APPENDIX_FINAL_7_22_2026.pdf

APPENDIX i Updated 7/9/2025

APPENDIX

FORMS AND OTHER PROJECT DOCUMENTATION

Table of Contents

OWNER DIRECT PURCHASE (ODP) DOCUMENTS (Not Applicable)

Owner Direct Purchase (ODP) Instructions

REQUEST TO REQUISITION FORM

PROJECT PERMITS

GEOTECHNICAL SOIL REPORT

CONTAMINATION SCREENING EVALUATION REPORT

UTILITY WORK SCHEDULES

APPENDIX – FORMS AND OTHER PROJECT DOCUMENTATION

APPENDIX 2 Updated 7/9/2025

OWNER DIRECT PURCHASE (ODP) DOCUMENTS (Not Applicable) Owner Direct Purchase (ODP) Instructions

1. Upon award and execution, a contract shall be issued to Contractor for the full amount of award.

2. The Contractor shall submit a list (ODP Summary) of potential ODP vendors and estimated dollar amounts (minimum of $10,000) to the City for consideration prior to initial pay application. Certain bid proposals will list pre-determined items for ODP and the accompanying tax savings. The ODP Summary shall list: (a) item cost, (b) corresponding line-item number from bid, and (c) sales tax savings associated with the item. Direct purchase shall be considered for single line items that exceed $10,000 in value and/or items identified in Section V, Bidders Proposal.

3. The Contractor shall prepare Request to Requisition forms (see attached) for each vendor to the City for review and approval, in electronic, MS Word format. The City will review, code, and process the requisition form. The City prefers that all Request to Requisitions be included in a single submittal.

4. A Change Order (CO) shall be issued to the Contractor reducing their contract by the amount of the ODP purchase(s) and the sales tax savings (per Request to Requisitions). COs will be drafted by the City and will be forwarded to the Contractor for execution. The Contractor shall submit two (2) originals, signed, sealed, and witnessed, to the City for execution. One fully executed original CO shall be returned to the Contractor.

5. Concurrently, the City Purchasing Department shall issue ODP Purchase Orders (POs) directly to each vendor (via email), along with an executed Certificate of Entitlement and the City’s Certificate of Tax Exemption. The Contractor and the City Project Manager will be copied.

6. City’s Project Manager shall coordinate delivery with Contractor and Vendor. Material shall be delivered to the project site. The Contractor will verify contents and check for defective materials.

The Vendor to send original invoice to the City as the purchaser and a copy to the Contractor. Invoices shall include the City issued ODP PO number and invoice number.

7. The Contractor shall review invoice copy for accuracy and send electronic approval to the City Project Manager within fourteen (14) calendar days after date of receipt of invoice. This electronic approval shall consist of the Contractor’s signature, date, and indication of approval on the scanned invoice as well as scanned copies of the delivery documentation or an explanation as to why the invoice should not be paid. These items shall be emailed to the City Project Manager and the City Engineering Division Controller, copy to the Construction Inspector.

8. The Contractor shall provide delivery documentation (delivery ticket, packing slips, bill of lading, etc.)

in hard copy form to the City Project Manager attached to a copy of the invoice within thirty (30) calendar days after date of receipt of invoice. If these hard copy items are delivered within fourteen

(14) calendar days after the date of receipt of invoice, then electronic approval as noted in paragraph seven (7) above may be excused.

9. The City Project Manager shall have final approval to pay invoices, and the City Accounting Department shall issue payment to the Vendor for materials or equipment received.

10. ODP POs must be closed out prior to closing out the Contractor contract. If material costs needed for the project exceed the ODP PO amount, the ODP PO will not be increased. Amounts in excess of the ODP PO will be paid for by the Contractor.

APPENDIX 3 Updated 7/9/2025

REQUEST TO REQUISITION FORM

For Owner Direct Purchase Materials

City Project Name: City Contract #:

General Item Description:

Vendor: Contact Name:

Street Address: Phone No:

City/State/Zip: Email:

Receiving Location (Ship to): (Project Location) Attention:

Street Address:

City/State/Zip: Phone No:

General Contractor: (Company Name) Phone No:

Contact Name: Email:

Date Needed by: Expense Code: (City will complete)

Line # Quantity Units (LS, SF, etc.)

Detailed Description (List shipping & handling charges, if applicable)

Price Per Each

Total

(refer to Line Item # and details from Bidder’s Proposal, Section V)

LS PO Total

LS Sales Tax Savings to Owner

(First $5,000 x 7.0%, thereafter Sales Tax Rate is 6.0%)

Equipment shall be in accordance with the applicable technical specifications, and all other applicable provisions (shop drawings, O&Ms, warranties, etc.,) of contract referenced above. Spare parts provided as per specifications;

freight included. Startup services and training are included in the above price, if provided for in bid.

Special Delivery Instructions

Send Original Invoices to: Send Copy of Invoice to:

Attn Division Controller City of Clearwater, Public Works Department/Engineering PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748

CONTRACTOR NAME

Attention To: ___________________________ Mailing Address Phone Number

Approving Official (City of Clearwater Representative):

Signature: Date:

Print Name:

Title:

Engineering will provide records retention according to City of Clearwater’s Records Management Program and State Retention Schedules.

APPENDIX 4 Updated 7/9/2025

PROJECT PERMITS

!%� �!�&��'�(�� )*+,-./�012342/5+6�7�)*+,-./�08-9:/� ���'�(������� �;(���������<��=����>�?��������;� "����������� @

� ������� �������;� &�(AB�?A<C�� &

DAB @&A<

E<������(�� <����D %$$���"����=���=����;����������=��F"G�G�GHI���������������������BJ��I�;���(��J�;��������=��J������������������;�������=������J��?��'�(���������(�=���������=�J�;�=��������=��J������E�������������<�;���(���������FE<�H�K533�6+/�L-�*-M45*-N������J��?��?�;�=���(��;���(���������;(�������������������������(����������=���=�I����&�����G�O<����D %$$�G� F�HF�H��"G�G�GPBJ����������������(����=�����J��I�;���(����������Q�?�������������;�??�����J��I�;���(�R;�=���������������C��=��C�������??��(�����G�BJ�;��������������;���������������������C����=������=��C��J���CJ��J��I�;���(�R;��??��(��������=��������&���(J�B���;���(���=�������GS����T�����;G��CA?�����;GBJ��I�;���(�R;�=��������������J��������?��'�(��=��;�������U��������E<���;�������??��(�����?��;���������J��;������;���=�����;��������(������J��������J����������������;�;�������=���=����������������=�����J��������;��;�U�����(J��C�;��((�������J���??��(���������;���=�;������;G��==������������J�;�������(������=��;�����������J����J��I�;���(��J�;�=��������=��J��������?��'�(���;�?���������������?�������?��������C���U��������;G�����;��;�U�����(J��C��������Q������J��?��'�(�R;��?��������������(�;;����������J�����������������?��������C�����J��I�;���(�G�BJ������������������=��;�=����(����(���J��I�;���(�����������C�����C��J��?��'�(����=����������C�����C������(��������J�(J��;�����;?�(���(�����=�;(����=���������;��������G�V�����������?��;��������J�;��(��������;���(����C�=��������=�����?��������������(J��C�;��J���(���=�����(���������U��;�GBJ�;��������(��;������;�����(�����>����=�=��C��(���(���������J��?��'�(���������(�=������G�BJ��I�;���(�R;��(���������J�;���������������(���;�(��;�=�������������C���(J�����C�;������������;�����J��?����(����;�(J�?��;��;�J���������?��?������������=�����J��I�;���(�R;��(�������=����?��;�����'�(�;�����J��I�;���(�R;��(��������J����J��?��;(����=�?����=�����������������C��J��������(�����G�BJ��I�;���(��=��;�����?����;J�����(�;�����C��(���(����G�>��������;J�����������J����������J����J�(J���?��;����J��=��;�������(������(�����������������(��������J��I�;���(��������U��;������=����;��������J�����C���C��=��C��J�;��(��������������;����C�����(����C�=����?����;J����������������?��;���������(������C��(���(���������J����C����=�����;������;�(�������������;?�?������C�������(��(������������J��(���������(������;��J�����J���(�������������((��G������;J��C�����(������C��(���(����������(��;���J�����=������������C���?������������J�����CG�#�C�����U��������;���=���;���(����;�����?����;J��C�����(������C��(���(�������;�������;�������(��C�������J���(�������;�=��;�����������������J��I�;���(�R;����;����������GS����T�����;G��CA?�����;A����(��CG�>������?����;J�����(������C��(���(��������(�?������J������=��������?����;J��C�?����=�=�����J�����;?�?���;J���=����;��������J��<�C��������I���;��������J��I�;���(��&����(������(���J���;����(�;��J�;�?�����������J����C��(���(������������������������J��

�� ��/��� �#����0�$�$0'1�$��&������ �.� ��2��������,���� �3&� ����2��4� ���#5�����6 #�&�7��8� ���7��� ����8�

�����4

���������������� ���!"� �� �# $��$%�&�%�$��� $ ��������'���#���((�)$�*�#��$"��+% $�%)$, �%�$��*�*��������� �*��)$%���'�����-�� $�����*'%�% $��$%.��"���%�/����$"�$��)$%���#��(%&%�/���!�%$$�����$%$%���%���))��*��)��!%$"�0�)$%�� ��12�345���*��12�367�8&��%*��0$�$�$� �98�0�:7�;�%(��'�<�&� ��(�=��)�*����>"��$���1?@�247�8&��%*��A*'%�% $��$%.��>�*��98�A�>�:���*�+% $�%)$�<�&��B2+@���2�27�8�A�>��;�&� ��$"��!% �����.%*�*�#��&�!7�����$%$%���(����*'%�% $��$%.��"���%�/�'� $�#��(%&�*�!%$"�9��)�%.�*�#�:�$"��+% $�%)$�!%$"%��1��*�� ��(���)�%�$��(�!�%$$�����$%)���(��/��)���)$%����CD�%$$�����$%)�E�'��� ��%$"����)$��&�!�%$$�����$%)�7������! ��������#&%)�$%����(���$%)�7�$"�$�$"��+% $�%)$�"� �$�F������%�$��* �$��$�F���/��)���)$%�����C<�)�%�$��(�!�%$$�����$%)�E�% �*��'�*�$��#��$"��(%($"�*����($���$"��*�$�����!"%)"��)$��&���$%)��% �*��� %$�*�%��$"��;�%$�*�0$�$� �'�%&7�%(���$%)��% �'�%&�*�$�����7����$"��*�$��$"�$��)$��&���$%)��% �% ��*7�%(� ��$�$������#���&�)$���%)�'�%&����*�&%.���*�$�����7����$"��*�$��$"�$���$%)��% ���#&% "�*�%������! �����7�(���$"� ����� �� �$��!"�'�$"��+% $�%)$�*�� ���$����.%*���)$��&���$%)���1�=�� ���$�$��0�# �)$%���G6G�B1691:9):7�8�0�7�(�����$%)� ��(�%�$��*�*��������� �*��/��)���)$%��������)�� �&%*�$�*����&%)�$%���(��������.%���'��$�&��� ���)�����'%$���*�� ���(� �.���%/�$�� �#'��/�*�&��* �)��)�����$&����.%�!�*�#��$"��+% $�%)$7�����$%$%���(����*'%�% $��$%.��"���%�/�'� $�#��(%&�*�!%$"�9��)�%.�*�#�:�$"��+% $�%)$�!%$"%���B�*�� ��(���)�%�$��(�!�%$$�����$%)���G�=�� ���$�$��<�&��41@3G1�BG27�8�A�>�7�(�����$%)� ��(�%�$��$�$��*������!�&&�)�� $��)$%������'%$7�����$%$%���(����*'%�% $��$%.��"���%�/�'� $�#��(%&�*�!%$"�9��)�%.�*�#�:�$"��+% $�%)$�!%$"%��G2�*�� ��(���)�%�$��(�!�%$$�����$%)���(�%�$��$�$��*������B�A������ ���!"����)�%.� �!�%$$�����$%)���(�����/��)��*�)% %�����*�!"��(�%& �$��(%&����!�%$$�����-�� $�(�����"���%�/�!%$"%��1��*�� ��(���)�%�$�����$"������%�*�� ���-�%��*�#��&�!�!�%.� �$"���%/"$�$����-�� $���"���%�/���� �)"�'�$$�� �3�H�*%�$%������ ���$�$��0�)$%����12�36G7�8�0�7�$�� �$$&������*'%�% $��$%.��*% ��$����/��*%�/�+% $�%)$�%�$��*�*��������� �*��)$%���% ���$��.�%&�#&����%���$��$"��(%&%�/��(�����$%$%���(���"���%�/�4�A���-�� $������$%$%���(����*'%�% $��$%.��"���%�/�'� $�)�'�&��!%$"�$"����-�%��'��$ � �$�(��$"�%��>"��$���1?@�247�8�A�>�A���$%$%���(�����"���%�/�'� $I�9�:��J�&�%��"�!�$"�� �# $��$%�&�%�$��� $ ��(���)"���� �����-�� $%�/�$"��"���%�/�!%&&�#���((�)$�*�#��$"��+% $�%)$, �%�$��*�*��)$%����������� �*��)$%��7�91:� $�$���&&�'�$��%�&�(�)$ �*% ��$�*�#��$"����� �����-�� $%�/�$"��"���%�/���� $�$��$"�$�$"�����������'�$��%�&�(�)$ �%��*% ��$�7���*�9G:��$"��!% ��)�'�&��!%$"�<�&� �1?@�24�12����*�1?@�24�G2�7�8�A�>��>"��$���1?@�247�8�A�>�7�)���#��.%�!�*��$�!!!�(&��&� ���/�����$�$"��+% $�%)$, �!�# %$���$�!!!�D�$��H�$$�� ���/K���'%$ K��&� ��6�A���$%$%���(����*'%�% $��$%.��"���%�/�% �*��'�*�(%&�*��������)�%�$��(�$"��)�'�&�$����$%$%���#��$"��+% $�%)$�A/��)��>&��F��$�$"��+% $�%)$, �L�'���0��.%)��M((%)��*��%�/����'�&�#� %�� �"��� 7�!"%)"�����?I22���'��$��3I22���'�7�H��*���$"���/"�8�%*��7��J)&�*%�/�+% $�%)$�"�&%*�� ��8%&%�/ �!%$"�$"��+% $�%)$�A/��)��>&��F�'���#��'�*��#��'�%&7�"��*@*�&%.�������(�) %'%&��$��� (���9(�J:��L"��+% $�%)$�*�� ���$��))��$���$%$%�� �(����*'%�% $��$%.��"���%�/�#���&�)$���%)�'�%&��H�%&�*�(%&%�/ �'� $�#���**�� �*�$�7���*�"��*@*�&%.���*�(%&%�/ �'� $�#��*�&%.���*�$�7�$"��A/��)��>&��F7�0��$"!� $�8&��%*��D�$���H���/�'��$�+% $�%)$7�642��;0�N!��G2�7�L�'��7�8O�GG4G6@4635��8�J�*�(%&%�/ �'� $�#��$��� '%$$�*�$��$"��+% $�%)$�A/��)��>&��F��$�9?�G:�G46@5664��A�����$%$%�����$���)�%.�*�*��%�/����'�&�#� %�� �"��� � "�&&�#��(%&�*�� ��(�?I22���'�����$"����J$�#� %�� �*����L"��+% $�%)$, ��))��$��)���(�(�J�*���$%$%�� �(���(%&%�/�% � �#P�)$�$��)��$�%��)��*%$%�� � �$�(��$"�%��$"��+% $�%)$, �0$�$�'��$��(�A/��)��M�/��%Q�$%�����*�M����$%��7��.�%&�#&��(���.%�!%�/��$�!!!�D�$��H�$$�� ���/K�#��$�

����"#�$���#���%���&�'(������!)����*&��++����!�,&�-���������������.�&����/�0�!����*���)��'��+��(��-�������1����������2�!����*���)��'��(�**�,�����3(������(��$�+�(�-��������4������+�5%%��*��������(���%%�**����!��������'(������%���&�����!�����������(��'����%��)�!�!�,&�*�'����5**�%�����!��3���(�**�,�����������!�,&�+�*��3�������3���*���������+��%%��*�'��(��(��-��������53���&�4*��/�'��(������!�&���+�����(�����!�������+��(����!���,���3��%%��*�!#���!�����%&��+��(����������+��%%��*#�����.%����!�,&���&�+�*��3�+����%������,�!�,&�*�'#�'��(��(���*��/��+��(�������#���������!�����'��(�6�*���7�

����!�7� 7���+��(��$*���!��6�*����+�5%%�**���������!�����$*���6��5%%���� ��������������$*���6��5%%�����7�����( #������!���������!���!�'(�������3��!�'���������!������+�*�!�'��(��(���*��/��+��(��*�'������,���*����

APPENDIX 5 Updated 7/9/2025

GEOTECHNICAL SOIL REPORT

MC Squared, LLC

Geotechnical Engineering

Services Report

Osceola Avenue Corridor Improvement Project

Clearwater, Florida

Prepared for: Cumbey & Fair, Inc.

2463 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 33763

Prepared by: MC Squared, LLC

5911 Breckenridge Parkway, Suite G Tampa, Florida 33610

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G January 23, 2025

5911 Breckenridge Parkway, Suite G, Tampa, Florida 33610

Phone (813) 623-3399 www.mc2engineers.com

January 23, 2025

Mr. Matthew Fabrizio, P.E.

Vice President Cumbey & Fair, Inc.

2463 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 33763

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Osceola Avenue Corridor Improvements

Clearwater, Florida Cumbey & Fair, Inc. Project Number 23012 MC2 Project Number T082319.122_G

Dear Mr. Fabrizio:

MC Squared, LLC (MC2) is pleased to submit this report of our geotechnical exploration for the subject project. Our services were conducted in general accordance with MC2 Proposal No. T082319.122 dated February 12th, 2024, and authorized through Subconsultant Agreement for Professional Services between MC2 and Cumbey & Fair, Inc. (C&F) dated May 22, 2024. This report presents our understanding of the project, outlines our exploratory procedures, documents the field data obtained and includes our recommendations for site preparation and pavement design.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted, MC Squared, LLC

Kristina LaCava, PE Jeffery Sizemore, PE Geotechnical Project Manager Chief Engineer FL. P.E. No. 77594

Brendan Fritz, EI Project Engineer

Geotechnical Engineering Services Osceola Avenue Corridor Improvements

Clearwater, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1 Project Authorization

1.2 Project Description

1.3 Scope of Services

2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 General

3.2 Environmental Soil Sampling

3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds Testing

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Geological Survey

4.2 USGS Topographic Data

4.3 USDA Soil Survey

4.4 Soil Boring Results

4.5 Groundwater Conditions

4.6 Estimated Seasonal High Water Level

4.7 Existing Pavement and Subgrade Conditions

5 ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General Information

5.2 Soil Suitability

5.3 Pavement Design Considerations

5.4 LBR Results

5.5 DCP Results

5.6 Pavement Design Recommendations

5.6.1 Roadway Reconstruction

5.6.2 Milling and Resurfacing

6 ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION

7 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 General

7.2 Site Preparation

7.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing

7.2.2 Surface Water and Shallow Groundwater Control

7.2.3 Exposed Soil Treatment

7.2.4 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction

7.2.5 Erosion Control

7.2.6 Excavations

7.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation

7.4 General Construction Monitoring and Testing Guidelines

7.5 Construction Plans and Specifications Review

8 REPORT LIMITATIONS

ii

APPENDIX A

Sheet 1- Project Location Map Sheet 2 – USDA & USGS Vicinity Maps Sheets 3 through 5 – Field Test Location Plans Sheet 6 - Soil Boring Profiles Sheet 7 – Roadway Soil Survey

APPENDIX B

Table 1 - Summary of Laboratory Testing Table 2 – Summary of Corrosion Testing Limerock Bearing Ratio Tests Volatile Organic Compounds Test Results

APPENDIX C

Pavement Core Summary

Clearwater, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

1 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1 Project Authorization

Authorization to proceed with this project was issued by the City of Clearwater (City) via the Consultant Work Order with C&F dated February 20, 2024, and subsequently the Subconsultant Agreement for Professional Services between C&F and MC2 dated May 22, 2024. Our services were performed in general accordance with MC2 Fee Proposal No. T082319.122_G dated February 12, 2024.

1.2 Project Description

The project site is located along Osceola Avenue from Court Street to Drew Street in Clearwater, Florida, as shown on Sheet 1 in Appendix A. Osceola Avenue is classified as a local street and is comprised of one travel lane in each direction, north and south, with certain section having on street parking and center turn lanes.

Based on our understanding, this project consists of improvements/potential reconstruction along Osceola Avenue. Some improvements include replacing the existing subsurface utilities, installing a new reclaimed water line, and enhancing the pedestrian experience by constructing wider sidewalks where possible, increasing landscaping, and creating connectivity between Coachman Park, the right-of-way corridor and also future projects. Further, milling and resurfacing of connecting side roads may be performed.

1.3 Scope of Services

Our scope of services consisted of the following:

1. Performed a desktop review of project information provided by C&F, which included the Draft Contamination Screening Evaluation Report (CSER) performed by AtkinsRealis, in conjunction with readily available published documents such as the USDA Soil Survey and the USGS topographic maps pertaining to the project site.

2. Conducted a visual site reconnaissance to observe and document current site conditions, mark coring locations, and evaluate traffic control needs.

3. Procured required City of Clearwater permit(s) to perform our field exploration.

4. Located existing utilities using Sunshine811 services, as well as city provided as-built plans and project survey sent to MC2 on July 25, 2024, to avoid conflicts with test locations.

5. Provided Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) during the field investigation.

6. Performed two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to approximate depths of 20 feet below the pavement surface. The SPT borings were performed in accordance with ASTM D1586.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

7. Extracted eight (8) four-inch pavement cores staggered left and right of the roadway centerline to measure and evaluate the existing pavement section and provide access to the base and subgrade materials for testing and sampling.

8. Performed Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests in five (5) of the pavement core locations to evaluate the in-situ Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of the base and subgrade materials. DCP testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D6951 and extended to a depth of approximately 48 inches below the pavement.

9. Performed hand auger (HA) borings extending to depths ranging between 4.2 and 6 feet at each pavement core location. The HA borings that extended to a depth of 6 feet were executed within the locations where the SPT borings were performed.

10. Measured groundwater levels in the soil borings, if present, and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels along the project alignment.

11. Restored each borehole immediately upon completion. The boreholes were backfilled with bentonite and/or soil cuttings and the pavement was patched with asphalt cold patch.

12. Collected three (3) Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) samples within grassed areas along the project alignment.

13. Visually classified and stratified soil samples in the laboratory using the AASHTO Classification System and conducted a laboratory testing program consisting of natural moisture content determination, single sieve (#200) gradation, organic content determination, Atterberg Limit tests, and LBR Tests.

14. Performed pH, chlorides, sulfates, and resistivity testing to determine the corrosion parameters of representative soil samples.

15. Collected three (3) environmental samples for analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) utilizing USEPA Method 8260.

16. Reported the results of the field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. The results of the subsurface exploration are presented in this report, signed and sealed by a professional engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering.

The scope of our services did not include an overall environmental assessment of the project site. The scope of our environmental investigation was limited to determining the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds in the soil matrix at the location of boring B-2 only. Groundwater sampling as well as environmental remediation techniques/practices were not included in our scope of services. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for the information of our client. In addition, our scope of services did not include an evaluation of sinkholes or sinkhole activity.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

Prior to commencing our subsurface exploration, a field test location plan was prepared by MC2 based on the exhibits and locations provided by C&F. The field location plan was discussed and approved on November 15, 2024, by the City and C&F. The pavement cores and boring locations were located in the field by using hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and measuring off of existing features.

The field exploration program consisted of performing eight (8) pavement cores with associated HA borings and DCP tests, two (2) SPT borings, and collecting three (3) LBR samples. The borings extended to depths of approximately 4.2 to 20 feet below the existing pavement surface and was performed on December 4th and 5th, 2024. The field exploration services were performed, observed and documented by MC2 personnel and overseen by one of its Florida State licensed professional geotechnical engineers. All field samples will be retained for a minimum of 60 days from the date of this report, unless otherwise requested in writing by C&F.

The SPT borings were performed with the use of a D-25 Drill Rig equipped with an automatic hammer using Bentonite “Mud” drilling procedures. Samples were collected and Standard Penetration Test resistances were measured continuously for the upper ten feet and at approximate intervals of five feet thereafter. The soil sampling was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1586, entitled “Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils”. The upper six (6) feet were manually hand augured to avoid potential unmarked underground utilities. Representative samples from the borings were sealed in glass jars, labeled, and transferred for appropriate classification by a geotechnical engineer.

Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with bentonite chips and soil cuttings and the pavement surface was restored with asphalt cold patch.

The pavement cores were performed using a 4-inch outside diameter core barrel that was advanced through the asphalt layers. The purpose of the cores was to estimate the existing asphalt pavement and base thicknesses. DCP tests were then completed at the core locations. The DCPs were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 6951 (Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications). The DCP testing was performed continuously from the base course to approximately 4 feet below the existing ground surface, or until the groundwater table was encountered, utilizing a Kessler’s SAPPER – Automatic DCP and a K-100 Model DCP. The DCP tests were performed by MC2 personnel and results from each test can be found on the Pavement Core Summary sheets in Appendix C.

The hand auger borings were completed at the site in general accordance with ASTM D1452 (Standard Practice for Soil Exploration and Sampling by Auger Borings) using a 3¼-in. diameter auger bucket.

Representative portions of the soil samples were placed in appropriately labeled airtight Ziploc plastic bags for subsequent confirmatory classifications in our testing laboratory in Tampa, Florida. The boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings, compacted, and patched with asphalt cold patch to restore each test hole location.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

Appendix A provides field test location plans showing the relationship of exiting features to the exploration borings.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Representative soil samples collected from the borings performed along the proposed alignment were classified and stratified in general accordance with the AASHTO Soil Classification System. Our classifications were based on visual observations, using the results from laboratory testing as confirmation. Laboratory tests completed on representative soil samples collected for this project are summarized below and can be found summarized on the Roadway Soil Survey Sheet 7 in Appendix A and in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix B:

• Five (5) moisture content determinations (AASHTO T-265),

• Five (5) percent passing the No. 200 US standard sieve tests (AASHTO T-11),

• One (1) organic content determination (AASHTO T-267),

• Two (2) Atterberg Limits (AASHTO T-89/T-90),

• Two (2) Corrosion Series Testing (pH, Resistivity, Chlorides, Sulfates) (FM5-550, FM5-551, FM5-

552, and FM5-553),

• Three (3) Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) tests

3 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 General

Based on the CSER Report performed by AtkinsRealis, there are two potential locations (Sites 23 and 24) with possible contamination in close proximity to the project alignment. Site 23 was documented as a former gasoline and oil service station from 1958 to 1962. This site did not have any records of discharge or underground storage tanks (USTs). However, the site was assigned a medium risk because Level II testing is warranted since petroleum compounds from gasoline and service stations can impact the soil and/or groundwater if not properly managed. Site 24 was documented as a former dry cleaner from 1941 to 1958. The site did not have any reported discharges. However, the site was assigned a medium risk rating because Level II testing is warranted since solvent compounds from dry cleaning facilities can impact the soil and/or groundwater if not properly managed.

Based on the summarized results above from the CSER Report performed by AtkinsRealis and the close proximity of these sites to the project alignment, MC2 was asked to perform a SPT boring with preliminary environmental testing near these sites. During a meeting with the City on November 15, 2024, it was agreed that only one SPT boring (B-2) with preliminary environmental testing be performed. The boring was placed along the project alignment, between the two sites in question.

The scope of our services did not include an overall environmental assessment of the project site. The scope of our environmental investigation was limited to determining the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds in the soil matrix at the location of boring B-2 only. Groundwater sampling as well as environmental remediation techniques/practices were not included in our scope of services.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

3.2 Environmental Soil Sampling

The environmental sampling for VOCs was conducted in general accordance with 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, and DEP-SOP FS1000, FS3000, and EPA Method 5035A, Revision 1, July 2020. The samples were taken from three (3) intervals from boring B-2. Soil samples were taken from 6-8 feet, 8-10 feet, and 13.5-15 feet below the pavement surface and placed on ice until final delivery to the testing laboratory the same day.

3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds Testing

The soil samples collected at SPT boring B-2 were analyzed using US EPA Method 8260D: Volatile Organic Compound by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GCG/MS), Revision 3. This method is able to determine the presence of a wide range of volatile organic compounds within a multitude of matrices.

The samples collected from boring B-2 were collected, preserved, and introduced to the gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) by means of US EPA Method 5035A, Revision 1, July 2020.

Qualified personnel have analyzed and prepared a comprehensive report of the findings which can be found in the Environmental Sampling Report in Appendix B. The analytical results for the samples tested show that VOCs tested were not detected.

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Geological Survey

USGS maintains a database of geologic maps. Based upon our review of the USGS Geology maps, the project site is located within the Pinellas Ridge of the Peace River District. The Pinellas Ridge occurs in Pinellas County and is bound on the north by the Land O’ Lakes Karst Plain, and on the west, south, and east by the Peninsula Coastal Lowlands. The Pinellas Ridge consists of Miocene undifferentiated Hawthorne Group and undifferentiated Quaternary sediments.

The project alignment falls within the undifferentiated Hawthorne Group. This group is mapped throughout Pinellas County. Undifferentiated Hawthorn Group (Th) sediments lie unconformably above upper Oligocene to lower Miocene (Brewster-Wingard et al., 1997; Scott, et al., 2001) Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation. They are light olive gray and blue gray in unweathered sections and brownish gray to grayish orange and reddish brown to reddish gray in weathered sections. They consist of poorly- to moderately-consolidated, clayey sands to silty clays, and relatively pure clays with minor phosphate due to leaching and transport (Scott, 2001). In addition to these clays, the unit also contains dolosilts, dolostones, and variable concentrations of phosphatic sand with occasional phosphatic gravel. The undifferentiated Hawthorne Group ranges from 100 feet thick to 20 feet thick. This group also generally has low permeability.

4.2 USGS Topographic Data

Based on review of the USGS 7.5-minute series topographic maps for Clearwater, Florida, the proposed project alignment is located between the elevation contour intervals of +30 to +35 feet NAVD88. Portions of the USGS Topographic Map are presented on Sheet 2 in Appendix A for additional information and reference.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

4.3 USDA Soil Survey

The “Soil Survey of Pinellas County, Florida”, published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was reviewed for general near-surface soil information within the general project vicinity. This information indicates that the soils at the project site consist of the following soil unit:

Table 1: Summary of USDA Soil Units

Soil Unit Number Soil Name

Depth Below Natural

Grade to High Water Table

(feet)

30 Urban Land, 0 to 2 percent slopes NR

*NR = Not Recorded

The soil survey also indicates that the average annual precipitation is 40 to 68 inches. This map unit consists of miscellaneous area covered by surfaces that obscure or alter the soils so that identification is not feasible. In areas mapped as urban land, 85 percent or more of the surface is covered by streets, parking lots, buildings, and other structures. In moderately built-up areas, these structures cover 50 to 85 percent of the surface.

The USDA Soil Survey Map for the project site is shown on Sheet 2 in Appendix A.

4.4 Soil Boring Results

The soils were visually classified by a Geotechnical Engineer with index property tests performed on select samples to verify visual classification. In this regard, the near surface soils were categorized into six (6) stratum groups. The groups were determined based on their engineering properties in regards to suitability for roadway construction per FDOT Standard Plans Index 120-001.

Table 2: Summary of Soil Stratums

Stratum Soil Description AASHTO Soil Classification

1 Asphalt -

2 Shell Base -

3 Brick -

4 Brown to very pale brown to grayish brown to gray to dark gray fine SAND to fine SAND with silt A-3

5 Gray clayey fine SAND A-2-6

6 Dark brown to light greenish gray sandy CLAY A-7-6

Pictorial representation of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boring is shown on the Soil Boring Profiles, Sheet 6 in Appendix A. These profiles highlight the general subsurface stratification. The Soil Boring

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

Profiles should be consulted for detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location. When reviewing the boring records and the subsurface profiles, it should be understood that soil conditions may vary between and away from boring locations.

4.5 Groundwater Conditions

Attempts to measure the groundwater table were made at each of the boring locations performed during our field exploration. Drilling fluid is utilized in the SPT borings to advance the borehole. The addition of drilling fluid makes it difficult to obtain accurate groundwater measurements when the drilling fluid is introduced into the hole prior to encountering the groundwater table. As a result, GNA (Groundwater Not Apparent) is shown adjacent to the soil profiles where drilling fluid was introduced prior to encountering the groundwater table.

The groundwater table was not encountered (GNE) within the upper 5 feet of the HA borings and was not apparent within the SPT borings. Fluctuations in ground water levels should be expected due to tides, seasonal climatic changes, construction activity, rainfall variations, surface water runoff, and other site-specific factors. Since groundwater level variations are anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based on the assumption that variations will occur.

4.6 Estimated Seasonal High Water Level

The Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) is the highest average depth of soil saturation during the wet season in a normal year (South Florida Water Management District, SFWMD, Volume IV). Based on SFWMD guidelines, the procedures for estimating SHWT elevations include examination of county soil surveys and field verification by observation and identification of indicators within the soil profile.

A review of the Pinellas County Soil Survey indicated that the project site is located within an area classified as Urban Land. This map unit consists of miscellaneous area covered by surfaces that obscure or alter the soils so that identification is not feasible. In areas mapped as urban land, 85 percent or more of the surface is covered by streets, parking lots, buildings, and other structures. Therefore, the depth to water table was not recorded.

Based on potential indicators observed within the soil samples and our experience in the area, we estimate the seasonal high water table to be between 3.5 and 5 feet below the existing pavement surface.

If a more accurate estimate is needed, it is recommended that piezometers be installed for groundwater monitoring.

4.7 Existing Pavement and Subgrade Conditions

MC2 performed a visual inspection of the pavement surface and observed some locations with longitudinal and transverse cracking and general weathering of the pavement surface throughout the roadway. The pavement evaluated is generally in fair to poor condition.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

Figure 1: Generally fair pavement condition with longitudinal cracking.

A total of eight (8) asphalt pavement cores were performed along the project alignment. Thickness measurements of the base material and asphalt were measured in the field. The asphalt cores were transported to the MC2 Tampa office where the thicknesses were confirmed and photographed by a geotechnical engineer. Asphalt thicknesses varied from 2.75 to 6.75 inches. Additionally, pavement base consisted of Shell and Brick. Base thicknesses measured in the field varied from 6.0 to 8.75 inches for Shell base and 3.0 inches where Brick was encountered. The table below summarizes the results of the pavement cores.

Table 3: Summary of Pavement Core Results

Core

ID

Asphalt

(inches)

Base Course

LBR (%) (1)

Subgrade Mr (2)

(psi)

Subgrade

Material Material Thickness

(inches)

C-1 3.75 Shell 8.25 33 10,500 A-3 C-2 6.0 Shell 6.0 N/A(3) N/A A-3

B-1/C-3 2.75 Brick 3.0 N/A N/A A-3

C-4 3.5 Brick 3.0 39 12,000 A-3 C-5 4.25 Shell 7.75 37 11,500 A-3 C-6 3.5 Shell 7.5 40 12,000 A-3 C-7 3.25 Shell 8.75 40 12,000 A-3 B-2 6.75 Shell 6.25 N/A N/A A-3

AVG 4.22 6.31 38 11,500

Notes: (1) LBR = CBR * 1.25, Maximum LBR Value Reported = 40 (CBR estimated from DCP test results).

(2) Resilient Modulus (Mr) is a measurement of the stiffness of the roadbed soil.

(3) N/A = Not Applicable due to either SPT conducted or utility conflict.

Detailed information regarding these cores and their subsequent HA borings, including pavement core photographs and soil descriptions are included on each Pavement Core Summary sheet in Appendix C.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

5 ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General Information

In general, the existing shallow subsurface soils are suitable to support the proposed roadway and utilities with proper preparation. If the final roadway alignment or system improvements are significantly different from those described, or if the subsurface conditions during construction are different from those revealed by our borings, we should be notified immediately so that we might review our recommendations presented in this report.

5.2 Soil Suitability

FDOT Standard Plan Indices 120-001 and 120-002 should be followed for soil suitability along the vertical and horizontal extent of the alignment. In this regard, the soil strata encountered during our geotechnical exploration and their suitability have been summarized and are presented on the Roadway Soil Survey sheet presented in Appendix A.

5.3 Pavement Design Considerations

The following evaluations and recommendations have been developed based on the previously described project characteristics, our review of published data, our site reconnaissance, the results of our subsurface exploration and associated laboratory testing, and recommendations of the 2024 FDOT Flexible Pavement

Design Manual (FDOT FPDM).

No traffic data was provided for the subject roadway; therefore, assumptions were made for design calculations and can be found in Table 4 below. The transportation engineer should verify that the assumptions below are valid and acceptable for the subject roadway. If the assumptions are incorrect, or require modification, these changes will need to be evaluated, and our evaluations and recommendations revised, as needed.

Table 4: Assumed Traffic Data

Assumed Traffic Data

Design Period: 20 years

Two-Way Average Annual Daily Traffic

(AADT):

1,000

Directional Distribution Factor (DF): 0.5

Design Lane Distribution Factor (LF): 0.88

Growth Rate: 2%

Percent Trucks: 2%

Truck Factor (ESALs/Truck): 0.89

ESALs 900,000

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

5.4 LBR Results

Three (3) laboratory LBR tests were performed on remolded samples of existing soils taken from grassed areas along the alignment. LBR values varied from 12 to 29. It is recommended that these soils be stabilized with additional fines or rock to increase the LBR value if it is planned to use these soils for the roadway. A minimum LBR of 40 is required.

5.5 DCP Results

DCP tests were performed at five (5) of the cored locations along the project alignment. Based on the DCP values recorded, the upper foot of the subbase has correlated LBR values ranging between 33 and 40, with an average correlated LBR value of 38. Aged asphalt and potential increased traffic loads may have likely deteriorated the pavement section. The average calculated resilient modulus (Mr) based on the correlated LBR values is 11,500psi.

5.6 Pavement Design Recommendations

5.6.1 Roadway Reconstruction

Based on the preliminary roadway plans provided by C&F on October 31, 2024, Osceola Avenue will potentially undergo a complete realignment and/or roadway reconstruction. The sections below outline the design recommendations for roadway reconstruction.

5.6.1.1 Stabilized Subgrade

Sandy existing soils and sandy engineered fill soils should be acceptable for construction and support of a flexible pavement section after proper proofrolling and subsurface preparation as outlined in Section 6 of this report. The stabilized subgrade must meet the requirements of Section 160 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Traffic should not be allowed on the stabilized subgrade before the base is placed to avoid rutting. Subgrade stabilization on all functional classifications, with the exception of Residential Light Traffic, shall be 12-inches Type B Stabilization with a minimum LBR value of 40.

5.6.1.2 Base Course

All base courses must meet the general requirements of Section 285 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and FDOT Design Standard 514 as well the specification requirements for each particular type of base course to be used. Limerock is the Pinellas County’s standard base material for roadways. Bases other than Limerock will be reviewed by the County on a case-by-case basis. Based on the Pinellas County Transportation Desing Manual, a minimum of 8 inches of limerock (LBR 100) is recommended.

5.6.1.3 Asphalt

All structural and friction courses must meet the requirements of Section 334 and 337 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Per Pinellas County Transportation Design Manual, a minimum of 1.5 inches of Type SP-9.5 asphalt is recommended.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

5.6.2 Milling and Resurfacing

Milling and resurfacing will likely be required for the connecting side streets along the project alignment.

Therefore, following the procedures outlined in Chapter 7 of the FDOT FPDM the required Structural Number, SNR is 2.9 for this project. The newly designed structural number of 3.16 is greater than the existing structural number (2.73) and satisfies the required structural number (2.9). LBR values at the core locations indicate a soil subgrade with an average minimum LBR of 38. Aged asphalt and increased traffic loads have likely deteriorated the pavement section.

The goal of milling is to remove as much surficial distress while maintaining asphalt on top of the existing base to support existing and future traffic loads and protect the existing roadway base. A mill thickness of 1.5 inches and inlay thickness of 1.5 inches is recommended, wherever feasible.

Prior to placing the overlay, a leveling course of asphalt may be required for low areas, depressions, and potholes. We recommend the asphalt overlay to be SP 12.5 course (traffic level C, PG 76-22). No substitutions will be allowed for other mixes.

A summary of the design considerations used in developing the milling and resurfacing recommendations are presented in the table below.

Table 5: Pavement Design Considerations Design Resilient Modulus, MR

(1) : 11,500 psi

Design LBR for Subgrade 38 Pavement Condition (2): Fair to Poor Design Period: 20 years Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (3): 1% Truck Traffic 1,000 18-kip (ESALD) X 1000 (From AADT): 900 Existing Structural Numbers, SNE (4): 2.73 Required Structural Number, SNR

(5) Table A.4.A FDOT FPDM. 2.9 Pavement Item Thickness (in) Structural Coefficient SN

SP-12.5 (Level C) (6) 1.5 0.44 0.66 Existing AC 2.72 0.15 0.41

Shell Base (LBR 100) 6.31 0.18 1.14 Subgrade 12.0 0.08 0.96

Total SN 3.16 NOTES: (1) Required subgrade resilient modulus value and the 90% reliability method as outlined in the FPDM.

(2) The rating is based only on limited visual observations and used in assigning structural coefficients per Table 7.1 of the FPDM. A detailed pavement condition was not part of the scope.

(3) Assumed by MC2 for urban local roads.

(4) (4.22“AC*0.15)+(6.31” Base*0.18)+(12” Subgrade*0.08) = 2.73

(5) Table A.4A FDOT FPDM

(6) Polymer modified binder (PG 76-22)

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

6 ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION

Corrosion parameters tests were performed by MC2 on select soil samples obtained along the project alignment. The results are provided on the Soil Survey Sheet in Appendix A and Table 2 in Appendix B. According to the test results. The environmental classification is moderately and slightly aggressive for substructure steel and concrete; respectively.

7 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 General

The following general construction considerations have been developed based on the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered at the test boring locations. If any of the project criteria change, including project location, a review must be performed by MC2 to determine if modifications to this report will be required. The findings of such a review and modifications, as required, shall be presented in a supplemental report.

7.2 Site Preparation

7.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing

The initial step in new pavement, embankment and subgrade preparation within the subject construction area should consist of the complete removal of existing asphalt. The asphalt should be removed from the construction areas in accordance with Section 110 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

The stripping operations should be observed and documented by qualified personnel (defined as a geotechnical engineer or engineering technician working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer or CEI/City construction personnel) in order to confirm that conditions are as anticipated and to evaluate the acceptability of the exposed materials as well as the unacceptability of the removed material.

7.2.2 Surface Water and Shallow Groundwater Control

Dewatering may be required depending on groundwater levels at the time of construction to achieve compaction requirements or trench excavations for utilities or drainage structures. It should be performed in accordance with Section 455-28 of the Standard Specifications. Excavations should be made in accordance with Section 125 and 455-29 of the Standard Specifications. If compaction cannot be achieved due to disturbed clays or pumping soils, these soils may be removed to depths of 1 to 2 feet below design grades and backfilled with structural fill as long as FDOT Standard Plans Indices 120-001 and 120-002 are followed.

7.2.3 Exposed Soil Treatment

Following stripping operations and documentation of the acceptability of the exposed surface by qualified personnel, the exposed sandy soils should be compacted in accordance with Section 120-9 of the Standard Specifications.

City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida

MC2 Project No. T082319.122_G

7.2.4 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction

Structural fill or backfill, as required in accordance with Index 120-001, should be placed and compacted in accordance with Sections 120-7, 120-8 and 120-9 of the Standard Specifications. Certain types of A-2-4 materials may be more difficult to compact than the cleaner sands due to their fines content and associated moisture sensitivity. All A-2-6 materials are considered plastic (P) and should not be used for structural fill or backfill.

7.2.5 Erosion Control

Erosion control should be established in accordance with Section 104 of the Standard Specifications.

7.2.6 Excavations

Excavations shall be performed in accordance with Section 104 of the FDOT Standard Specifications and in accordance with OSHA Standards. We recommend that sides of temporary excavations be sloped 2H:1V or flatter or supported by temporary shoring.

7.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation

Based on the soils encountered by the borings along the project alignment, the requirements of Section 120 of the Standard Specifications, with regard to pavement subgrade and embankment construction, should be achievable in most cases. The acceptable existing, near-surface sandy soils (A-3) or similar fill soils can generally be improved or stabilized by blending them with shell, clay fines, or crushed rock to increase their in-place LBR values after compaction. Florida limerock can also be used to stabilize the fine sandy subgrade soils. The subgrade should be stabilized in accordance with Section 160 of the Standard Specifications.

7.4 General Construction Monitoring and Testing Guidelines

Before any filling operations begin, representative samples of exposed existing soils and off-site borrow materials should be collected.