21083_Edinburg_Parking_Garage_and_Retail_Center_-_100_Construction_Drawings_-_Project_Manual_231228.pdf

City of Edinburg 415 W. University Drive Edinburg, Texas 78539

(956) 388-8211

CITY OF EDINBURG SET NO. 1

PROJECT MANUAL

FOR

EDINBURG

FOR THE

CITY OF EDINBURG

415 W. University Drive Edinburg, Texas 78539

(956) 388-8211

Page Intentionally Blank

TITLE SHEET

00001-1 of 2

Document 00001

TITLE SHEET

PROJECT MANUAL

FOR

EDINBURG

FOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS

PROJECT ENGINEER

CITY ENGINEER

Mardoqueo Hinojosa, P.E., CFM Date

Engineer Name Date

END OF DOCUMENT

TITLE SHEET

00001-2 of 2

Page Intentionally Blank

ERO Project No. 000 - Seals Page

CIVIL

, PE

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

MIGUEL CHANIN, PE

CHANIN ENGINEERING, LLC

400 NOLANA SUITE H2

MCALLEN, TX 78504

12/15/23

ERO Project No.

MEP

AV, IT, SECURITY

END OF SECTION

ISSUE FOR BID

DECEMBER 15, 2023

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

Edinburg, Texas of

JENNIFER JOSEPH

WJHW

3424 MIDCOURT ROAD SUITE 124

CARROLLTON, TX 75006

ROBERT TIJERINA, PE

DBR ENGINEERING

200 SOUTH 10TH STREET, SUITE 901

MCALLEN, TX 78501

ISSUE FOR BID

DECEMBER 15, 2023

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

Edinburg, Texas

ERO Project No. 21083 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOCUMENT 00 01 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 01 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS

00 31 32 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

SPECIFICATIONS GROUP

General Requirements Subgroup

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 10 00 SUMMARY

01 21 00 ALLOWANCES

01 25 00 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

01 26 00 CONTRACT MODIFICATION PROCEDURES

01 29 00 PAYMENT PROCEDURES

01 31 00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

01 32 00 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS DOCUMENTATION

01 32 33 PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 40 00 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 REFERENCES

01 43 39 MOCKUPS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 60 00 PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

01 73 00 EXECUTION

01 77 00 CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 78 39 PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS

01 79 00 DEMONSTRATION AND TRAINING

Facility Construction Subgroup

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

NOT APPLICABLE

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 10 00 CONCRETE FORMS AND ACCESSORIES

03 20 00 CONCRETE REINFORCING

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 35 43 POLISHED CONCRETE FINISHING

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

03 35 00 CONCRETE FINISHING

03 39 00 CONCRETE CURING

03 41 33 PRECAST STRUCTURAL PRETENSIONED CONCRETE

03 48 16 PRECAST CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS

03 60 00 GROUTING

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 05 14 MASONRY MORTAR AND GROUT

04 20 16 REINFORCED UNIT MASONRY ASSEMBLIES

04 22 00 CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY

04 26 13 MASONRY VENEER

04 72 00 CAST STONE MASONRY

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING

05 31 23 STEEL ROOF DECKING

05 40 00 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING

05 50 00 METAL FABRICATIONS

05 52 13 PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 53 MISCELLANEOUS ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 16 00 SHEATHING

06 41 16 PLASTIC-LAMINATE-FACED ARCHITECTURAL CABINETS

06 64 00 PLASTIC PANELING

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 11 13 BITUMINOUS DAMPPROOFING

07 14 13 HOT FLUID-APPLIED RUBBERIZED ASPHALT WATERPROOFING

07 14 16 COLD FLUID-APPLIED WATERPROOFING

07 18 00 TRAFFIC COATINGS

07 21 00 THERMAL INSULATION

07 21 28 SPRAYED THERMAL INSULATION

07 26 16 UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDER

07 27 26 FLUID-APPLIED MEMBRANE AIR BARRIERS

07 42 13.53 - METAL SOFFIT PANELS

07 54 23 THERMOPLASTIC-POLYOLEFIN (TPO) ROOFING

07 62 00 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM

07 65 00 FLEXIBLE FLASHING

07 84 13 PENETRATION FIRESTOPPING

07 84 43 JOINT FIRESTOPPING

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

07 92 19 ACOUSTICAL JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 31 13 ACCESS DOORS AND FRAMES

08 33 26 OVERHEAD COILING GRILLES

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

08 41 13 ALUMINUM-FRAMED ENTRANCES AND STOREFRONTS

08 44 13 GLAZED ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALLS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 80 00 GLAZING

08 91 19 FIXED LOUVERS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 22 16 NON-STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 13 CERAMIC TILING

09 51 13 ACOUSTICAL PANEL CEILINGS

09 65 13 RESILIENT BASE AND ACCESSORIES

09 65 19 RESILIENT TILE FLOORING

09 91 13 EXTERIOR PAINTING

09 91 23 INTERIOR PAINTING

09 96 00 HIGH-PERFORMANCE COATINGS

09 97 24 PENETRATING LIQUID FLOOR TREATMENT

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 14 16 PLAQUES

10 14 19 DIMENSIONAL LETTER SIGNAGE

10 14 23 PANEL SIGNAGE

10 14 73 PAINTED SIGNAGE

10 21 13.14 - STAINLESS-STEEL TOILET COMPARTMENTS

10 26 00 WALL AND DOOR PROTECTION

10 28 00 TOILET, BATH, AND LAUNDRY ACCESSORIES

10 43 13 DEFIBRILLATOR CABINETS

10 44 13 FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETS

10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

10 75 16 GROUND-SET FLAGPOLES

DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT

11 12 00 PARKING CONTROL EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

12 36 23.13 PLASTIC-LAMINATE-CLAD COUNTERTOPS

12 36 61.16 - SOLID SURFACING COUNTERTOPS

DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

13 34 23.16 - FABRICATED CONTROL BOOTHS

DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING EQUIPMENT

14 24 00 HYDRAULIC ELEVATORS

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

Facility Services Subgroup

DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 00 00 FIRE PROTECTION

21 02 01 COORDINATION DRAWINGS

21 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

21 13 13 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEM

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 02 00 BASIC MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR PLUMBING

22 05 16 EXPANSION FITTINGS AND LOOPS FOR PLUMBING PIPING

22 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORT FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

22 05 48 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR PLUMBING PIPING

22 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

22 07 19 PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION

22 10 00 PLUMBING PIPING

22 11 19 PLUMBING SPECIALTIES

22 11 21 NATURAL GAS PIPING SYSTEMS

22 30 00 PLUMBING EQUIPMENT

22 40 00 PLUMBING FIXTURES

DIVISION 23 - HEATING VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

23 02 00 BASIC MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR HVAC

23 05 13 COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT

23 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR PIPING AND EQUIPMENT - HVAC

23 05 48 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING

23 07 13 DUCT INSULATION

23 07 19 HVAC PIPING INSULATION

23 08 00 COMMISSIONING OF HVAC SYSTEMS

23 09 63 ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEM (EMCS)

23 31 13 METAL DUCTWORK

23 33 00 DUCTWORK ACCESSORIES

23 34 00 HVAC FANS

23 36 16 SINGLE DUCT VAV TERMINAL UNITS

23 37 13 AIR DISTRIBUTION DEVICES

23 73 26 MODULAR OUTDOOR CENTRAL STATION AIR HANDLING UNITS

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 02 00 BASIC MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRICAL

26 05 19 WIRE, CABLE AND RELATED MATERIALS

26 05 26 GROUNDING

26 05 33 RACEWAYS

26 05 73 SHORT CIRCUIT COORDINATION STUDY ARC FLASH HAZARD ANALYSIS

26 08 00 COMMISSIONING OF ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 09 13 ELECTRICAL POWER MONITORING AND CONTROL

26 09 36 LIGHTING CONTROLS (STAND ALONE)

26 21 13 ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

26 22 13 LOW VOLTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS TRANSFORMERS

26 22 22 LOW VOLTAGE HARMONIC MITIGATING DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

26 24 16 PANELBOARDS

26 27 26 WIRING DEVICES

26 28 13 FUSES

26 28 16 SAFETY AND DISCONNECT SWITCHES

26 29 26 MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRICAL CONTROLS AND WIRING

26 41 13.13 LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM

26 43 13.13 SURGE PROTECTIVE DEVICES (SPD) - STANDARD INTERRUPTING

26 51 19 LIGHTING FIXTURES - LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED)

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 05 43 OUTSIDE PLANT FOR COMMUNICATIONS

27 10 00 STRUCTURED CABLING SYSTEMS

27 21 33 DATA COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS ACCESS POINTS

27 41 16 INTEGRATED AUDIO-VIDEO SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 02 00 BASIC MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY SYSTEMS

28 05 00 BASIC MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR FIRE ALARM

28 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRONIC SECURITY

28 05 13 CONDUCTORS AND CABLES FOR ELECTRONIC SECURITY

28 10 00 ACCESS CONTROL

28 15 23 INTERCOM ENTRY SYSTEMS

28 20 00 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE

28 46 00.03 FIRE ALARM AND SMOKE DETECTION SYSTEM (SIEMENS) FOR LOW AND MID RISE

BUILDINGS

Site and Infrastructure Subgroup

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 05 13 SOILS FOR EARTHWORK

31 10 10 SITE CLEARING

31 10 00 SITE PREPARATION

31 14 00 EARTHWORK

31 20 00 AGGREGATE MATERIALS

31 21 00 ROCK REMOVAL

31 22 00 EXCAVATION, BACKFILLING AND COMPACTING FOR PAVEMENT

31 22 13 ROUGH GRADING

31 23 00 EXCAVATION AND FILL

31 23 00 EXCAVATION, BACKFILLING AND COMPACTING FOR UTILITIES

31 31 16 TERMITE CONTROL

31 32 00 SOIL STABILIZATION

31 35 00 SLOPE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL

31 63 29 DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 11 00 PAVING BASE COURSE

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

32 12 00 ASPHALTIC CONRETE PAVING

32 13 00 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVING

32 16 00 CLUB AND SIDEWALKS

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 84 23 UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM

32 90 00 PLANTING

32 91 00 FURNISHING AND PLACING TOPSOIL

32 91 13 PLANTING BED PREPARATION

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 11 00 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

33 31 00 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS

33 39 00 SEWER STRUCTURES

33 41 00 STORM SEWER SYSTEMS

34 00 00 SIGNAGE

END OF SECTION

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

EDINBURG DOWNTOWN PARKING

GARAGE AND RETAIL CENTER

ERO Project No. 21083 00 31 32 - GEOTECHNICAL DATA

SECTION 00 31 32

GEOTECHNICAL DATA

1.01 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

A. Geotechnical Investigation Report has been prepared by the firm of MEG Engineers. This report is identified as “MEG Geotechnical Engineering Report - Proposed City Of Edinburg - Parking Garage On Northwest Corner Of Mcintyre And Closner Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas”, MEG Report No.: 01-22-29-29159, and is dated September 23, 2023.

B. A copy of each report is attached and shall be referred to for a complete description of the conditions at the site.

1.02 CONTRACTOR’S USE OF GEOTECHNICAL DATA

A. This report was obtained only for the Owner's use in foundation and parking area design and is not a part of the Contract Documents. The report and log of borings is available for the Contractor's information, but are not a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The Contractor may use the report at his own risk.

B. The Contractor shall review the applicable portions of Geotechnical Investigation Report and the technical sections of this Project Manual. The Architect shall be notified of any discrepancies immediately. In the event of a conflict between the applicable portions of the Geotechnical Investigation Report and the technical sections, the stricter requirement shall govern.

C. The Contractor shall visit the site and acquaint himself with site conditions. Prior to bidding, the Contractor may make his own subsurface investigation to satisfy himself with site and subsurface conditions.

D. Make no deviations from the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report and the requirements of the Contract Documents without specific and written approval of the Owner or Architect.

MILLENNIUM ENGINEERS GROUP, INC.

TBPE FIRM NO. F-3913

5804 N. GUMWOOD AVENUE

PHARR, TEXAS 78577

TEL:956-702-8500

FAX:956-702-8140

WWW.MEGENGINEERS.COM

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

PROPOSED CITY OF EDINBURG - PARKING GARAGE ON NORTHWEST CORNER

OF MCINTYRE AND CLOSNER

EDINBURG, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

Prepared For

Mr. Mardoqueo Hinojosa, P.E.

City Engineer

MEG Report No. 01-22-29159

September 23, 2022

Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Materials Engineering & Testing Environmental • Consulting • Forensics

MEG GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED

CITY OF EDINBURG - PARKING GARAGE ON

NORTHWEST CORNER OF MCINTYRE AND CLOSNER

EDINBURG, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

Millennium Engineers Group, Inc.

5804 N. Gumwood Avenue Pharr, Texas 78577 www.megengineers.com Tel:956-702-8500 Fax:956-702-8140

MEG Project No.: 01-22-29159 Page II

Mardoqueo Hinojosa, P.E., CFM, CPM City Engineer - City of Edinburg 415 W. University Drive Edinburg, TX 78541 (956)388-8955 mhinojosa@cityofedinburg.com

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report MEG Report No. 01-22-29159 Foundation Recommendations Proposed City of Edinburg - Parking Garage on Northwest Corner of McIntyre and Closner Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas

Dear Mr. Hinojosa (CLIENT):

Millennium Engineers Group, Inc. is pleased to submit the enclosed geotechnical engineering report that was prepared for the above subject project. This report addresses the procedures and findings of our geotechnical engineering study. Our recommendations should be incorporated into the design and construction documents for the proposed development.

We want to emphasize the importance that all our recommendations presented in this report and/or addendums to this report be followed. We look forward to continuing our involvement in the project by providing construction monitoring in accordance with the report recommendations and materials testing services during construction. We strongly recommend that we be a part of the preconstruction meeting to address any specific issues that are pertinent to this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you in this phase of the project and we would like the opportunity to assist you in the upcoming phases of the project. If you have any questions, please contact our office at the address, telephone, fax or electronic address listed below.

Amos Emerson, P.E.

Geotechnical Department Manager

Cordially, Millennium Engineers Group, Inc.

TBPE Firm No. F-3913

Quyet Thang Pham, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

The seal appearing on this document was authorized by Quyet Thang Pham, P.E. 131836 on September 23, 2022.

Alteration of a sealed document without proper notification to the responsible engineer is an offence under the Texas Engineering Practice Act

Cc: 1 Original and PDF Document

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Pharr, Texas 78577 www.megengineers.com Tel:956-702-8500 Fax:956-702-8140

Page III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

5.1 Site Description

5.2 Site Geology

6.1 General

6.2 Soil-Related Movements

6.3

6.4 Floor Slabs (In

6.5 Pressuremeter Testing

7.1

7.2 Uplift Forces

7.3 Allowable Uplift Resistance

7.5 7.6

8.1 Site Grading Recommendations

8.2 Site Drainage Recommendations

8.3 Site Preparation Recommendations

8.4 Select Fill Recommendations

8.5 Site Fill Recommendations

8.6 Back Fill Recommendations

8.8 Utility Trench Recommendations

8.10 Benching and Keying Recommendations

8.11 8.12 8.13

Pharr, Texas 78577 www.megengineers.com Tel:956-702-8500 Fax:956-702-8140

Page I

APPENDIX

– PRESSUREMETER TESTING

MEG Page 1 of 22

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Millennium Engineers Group, Inc. (MEG) has completed and is pleased to submit this document that presents our findings as a result of a geotechnical engineering study of this project to our client. The project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Closner Boulevard and McIntyre Street in Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas. The project location is shown on the Project Location Map, found in the Appendix section of this report. This report briefly describes the procedures utilized during this study and presents our findings along with our recommendation, for foundation design and construction considerations.

Our scope of services for the project was outlined in MEG proposal No. 01-22-119GR, dated April 19, 2022 and approved by Ms. Myra L. Ayala on May 17, 2022.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

It is our understanding that the proposed site will accommodate the construction of a new parking garage. It is also our understanding that the proposed parking garage will consist of a three (3) to six (6) story structure. The site construction for the proposed structure is anticipated to be on a drilled pier foundation provided expansive, soil-related movements will not impair the performance of the structure.

3.0 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

This engineering report has been prepared in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practices currently exercised by geotechnical engineers in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended. This report is intended for the exclusive use by the client and client’s authorized project team for use in preparing design and construction documents for this project only. This report may only be reproduced in its entirety for inclusion in construction documents. This report in its entirety shall not be reproduced or used for any other purposes without the written consent of our firm. This report may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses and is not intended for use in determining construction means and methods.

The recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the soil borings drilled at this site and our understanding of the project information provided to us by our client and other project team members, and the assumption that site grading will result in only minor changes in the existing topography. Subsurface soil conditions have been observed and interpreted at the boring locations only.

This report may not reflect the actual variations of the subsurface conditions across the subject site. It is important to understand that variations may occur due to real geologic conditions or previous uses of the site. The nature and extent of variations across the subject site may not become evident until specific design locations are identified and/or construction commences. The construction process itself may also alter subsurface

MEG Page 2 of 22 conditions. If variations appear evident at the time during the design phase and/or construction phase, we should be notified immediately to determine if our opinions, conclusions and recommendations need to be reevaluated. It may be necessary to perform additional field and laboratory tests and engineering analyses to establish the engineering impact of such variations. These services are additional and are not a part of our project scope.

The engineering report was conducted for the proposed project site described in this report. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not valid for any other project sites. If the project information described in this report is incorrect, is altered, or if new information becomes available, we should be retained to review and modify our recommendations. These services are additional and are not a part of our project scope.

Our scope of services was limited to the proposed work described in this report, and did not address other items or areas. The scope of our geotechnical engineering study does not include environmental assessment of the air, soil, rock or water conditions on or adjacent to the site. No environmental opinions are presented in this report. If the client is concerned with environmental risk at this project site, the client should perform an environmental site assessment.

If final grade elevations are significantly different from existing grades at the time of our field activities (more than plus or minus one (1) foot), our office should be informed about these changes. If desired, we will reexamine our analyses and make supplemental recommendations.

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Subsurface conditions at the subject site were evaluated by six (6) 80-foot soil borings.

The Borings were drilled at the locations shown on the Borings Location Map, found in the Appendix section of this report. This location is approximate and distances were measured using a measuring wheel, tape, angles, and/or pacing from existing references.

The structural soil borings were drilled in general accordance with American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) D 420 procedures.

As part of our sampling procedures, the samples were collected in general conformance with ASTM D 1586 procedures. Representative portions of the samples were sealed in containers to reduce moisture loss, identified, packaged, and transported to our laboratory for subsequent testing. In the laboratory, each sample was evaluated and visually classified by a member of our Geotechnical Engineering staff. The geotechnical engineering properties of the strata were evaluated by a series of laboratory tests. The results of the laboratory and field-testing are tabulated on the boring logs and Summary of Soil Sample Analyses which are found in the Attachments section of this report.

MEG Page 3 of 22

Standard penetration test results are noted on the boring logs as blows per 12 inches of penetration. Three 6 inch increments are performed for each standard penetration test.

The sum of the blows for the final two 6 inch increments is considered the “standard penetration resistance value” or “N-value.” Where hard or very dense materials were encountered, the tests are terminated as follows: (1) when a total of 50 blows have been applied in any of the 6 inch increments, or (2) when a total of 100 blows have been applied, or (3) when there is no observed advance of the sampler in the application of 10 successive blows. The boring logs in the case of hard or very dense materials will be noted as follows: 50/3”, where 50 is the number of blows applied in 3 inches of penetration, or 100/7½” where 100 is the number of blows applied in a total of 7 ½ inches of penetration, or 10/0”, where 10 is the number of blows applied in 0 inches of penetration.

Samples will be retained in our laboratory for 30 days after submittal of this report. Other arrangements may be provided at the request of the Client.

5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Site Description

The project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Closner Boulevard and McIntyre Street in Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas. The project location is shown on the Project Location Map, found in the Appendix section of this report. At the time of our field operations, the subject site can be described as an developed tract of urban land that is currently used as a vehicular parking lot. The general topography of the site is relatively flat sloping down to the south with a visually estimated vertical relief of less than 3 feet. Surface drainage is visually estimated to be poor to fair.

5.2 Site Geology

According to the Soil Survey of Hidalgo County, Texas, published by the United States Department of Agriculture – Soil Conservation Service, the project site appears to be located within the Urban land soil associations.

Urban land soils refers to soils in areas of high population density in the largely built environment. These soils can be significantly changed human-transported materials, human-altered materials, or minimally altered or intact “native” soils.

Soils in urban areas exhibit a wide variety of conditions and properties and may have impervious surfaces, such as buildings and pavement. The corresponding symbol is Ua, Urban Land.

5.3 Subsurface Conditions

On the basis of our borings, ten (10) generalized strata that possess similar physical and engineering characteristics can describe the subsurface stratigraphy at this site. Table

MEG Page 4 of 22

5.1 summarizes the approximate strata range in our boring logs. These were prepared by visual classification and were aided by laboratory analyses of selected soil samples.

The lines designating the interfaces between strata on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries. Transitions between strata may be gradual details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in the appendix of this report.

Table 5.1. Approximate Subsurface Stratigraphy Depths.

Stratum Range in Depth, ft1 Stratum Description1

I2 0 – 6 lean CLAY with sand to sandy lean CLAY, brown to gray, dry to moist, med. stiff

II 0 - 8 lean CLAY with sand, dark brown to brown, dry to moist, soft to stiff

III3 0 - 10 sandy lean CLAY, dark brown to gray, dry to moist, stiff to very soft

IV4 0 - 20 sandy lean CLAY to clayey SAND, dark brown to tan, dry to moist, soft to med. stiff

V 6 - 75 fat CLAY to fat CLAY with sand, brown to gray, moist to wet, stiff to hard

VI5 45 – 80 fat CLAY, brown, moist to wet, hard to cemented

VII2 65 - 80 lean CLAY, brown, moist, hard

VIII6 75 - 80 sandy lean CLAY, tan, moist to wet, hard (cemented)

IX4 70 - 80 lean CLAY, brown, moist, hard

X3 70 – 80 poorly graded SAND to clayey SAND, brown, moist, very dense

Note 1: The stratum thickness and depths to strata interfaces are approximate. Our measurements are rounded off to the nearest foot increment and are referenced from ground surface at the time of our drilling activities. Subsurface conditions may vary between the boring locations.

Note 2: Stratums I and VIII applies to borehole B-2 only Note 3: Stratum III and X applies to borehole B-6 only Note 4: Stratum IV and IX applies to borehole B-5 only Note 5: Stratum VI applies to borehole B-1 only Note 6: Stratum VIII applies to borehole B-3 only

5.4 Groundwater Conditions

The dry auger drilling technique was used to complete the soil borings in an attempt to observe the presence of subsurface water. During our drilling operations we encountered the groundwater table to be at approximately eight (8) feet below natural ground elevation for short term conditions. Based off of historical data and MEG’s experience in the immediate area around the project site, we anticipate the long term water table to be at four (4) to six (6) feet below natural ground surface. Highly collapsible soils

MEG Page 5 of 22 were encountered at a depth below twenty (20) feet until borehole termination.

These conditions should be taken into consideration before and during the construction process. Moisture content test exhibited high moisture content at a depth of four (4) feet below natural ground elevation. It should be noted that the groundwater level measurements recorded are accurate only for the specific dates on which measurement were obtained and does not show fluctuations throughout the year.

Fluctuations in Groundwater levels are influenced by variations in rainfall and surface water run-off from season to season. The construction process itself may also cause variations in the groundwater level. If the subsurface water elevation is critical to the construction process the contractor should check the subsurface water conditions just prior to construction excavation activities.

Based on the findings in our borings and on our experience in this region, we believe that groundwater seepage will be encountered during drilled pier activities. In addition, this site may also require that the concrete piers be placed with casing or the slurry displacement method to prevent collapse of the shaft boring walls. If groundwater seepage is encountered during site earthwork activities, it may be controlled using temporary earthen berms and/or conventional sump-and-pump dewatering methods.

6.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are applicable specifically to the proposed foundation structure. The data gathered from both the field and laboratory testing programs on soil samples obtained from the borings was utilized to establish geotechnical engineering parameters to develop recommendations for the proposed structure. The foundation system(s) considered in this report to provide support for the proposed structure must meet two independent criteria. One of the criteria is that the movement below the foundation structure due to compression (consolidation) or expansion (swell) of the underlying soils must be within tolerable limits. This criterion is addressed in the Soil Related Movements section of this report. The other criterion is that the dead and live loads must be distributed appropriately and the foundation structure designed with an acceptable factor of safety to minimize the potential for bearing capacity failure of the underlying soils.

Geotechnical and structural engineers in this general area consider soil movements or Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) of approximately one (1) inch or less to be within acceptable structural design tolerances for most structures but may be different depending on structure use and the desired performance of the foundation. Therefore, movements of the underlying soils are not eliminated and thus one should expect a slab foundation structure to exhibit differential vertical movements. However, structural engineers design slab foundations for the expected magnitude of soil movements without failure of the structure. More stringent soil movement criteria may be established but the owner should

MEG Page 6 of 22 consider the exponential increase in cost required to design and construct a structure for such soil movements. Data obtained in this study indicate that the soils at this site have strength characteristics capable of supporting the foundation and structure if designed appropriately. Stratum I through IV are composed of lean clay to clayey sand and has a low to moderate potential to exhibit volumetric changes (contraction and expansion).

Stratum V and VI is composed of clayey sand and has a low potential to exhibit volumetric changes. Stratums VII though X are composed of lean clay, poorly graded sand to clayey sand and has a low to moderate potential to exhibit volumetric changes. The potential for soil volumetric changes is dependent on variations in moisture contents of the underlying soils. Based on this data, this site is suitable for a slab foundation provided the subgrade is modified in accordance with the recommendations established in this report to reduce the potential for these soil volumetric changes.

6.2 Soil-Related Movements

The anticipated ground movements due to swelling of the underlying soils at this site were estimated for slab foundation construction using the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) procedures of test method TEX-124-E for determining Potential Vertical Rise (PVR). A PVR value of two and a half (2 ½) inches was estimated for the stratigraphic conditions encountered in our subsurface borings. A surcharge of 1 pound per square inch for the concrete slab, an active zone of 10 feet, and dry subsurface moisture conditions were assumed in estimating the above PVR values.

The following methods are generally acceptable for use in modifying the subgrade to reduce the potential for soil movements and volumetric changes below the foundation structure.

Excavate expansive clay soils and replace with select fill.

Chemical injection of expansive clay soils.

A combination of methods 1 and 2.

The method to be used is dependent on specific site conditions. At this site the grade will most likely need to be raised to obtain the proposed Finished Floor Elevation (FFE). As of the date of this report the CLIENT/OWNER has provided the proposed FFE to be at

96.50 feet AMSL. We recommend that the project civil engineer evaluate the proposed FFE with our recommendations to ensure that the subgrade modifications presented in the report are not diminished or compromised. Adding select fill is generally the most cost effective method for reducing the potential for soil related movements. Therefore, we only discuss this method in this report but we can provide details for the other methods if requested.

Based on the data obtained, the proposed FFE of 96.50 feet AMSL, information provided by our client and our analysis of the site, we recommend the following modification (Table

6.1. Subgrade Modifications) of the subgrade at this area to accomplished finish floor elevation of the subgrade at this site. This method will maintain the potential for soil

MEG Page 7 of 22 related movements to an approximate PVR value of less than one (1) inch, which is generally desired for projects of this type.

Table 6.1. Subgrade Modifications (Assumed 12” Slab)

Item Description

1 See and adhere to the Site Preparation Recommendations section of this report.

2 Excavate existing soils to a depth of 91.50 feet AMSL in accordance with the Site Preparation Recommendations section of this report.

Condition and compact twelve (12) inches of subgrade below excavated soils in accordance with the Site Preparation Recommendations section of this report.

Alternate Method1 Condition and compact twelve (12) inches of subgrade treated with 4% lime below excavated soils in accordance with the Lime Treated Subgrade Recommendations section of this report.

Place select fill to an elevation of 95.50 feet AMSL for a total of four

(4) feet select fill, condition and compact up to the proposed FFE in accordance with the Select Fill Recommendations section of this report.

Note 1: Alternate method is to be used if groundwater seepage is an issue during construction.

The PVR method of estimating expansive, soil-related movements is based on empirical correlations utilizing the measured plasticity indices and assuming typical seasonal fluctuations in moisture content. If desired, other methods of estimating expansive, soil-related movements are available, such as estimations based on swell tests and/or soil-suction analyses. However, the performance of these tests and the detailed analyses of expansive, soil-related movements were beyond the scope of the current study. It should also be noted that actual movements can exceed the calculated PVR values as a result of isolated changes in moisture content (such as leaks, landscape watering, etc.) or if water seeps into the soils to greater depths than the assumed active zone depth due to deep trenching and/or excavations. It is anticipated that total settlements will be in the order of one (1) inch or less if these subgrade modifications are followed. If lower anticipated total settlements are required for this project further mitigation may be required and MEG must be consulted for further recommendations.

6.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

Presented below are at-rest, active and passive earth pressure coefficients for various backfill types adjacent to below-grade walls or site retaining walls. At-rest earth pressures are recommended in cases where little wall yield is expected (such as structural below-

MEG Page 8 of 22 grade walls). Active earth pressures may be utilized in cases where the walls can exhibit a certain degree of horizontal movements (such as cantilevered retaining walls).

Table 6.2 Earth Pressures

Backfill Type

Estimated Total Unit

Weight (pcf)

Angle of

Internal Friction deg

Active Condition Passive Condition At rest Condition

Earth Pressure

Coefficient Ka

Equivalent Fluid

Density (pcf)

Earth Pressure

Coefficient Kp

Equivalent Fluid

Density (pcf)

Earth Pressure

Coefficient Ko

Equivalent Fluid

Density (pcf)

Washed Gravel 135 33 0.29 40 3.39 450 0.46 61

Crushed Limestone 145 38 0.24 34 4.20 610 0.38 56

Clean Sand 120 30 0.33 40 3.00 360 0.50 60 Pit Run Clayey Gravels or Sands

135 31 0.32 43 3.12 422 0.48 65

On-Site Clays 120 15 0.59 71 1.70 204 0.74 89

Compacted On-Site Clays

125 25 0.41 51 2.46 308 0.58 72

The above values do not include a hydrostatic or ground-level surcharge component. To prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up, retaining walls should incorporate functional drainage (via free-draining aggregate or manufactured drainage mats) within the backfill zone. The effect of surcharge loads, where applicable, should be incorporated into wall pressure diagrams by adding a uniform horizontal pressure component equal to the applicable lateral earth pressure coefficient times the surcharge load, applied to the full height of the wall. The structure walls should be designed for hydrostatic pressures if drainage cannot be provided. Ports/weepholes for release of hydrostatic pressure need to be provided during construction. The ports/weepholes should be filled with filter cloth to reduce the loss of soil fines.

The compactive effort should be controlled during backfill operations adjacent to walls.

Over compaction can produced lateral earth pressures in excess of at-rest magnitudes.

Compaction levels adjacent to walls should be maintained between 95 and 100 percent of standard proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density.

A wall drains (consisting of freely-drained aggregate or manufactured drainage mat, along with outlet piping) is recommended for collection and removal of surface water percolation behind the walls. Proper control of surface water percolation will help to prevent buildup of higher wall pressures. In unpaved areas, the final 12 inches of backfill should preferably consist of clayey soils to help reduced percolation of subsurface water in to the backfill.

MEG Page 9 of 22

6.4 Floor Slabs (In Conjunction with Concrete Pier Foundation)

Two alternatives are available to construct the floor slab system. The owner may select the alternative best satisfying the required performance criteria.

Alternative No. 1: Floor slabs which have a high performance criteria or which are movement sensitive in nature, may be structurally suspended. A positive void space of at least 6 inches, preferably more, should be provided between the slab and the underlying soils.

Alternative No. 2: Floor slabs within the superstructure may be ground supported provided the anticipated movements discussed under the Soil Related Movements section of these report will not impair the performance of the floor, frame, or roof systems.

If differential movements between the slab and the structure are objectionable, soil supported floor slabs could be dowelled to the perimeter grade beams. Dowelled slabs that are subjected to heaving will typically crack and developed a plastic hinge along a line which will be approximately 5 to 10 feet inside and parallel to the grade beams. Slabs cast independent of the grade beams, interior columns and partitions should experience minimum cracking, but may create difficulties at critical entry points such as doors and may impact interior partitions that are secured to exterior walls.

We recommend that a vapor barrier comprised of polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sheeting be placed between the supporting select fill and the concrete floor slab.

6.5 Pressure Meter Testing

In addition to the conventional SPT borings, a total of eleven (11) pressuremeter tests were performed as part of the previous subsurface exploration program. The pressuremeter tests were performed adjacent to Borings P-2, P-3 and P-4. The results of the pressuremeter tests are included in the Appendix of this report and utilized as additional information in foundation bearing capacity and settlement calculations.

Procedure B—The Equal Volume Increment Method was used for this project.

In the pressuremeter test, a radially expanding cylindrical probe is inserted into a specially prepared borehole. After insertion, the probe is expanded incrementally against the side of the hole with a combination of pressurized liquid and gas. The pressure increments are continued until failure of the soil is reached. The change in volume of each borehole under each pressure increment is measured.

By plotting the probe volume versus pressure, a stress-volumetric strain curve is obtained. From this curve, three parameters are obtained for the computation of soil

MEG Page 10 of 22 strength and compressibility. The first parameter is the creep pressure, Pf, which indicates the upper limit of the "pseudo-elastic" zone and indicates the pressure at which movements of the soil particles continue under constant pressure. The second parameter is the limit pressure, Pl, which is defined as the pressure at which the soil reaches failure (the more asymptotic portion of the graph). A third parameter is the modulus of deformation, Ep, which is derived from the slope of the stress-volumetric strain curve in the "pseudo-elastic" zone. The modulus of deformation, Ep, is used to estimate settlements of the foundation system and other loaded areas. The limit pressure, Pl and failure pressure, Pf, are utilized in bearing capacity calculations.

Table 6.3 Pressurmeter Testing Summarized Data

Bore Depth (ft) Limit Pressure (psi)

Pressuremeter Modulus (psi)

P-2 26.5 327 5499

P-2 35 562 9661

P-2 45 543 7116

P-3 32 399 6338

P-3 52 688 10109

P-3 72 612 6691

P-4 20 251 1828

P-4 30 568 6866

P-4 41 437 5877

P-4 51 675 10089

P-4 61 375 5505

7.0 PIER FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Straight Sided Concrete Piers

Items influencing the type of foundation selected for the proposed parking garage include the design axial and lateral foundation loads, the presence of lean and fat clays, poorly graded sands and the presence of groundwater. More specifically, the final pier dimensions, particularly to include the required length of pier, will be determined based on the foundation design loads, the depth of the active zone, the potential uplift force imposed by the soils within the active zone and the available side friction capacity and end bearing capacity allotted to the subsurface stratigraphy. Straight-sided piers bearing at a minimum elevation of 30 feet below natural ground may support vertical loads for the proposed structure. Based off of historical data and MEG’s experience in the immediate area around the project site, we anticipate the long term water table to be at four (4) to six (6) feet below natural ground surface. Highly collapsible soils were encountered at a depth below twenty (20) feet until borehole termination.

These conditions should be taken into consideration before and during the

MEG Page 11 of 22 construction process. The lean clays, fat clays, poorly graded sands and the water table elevation at this site may require that the concrete piers be placed with casing or the slurry displacement method to prevent collapse of the shaft boring walls.

Based on our depth of exploration at an elevation of approximately 80 feet below natural ground and the type of structures, pier depths should not exceed a depth of 70 feet below natural ground. The allowable capacities are provided in an attachment in the Appendix section of this report, titled Allowable Axial Capacity. For straight sided piers, the contribution of the soils for the top 5 feet of soil embedment and for a length equal to at least 1 pier diameter from the bottom of the shaft should be neglected in the determination of friction capacity. The recommended design parameters include a factor of safety of 2 for skin friction and of 3 for end bearing. The minimum embedment depth was selected to locate the pier base within a specified desired bearing stratum. If the piers are subject to water action, scour may occur. If this is the case, the pier length should be referenced from the level of the maximum scour depth. Likewise, the LPILE analysis should neglect the contribution of soils down to the maximum scour depth.

7.2 Uplift Forces

Within the active zone the concrete piers may be subjected to potential uplift forces.

Alternate drying and wetting conditions of the expansive soils surrounding the concrete pier create these uplift forces. The uplift force acting on the piers may be estimated by the following relationship:

Uplift force (tons) = 5.0 x shaft diameter (feet) (with subgrade modifications)

Other uplift forces due to other factors may need to be taken into consideration.

7.3 Allowable Uplift Resistance

The potential uplift forces that may be created by the swelling soils may be resisted by the dead load of the concrete pier plus the allowable uplift resistance provided by the friction between the soil and pier interface. The allowable uplift resistance are provided in an attachment in the Appendix section of this report, titled Allowable Uplift Resistance.

These values have been estimated with a factor of safety of two (2). Design requirements for reinforcing and for pier penetration derived from compression or uplift loading for the structure is usually sufficient to overcome any effects of expansive soils. However, we recommend that the cross sectional area of the reinforcing steel should not be less than one (1) percent of the gross cross sectional area of the drilled pier shaft. The reinforcing steel should extend from the top to the bottom of the shaft to resist axial tension forces.

The final reinforcing requirements should be determined by the project structural engineer.

7.4 Pier Lateral Criteria

Lateral pile analysis including capacity, maximum shear, and maximum bending moment should be evaluated by the project structural engineer using LPILE or similar software.

MEG Page 12 of 22

In the following table, MEG presents geotechnical input parameters for the encountered soils. Please note that the depths to the top and bottom of each layer were interpreted using the data at the explored boring locations and layer boundaries as shown on the boring logs:

Table 7.1. Drilled Pier Geotechnical Input Parameters for LPILE Analysis

Depth Material Ye Cu K e50

0 to 6 lean CLAY to sandy lean CLAY (CL)

Neglect contribution

6 to 8 (WT at 8 feet) lean CLAY to fat

CLAY

(CH-CL)

110 500 - K = 100 0.010

8 to 20 lean CLAY to fat

CLAY

(CH-CL)

50 1000 - Ks = 500 Kc = 200 0.070

20 to 45 lean CLAY to fat

CLAY

(CH-CL)

50 2000 - Ks = 1000 Kc = 400 0.050

45 to 70 lean CLAY to fat

CLAY

(CH-CL)

50 4000 - Ks = 2000 Kc = 800 0.040

Where: Ye = Effective Soil Unit Weight, pcf Cu = Undrained Soil Shear Strength, psf ction, degrees e50 = 50% strain value

K = Modulus of subgrade reaction, pci

7.5 Spacing for Concrete Piers

Concrete pier spacing should be at least three (3) shaft diameters from edge to edge to eliminate any reduction in load carrying capacity of the individual piers.

When utilizing a pier group and the pier spacing is less than three (3) times the pier diameter from edge to edge, the following reduction factors for bearing capacity and skink friction shall apply:

The minimum recommended pier spacing shall be one and a half (1.5) times the pier diameter from edge to edge. The reduction factor for this spacing is 0.5.

The reduction factor for pier spacing less than three (3) times the pier diameter but more than one and a half (1.5) times the pier diameter from edge to edge shall be linearly interpolated from the reduction factor values provided herein.

MEG Page 13 of 22

For straight-sided concrete piers, the total settlements based on the bearing pressures are estimated to generally be in the order of one (1) inch or less for properly designed and constructed drilled piers. At this site, the underlain soils exhibit low shear strengths and potential settlements can best be estimated when site grading, foundation dimensions and loads have been established. Most of the settlement beneath each individual pier should occur during the construction phase. Differential settlement between piers can be expected and should be in the order of 50 to 75 percent of the total pier settlement. For properly designed and constructed piers we estimate the differential settlement between adjacent piers to be in the order of three-fourths (¾) of an inch. A detailed estimate of settlement is outside the scope of this service report. The quality of construction will affect the settlement process of drilled piers more than the soil-structure interaction. Poor drilled pier construction could result in settlements significantly higher than what we have estimated in this report. Utilizing soil-bearing pressures higher than the allowable values presented in this report can also produce significantly higher settlements at individual piers and differential settlement between adjacent piers.

7.6 IBC Site Classification and Seismic Design Coefficients

Section 1613 of the International Building Code (2012) requires that every structure be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions, with the seismic design category to be determined in accordance with Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures / ASCE 7. Site classification according to the ASCE 7 is based on the soil profile encountered to 100-foot depth. The stratigraphy at the site location was explored to a maximum of 80-foot depth as per Client scope of services for this study. Site classification is based on the available information from this study.

On the basis of the site class definitions included in ASCE 7, Table 20.3-1 and the encountered generalized stratigraphy, we characterize the site as Site Class E.

Seismic design coefficients were determined using the on-line software, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps accessed at (http://seismicmaps.org). Analyses were performed considering the 2012 International Building Code. Input included zip code 78539 and Site Class D. Seismic design parameters for the site are summarized in the following table:

Table 7.2. IBC Site Classification and Seismic Design Coefficients

Site Classification Fa Fv Ss S1 D 1.6 2.4 0.043g 0.013g

Where:

Fa = Site coefficient Fv = Site coefficient

Ss = Mapped spectral response acceleration for short periods S1 = Mapped spectral response acceleration for a 1-second period

MEG Page 14 of 22

8.0 CONSIDERATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION

8.1 Site Grading Recommendations

Site grading plans can result in changes in almost all aspects of foundation recommendations. We have prepared the foundation recommendations based on the existing ground surface; there is no surcharge addition for the stratigraphic conditions encountered at the time of our study. If site grading plans differ from existing grades by more than plus or minus 1 foot, we must be retained to review the site grading plans prior to bidding the project for construction. This will enable us to provide input for any changes in our original recommendations that may be required as a result of site grading operations or other considerations.

8.2 Site Drainage Recommendations

Drainage is one of the most important aspects to be addressed to ensure the successful performance of any foundation. Positive surface drainage should be implemented prior to, during and maintained after construction to prevent water ponding at or adjacent to the building facilities. It is recommended that the building and site design include rain gutters, downspouts and concrete gutters to channel runoff to paving or storm drains.

8.3 Site Preparation Recommendations

Building areas and all area to support select fill should be stripped of all vegetation and organic topsoil up to a minimum of 3 ft. beyond the building perimeters. After stripping, remove at least six (6) inches of on-site soil as measured from existing grade when excavation of existing subgrade is not recommended in other sections of this report. The excavated material, if free of organic and/or deleterious material, may be stockpiled for use in the non-structural areas of the site.