EMAILED Q & A

Posted 12/09/20 PM

516 8TH Avenue West PO Box 1209

Palmetto, Florida 34221 Phone (941)723-4570

Fax (941) 723-4576 Web: www.palmettofl.org

E-mail: [email protected]

Date: December 9, 2020 Re: Connor Park Project #20-790

ADDENDUM #1 To All Plan Holders and Meeting Attendees: Bidders are hereby notified that this addendum shall be made a part of the above-named solicitation and agreement documents. The item(s) listed below are issued to add to, modify, and clarify the solicitation and agreement documents. The item(s) shall have the same force and effect as the original solicitation and agreement documents. Quotes to be submitted shall conform to the addition and revision listed herein.

EMAILED

Q & A

1. Please provide any geotechnical report or soils engineering/boring tests. Information will be required for boardwalk pile driving pricing. See attached soils report dated 02.07.20

2. Please provide specifications for “Dedication Monument” See A-501 Detail G4, D3, E3 &F3.

3. Please provide specifications for “Nature Sculpture”. Rosette Spoonbill Wildlife sculpture noted on A-100. This will be provided in a future addendum.

4. Please provide a list of permits that the contractor will be required to obtain and the cost of each. This will be provided in a future addendum.

5. Who is the Environmental Consultant that will conduct on site testing? Cardno

6. In 2018 930 ton of impacted soils were hauled off for proper disposal. Where was it disposed? Heart of Florida Environmental Class I Landfill in Lake Panasoffkee, FL.

Posted 12/09/20 PM

7. There is a pay item for fencing at 425 LF. A note on sheet A100, #14 states green fence, 430 LF on east side and 360 LF on W & S sides or 790 LF total. 790 LF is correct.

8. Please clarify where new fence is to be installed and adjust the quantity accordingly. See A100 Note 14. The fence will be on the East, West and South property line as shown.

9. Manatee County landfill is a Class 1 landfill. This would make it also qualified as a Subtitle D landfill according the definitions. Please confirm the disposal of the contaminated soils can be disposed of at the Manatee County landfill. Cardno will provide analytical data from previous Site Assessment activities in an Addendum. It is the bidder’s responsibility to determine acceptability for disposal at their selected Subtitle D landfill, based on this data.

10. How is the fence to be attached to the posts on the boardwalk or is it to be framed to fit between the posts? Please provide a detail of the attachment method. This will be included on a future addendum.

11. I have contacted Grant Vosberg regarding the sign. He informed me that he has priced the sign lettering/logo directly to the City. Will the City be installing these items on the masonry structure? Or will the City furnish these to the contractor for installation? This will be included on a future addendum.

12. Regarding the bid item for the nature sculpture, there is no detail and we are not familiar with anyone in the arts worlds that does sculpture work; can this item be changed to an allowance item with a dollar amount determined? This will be included on a future addendum.

13. Can you please tell me where to find these 3 inlets? C13 - 425-1-545 Inlets (DT BOT) (Type D) (Partial) 2 EA Reference Applied Sciences’ Civil Plan Sheet No. 12, Inlets E-2 and E-3 at Sta. 23+00, Contractor to verify inlet size and type to raise existing inlet top to proposed grades. C14 – 425-1-561 Inlets (DT BOT) (Type F) (<10’) 1 EA The Type F Inlet was changed to a FDOT Type 7 Manhole (3.5 Ft. Dia.), Reference Applied Sciences’ Civil Plan Sheet No. 7, Manhole S-1 at Sta. 2+61 for location and Civil Plan Sheet No. 15 for Manhole S-1 Details.

14. Please provide a copy of the civil cad drawing files for use by the site work contractors. The Civil Cad drawings will be uploaded to the RFP file on the website so that contractors can download it.

15. For the 32’ octagonal “Oregon” pavilion, please provide roof slope and roof type material from their catalog list of options. 32' Oregon. MEGA-RIB Roof, 4:12 roof pitch, 10' eave height, 24 Ga. Trim fascia, 8 columns, Surface mount, TGIC poly powder coat w/ zinc rich primer.

16. Bid Form line item C30, Fencing indicates 425 lf. Sheet A-100 note 14 lists 790 lf of “Green Fencing” is required. Please clarify. 790 LF is correct.

Posted 12/09/20 PM

17. Bid Form line item C25, 32 lf of Pipe Handrail at CIP Gravity Wall. Gravity Wall cannot be located on

plans. Please clarify. Reference Applied Sciences’ Civil Plan Sheet No. 15, Control Structure S-5 detail for the Gravity Wall locations.

18. Please provide details/specifications on “Pile Cap” at each precast concrete pile in the boardwalk.

Structural sheets reference the Architectural set. Sheet A-402/detail C4 just indicates “Pile Cap”. M2D See Structural Sheet S-4.0 Detail 2/S4.0

19. Please identify landscape irrigation water source. Sheet U-100 shows a Reclaimed Water Line. Is this line existing? Where is point of connection? Plumbing Note 5 indicates a requirement for a pump. Is this required with a pressurized reclaim water line? Please clarify. This will be provided in a future Addendum

20. Bid Form. Line Item ID Numbers B1, B2 for Task B and C1, C2 for Task C. Other than the different quantities, these Item descriptions appear to be the same. Please more clearly define item descriptions.

The line items for Task B are related to the initial removal of “hot spot” contaminated soils that require off-site disposal. The line items for Task C are related to soils that will be generated from the site work (pond and park construction). Soils under Task C include lower-level contaminated soils generally distributed site-wide above the water table, as well as saturated soils below the water table that have no analytical data but will be dewatered and excavated to implement the stormwater improvements. Once stockpiling of soils generated under Task C is completed, Cardno will collect waste characterization samples and provide recommendations for disposal based on the results. The disposal recommendations may include potential on-site re-use, transportation to a suitable offsite location or transportation to a Subtitle D Landfill for disposal if contaminated.. For purposes of estimation, the original bid schedule only included a worse case scenario of all Task C soils being transported to a landfill for disposal. An updated Bid Quantity sheet is included that does include an alternate line item (C3-b) for transportation of clean soils. We will require a per CY unit price on this volume although we do not have a volume established.

Posted 12/09/20 PM

Requests for an updated Bid Form and the form in an Excel format have been made. However, due to ongoing updates to the bid form, we will put off providing this in Excel format until the final addendum is issued. Attachments: Information Conference Attendance List

Geotechnical Exploration Report

END OF DOCUMENT

Connor Park Project #20-790 Information Agenda Meeting

Attendance Log

City of Palmetto Nixa Haisley, Cheryl Miller, Jeff Burton, Donna Gross, Matt Misco

Gause & Associates Bob Gause Advantage Environmental Services Teresa Nixon

Bliss Products Kristin George

Brightwater Solutions Kelly Bishop

Cardno Greg Schultz, Joe Marsh, Miles Ballogg

DeLesline Construction John DeLesline

Halfacre Construction Greg Witt

Hyatt Survey Services Russell Hyatt

Moore 2 Design John Moore

Petrotech S.E. Jason Yates

REB Services Scott Breswood

Stellar Development Brian Ellis & Scott Alie

SWFWMD Nancy Norton

Tampa Bay Marine Kenny Gonzalez

United Rentals Derek Pinard

Westra Construction Debbie Flint & Jack Morsink

Woodruff & Sons Dennis Holt

XGE Systems Michael Kalman

i

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED PAVILION & PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

CONNOR PARK 505 5TH STREET W

PALMETTO, MANATEE COUNTY; FL

UES PROJECT NO.:1130.1900273.0000 UES REPORT NO.: 14647

Prepared For:

The Palmetto CRA 324 8th Ave West

Palmetto, FL 34221

Prepared By:

Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. 1748 Independence Boulevard, Ste. B-1

Sarasota, FL 34234 (941) 358-7410

February 7, 2020

Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing• Offices in: Atlanta • Daytona • Fort Myers • Fort Pierce • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Miami• Ocala• Orlando• Palm Coast • Panama City • Pensacola • Rockledge • Sarasota • Tampa • West

Palm Beach

UNIVERSAL

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 SOIL SURVEY-PUBLISHED INFORMATION ................................................................................. 2 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................. 4 4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 4 4.3 PAVILION FOUNDATION SOILS ..................................................................................................... 5

4.3.1 Bearing Pressure ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.3.2 Foundation Size ........................................................................................................................... 5 4.3.3 Bearing Depth .............................................................................................................................. 5 4.3.4 Bearing Material .......................................................................................................................... 5 4.3.5 Settlement Estimates ................................................................................................................. 5 4.3.6 Floor Slabs .................................................................................................................................... 6

4.4 BRIDGE FOUNDATION SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 6 4.4.1 Pre-stressed Square Concrete Piles ...................................................................................... 6 4.4.2 Timber Pile Foundations ........................................................................................................... 8

4.5 RETAINING WALL .............................................................................................................................. 9 4.7 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES ...................................................................................... 10

5.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 11

ii

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A SITE LOCATION PLAN BORING LOCATION PLAN SCS SOIL SURVEY MAP BORING LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART APPENDIX B IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING REPORT CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS

Proposed Pavilion & Pedestrian Bridge Connor Park UES Project No.:1130.1900273.0000 February 7, 2020

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL In this report, we present the results of the subsurface exploration of the proposed Pavilion & Pedestrian Bridge. A general location plan of the project appears in Appendix A: Site Location Plan. We have divided this report into the following sections:

• SCOPE OF SERVICES - Defines what we did • FINDINGS - Describes what we encountered • RECOMMENDATIONS - Describes what we encourage you to do • LIMITATIONS - Describes the restrictions inherent in this report • APPENDICES - Presents support materials referenced in this report.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the construction of a new community pavilion and a pedestrian bridge across the Calusa Creek for the Connor Park. We understand that you need recommendation for wood piles and square driven concrete piles for bridge foundation support. The site is a vacant land located at 505 5th Street W in Palmetto, FL. Manatee River borders the east side of the property. Our recommendations are based upon the above considerations. If any of this information is incorrect or if you anticipate any changes, inform Universal Engineering Sciences so that we may review our recommendations. 2.2 PURPOSE The purposes of this exploration were: · To explore the general subsurface conditions at the site; · To interpret and review the subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed

construction; and · To provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation design, and

site preparation. Recommendations concerning other soil related considerations were beyond the scope of our exploration. This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of traditional geotechnical procedures for site characterization. Our work did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. Universal Engineering Sciences would be pleased to perform these services, if you desire.


2

2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling and sampling one (1) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the pavilion structure and three (3) SPT borings along the bridge. These borings were advanced to depths of 20 and 25 feet below existing grades. We performed the Standard Penetration Test using our truck mounted drill rig utilizing mud rotary procedures according to the procedures of ASTM D-1586, with continuous sampling performed above a depth of 10 feet, to detect slight variations in the soil profile at shallow depths, and then at five-foot intervals thereafter. The basic procedure for the Standard Penetration Test is as follows: A standard split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1-foot, after seating 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or N-value; this value is an index to soil strength and consistency. The boring locations were located by our drill crew based on the site plan and existing site conditions. The test boring locations are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan in Appendix A as B-1 through B-4.

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS A Universal Engineering Sciences representative performed a visual site observation of the subject property to gain a "hands-on" familiarity of the project area. At the time of our exploration, the site was relatively level and grassed. Manatee River borders the east side of the property. 3.2 SOIL SURVEY-PUBLISHED INFORMATION The “Soil Survey of Manatee County, Florida”, published by the published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Soil Conservation Service (SCS), was reviewed for general near-surface soil information prior to development within the general project vicinity. The USDA, SCS primary soil mapping groups within the proposed project area, and some characteristics and properties are summarized below. The location of these groups can be observed on the SCS Soil Survey Map provided in the Appendix A.

Canaveral (soil Group No. 9): Under natural condition, this soil group consists of sand from the surface to a depth of 80 inches below grade. Based on the soil survey, the water table is from 12 to 36 inches below grade. EauGallie (Soil Group No. 20): Under natural conditions, this soil group consists of fine sands from the surface to a depth of about 42 inches, sandy clay loam from 42 to 50 inches, and fine sand from 50 to 65 inches below grade. Based on the soil survey, the water table is from 6 to 18 inches below grade. Pomello (Soil Group No. 42): This soil group consists of fine sand from the surface to a depth of about 80 inches below grade. Based on the soil survey, the water table is from 18 to 42 inches below grade, under natural conditions.


3

Zolfo (soil Group No. 54): This soil group consists of fine sands from the surface to a depth of about 80 inches. The water table is at depths from 24 to 42 inches below grade. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix A: Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. Also, see Appendix A: Soils Classification Chart, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Boring Logs. The following table summarizes the soil conditions encountered.

TABLE 1 General Soil Profile

Typical depth (ft) Soil Descriptions

From To

0 2 Very loose to loose fine sand, and fine sand with silt [SP, SP-SM]

2 4 Loose to medium dense fine sand [SP]

4 8 Very loose to loose fine sand [SP]

8 12 Very loose fine sand, and fine sand with clay [SP, SP-SC]

12 17 Loose to medium dense fine sand, and fine sand with clay [SP, SP-SC]

17 22 Medium dense fine sand, fine sand with clay, and silty clayey sand [SP, SP-SC, SC-SM]

22 25* Very hard clay [CL]

* Termination Depth of Deepest Boring [ ] Bracketed Text Indicates: Unified Soil Classification

Variations in the depth, thickness and consistency of the aforementioned soil strata occurred at the individual test boring locations. We encountered groundwater at depths ranging from 4 to 5 feet below existing grade at the time of our exploration. The variations in the measured water levels are attributed to the variation in the ground surface elevation at this site as well as the soil type encountered. A notable feature is the presence of very loose and loose sands encountered in the borings from the ground surface to approximately 17 feet below grade with N-values ranging from 4 to 9 blows per foot. Very hard soils were encountered below a depth of 22 feet with N-values of more than 50 blows per foot. This soil may vary across the site and will be difficult to excavate, and to penetrate during pile installation.


4

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. If the assumed structural loadings, building locations, building sizes, or grading plans change or are different from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes. Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction which was not encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations. In this section of the report, we present our detailed recommendations for groundwater control, building foundations, and site preparation. 4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall and tidal fluctuation. Temporary dewatering may be required for deeper excavations, such as large foundation elements, elevator pits and utility trenches. Surface drainage and dewatering measures may be required during site preparation procedures such as proof-compacting of the existing soils, and fill placement particularly if construction proceeds during the wet season. Further, we recommend that the groundwater table be maintained 18 to 24 inches below earthwork and compaction surfaces. We recommend sufficient quantities of fill be placed in the building and pavement areas to mitigate the effect of groundwater on shallow excavations, such as foundations. Further, we recommend the bottom of the base course used in pavement construction be maintained at least 12 inches above the seasonal high water levels. Temporary dewatering may be required during site preparation, especially if construction proceeds during the wet season or periods of heavy rainfall. Temporary dewatering may also be required for deeper excavations, such as utility trenches, the backfilling of the drainfield area and other excavations. We recommend that the contract documents provide for determining the groundwater level just prior to construction and for any dewatering measures which might be required. We recommend that the groundwater table be maintained at least 24 inches below all earthwork and compaction surfaces.


5

4.3 PAVILION FOUNDATION SOILS We believe the proposed structure can be supported on conventional shallow foundation provided the site is properly prepared and the foundation loading conditions do not exceed the values outlined earlier in this report. The following parameters may be used for foundation design. 4.3.1 Bearing Pressure The maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure for shallow foundations should not exceed 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Net bearing pressure is defined as the soil bearing pressure at the base of the foundation in excess of the natural overburden pressure. The foundations should be designed based upon the maximum load that could be imposed by all loading conditions. 4.3.2 Foundation Size

The minimum widths recommended for any isolated column footing and continuous wall footing is 24 inches and 18 inches, respectively. Even though the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, this width recommendation should control the size of the foundations. 4.3.3 Bearing Depth The exterior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 18 inches below the exterior final grades. We recommend stormwater and surface water be diverted away from the building exteriors, both during and after construction to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings. 4.3.4 Bearing Material The foundations may bear on either the compacted suitable natural soils or compacted structural fill as recommended in the site preparation of this report. The bearing level soils, after compaction should have compaction to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the bearing soils as determined by ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor), to the depth described subsequently in the Site Preparation section of the report. In addition to compaction the bearing soils must exhibit stability and be free of “pumping” conditions. If moisture sensitive soils are encountered and compaction is difficult to achieve, the footings can be treated with dry suitable material or acceptable crushed aggregate. 4.3.5 Settlement Estimates Post-construction settlement of the structure will be influenced by several interrelated factors, such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics of the bearing soils to a depth of approximately twice the width of the footing; (2) footing size, bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundation; (3) site preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor, and (4) external factors, including but not limited to vibration from offsite sources and groundwater fluctuations beyond those normally anticipated for the naturally-occurring site and soil conditions which are present.


6

Our settlement estimates for the structure are based upon the use of successful adherence to the site preparation recommendations presented later in this report and the maximum loading conditions previously discussed. Any deviation from these recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post-construction settlement of the structure. Due to the sandy nature of the surficial soils, following the compaction operations, we expect a significant portion of settlement to be elastic in nature and occur relatively quickly on application of the loads, during and immediately following construction. Using the recommended maximum bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads, and the field and laboratory test data which we have correlated into the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate the total settlements of the structure to be 1 inch or less. Differential settlements result from differences in applied bearing pressures and the variations in the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. For the foundations prepared as recommended, we anticipate post construction differential settlements of ½-inch or less. 4.3.6 Floor Slabs The floor slabs will be supported on compacted fill and either is structurally isolated from the other foundation elements or monolithic floor slabs adequately reinforced to prevent distress due to differential movements. For building design, we recommend using a subgrade reaction modulus of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) which can be achieved by compacting the subgrade soils as recommended in the site preparation procedure. We recommend the use of a sheet vapor barrier such as visqeen beneath the building slab on grade to help control moisture migration through the slab. 4.4 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOUNDATION SUPPORT We believe the proposed structure can be supported on prestressed concrete square piles or timber piles embedded into the medium dense strata of sands to depths of 20 feet below grade or into the very hard soils to a depth of 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Very loose to loose sand were encountered in the borings from the ground surface to approximately 17 feet below grade with N-values ranging from 4 to 9 blows per foot. 4.4.1 Pre-stressed Square Concrete Piles Pile computations were made by using a static analysis method to estimate ultimate capacities of 12-inch and 14-inch square concrete piles bearing at various depths below existing grade. Based on these analyses, a recommended embedment depth and allowable loads per pile were developed and are presented in Table 2. These allowable values include a factor of safety of 2.0 for tensile and compression computed ultimate values.


7

TABLE 2

Pile Foundation Recommendations Pile

Type Size * Embedment

Depth Allowable Axial Load Capacity

(F.S. = 2.0)

Allowable Uplift Capacity

(F.S. = 2.0)

**Lateral Capacity

(F.S.= 2.0) Pre-

Stressed Square

Concrete

12 x 12

20 feet 25 feet

25 tons 30 tons

6 tons 10 tons

2.5 tons 3 tons

14 x 14

20 feet 25 feet

30 tons 35 tons

8 tons 12 tons

3 tons 3.5 tons

* Depth below existing grade at time of exploration. The pile length would have to be increased as necessary to accommodate the fill height above existing grade. ** At grade. Fixed condition

The size of the proposed pile foundations can be selected from the above table based on the required load capacity of the individual piles, materials availability and economic considerations. Should larger pile capacities be required, greater depths of exploration would be necessary. We would be glad to evaluate the use of longer piles should you so desire. The pile embedment depth and capacities indicated are based on a theoretical analysis and should be satisfactory for design purposes. However, the actual pile lengths for production should be based upon the results of a test pile program. As a minimum, we recommend the test pile program include performing an analysis to establish driving criteria based on penetration resistance and driving indicator piles to evaluate the penetration resistance being obtained in various portions of the foundation area. The development of skin friction was utilized in our analysis for driven piles. For this reason, we recommend that any pre-drilling or jetting be limited to that necessary to properly set and align the pile (2 to 3 feet maximum). During driving piles through low resistance materials, such as the zones of loose silty organic muck material, tension stresses will be induced within the piles. The pile driving hammer should be large enough to adequately drive the piles without unusual blow counts, not so large as they create excessive compression or tension stresses during pile driving. We wish to point out that our estimated pile capacities is based upon a single, free standing pile statically analyzed. Piles may have significantly different capacities in groups; similarly, pile groups may settle significantly more then single piles. To help mitigate group action of piles, piles should normally be separated by a minimum of at least 3 pile diameters. To help assure that pile foundation systems will perform as required, we recommend that the foundation installation be monitored and reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer or his representative.


8

4.4.2 Timber Pile Foundations Pile computations were made by using a static analysis method to estimate ultimate capacity of an 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch timber piles bearing at several depths below existing grade. Based on these analyses, a recommended embedment depth and allowable load per pile were developed and are presented in the Table 3. These allowable values include a factor of safety of 2.0 for compression and 2.0 for uplift against computed ultimate values.

TABLE 3 Pile Foundation Recommendations

Pile Type

Size * Embedment Depth

Allowable Axial Load Capacity

(F.S. = 2.0)

Allowable Uplift Capacity

(F.S. = 2.0)

**Lateral Capacity

(F.S.= 2.0)

Timber

8" Diameter (butt)

20 feet 25 feet

15 tons 18 tons

3 tons 5 tons

1.5 tons 1.8 feet

10" Diameter (butt)

20 feet 25 feet

18 tons 20 tons

4 tons 7 tons

1.8 tons 2 tons

12" Diameter

(butt) 20 feet 25 feet

20 tons 23 tons

5 tons 8 tons

2 tons 2.3 tons

* Depth below existing grade at time of exploration. The pile length would have to be increased as necessary to accommodate the fill height above existing grade. ** At grade. Fixed condition

The size of the proposed pile foundations can be selected from the above table based on the required load capacity of the individual piles, materials availability and economic considerations. Should larger pile capacities be required, greater depths of exploration would be necessary. We would be glad to evaluate the use of longer piles should you so desire. The pile embedment depth and capacities indicated are based on a theoretical analysis and should be satisfactory for design purposes. The development of skin friction was utilized in our analysis for driven piles. For this reason, we recommend that any pre-drilling or jetting be limited to that necessary to properly set and align the pile (2 to 3 feet maximum). During driving piles through low resistance materials, such as the zones of loose silty organic muck material, tension stresses will be induced within the piles. The pile driving hammer should be large enough to adequately drive the piles without unusual blow counts, not so large as they create excessive compression or tension stresses during pile driving. We wish to point out that our estimated pile capacities is based upon a single, free standing pile statically analyzed. Piles may have significantly different capacities in groups; similarly, pile groups may settle significantly more then single piles. To help mitigate group action of piles, piles should normally be separated by a minimum of at least 3 pile diameters. To help assure that pile foundation systems will perform as required, we recommend that the foundation installation be monitored and reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer or his representative.


9

4.5 RETAINING WALL Assuming the retaining walls and the subsurface walls will be smooth concrete, we recommend using the following parameters for the upper 3 feet of in-situ sands and/or on-site and imported free draining fine sand backfill soil compacted to 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density for your retaining wall design.

TABLE 4 Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters (Level Backfill)*

Design Parameter Recommended Value At-rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ko 0.5 Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka 0.33 Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kp 3.0 Wet Unit Soil Weight (pounds per cubic foot - pcf) 115 Submerged Unit Weight of Soil (pcf) 52 Coefficient of Friction (sliding) 0.4 Angle of Internal Friction, φ 30 degrees

* For sloping backfill values must be adjusted. The Table values do not include a factor of safety and therefore, the designer should incorporate an appropriate factor of safety (note that uplift and lateral hydrostatic pressures could be exerted on the structure during the time the groundwater level behind the walls is at peak levels from natural or man-induced causes. These forces should also be included in the proposed design). Retaining walls and subsurface walls should be provided with appropriate wall drains/underdrains to prevent water from accumulating and exerting excessive hydrostatic pressures. Also, retaining walls with adjacent sloping earth embankments or structural loadings may require special considerations. Again, the above parameters apply to the surficial sandy soils or imported fine sand fill with less than 10 percent soil fines. Variations of these values may occur within deeper site soils and other soil types imported for use as fill. Proprietary MSE walls, if required should be backfilled in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations. In the absence of specific requirements from the manufacturer or in the interest of local availability of materials, we recommend that the MSE backfill soils meet the requirements of Section 145 (Subsection 145-3.2) of the current FDOT “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction”.

4.6 SITE PREPARATION

We recommend only good practice, site preparation procedures in conjunction with the densification of the upper 1 foot of existing subgrade soils. These procedures include: stripping the site of all existing improvements, vegetation, roots and topsoil, proof-rolling and compacting the subgrade to a depth of 1 foot, and filling to grade with engineered fill. A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows:


10

1. If required, perform remedial dewatering prior to any earthwork operations.

2. Strip the proposed construction limits of all existing improvements, vegetation, grass, roots, topsoil, and other deleterious materials within and 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building and in all paved areas. Moreover, any existing and/or former below grade elements, such as foundations and utilities should be removed from the limits of the planned building and pavement areas. Any resulting excavations should be replaced with compacted fill according to the recommendations provided later in this section of our report. You should anticipate 6 to 12 inches of stripping.

3. After stripping the site as outlined above in Item #2, proof-roll the subgrade with a

heavily loaded, rubber-tired vehicle under the observation of a Universal Engineering Sciences geotechnical engineer or his representative. Proof-rolling will help locate any zones of especially loose or soft soils not encountered in the soil test borings. Then undercut, or otherwise treat these zones as recommended by the engineer.

4. Compact the subgrade from the surface until you obtain a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557), to a depth of 1 foot below existing grade in the building areas.

5. Test the subgrade for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500

square feet per foot of depth improvement in the building area.

6. Place fill and backfill material, as required. The fill should consist of "clean," fine sand with less than 5 percent soil fines. You may use fill materials with soil fines between 5 and 10 percent, but strict moisture control may be required. Place fill in uniform 12-inch compacted lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.

7. Perform in-place density tests within the fill at a frequency of not less than one test per

2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas.

8. Compact all footings to a depth of 1 foot. Additionally, we recommend that you test one out of every four column footings, and one test per every 50 lineal feet of wall footing to verify the required compaction is obtained.

Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb adjacent and other nearby structures and roadways. We recommend that you monitor adjacent and nearby structures before and during proof-compaction. If disturbance is noted, halt vibratory compaction and inform Universal Engineering Sciences immediately. We will review the compaction procedures and evaluate if the compactive effort results in a satisfactory subgrade, complying with our original design assumptions. 4.7 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES We recommend the owner retain Universal Engineering Sciences to perform construction materials tests and observations on this project. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation and pavement subgrades by monitoring proof-rolling operations and performing quality assurance tests on the placement of compacted structural fill and pavement courses.


11

The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction documents. The design is an on-going process throughout construction. Because of our familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified to address problems that might arise during construction in a timely and cost-effective manner.

5.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared in order to aid the architect/engineer in the design of the proposed park pavilion and bridge structures. The scope of services provided was limited to the specific project and locations described herein. The description of the project's design parameters represents our understanding of significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation characteristics. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the limited number of soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the boring locations or unexplored areas of the site. This report should not be used for estimating such items as cut and fill quantities. Borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, UES does not recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended. All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore no attempt was made by Universal to locate or identify such concerns. Universal cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if requested. For a further description of the scope and limitations of this report please review the document attached within Appendix B "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" prepared by ASFE, an association of firms practicing in the geosciences.

Documents

EMAILED Q & A