for pricing purposes A20. Please see Addendum 1

Q21. Sheet CM-1.01 shows a barge for temporary marina access. What is the minimum barge dimensions required?

A21. Contractor to field verify existing City barge dimensions of 25’ X 65’. City to verify availability and suitability of barge for use as temporary access structure – otherwise, contractor to propose furnishing new barge.

Q22. Please provide location, size and information on where a laydown area will be A22. See attached image. Approximately 6,000SF in the marina parking lot.

Q23. What is the exact required length of the 6' wide main docks for both A and B?

A23. See A19

Q24. Please confirm the Electrical Contractors scope for this solicitation will start at the seawall.

Contractor for the Building will provide the power service up to the seawall for Floating Dock Contractor and Electric Sub to continue at seawall only.

A24. Confirmed! Building contractor will provide service up to the seawall.

Q25. Please confirm the Plumbing Contractors scope for this solicitation will start at the seawall. Contractor for the Building will provide the fresh water service up to the seawall for Floating Dock Contractor and Plumbing Sub to continue at seawall only.

A25. Confirmed! Building contractor will provide service up to the seawall.

Q26. Please confirm the quantity and location of fresh water hose holders and hose bibs at new dock as part of this solicitation A26. Twelve (12) hose holders are to be furnished. The final location is subject to floating dock shop drawings but each holder is planned to be centrally located between four (4) slips (two double-berths).

Q27. Please provide specification on outlets to be installed as well as quantity and locations.

A27. See Pages 1-8 of MEP Engineering Plans.

Q28. Please provide clarification on lighting to be installed along the new floating docks. Please specify type of lighting, location and quantity.

A28. See Pages 1-8 of MEP Engineering Plans. Electric pedestals to include surface lighting.

Q29. Please confirm no Builders Risk Insurance will be required.

A29. Builders Risk Insurance is not required.

Q30. What is the proposed freeboard for the docks? It varied on site visit A30. Final freeboard is subject to approval of shop drawings following manufacturer's site visit with engineer. Existing docks are estimated to have freeboard varying from 16” to 20”.

Proposed floating docks should be planned for 20” freeboard.

The following document is hereby made part of the solicitation.

1. Attachment 1 – Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration

ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Addendum #2

Company Name

Signature of Officer

Type/Print Officer's Name & Title

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

VENETIAN COVE MARINA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

250 BALL PARK ROAD

LEESBURG, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA 34748

UES PROJECT NO. 0130.2200459.0000

UES REPORT NO. 1991282

PREPARED FOR:

The City of Leesburg, FL

550 S. 14th Street Leesburg, FL 34748

Attn: Mr. John Folker

PREPARED BY:

Universal Engineering Sciences 3532 Maggie Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32811

(407) 423-0504

December 2, 2022

Attachment 1 i

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 SOIL SURVEY

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY

4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

7.1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

7.2 NOTABLE FINDINGS

7.2.1 Organic Soils

7.2.2 Shallow Estimated Groundwater Conditions

7.2.3 Existing Site Improvements

8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL

8.2 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL

9.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

9.1 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN

9.2 PRELIMINARY SITE PREPARATION

9.3 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT

10.0 DEWATERING AND EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

11.0 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

12.0 LIMITATIONS

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table I: Summary of Published Soil Data Table II: Laboratory Methodologies Table III: Generalized Soil Profile

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I: Web Soil Survey

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

USGS Location Map .................................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B

Boring Location Plan ................................................................................................... B-1 Boring Logs ................................................................................................................. B-2 Key to Boring Logs Sheet ............................................................................................ B-3

APPENDIX C

GBC Document ........................................................................................................... C-1 Constraints and Restrictions ........................................................................................ C-2

Venetian Cove Marina Building Improvements UES Project No. 0130.2200459.0000 250 Ball Park Road, Leesburg, Lake County, Florida UES Report No. 1991282

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

UES understands that you intend to develop a new lakefront office building structure within the Venetian Cove Marina facility located at 250 Ball Park Road in Leesburg, Lake County, Florida.

The subject property consists of a Lake County tax parcel with Parcel Identification Number (PIN) identified as 26-19-24-0004-000-07100. At this time, we were just provided with a copy of the Lake County Property Appraiser report card of the subject property to be explored.

We understand that the existing boat rental mobile structure will be removed in order to replace it with a proposed slab on grade one-story office building with the outdoor sitting area. Please note that the conceptual site plan and location of the proposed building was not finalized at the time of this report.

We were requested to perform a preliminary geotechnical exploration of the site to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions on site as a part of the due diligence process. We understand this information will be used to determine the potential constraints to develop the property before the end of due diligence period for the corresponding property.

Should any of the above information or assumptions made by UES be inconsistent with the planned development and construction, we request that you contact us immediately to allow us the opportunity to review the new information in conjunction with our report and revise or modify our engineering recommendations accordingly, as needed.

Please note that our exploration was preliminary in nature and conducted to acquire general subsurface information. The information contained within this report should not be considered sufficient for the final design of the proposed building. Additional field work and geotechnical engineering analysis will be needed to supplement the findings presented herein for the final design efforts.

2.0 PURPOSE

The purposes of this exploration were:

• to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with special attention to potential problems that may impact the proposed development,

• to provide our estimates of the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations and

• to provide preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation design of the proposed structure.

This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. We would be glad to provide you with a proposal for these services at your request.

Our exploration was not designed to specifically address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. This evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than those performed in this study.

We would be pleased to conduct an exploration to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you so desire.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject property is generally bounded to the north by E Dixie Avenue, to the west by Ball Park Road, to the east by existing boat rental facility, and to the south by and south by Lake Harris in Leesburg, Lake County, Florida as shown on the attached Figures A-1 and B-1 in the Appendix.

Based on our review of publically available recent and historical aerial images, the subject site is currently occupied by Venetian Cove Marina facility with associated pavement areas and structures within the property limits built since 1995.

3.1 SOIL SURVEY

There is one (1) native soil type mapped within the general area of the site according to the USDA NRCS Soil Survey of Lake County. A brief summary of the mapped surficial (native) soil type is presented in Table I below. Please note the native soil type and its associated engineering properties might have been altered by the current site use. In addition, area designated as water (99) was observed within the southern end of the property limits towards Lake Harris as shown in Figure I on the following page.

TABLE I

SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED SOIL DATA 1

Soil Symbol

Soil Type Hydrologic

Group Drainage

Characteristics

Depth of Published

Seasonal High GWT (feet)2

17 Arents B Somewhat poorly drained 2½ to 5

1 Data obtained from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey online webpage, accessed on 12/02/2022 2 Pre-development Data

Figure I: Web Soil Survey

(Image obtained from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey online webpage, accessed on 12/02/2022)

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY

Site specific topographic information was not available for our review at the time of this report preparation. According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map of “Leesburg East, Florida”, the site appears to be relatively flat with pre-development ground surface elevation across the property approximately around +65 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). A copy of a portion of the USGS Map is included in Appendix A.

The USGS map also shows that the site is located along the northwestern bank of Lake Harris.

Based on information provided in the USGS map, the surface water elevation of lake center is anticipated to be at +63 feet-datum.

4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

Based on the information provided and as requested, the services conducted by UES during our preliminary geotechnical exploration were as follows:

• Drilled four (4) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (B-01 through B-04) scattered across the property limits and near vicinity of the existing mobile structure to a depth of 20 feet below existing land surface (bls).

• Secured samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer.

• Measured the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations.

• Conducted laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained in the field to determine their engineering properties.

• Assessed the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.

• Prepared a report which documents the results of our exploration and analysis with preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations.

5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

As a part of this preliminary geotechnical exploration, four (4) SPT borings, designated as B-01 through B-04 as shown on the attached Boring Location Plan in Appendix B. Please note that pavement coring was performed at the boring locations B-01 and B-03 in order to penetrate through the surficial concrete pavement layer and further advancement of borings within the proposed area of construction. The borings were temporarily backfilled, and the core holes were patched temporarily using cold patch.

In addition to the pavement cores, upper 4 feet in the corresponding boring locations B- 01 and B-03 were advanced using manual hand auger technique to avoid any subsurface utility conflicts within the proposed area of development.

The SPT borings were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 “Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils”. The SPT borings were performed. SPT sampling was performed continuously within the top 10 feet to detect variations in the near subsurface soil profile and on approximate 5 feet centers thereafter.

The SPT soil borings were performed with a truck mounted drilling rig. Horizontal and vertical survey control was not provided for the test locations prior to our field exploration program. UES located the test borings as requested within the accessible areas of the property by measuring from existing on-site landmarks shown on an aerial photograph, and by using handheld GPS devices. The indicated test locations should be considered accurate to the degree of the methodologies used. The approximate boring locations are shown in Appendix B.

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 “Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes” (Unified Soil Classification System). We selected representative soil samples from the borings for laboratory testing to aid in classifying the soils and to help to evaluate the general engineering characteristics of the site soils. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. A summary of the tests performed is shown in Table II below.

TABLE II

LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES

Test Performed Number

Performed Reference

Grain Size Analysis (#200 wash only)

ASTM D 1140 “Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75 - µm) sieve”

Moisture Content 12 ASTM D 2216 “Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by Mass”

Organic Content 10 ASTM D 2974 “Standard Test Method for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and other Organic Soils”

7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

7.1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix B. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in Appendix B. The soil profiles were prepared from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring locations is presented in Table III on the following page. For detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs.

TABLE II

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

Typical Depth (feet, bls)

Soil Description

Range of SPT “N” Values (blows per foot, bpf)

From To

Surface 4 to 6 inches

Concrete pavement from surface up to 4 to 6 inches at borings B-01 and B-03

N/A**

4 to 6 inches

4 Light gray, fine sand (SP) at borings B-01 and B-03 Hand Augured

Surface to

20* Very loose to dense, fine sand (SP), silty fine sand (SM), and silty clayey fine sand (SC-SM)

3 to 32

Note that organic sand and highly organic sediments (Muck/Peat) were observed in the upper 10 feet bls of all the boring locations.

* denotes maximum termination depth of the borings

7.2 NOTABLE FINDINGS

7.2.1 Organic Soils

Based on the findings for the SPT borings, organic sand and highly organic soils (Muck/Peat) were encountered at depths within the upper 10 feet bls in general at all the SPT borings across the site. The organic content test results ranging from 7% to 63% organics with corresponding moisture contents ranging from 30% to 342%. Note that organic deposits may be thicker between widely spaced SPT borings not explored, within the area of construction.

The general state of geotechnical practice is that soils with organic contents greater than about 5 percent are considered unsuitable to remain in-place to support the proposed structure.

We recommend once the building layout is finalized, performing additional exploration in the form of test pits to further assess the extent of organics within the proposed area of construction prior to proceeding with final design. Failure to properly mitigate the highly organic materials as recommended may lead to excessive settlement and potential cracking of the proposed structure within its useful life.

7.2.2 Shallow Estimated Groundwater Conditions

Shallow estimated groundwater conditions (at depths ranging approximately from surface to 1 foot bls) may be expected during wet seasons at our SPT boring locations. Temporary dewatering program and removal of the unsuitable highly organic soils will likely be required to control the shallow groundwater conditions during excavations and construction of the underground utilities, foundations, and other site improvements, especially during the rainy seasons.

7.2.3 Existing Site Improvements

As discussed earlier, the subject site is currently occupied by Venetian Cove Marina facility with associated pavement areas and structures within the property limits built since 1995. We understand that the existing boat rental mobile structure will be removed in order to replace it with a proposed office building with the outdoor sitting area. In addition, Concrete pavement up to 4 to 6 inches below grade was observed within the boring locations B-01 and B-03.

Although not encountered during our exploration, it should be noted that any surficial or construction debris, structural elements, underground utilities, or concrete pavement components, if observed, within the area of the proposed building, should be removed prior to construction. UES should be notified immediately of these conditions.

8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL

We measured the water levels in the boreholes on November 18, 2022, during our drilling operations. The groundwater table was encountered at depths approximately ranging from 1 foot to 2 feet below existing grades within the boring locations at the time of our exploration.

Please refer to the attached boring logs for boring location specific groundwater levels.

Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted.

8.2 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL

Based on historical data, the rainy season in Central Florida is between June and October of the year. In order to estimate the seasonal high water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined, including the following:

• Measured groundwater level

• Drainage characteristics of existing soil types

• Current & historical rainfall data

• Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, wetlands, etc.)

• Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, retention basins, etc.)

• On-site types of vegetation

• Review of available data (soil surveys, USGS maps, etc.)

• Redoximorphic features (mottling, stripping, etc.)

Based on the results of our field exploration, and the factors listed above, we estimate that the seasonal high groundwater levels at the boring locations B-01, B-03, and B-04 will generally form at surface (beneath the pavement areas) to 1 foot below existing grades. Note that water levels above surface should be determined by the Civil engineer or the wetland scientists.

Additionally, due to the presence of shallow hydraulically restrictive silty fine sand (SM) layer observed at the boring location B-02, we estimate perched transient groundwater condition approximately at the existing grade. The estimated seasonal high groundwater levels at the boring locations are shown on the individual boring logs as attached in Appendix B.

Please note, specific ground surface elevations at the boring locations would be beneficial to allow us to identify any anomalies in both our measured and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels, as well as improve the usefulness the groundwater information during the civil engineering design of the site.

It should be noted that the estimated seasonal high water levels provided should be considered accurate to about ½ foot +/- and do not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should the impediments to surface water drainage be present, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities, exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels might exceed our seasonal high estimates. Further, it should be understood that changes in the surface hydrology and subsurface drainage from on-site and/or off-site improvements could have significant effects on the normal and seasonal high groundwater levels.

9.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

9.1 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN

Based on the information provided, we understand that the existing boat rental mobile structure will be removed in order to replace it with a proposed slab on grade one-story office building with the outdoor sitting area. Please note that the conceptual site plan and location of the proposed building was not finalized at the time of this report.

Based on the results of the soil borings (B-01 through B-04) scattered across the site and near vicinity of the existing mobile structure, the near surface soils were found to consist of very loose to dense fine sand (SP), silty fine sand (SM), and silty clayey fine sand (SC-SM) to a maximum termination depth of 20 feet below grade. In addition, please note that organic sand and highly organic sediments (Muck/Peat) were also observed in general within the upper 10 feet bls of all the boring locations. These highly organic soils are unsuitable for foundation support and will require complete removal and replacement with clean structural fill prior to construction.

Provided the unsuitable soils are removed and replaced with clean structural fill, and the building pad is properly prepared and compacted prior to construction, it is our professional opinion that the proposed building can be supported upon conventional, shallow spread footing foundation or a monolithic slab-on-grade. An allowable net soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) should be achievable with proper site preparation and compaction in order to keep total and differential settlements to tolerable levels (i.e. 1-inch or less total settlement and ½-inch or less of differential settlement). The final design bearing pressure will depend upon loading conditions and the results of our design-level exploration.

The foundations may bear on either the compacted suitable native soils or compacted structural fill. We recommend the bearing level soils should be densified to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) to a depth of at least 2 feet below foundation level.

The minimum width recommended for an isolated column footing is 24 inches. For continuous wall or thickened edge monolithic slab footings, the minimum widths should comply with the current Florida Building Code (FBC), but under no circumstances should be less than 12 inches in width. The base of all footings should bear at least 12 inches below finished grade elevation as required under the current FBC, latest edition.

Once final site plan is developed and the building location/configurations and maximum structural loadings have been finalized, a final geotechnical exploration will need to be performed to provide specific geotechnical recommendations for final site preparation and foundation design, as well as perform settlement analyses based upon the expected structural loads.

9.2 PRELIMINARY SITE PREPARATION

Based on the results of our exploration, the near surface soils at this site consist mostly of very loose to dense, fine sand (SP), silty fine sand (SM), and silty clayey fine sand (SC-SM) to a maximum termination depth of 20 feet below grade. In addition, please note that organic sand and highly organic sediments (Muck/Peat) were also observed in general within the upper 10 feet bls of all the boring locations.

Based on the results of our preliminary exploration, conventional site preparation is anticipated for this project. Typical site preparation will consist of root raking and stripping procedures to remove surface vegetation, roots, topsoils, organics, and other deleterious materials, followed by densification of any loose subgrade soils and placement of compacted fill. Clearing and grubbing depths are anticipated to be about 6 inches. Deeper clearing will likely be required to penetrate through the existing site improvements.

All fill/backfill should consist of clean fine sands [SP] (less than 5 percent fines) placed in maximum 12-inch uniform loose lifts. Fill soils containing between 5 and 12 percent fines (SP- SM or SP-SC) may also be used, however, strict moisture control may be required. Each lift of structural fill should be densified to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density of the soil (ASTM D 1557) and tested for compaction and approved before the placement of subsequent lifts. The on-site surficial fine sands [SP] less than 5% fines may be suitable for re-use as structural fill material on this site.

We recommend the developer retain UES to provide inspection services during the site preparation procedures for confirmation of the adequacy of the earthwork operations. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation and pavement subgrades by monitoring earthwork operations and performing quality assurance tests of the placement of compacted structural fill courses.

9.3 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT

Based on our preliminary exploration, no significant development constraints were encountered.

However, we present a following potential geotechnical constraint that could affect the schedule and costs associated with this project including:

➢ Unsuitable layer of organic sand and highly organic sediments (Muck/Peat) were found in all of our borings at depths in general within the upper 10 feet below existing grade.

Any development in these areas will require mitigation of the highly organic soils.

➢ Shallow estimated groundwater conditions (at depths ranging approximately from surface to 1 foot bls) may be expected during wet seasons at our SPT boring locations.

Temporary dewatering program and removal of the unsuitable highly organic soils will likely be required to control the shallow groundwater conditions during excavations and construction of the underground utilities, foundations, and other site improvements, especially during the rainy seasons.

➢ Any surficial or construction debris, structural elements, underground utilities, or concrete pavement components, if observed, within the area of the proposed building, should be removed prior to construction. UES should be notified immediately of these conditions.

Although we have identified few potential issues on site due to subsurface conditions, we believe these issues can be managed through proper planning and design.

10.0 DEWATERING AND EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the groundwater level conditions encountered and the depth of excavations required, dewatering will likely be required in some areas for the successful construction of this project, due to shallow estimated perched transient groundwater conditions especially during the rainy seasons. Where excavations will extend only a few feet below the groundwater table, a sump pump may be sufficient to control the groundwater table. Deeper excavations may require well points and/or sock drains to control the groundwater table. Regardless of the method(s) used, we recommend drawing down the water level at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation. The actual method(s) of dewatering should be determined by the contractor. The design and discharge of the dewatering system must be performed in accordance with applicable regulatory criteria (i.e. water management district, etc.) and compliance with such criteria is the sole responsibility of the contractor.

Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As a minimum, temporary excavations below 4-foot depth should be sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. Where lateral confinement will not permit slopes to be laid back, the excavation should be stored in accordance with OSHA requirements. During excavation, excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Provisions for maintaining workman safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor.

11.0 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

Please note that this exploration was preliminary in nature for the proposed residential development, and was designed to help determine the presence of any near surface constraints which would significantly impact the intended development of the subject site, as well as affect the cost of construction. The information obtained from this exploration is not sufficient for final design of foundation systems and building grades.

We strongly recommended that the information obtained from this preliminary exploration be supplemented with a more comprehensive subsurface exploration once the site plan have been finalized. Deeper soil borings are also required if you wish to evaluate the presence of deeper deposits of unsuitable soils on site. The foundations for the townhome building grades and the pavement grades should be designed based on the information obtained from a comprehensive geotechnical exploration program.

This report has not been prepared to meet the full needs of design professionals, contractors, or any other parties. Any use of this report without the guidance of the geotechnical engineer who prepared it constitutes improper usage which could lead to erroneous assumptions, faulty conclusions, and other problems.

12.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The City of Leesburg, FL and other designated members of their design/construction team associated with the proposed construction for the specific project discussed in this report. No other site or project facilities should be designed using the soil information contained in this report. As such, UES will not be responsible for the performance of any other site improvement designed using the data in this report.

This report should not be relied upon for design recommendations or professional opinions by unauthorized third parties without the expressed written consent of Universal Engineering Sciences. Unauthorized third parties that rely upon the information contained herein without the expressed written consent of Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. assume all risk and liability for such reliance.

The information presented within this limited report is based on data obtained from a limited number of soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the boring locations, below the termination depth or within unexplored areas of the site.

This exploration was intended to help determine the presence of any near surface constraints which would significantly impact the intended development of the subject site. In order to formulate final foundation design parameters for the individual residences, design level explorations will need to be performed.

This report has not been prepared to meet the full needs of design professionals, contractors, or any other parties. Any use of this report without the guidance of the geotechnical engineer who prepared it constitutes improper usage which could lead to erroneous assumptions, faulty conclusions, and other problems.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service as your geotechnical consultant on this phase of the project and look forward to providing follow up explorations and geotechnical engineering analyses as the project progresses through the design phase. If you have any questions concerning this report or when we may be of any further service, please contact us.

A further description of the scope and limitations of this report please review the document attached within Appendix C "Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report" prepared by the Geotechnical Business Council (GBC). We also present documents in Appendix C titled "Constraints and Restrictions", to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report.

LAKE HARRIS

APPROX. SITE LOCATION

R.K.S.

AS SHOWN

A-1

U.S.G.S. SITE LOCATION MAP

SCALE (FT.)

SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE MAP OF "LEESBURG EAST, FLORIDA".

11 - 30 - 22

0130.2200459.0000

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

250 BALL PARK ROAD

LEESBURG, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

VENETIAN COVE MARINA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

D.A.S. 12 - 1 - 22

1991282

AutoCAD SHX Text

UNIVERSAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT NO:

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

REPORT NO:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

PAGE NO:

LAKE HARRIS

B-02

B-03

B-04

B-01

B

A

L

P

A

R

K

R

O

A

D

R.K.S.

AS SHOWN

B-1

SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN

SCALE (FT.)

APPROX. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

LEGEND

BORINGS PERFORMED 11/18/22

BORING LOCATION (SPT)

THIS DRAWING CREATED USING PLAN PROVIDED BY CLIENT.

11 - 30 - 22

0130.2200459.0000

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

250 BALL PARK ROAD

LEESBURG, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

VENETIAN COVE MARINA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

D.A.S. 12 - 1 - 22

1991282

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT NO:

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

REPORT NO:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

PAGE NO:

AutoCAD SHX Text

UNIVERSAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

3-5-5-6

2-2-3-3

2-3-3-4

4-4-4

3-5-2

4" CONCRETE

Black MUCK with roots [OL]

Black PEAT with roots [PT]

Loose light gray fine SAND [SP]

Firm black PEAT [PT]

Loose gray & dark brown silty fine SAND [SM]

-- dark brown

BORING TERMINATED AT 20.0 FT.

11/18/22

ALLSTATE

ASTM D 1586

CLIENT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

WATER TABLE (ft):

DATE OF READING:

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHGWT = SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE, N.S. = NOT

SURVEYED, HAND AUGERED TO 4 FT.

N.S.

1.0

11/18/22

0.0

11/18/22

EST. SHGWT (ft):

CITY OF LEESBURG, FL

(FT/

DAY)

250 BALL PARK ROAD, LEESBURG, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

W -1

.G P

J

W.T.

S Y M B O L

DESCRIPTION

-200

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

B-2.1

0130.2200459.0000

MC

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL PI

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

VENETIAN COVE MARINA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT: SHEET:

SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

DEPTH

K

(FT.)

S A M P L E

BLOWS

B-01

INCREMENT

BORING LOG

PER 6"

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

1991282

BORING I.D.:

N

BLOWS

/ FT

ORG.

CONT.

8-10-10-6

5-8-5-4

4-8-6-5

2-2-3-3

3-4-4-3

7-10-17

8-12-15

Medium dense orange & brown silty fine SAND

[SM]

Medium dense light gray fine SAND [SP]

Stiff light gray & dark brown MUCK [OL]

Loose light gray fine SAND [SP]

Loose light gray & dark brown organic SAND

[SP-OL]

Medium dense gray & brown fine SAND [SP]

Medium dense gray & dark brown silty fine SAND

[SM]

BORING TERMINATED AT 20.0 FT.

11/18/22

ALLSTATE

ASTM D 1586

CLIENT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

WATER TABLE (ft):

DATE OF READING:

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHGWT = SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE, N.S. = NOT

SURVEYED, SHGWT REPRESENTS A PERCHED CONDITION

N.S.

2.0

11/18/22

0.0

11/18/22

EST. SHGWT (ft):

CITY OF LEESBURG, FL

(FT/

DAY)

250 BALL PARK ROAD, LEESBURG, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

W -1

.G P

J

W.T.

S Y M B O L

DESCRIPTION

-200

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

B-2.2

0130.2200459.0000

MC

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL PI

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

VENETIAN COVE MARINA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT: SHEET:

SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

DEPTH

K

(FT.)

S A M P L E

BLOWS

B-02

INCREMENT

BORING LOG

PER 6"

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

1991282

BORING I.D.:

N

BLOWS

/ FT

ORG.

3-2-2-2

3-5-14-15

4-5-4-3

10-17-15

4-5-5

6" CONCRETE

Light gray fine SAND [SP]

Black organic fine SAND with roots [SP-OL]

-- very loose

-- medium dense

Loose dark gray fine SAND [SP]

-- dense, light gray

Loose light gray silty fine SAND [SM]

BORING TERMINATED AT 20.0 FT.

11/18/22

ALLSTATE

ASTM D 1586

CLIENT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

WATER TABLE (ft):

DATE OF READING:

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHGWT = SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE, N.S. = NOT

SURVEYED, HAND AUGERED TO 4 FT.

N.S.

2.0

11/18/22

1.0

11/18/22

EST. SHGWT (ft):

CITY OF LEESBURG, FL

(FT/

DAY)

250 BALL PARK ROAD, LEESBURG, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

W -1

.G P

J

W.T.

S Y M B O L

DESCRIPTION

-200

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

B-2.3

0130.2200459.0000

MC

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL PI

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

VENETIAN COVE MARINA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT: SHEET:

SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

DEPTH

K

(FT.)

S A M P L E

BLOWS

B-03

INCREMENT

BORING LOG

PER 6"

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

1991282

BORING I.D.:

N

BLOWS

/ FT

ORG.

2-2-1-2

2-3-2-3

2-2-2-2

3-2-2-3

3-3-4-4

6-8-14

6-10-15

Very loose gray & dark brown organic fine SAND with roots [SP-OL]

Firm black PEAT [PT]

-- soft

Loose gray fine SAND [SP]

Medium dense light gray silty clayey fine SAND

[SC-SM]

BORING TERMINATED AT 20.0 FT.

11/18/22

ALLSTATE

ASTM D 1586

CLIENT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

WATER TABLE (ft):

DATE OF READING:

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHGWT = SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE, N.S. = NOT

SURVEYED

N.S.

1.0

11/18/22

0.0

11/18/22

EST. SHGWT (ft):

CITY OF LEESBURG, FL

(FT/

DAY)

250 BALL PARK ROAD, LEESBURG, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

W -1

.G P

J

W.T.

S Y M B O L

DESCRIPTION

-200

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

B-2.4

0130.2200459.0000

MC

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL PI

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

VENETIAN COVE MARINA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT: SHEET:

SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

DEPTH

K

(FT.)

S A M P L E

BLOWS

B-04

INCREMENT

BORING LOG

PER 6"

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

1991282

BORING I.D.:

N

BLOWS

/ FT

ORG.

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

UNIVERSAL KEY TO BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS

GROUP

SYMBOLS

TYPICAL NAMES

GW

Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

CLEAN

GRAVELS

GP

Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM

Silty gravels and gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GRAVELS

50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

GRAVELS

WITH FINES

GC

Clayey gravels and gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW**

Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

CLEAN

SANDS

5% or less passing No.

200 sieve SP**

Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM** Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

C O

A R

S E

G R

A

IN

E D

S O

IL

S

M o re t h a n r e ta in e d o n t h e N o s ie v e

SANDS

More than

50% of coarse fraction passes No.

4 sieve

SANDS with 12% or more passing No.

200 sieve SC**

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

ML

Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands

CL

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays

SILTS AND CLAYS

Liquid limit 50% or less

OL

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

MH

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diamicaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts

CH

Inorganic clays or clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity

F

IN

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

IO

S o r m o re p a s s e s t h e

N o s ie v e

SILTS AND CLAYS

Liquid limit greater than 50%

PT

Peat, muck and other highly organic soils

*Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75 mm) sieve ** Use dual symbol (such as SP-SM and SP-SC) for soils with more than 5% but less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve

RELATIVE DENSITY

(Sands and Gravels)

Very loose – Less than 4 Blow/Foot Loose – 4 to 10 Blows/Foot

Medium Dense – 11 to 30 Blows/Foot Dense – 31 to 50 Blows/Foot

Very Dense – More than 50 Blows/Foot

CONSISTENCY

(Silts and Clays)

Very Soft – Less than 2 Blows/Foot Soft – 2 to 4 Blows/Foot Firm – 5 to 8 Blows/Foot Stiff – 9 to 15 Blows/Foot

Very Stiff – 16 to 30 Blows/Foot Hard – More than 30 Blows/Foot

RELATIVE HARDNESS

(Limestone) Soft – 100 Blows for more than 2 Inches Hard – 100 Blows for less than 2 Inches

MODIFIERS

These modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Minor

Constituents (Silt or Clay Size Particles) in the Soil Sample Trace – 5% or less

With Silt or With Clay – 6% to 11% Silty or Clayey – 12% to 30%

Very Silty or Very Clayey – 31% to 50%

These Modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Organic

Components in the Soil Sample Trace – Less than 3%

Few – 3% to 4% Some – 5% to 8%

Many – Greater than 8%

These Modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Other

Components (Shell, Gravel, Etc.) in the Soil Sample Trace – 5% or less Few – 6% to 12%

Some – 13% to 30% Many – 31% to 50%

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

N-Value No. of Blows of a 140-lb. Weight Falling 30 Inches Required to Drive a Standard Spoon 1 Foot

WOR Weight of Drill Rods

WOH Weight of Drill Rods and Hammer

Sample from Auger Cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Sample

Thin-wall Shelby Tube Sample (Undisturbed Sampler Used)

RQD Rock Quality Designation

Stabilized Groundwater Level

Seasonal High Groundwater Level (also referred to as the W.S.W.T.)

NE Not Encountered

GNE Groundwater Not Encountered

BT Boring Terminated

-200 (%) Fines Content or % Passing No. 200 Sieve

MC (%) Moisture Content

LL Liquid Limit (Atterberg Limits Test)

PI Plasticity Index (Atterberg Limits Test)

NP Non-Plastic (Atterberg Limits Test)

K Coefficient of Permeability

Org. Cont. Organic Content

G.S. Elevation Ground Surface Elevation

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;

man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration…