Addendum_2_for_IFB_26-011-LK_.pdf

DATE: March 10, 2026 TO: All Interested Bidders and Other Interested Parties FROM: Hosea Goodwyn, Procurement Manager

The City makes the following changes, additions, deletions, information, and/or clarifications and now considers the addendum a part of the 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 Procurement 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. Page 24, Section 3.10.1 TIME OF CONTRACT states the time given to complete this project is within/by 180 calendar days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed. Please confirm that the 180 days is reserved for reaching the Substantial Completion milestone. Further, please clarify if there is a Final Completion milestone, beyond Substantial Completion, reserved for punch list and submission of closeout documentation, and what that duration is between Substantial and Final Completion milestones.

A1. Section 3.10.1 should read, “The time given to complete this project is within/by 273 calendar days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed. Failures upon the part of the Bidder to whom the contract has been awarded to complete the contract within/by 273 calendar days after receiving the notice to proceed will be assessed liquidation damages in the amount of $1685 per day.”

Final Completion no later THIRTY (30) days after the recorded substantial completion date, subject only to any adjustments in the contract time that may be authorized by change orders properly issued in accordance with the Agreement Documents.

Q2. The drawings and specifications do not clearly indicate whether the new fencing is to match the existing fence on site. Please confirm if the new fence is to match the existing in material, height, and finish, or if a different specification is intended. Additionally, please clarify the required gate types and configurations, including: • Quantity and locations • Vehicle vs.

pedestrian gates • Gate width(s) • Swing, slide, or cantilever type • Manual or motorized operation • Any required access control or hardware.

A2. Gate types and configurations are as follows: 2 manually operating rolling vehicle gates. For

IFB 26-011-LK

Leesburg Gas Department Building Improvement Project

Addendum No. 2 location refer to site plan. Installation of motorized operating system will be installed by owner at a later time.

Q3. Please confirm Pre-Bid Meeting time. 9:00 AM as shown in procurement site or 10:00 AM as shown in the solicitation documents?

A3. Meeting will be held at 9:00 A.M. See Addendum No. 1.

Q4. Please confirm whether AWI Quality Certification Program (QCP) certification is required for the millwork scope, or if compliance with AWI/AWS standards without QCP certification is acceptable.

A4. All millwork in scope be compliant with AWI/AWS standards but do not require the need for QCP certificates.

Q5. Spec 09 21 16 lists Abuse Resistant Wall Board. Please indicate location and height.

A5. Disregard spec 09 21 16, as we are not using and abuse resistant wall boards in these projects.

Q6. Please provide specification booklet for the project.

A6. Specifications for this project are included in sheets A-001 through A-010 of the Main Office Building set and in the Pole Barn Warehouse set.

Q7. Please indicate duration to substantial completion from notice to proceed and duration to final completion.

A7. Please see question 2.

Q8. The drawings reference quartz countertops; however, no color, manufacturer, or finish is identified. Please provide the required color, approved manufacturer, and surface finish for the quartz countertops.

A8. Cambria Quartz – Warwick - Classic Series.

Q9. Please indicate Work Hours for contractors.

A9. Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM (dawn to dusk). Weekend permitted with prior authorization.

Q10. Please provide the geotechnical report.

A10. Please see attached in this email the geotechnical report.

Q11. Are both drawings to be permitted separately?

A11. Yes, both drawings will be permitted separately.

Q12. Please provide a budget amount to be carried by all bidders for the permitting fees to be equal across the bidders.

A12. For the Main Office Building it will be $10,900.00 and for the Pole Barn/Warehouse it will be $12,600.00.

Q13. In the ITB the address is listed as 2110 Griffin Road and the Drawings for the Pole Barn and Warehouse states 2120 Griffin Road. Please verify.

A13. Refer to drawings. Yes, that is correct.

Q14. Please indicate requirements for landscaping at disturbed areas. Is there a quantity of sod replacement or seed required?

A14. This is not within the scope of work for this project.

Q15. Please indicate specifications such as, manufacturer, type, foundation, base, spacing, gate type and dimensions.

A15. Omega Fence Systems, Omega Classic. Gate to match fencing 24 feet minimum wide by six feet height. Finish to be black powder coated.

Q16. Please indicate location of temporary fencing per spec.

A16. Per contractor means and methods.

Q17. Please indicate location for contractor parking.

A17. Contractors can park anywhere they like on the property of the main office building.

Q18. Please provide specification and details of Letter signage such as, manufacturers and thickness of sign.

A18. This is not within the scope of work for this project.

Q19. Please confirm the owner provided Gas Lamps will be installed by contractor.

A19. Disregard call for relocating existing gas lamps. Owner furnished, contractor installed gas powered lamps to be provided by owner.

A20. Could you provide a cut sheet and verify that all attachments are included for the installation?

A20. Not applicable, owner to provide new gas lamps.

Q21. Is the handrail to be wood stained?

A21. Not applicable. No wood rails are called for this project.

Q22. What is the gauge of the guardrail?

A22. To be determined in shop drawing process.

Q23. Is the guardrail powder coated or prefinished to be painted?

A23. Guardrail is to be powder coated.

Q24. Please confirm if wood decking is required at the Main Office.

A24. Please provide further clarification. Which wood decking is bidder referring to.

Q25. Are bollards required at openings of Overhead Doors on the Exterior and Perimeter? If so, please indicate quantity and locations.

A25. No, bollards are not required.

Q26. Please indicate where glass film is needed and dimensions.

A26. Please provide further clarification, glass film was not called for.

Q27. Are window coverings required? Please identify type, location, and size.

A27. This is not within the scope of work for this project.

The following documents are hereby made part of the solicitation.

1. Geotechnical Engineering Report.

2. City of Leesburg Gas Operations Main Office and Pole Barn Change Sheets

a. Page 1-2, Gas Operations Main Office Architectural Change Sheet

b. Page 3-5, Gas Operations Main Office Plumbing Change Sheet

c. Page 6, Gas Operations Main Office Change Sheet

d. Page 7-9, Pole Barn Electrical Change Sheet

e. Page 10, Pole Barn Architectural Change Sheet

ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Addendum No. 2

Company Name

Signature of Officer

Type/Print Officer's Name & Title

Report Cover Page

Leesburg GAS OPS

Building Expansion Geotechnical Engineering Report

July 17, 2025 | Terracon Project No. H1255169

Prepared for:

Forefront Architecture and

Engineering

1230 Oakley Seaver Drive, Unit

Clermont, Florida 34711

1675 Lee Road

Winter Park, FL 32789

P (407) 740-6110

Terracon.com

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Report Cover Letter to Sign

July 17, 2025

Forefront Architecture and Engineering

1230 Oakley Seaver Drive, Unit 100

Clermont, Florida 34711

Attn: Mr. Lennard Davis, RA

E: lennardd@ff-ae.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Leesburg GAS OPS Building Expansion

2116 Griffin Road

Leesburg, Lake County, Florida

Terracon Project No. H1255169

Dear Mr. Davis:

We have completed the scope of Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PH1255169 authorized on May 30, 2025. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundation and floor slabs for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Certificate of Authorization Number 8830

Dishant Shah, M.S. Shenna McMaster, P.E.

Senior Staff Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Florida PE #57537

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by Shenna McMaster, P.E. on the date adjacent to the seal. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

Leesburg GAS OPS Building Expansion | Leesburg, Lake County, Florida

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i

Table of Contents

Report Summary .............................................................................................. i Introduction Project Description Site Conditions

Regional Geology Soils Survey

Geotechnical Characterization Groundwater Conditions

Geologic Hazards General Potential for Sinkhole Development

Seismic Site Considerations Geotechnical Overview Earthwork

Demolition Surficial Water Control Considerations Site and Subgrade Preparation Excavation Fill Material Types Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements Utility Trench Backfill Grading and Drainage Earthwork Construction Considerations Construction Observation and Testing

Shallow Foundations Design Parameters – Compressive Loads Construction Adjacent to Existing Building Foundation Construction Considerations

Floor Slabs Floor Slab Design Parameters Floor Slab Construction Considerations

General Comments

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii

Figures GeoModel

Attachments

Exploration and Testing Procedures Site Location and Exploration Plans

Exploration and Laboratory Results

Supporting Information

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Blue Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

http://client.terracon.com/ http://client.terracon.com/

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i

Report Summary

Topic 1 Overview Statement 2

Project

Description

The project consists of the expansion of an existing Leesburg gas office building along with demolishing the existing building within the western portion and replacing it with a new pole barn warehouse structure. Less than 1 foot of grading/leveling fill is anticipated.

Minor excavation other than foundation construction and utility installation.

Geotechnical

Characterization

Borings generally encountered loose to medium dense fine sand followed by fine sand with varying amounts of silt and clay within the explored depth of borings. In addition, very loose lenses of soil columns were also encountered within the upper 10 feet as well as at depths ranging from 28.5 to 38.5 feet below grade in borings.

Free groundwater was not observed within the upper 10 feet of any borings at the time of our exploration (June 2025). Seasonal high groundwater table in borings B-3 and B-4 are anticipated to be equal to or greater than 10 feet below existing grades. However, due to hydraulically restrictive soil layers observed in the remaining borings B-1 and B-2 at relatively shallow depths within the upper

10 feet, groundwater is anticipated to perch approximately ½ to 1 foot above the hydraulically restrictive layer.

Earthwork

Traditional earthwork activities such as proof-rolling and placement of compacted engineered fill are anticipated. Surface water control may be required in some areas, especially if the construction proceeds during the wet season.

Shallow

Foundations

Shallow foundations are recommended for building support.

Allowable bearing pressure = 2,000 psf

Expected settlements: about 1½ inches total, less than ¾ inch differential after compaction to 24 inches below foundation bearing.

Please note that once the site plan is developed and structural loading information is provided for the proposed building additions, we can reevaluate the allowable bearing pressure and settlement calculations, based on the latest values provided.

In addition, a very loose zone including WH (weight of hammer being sufficient to advance the sampling spoon without hammer

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii

Topic 1 Overview Statement 2 blows) was observed in boring B-4 at depths ranging approximately from 8 to 13.5 feet below grade. As such, we recommend further exploration including additional soil borings and/or cone soundings in the vicinity of boring B-4 to better delineate and evaluate the very loose soil conditions at Boring B-4 relative to the zone of influence of building foundation loads.

General

Comments This section contains important information about the limitations of this geotechnical engineering report.

1. If the reader is reviewing this report as a pdf, the topics above can be used to access the appropriate section of the report by simply clicking on the topic itself.

2. This summary is for convenience only. It should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 1

Introduction

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and Geotechnical

Engineering services performed for the proposed building addition to the existing GAS OPS office facility located at 2116 Griffin Road in Leesburg, Lake County, Florida. The purpose of these services was to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions

■ Groundwater conditions

■ Demolition considerations

■ Surficial water control considerations

■ Site preparation and earthwork

■ Foundation design and construction

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of 4 test borings (B-1 through B-4) to depths ranging approximately from 25 to 40 feet below grades, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and preparation of this report.

Please note that borings B-1 and B-2 were terminated at relatively deeper depths

(approximately 30 and 40 feet below grade) than the previously anticipated typical termination depth to penetrate through the loose soil zones observed near the termination depths of borings.

Drawings showing the site and boring locations are shown on the Site Location and

Exploration Plan. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during our field exploration are included on the boring logs in the

Exploration Results section.

Project Description

Our understanding of the project conditions is as follows. Items highlighted are assumed and should be verified by the design team

Item Description

Information

Provided

An undated aerial image indicating boundaries of the proposed expansion areas along with the physical address of the subject property to be explored was provided at the time of the proposal preparation.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 2

Item Description

Project

Description

Please note that the site development plan associated with the proposed additions was not provided to us at this time.

Based on the information provided in the aerial image, we understand that the project will consist of the expansion of an existing Leesburg gas office building along with demolishing the existing building within the western portion and replacing it with a new pole barn warehouse structure.

Proposed

Structure

Structures associated with the project includes a two-story addition to the northeast of the existing Leesburg gas office building (building addition will be approximately 3,500 square feet in size) along with demolishing the existing building within the western portion and replacing it with a new one-story pole barn warehouse structure (approximately 3,000 square feet in size). The buildings will be slab-on-grade (non-basement).

Building

Construction

Not provided; we anticipate that the proposed building will be constructed using load-bearing masonry walls or wood frame with concrete slab-on-grade construction techniques.

Finished Floor

Elevation

Not given. We anticipate that the finished finish floor elevations of the building additions are expected to be similar to the existing structures.

Maximum Loads

In the absence of information provided by the design team, we assume the following loads in estimating settlement based on our experience with similar projects.

■ Columns (gravity): 100 kips

■ Walls (gravity): 10 kips per linear foot (klf)

■ Slabs: 150 pounds per square foot (psf)

Grading/Slopes Less than 1 foot of grading/leveling fill is anticipated to develop final grade, excluding remedial grading requirements.

Free-Standing

Retaining Walls

Retaining walls are not expected to be constructed as part of site development to achieve final grades.

Below-Grade

Structures None.

Pavements No new pavement is planned as part of this project.

Stormwater

Management

The provided image does not depict any on-site stormwater management feature. As such we anticipate no new on-site stormwater management will be required.

Building Code Florida Building Code (effective December 31, 2023).

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 3

Terracon should be notified if any of the above information is inconsistent with the planned construction, especially the grading limits, as modifications to our recommendations may be necessary.

Site Conditions

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps .

Item Description

Parcel

Information

The project is located at 2116 Griffin Road in Leesburg, Lake

County, Florida 34748. The property consists of two Lake County

Tax parcels with Parcel ID numbers identified as 15-19-24-0003-

000-03202 and 15-19-24-0003-000-03203, respectively. The overall site includes about 2.4 +/- acres of total land area. The approximate center of the site is located at latitude 28.828976°

N longitude 81.897137° W.

See Site Location.

Existing

Improvements

Based on recent and historical aerial images, we understand that the subject site is currently occupied by an existing Leesburg GAS

OPS facility and warehouse structure along with the associated paved parking areas, driveway lanes, and landscapes built around

1980’s. As such, we anticipate some fill might have been previously placed within the property limits and possible buried utilities may be present.

Current Ground

Cover

Asphalt pavement, grass cover, and few scattered trees within the property limits.

Existing

Topography

(USGS Topo Map and Google Earth)

Nearly level, based on street level photography.

The publicly available topographic information from USGS topographic quadrangle map along with Google Earth depicts ground surface elevations across the site ranging approximately from +75 to +80 feet-datum referencing the National Geodetic

Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). However, please note that ground surface elevations may have been altered during construction of the existing facility.

Regional Geology

According to the Lithostratigraphy of the Hawthorn Group (Miocene) of Florida, Florida

Geological Survey Bulletin No. 59 (Scott, 1988), the lithology of the site vicinity generally consists of post-Hawthorn undifferentiated sediments, possibly underlain by the Hawthorn

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 4

Group Undifferentiated, underlain by Ocala Group limestone (Eocene). As interpreted from

Figure 16 of FGS Bulletin 59, the Hawthorn Group Undifferentiated pinches out in the project vicinity. The top of the Hawthorn Group Undifferentiated, if present, is at about 30 feet below mean sea level (MSL; post-Hawthorn thickness of about 95 to 100 feet) and the top of the Ocala Group limestone is at about 120 feet below MSL (Hawthorn Group

Undifferentiated thickness of about 90 feet). Ground Water in Lake County, Florida, United

States Geological Survey Map Series No. 44 (Knochenmus, 1971) describes the post-

Hawthorn undifferentiated sediments that mantle Lake County as about 5 to 10 feet of fine sand, underlain by clayey sand. Map Series No. 44 describes the upper portion of the

Hawthorn Group as sandy to silty clay and the lower portion of the Hawthorn Group as limestone that is hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. Map Series No. 44 describes the Ocala Group limestone as cream to white, containing no quartz sand.

Soils Survey

The Soil Survey of Lake County, Florida as prepared by the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS; later renamed the Natural Resource

Conservation Service - NRCS), dated April 1975, identifies the predevelopment soil type at the subject site as Candler sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (8). A Soils Map is included with this GeoReport, depicting the applicable Soil Survey map portion for the subject site. Please note that the soil type on the site may have been modified since previous mass grading operations performed across the site.

8 – Candler fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes. This soil type is nearly level to gently sloping and excessively drained. It is typically found on the uplands. In its natural state, during years of normal rainfall, this soil type has a seasonal high groundwater table at a depth of greater than

80 inches (6.7 feet). Candler fine sand is predominantly sandy throughout the defined profile of

80 inches (6.7 feet).

Geotechnical Characterization

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of the site. Conditions observed at each exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in the Exploration Results and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures attachment of this report.

As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 5

Model

Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Free draining Sand (SP); very loose to medium dense

Slightly restrictive

Sand with silt (SP-SM); very loose to medium dense

Hydraulically restrictive

Silty sand (SM), Clayey sand (SC), and Silty

Clayey sand (SC-SM); very loose to medium dense

Borings B-1 through B-4 were performed as SPT borings and terminated at depths ranging approximately from depth of 25 to 40 feet below existing grades. Borings generally encountered loose to medium dense fine sand (GeoModel Layers 1) followed by fine sand with varying amounts of silt and clay (GeoModel Layers 2 and 3) within the explored depth of borings. In addition, very loose lenses of soil columns were also encountered within the upper 10 feet as well as at depths ranging from 28.5 to 38.5 feet below grade in borings.

Groundwater Conditions

The borings were observed during drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. Free groundwater was not identified in the upper 10 feet of any of the borings at the time of field exploration (June 2025). Bentonite drilling slurry (aka drillers’ mud) was added to all borings at a depth of 10 feet to permit deeper drilling, which does not allow accurate measurement of groundwater levels below a depth of 10 feet. Longer term monitoring in cased holes or piezometers would be required to better define groundwater conditions at the site.

It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the boring was performed. In addition, perched water can develop within higher permeability soils overlying less permeable soils. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs.

We estimate that during the normal wet season with rainfall and recharge at a maximum, groundwater level in borings B-3 and B-4 is anticipated to be 10 feet or more below existing grades. However, due to hydraulically restrictive silty sand and silty clayey sand layers (SM and SC-SM) observed in the remaining borings B-1 and B-2 at relatively shallower depths within the upper 10 feet, groundwater is anticipated to perch approximately ½ to 1 foot above the hydraulically restrictive layer. Therefore, the perched transient groundwater levels at borings B-1 and B-2 are anticipated to be at depths approximately ranging from 3 to 7 feet below existing grades.

Our estimates of the seasonal groundwater conditions are based on the USDA Soil Survey, the encountered soil types, antecedent weather conditions, and the interpreted water

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 6 levels. The water levels observed in the borings can be found on the boring logs in Exploration

Results and are summarized below along with the estimated normal seasonal high groundwater table.

Boring Number

Approximate Depth to

Encountered Water Table

(feet) 1,3

Approximate Depth to

Estimated Seasonal High

Water Table

(feet)

B-1

NE 7

B-2

NE 3

B-3 NE >10

B-4 NE >10

1. Below existing ground surface.

2. Anticipated perched transient groundwater level due to observed shallow hydraulically restrictive soil layers.

3. NE – Not Encountered within the upper 10 feet of borings

These seasonal water table estimates do not represent the temporary rise in water table that occurs immediately following a storm event, including adjacent to other stormwater management facilities. This is different from static groundwater levels in wet ponds and/or drainage canals which can affect the design water levels of new, nearby ponds. The seasonal high groundwater table may vary from normal when affected by extreme weather changes, localized or regional flooding, karst activity, future grading, drainage improvements, or other construction that may occur on or around the site following the date of this report.

Geologic Hazards

The risk of sinkhole development is the primary geologic hazard of concern throughout most of Florida.

General Potential for Sinkhole Development

Sinkhole development occurs in Florida and varies geographically from areas with almost no potential or very low potential to areas with a high potential where sinkholes occur frequently. The subject property is located on the border of Area I and Area III, about 3 miles southwest of Area IV as mapped by the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) web site.

Area I typically has bare or thinly covered limestone (30 feet or less cover). The cover

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 7

(over limestone bedrock) in Area III is between 30 to 200 feet thick and is generally cohesive clayey sediments of low permeability. The cover (over limestone bedrock) in Area

IV is greater than 200 feet thick and is generally cohesive sediments interlayered with discontinuous carbonate beds. Sinkholes are generally few in number in Area I and are generally shallow and broad and develop gradually. Sinkholes are most numerous, of varying size, and develop abruptly in Area III. Sinkholes are very few, but several large diameter, deep sinkholes occur in Area IV. The risk of sinkhole occurrence at most sites is small even in areas known to have a higher than average risk of sinkhole occurrence.

A review of Florida Geologic Survey’s on-line Subsidence Incident Reports (SIRs) database reveals about nine (9) reported sinkholes within one mile of the subject site. The closest reported sinkhole was located about 0.4 mile south of the subject site along Tuskegee St.

It should be noted that the number of sinkholes is based on information reported to the

FGS and does not necessarily reflect the number of sinkholes confirmed by public or private industry.

During our limited evaluation, we did not encounter traditional signs associated with potential sinkhole development such as loss of circulation of drilling fluid, obvious raveled zones, surface depressions, etc. However, this evaluation was not planned to specifically address sinkhole potential.

If the sinkhole potential of the site is to be evaluated in detail, additional site-specific data must be obtained. This might include using geophysical methods such as Electrical

Resistivity tests and additional geotechnical tests such as Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings and/or more/deeper Standard Penetration Test borings. Interpretation of the test data should be done by a professional geologist/engineer familiar with the use of these tests under local conditions. However, it should be noted that even if indicators of sinkhole activity are found, it is impossible to predict if, when or precisely where a sinkhole may occur. If requested, Terracon can assist in assessing the sinkhole potential of the location of the proposed construction.

Seismic Site Considerations

Chapter 1, Part 101.2, Exception 2 of the 2023 Florida Building Code (effective December

31, 2023) states: “Code requirements that address snow loads and earthquake protection shall not be utilized or enforced.” Therefore, this report does not further address seismic considerations.

Seismic considerations will seldom control the structural design of buildings in Central

Florida (as compared to wind loading conditions). If seismic considerations control the structural design, we can provide a proposal to perform additional services to measure shear wave velocity such as MASW (multichannel analysis of surface waves), ReMi testing

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 8

(refraction microtremor), seismic cone penetrometer (SCPT) testing to see if the site classification improves.

Geotechnical Overview

The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings, provided that the recommendations provided in this report are implemented in the design and construction phases of this project.

Based on recent and historical aerial images, we understand that the subject site is currently occupied by an existing Leesburg GAS OPS facility and warehouse structure along with the associated paved parking areas, driveway lanes, and landscapes built around 1980’s. Therefore, we anticipate that the site may have been graded within the property limits during previous construction.

Borings generally encountered loose to medium dense fine sand followed by fine sand with varying amounts of silt and clay within the explored depth of borings. In addition, very loose lenses of soil columns were also encountered within the upper 10 feet as well as at depths ranging from 28.5 to 38.5 feet below grade in borings.

Groundwater was not encountered within the upper 10 feet of any borings during the field exploration (June 2025). Seasonal high groundwater table in borings B-3 and B-4 are anticipated to be equal to or greater than 10 feet below existing grades. However, due to hydraulically restrictive soil layers observed in the remaining borings B-1 and B-2 at relatively shallow depths within the upper 10 feet, groundwater is anticipated to perch approximately ½ to 1 foot above the hydraulically restrictive layer.

Normal site preparation is anticipated for the proposed development. Site grading design and utility construction should consider the anticipated perched transient groundwater conditions.

Based on the conditions encountered and estimated load-settlement relationships, the proposed structure can be supported on conventional shallow foundation, depending upon the project requirements. However, we recommend against irrigation adjacent to the structure. In addition, a very loose zone including WH (weight of hammer being sufficient to advance the sampling spoon without hammer blows) was observed in boring B-4 at depths ranging approximately from 8 to 13.5 feet below grade. As such, we recommend further exploration including additional soil borings near vicinity of boring B-4 to understand subsurface conditions within the zone of influence of building foundation and evaluating any site sinkhole potential.

Grading for the proposed foundations should incorporate the limits of the foundations plus a lateral distance of 5 feet beyond the outside edge of footings, where space is available.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 9

On-site sandy soil (GeoModel Layer 1) is considered suitable to be used as engineered fill materials other the hydraulically restrictive soils.

The Shallow Foundations section addresses support of the building bearing on native very to loose sand or engineered fill. We recommend compaction of the foundation bearing soils to a typical depth of 24 inches below the foundation bearing elevation. The Floor slabs section addresses slab-on-grade support of the building.

The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (presented in the Exploration Results), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

Earthwork

Earthwork is anticipated to include removal of existing subsurface utilities and/or pavement components, site clearing and grubbing, stripping, excavations, and engineered fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Extreme caution is recommended during earthwork and other construction activities to ensure the existing structure is protected. Vibration and/or settlement monitoring at the existing building location should be considered during earthwork and construction of the building addition. Recommendations include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to bring the site to the condition considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations and floor slabs.

Demolition

The proposed building addition will be constructed just northeast of the existing office building along with demolishing another existing building within the western portion and replacing it with a new pole barn warehouse structure. We recommend existing foundations, slabs, and utilities be removed from within the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond the outer edge of foundations.

Surficial Water Control Considerations

Surficial water control may be necessary in some areas due to relatively shallow estimated perched transient groundwater conditions, especially when the construction proceeds during the wet season.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 10

Site and Subgrade Preparation

Existing structure, pavement components, topsoil, root, and/or underground utilities that may be located within the proposed construction areas should be relocated or removed prior excavation or placing fill. Complete stripping of the topsoil should be performed in the proposed building areas.

The building subgrade area should be compacted as recommended in this report. Vibratory compaction adjacent to the existing building should be avoided. The compaction effort should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. Areas excessively deflected under the compaction process should be delineated and subsequently addressed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Excessively wet or dry material should either be removed or moisture conditioned and recompacted.

All exposed areas which will receive fill, once properly cleared, should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted per the requirements in this report. Compacted structural fill soils should then be placed to the proposed design grade and the moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until foundation construction.

Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration, subgrade soils exposed during construction are anticipated to be relatively workable;

however, the workability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unworkable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying.

Excavation

We anticipate that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. The bottom of excavations should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soils and disturbed materials prior to backfill placement and/or construction. Care should be taken during excavation adjacent to existing foundations to avoid disturbing existing foundation bearing soils. If excavations below the bearing level of foundations of the existing building are required, shoring, permeation grouting, or other method of soil stabilization is recommended to minimum disturbance of existing footing bearing soils. The Contractor will be advised to manage his site in relation to the estimated perched transient groundwater conditions.

Fill Material Types

Fill required to achieve design grade should be classified as structural fill. Structural fill is material used below, or within 10 feet of structures. Earthen materials used for structural fill should meet the following material property requirements.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 11

Soil Quality 1

USCS

Classification

Acceptable Location for

Placement

Maximum

Lift

Thickness

(inches)

Free draining

(corresponds to GeoModel

Layer 1)

SP

(fines content

< 5%)

All locations and elevations. 12 3

Slightly restrictive

(corresponds to GeoModel

Layer 2)

SP-SM

(fines content between 5 and

12 %)

All locations and elevations other than beneath floor slabs, or other areas where superior drainage is required.

Strict moisture control will be required during placement, particularly during the rainy season.

8 to 12 3

Hydraulically restrictive

(corresponds to GeoModel

Layer 2)

SM, SC, and

SM-SC

(fines content between 12 and 50 %)

Limited to utility cuts into similar soil, in particular adjacent to the proposed building to prevent a preferred flow path for groundwater to foundation subgrade soils. Should not be placed in upper 2 feet of general fill (non-structural) areas. Strict moisture control will be required during placement.

6 to 8 2,4

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter (less than 5 percent), and debris.

2. If fines contents are greater than 12 percent, special design and construction procedures maybe necessary.

3. Loose thickness when heavy compaction equipment is used in vibratory mode. Lift thickness should be decreased if static compaction is being used, typically to no more than 8 inches, and the required compaction must still be achieved. Use 4 to 6-inches in loose thickness when hand guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is required.

4. Static equipment should be used.

Imported Fill Materials: Imported fill materials should meet the above material property requirements. Regardless of its source, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter, deleterious materials, and debris

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 12

Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements

Structural and general fill should meet the following compaction requirements.

Item 1 Requirement 3

Minimum compaction requirement 1

95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557).

Moisture Content 2

Within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by the modified Proctor test at the time of placement and compaction

Minimum Testing

Frequency

One field density test per 2,500 square feet in building areas.

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be achieved without the cohesionless fill material pumping when proofrolled.

3. All materials to be used as structural fill should be tested in the laboratory to determine their suitability and compaction characteristics.

Utility Trench Backfill

Any loose or unsuitable materials encountered at the bottom of utility trench excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill or bedding material in accordance with public works specifications for the utility be supported. This recommendation is particularly applicable to utility work requiring grade control and/or in areas where subsequent grade raising could cause settlement in the subgrade supporting the utility. Trench excavation should not be conducted below a downward 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V) projection from existing foundations without engineering review of shoring requirements and geotechnical observation during construction.

On-site sandy materials (GeoModel Layer 1 and 2) are considered suitable for backfill of utility and pipe trenches from 1 foot above the top of the pipe to the final ground surface, provided the material is free of organic matter and deleterious substances.

Trench backfill should be mechanically placed and compacted as discussed earlier in this report. Compaction of initial lifts should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 13 other lightweight compactors. Where trenches are placed beneath slabs or footings, the backfill should satisfy the gradation requirements of engineered fill discussed in this report. Flooding or jetting for placement and compaction of backfill is not recommended.

All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction including backfill placement and compaction. Utility trenches are a common source of water infiltration and migration. All utility trenches that penetrate beneath the building should be backfilled with native soils to avoid creating a preferred flow path through the trenches.

Grading and Drainage

All grades must provide effective drainage away from the building during and after construction and should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. Water retained next to the building can result in soil movements greater than those discussed in this report. Greater movements can result in unacceptable differential floor slab and/or foundation movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks. For similar reasons, we recommend that irrigation next to the building be minimized or avoided altogether. The roof should have gutters/drains with downspouts that discharge directly into the stormwater collection systems or onto splash blocks at a distance of at least 10 feet from the building. Site grades should be set considering the estimated seasonal high groundwater level presented in Geotechnical Characterization.

Exposed ground should be sloped and maintained at a minimum 5 percent away from the building for at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the building. Locally, flatter grades may be necessary to transition ADA access requirements for flatwork. After building construction and landscaping have been completed, final grades should be verified to document effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the structure should also be periodically inspected and adjusted, as necessary, as part of the structure’s maintenance program. Where paving or flatwork abuts the structure, a maintenance program should be established to effectively seal and maintain joints and prevent surface water infiltration.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Shallow excavations for the proposed structure are anticipated to be accomplished with conventional construction equipment. After initial proofrolling and compaction, unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade water content prior to construction of grade-supported improvements such as floor slabs. Construction traffic over the completed subgrades should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 14 excavations. Water collecting over or adjacent to construction areas should be removed.

If the subgrade desiccates, saturates, or is disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or the materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to floor slab construction.

The perched transient water conditions may affect excavation efforts, especially during the rainy season. A groundwater control system consisting of horizontal dewatering, wellpoints, or sumps with pumps may be needed in some areas to achieve the recommended depth of excavation depending on groundwater conditions at the time of construction.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part

1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local and/or state regulations.

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.

Excavations or other activities resulting in ground disturbance have the potential to affect adjoining properties and structures. Our scope of services does not include review of available final grading information or consider potential temporary grading performed by the contractor for potential effects such as ground movement beyond the project limits.

Extreme caution is recommended during earthwork and other construction activities to ensure the adjacent structure is protected. Vibration and/or settlement monitoring at the existing building location should be considered during earthwork and construction of the building additions.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (or others under their direction). Observation should include documentation of adequate removal of surficial materials (vegetation, topsoil, and pavements), evaluation and remediation of existing fill materials, as well as proofrolling and mitigation of unsuitable areas delineated by the proofroll.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested for density and water content at a frequency of at least one test for every 2,500 square feet of compacted fill in the building areas. Where not specified by local ordinance, one density and water content test should be performed for every 50

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 15 linear feet of compacted utility trench backfill and a minimum of one test performed for every 12 vertical inches of compacted backfill.

In areas of foundation excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated by the

Geotechnical Engineer. If unanticipated conditions are observed, the Geotechnical

Engineer should prescribe mitigation options.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.

Shallow Foundations

If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations.

In addition, we recommend further exploration including additional soil borings and/or cone soundings in the vicinity of boring B-4 to better delineate and evaluate the very loose soil conditions at Boring B-4 relative to the zone of influence of building foundation loads

Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

Item Column Footings Wall (Continuous)

Footings

Monolithic Slab

Foundation

Maximum Net

Allowable Bearing

Pressure

2,000 psf 2,000 psf 2,000 psf

Minimum Width 30 inches 18 inches 12 inches

Minimum

Embedment

Depth Below

Finished Grade

18 inches 18 inches 12 inches

Compaction

Requirements

95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density (Modified

Proctor) for a depth of 24 inches below the bottom of the footing

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 16

Item Column Footings Wall (Continuous)

Footings

Monolithic Slab

Foundation

Minimum Testing

Frequency

One field density test per footing for a minimum depth of 2 foot below the footing subgrade

One field density test per 50…