April 21, Odom Investments, Inc. Attn: Mr. Jerry Odom 7100 Westwind Dr., Suite 230 El Paso, TX 79912

Transcription

1 April 21, 2016 Odom Investments, Inc. Attn: Mr. Jerry Odom 7100 Westwind Dr., Suite 230 El Paso, TX Re: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Proposed San Elizario Retail Center Socorro Road & Chicken Ranch Road San Elizario, Texas Dear Jerry, It is our pleasure to submit this Geotechnical Engineering Report conducted for the proposed San Elizario Retail Center to be constructed on the southwest corner of Socorro Road and Chicken Ranch Road in San Elizario, Texas. Presented in this Report were the findings obtained from our field explorations and soil laboratory testing. Discussions and recommendations pertaining to the foundation design for the project are provided in this Report. This Report was conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. Soil information provided in this Report should be used solely for the purposes as mentioned in this Report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Should any question arise concerning this Report, please feel free to discuss with us. Sincerely, Alex Woelper, P.E. Principal Submittals: Geotechnical Report

2 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT at Socorro Rd. & Chicken Ranch Rd. San Elizario, TX Prepared For: Mr. Jerry Odom Odom Investments, Inc Westwind Dr., Suite 230 El Paso, TX Prepared by: ENCON International, Inc Remcon Circle, Suite 103 El Paso, Texas Date of Report: April 21, 2016 PROJECT NO This Report was prepared for the sole use and benefit of our client, Odom Investments, Inc., and is based, in part, upon documents, writings, and information owned and possessed by our client. Neither this Report, nor any of the information contained herein, shall be used or relied upon for any purpose by any person or entity other than our client. All standard terms, conditions, and limitations by ENCON apply at all times for this Report and all Reports issued by ENCON.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE OF WORK 1 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 1 Geotechnical Test Borings 1 Percolation Test 2 SOIL LABORATORY TESTING 2 CONSTRUCTION SITE CONDITION 2 Geological Setting 2 Seismic Consideration 2 Seismic Design Category 2 Site Conditions & Vegetation 2 Soil Stratigraphy 3 Groundwater 3 ENGINEERING DESIGN ANALYSIS 3 Geotechnical Engineering Discussions 3 Structural information 3 Potential Vertical Rise of clayey soils 4 Soil Parameters for Footing Design 4 SOIL AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4 Soil Recommendations 4 Soil Improvements 4 Foundation Recommendations 5 Floor Slabs 6 Concrete Sidewalk 6 Foundation Settlement 6 Vegetation & Drainage 6 Retaining Structures & Lateral Earth Pressure 6 PARKING LOT & DRIVWEWAY PAVEMENTS 7 Construction Guidelines 7

4 SPECIFICATIONS FOR EARTHWORK 8 Engineered Fill 8 Compaction of Fill 8 Utility Trenches 9 Moisture Control 9 LIMITATIONS 9 Appendices Test Boring Plan - Plate 1 Test Boring Logs - Plates 2 thru 15 Percolation Test - Plate 16

5 INTRODUCTION This Geotechnical Engineering Report was prepared for the proposed San Elizario Retail Center to be constructed on the southwest corner of the intersection of Socorro Road and Chicken Ranch Road in San Elizario, Texas. The purpose of this project was to investigate the subsurface soil conditions underlying the referenced project site, in order to provide soils information and recommendations to support foundation designs for the proposed buildings. This project was authorized by Mr. Jerry Odom on behalf of Odom Investments, Inc. ENCON s Team consisted of resources from both Speesoil and ENCON. SCOPE OF WORK The project tasks conducted at the site consisted of field explorations, laboratory tests on soil samples collected from the site, and engineering recommendations for footing and slab designs for the proposed project. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Geotechnical Test Borings Our field investigation program consisted of both site observations and test boring explorations. Site observations were made on foot to scrutinize the kind of vegetation, evidence of any soil erosion and gullying, the character of the terrain, and the structural condition of any nearby buildings. The test boring explorations consisted of drilling thirteen (13) test holes and one (1) hole for a percolation test. The site work was carried out on March 22 and 23, The location of the test borings have been illustrated on the Test Boring Plan, Plate 1 in the Appendices of this Report. Test borings were drilled in accordance with ASTM D1586 using a CME-55 Drilling Rig equipped with 6-in hollow stem augers. Test borings B-1 through B-4 were completed to the depth of 6.5-ft for the proposed parking lots. Test borings B-5 through B-10 were completed to the depth of 15-ft, and B-11, B-12, B-13 were completed to the depth of 20-ft at the proposed building sites. Test boring B-14 was drilled to the depth of 4-ft at the center of the proposed ponding area. The relative density and consistency of soils were determined by conducting Standard Penetration Tests at the depths of 0 to 1.5, 2.5 to 4, 5 to 6.5, 7.5 to 9, 10 to 11.5, 13.5 to 15, and 18.5 to 20 using a 2-in Split Spoon sampler. The Standard Penetration tests were conducted by a 140-pound automatic drop hammer. Split Spoon sampling was the method used in the field to collect soil samples. All samples were examined and logged, in accordance with the soil s color, moisture, consistency and texture by the engineering staff of ENCON International, Inc. at the site. Split spoon samples collected in the field were visually inspected and then sealed in moisture proof plastic bags and delivered to ENCON s Laboratory for further testing and characterization. 1

6 Percolation Test A percolation test was conducted at the center of the proposed ponding area located at the southerly side of the property. The water percolation rate water in the tested soils at a depth of 4 feet was 96 minutes per inch. Test was conducted in accordance with the percolation test procedure of "Construction Standards for On-site Sewerage Facilities" by Texas Department of Health. The complete percolation test results have been illustrated on Plate 15 in the Appendices of this Report. SOIL LABORATORY TESTING Soil tests were conducted on the samples by ENCON, to determine the Atterberg Limits, Moisture Content and Sieve Analysis. These test results were used to analyze the engineering behavior of the subsurface soils at the site. They were also used to aid the classification of soil samples and identification of strata, according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The results of all the field and laboratory tests have been presented on the boring logs as shown on Plates 2 through 15 in the Appendices of this Report. CONSTRUCTION SITE CONDITION Geological Setting According to the USDA Soil Survey of El Paso County, the proposed construction site was located on the Rio Grande flood plain. Soils in this region belong to the Harkey-Glendale Association. Material in this Association are deep, nearly level soils that have loamy very fine sand to silty clay loam underlying material. Seismic Consideration Site Class & Soil Profile (2009 International Building Code) Depth Standard Penetration Site Class Soil Profile Name (ft) Resistance Value (N) 0 to 15 3 < N < 14 E Soft Soil Profile 15 to < N < 50 D Stiff Soil Profile Seismic Design Category According to Table (1), the seismic design category for the short period response accelerations should be C for the occupancy categories I, II, III, and "D for category IV. According to Table (2), the seismic design category for the 1-second period response accelerations should be C for the occupancy categories I, II, III and D" for category IV. Site Conditions & Vegetation The proposed construction site was located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Socorro Road and Chicken Ranch Road in San Elizario, Texas. The site was generally level and covered by some weeds. The grade at the site was slightly above street grade level. 2

7 Soil Stratigraphy Subsurface soils encountered at the site generally consisted of three general types of materials, including sandy clay, silty sand, and poorly graded sand with silt. The maximum depth explored in our test borings was 20 feet. CLAY, sandy soil was encountered at the average depths of 0 to 2 feet. Clay was at a stiff consistency. The Standard Penetration Tests conducted in the clayey soil revealed 10 to 21 blow counts per foot. The clay has tested liquid limits varying from 33 to 42 and plasticity indices of 17 to 26 for the tested soil samples. The clay was classified as CL, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. SAND, silty, with some clay was encountered at the average depths of 2 to 3-ft. Soil was described as loose to medium dense regarding relative density. The Standard Penetration Test conducted at the site revealed 6 to 14 blow counts per foot. This soil was classified as SM, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. SAND, poorly graded, silty was encountered at the average depths of 3 to 20-ft. Soil was described as very loose to medium dense regarding relative density. The Standard Penetration Test values obtained for these soils revealed 3 to 33 blow counts per foot. These soils were classified as SP-SM and SP, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in the test boring numbers (B-5, B-6, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13) at depths ranging from 12.5' to 14.3' below existing grade, at the time of field explorations on March 22 and 23, ENGINEERING DESIGN ANALYSIS Geotechnical Engineering Discussions The findings obtained from our field investigation and laboratory testing activities indicated that the following subsurface soil conditions would affect the foundation design for the proposed structures. 1. A stratum of plastic clay was encountered at the site at the average depths of 0 to 2. The clay has tested liquid limits varying from 33 to 42 and plasticity indices of 17 to 26. The clay will be subjected to swelling and shrinking when its moisture content varies. We recommend the surface plastic clay be removed and replaced with imported engineered fill. 2. Loose soil was encountered at the average depths of 2 to 4.5 and 7.5 to 15. The Standard Penetration Tests conducted in the loose soil revealed 3 to 9 blow counts per foot. We recommend the soil conditions be improved. Refer to recommendations provided at pages 4-5 of this Report. 3. Groundwater was encountered in the test borings at the depths of 12.5' to 14'-3". The fluctuation of the groundwater will change the effective pressure of the subsurface soil. Structural Information We understand that the proposed construction at the site will be the San Elizario Retail Center consisting of five commercial buildings. The buildings will be single story structures. The buildings will be 3

8 constructed with steel columns and steel bar joists. No underground basement will be included in this construction. The structures will be supported by shallow foundation systems in conjunction with conventional slabs built on grade. We estimate the buildings will carry a wall load of approximately two to three thousand pounds per lineal foot. A retention pond will be constructed at the southerly side of the property. Asphalt paved parking lots will be constructed at the site. Potential Vertical Rise of Clayey Soils A stratum of plastic clay was encountered at the average depths of 0 to 2. The clay has tested liquid limits varying from 33 to 42 and plasticity indices of 17 to 26. Using Texas DOT Test Method (Tex-124-E), we estimated the potential vertical movement of the clayey soil would be approximately one inch when moisture is available to the clay. It is always crucial to prevent surface runoff from ponding adjacent to the foundation areas. Once the structures are built, the surface runoff should be prevented from penetrating into the subsurface soil under the buildings. Soil Parameters for Footing Design Groundwater was encountered in the test borings at depths ranging from 12.5' to Soils encountered at the site were generally moist to wet, saturated. No collapsible soil was encountered at the site. Silty sand was encountered at the average depths of 2 to 3, poorly graded sand with silt was encountered at the average depths of 3 to 20. A stratum of clay was found at the average depths of 0 to 2. Based on the Standard Penetration Tests conducted at the site, an angle of internal friction of 29 degrees was recommended for footing design. We recommend an allowable skin friction coefficient of 0.35 be used for the angle of 2/3 of 29 degrees. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 75 lbs/in³ was recommended for the sandy soil. The E50 of the clay was recommended as A soil unit weight of 110-pcf was recommended based on the existing soil conditions SOIL AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Soil Recommendations A stratum of plastic clay was encountered at the average depths of 0 to 2. Loose soil was encountered at the average depths of 2 to 4.5 and 7.5 to 15. The Standard Penetration Tests conducted in the loose soil revealed 3 to 9 blow counts per foot. We recommend the soil conditions be improved as follows. Soil Improvements 1. We recommend a minimum of 3-ft of surface soil be excavated below existing grade and then backfilled with 4-ft of engineered fill at each building site. Each building should be therefore built upon a building pad consisting of a minimum of 4-ft of compacted engineered fill. 2. Engineered fill should be placed in 8 to 10-inches loose lifts. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density, in accordance with ASTM D

9 3. We further recommend, once the 3-ft of soil has been excavated and prior to the placement of 4-ft. of imported engineered fill, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to the depth of 12- inches and then re-compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as per ASTM D Density tests should be taken at the exposed subgrade and per each lift of backfilled material to confirm the compaction. 5. All earthwork operations should be conducted at each building site to at least 5-ft beyond the perimeter of the proposed structure. The edge of the fill should be graded at a slope of 1 (vertical) to 2 (horizontal). 6. The specifications for engineered fill and compaction requirements have been detailed in the following section. Native sandy soil excavated from the site with tested plasticity index less than 12 could be stockpiled at the site to be used as engineered fill with the approval of an Engineer. 7. The excavated clayey soils can be stockpiled separately, and used to line the pond area. The action will save both time and money. Foundation Recommendations All proposed buildings at the San Elizario Center could be supported by shallow foundations in conjunction with conventional slabs upon a minimum of 4-ft of compacted engineered fill as described on pages 8-9 of this Report. 1. Continuous Footings. Continuous footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24-inches below finished floor elevation. Footings with various widths could be proportioned for the allowable bearing capacities as follows. CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS Footing Width Allowable Bearing (ft.) Capacity (psf) 1.0 1, , Individual Spread Footings. The proposed structures could be supported by individual spread footings. Footings should be founded at the minimum depth of 24-inches below finish floor. Footings with various widths could be proportioned for the allowable bearing capacities as follows. INDIVIDUAL SPREAD FOOTINGS Footing Width (ft.) Allowable Bearing Capacity (psf) 2.0 1, , , Monolithic Turn down Footings. The proposed buildings could be supported by monolithic turn down footings in conjunction with conventional slabs built on grade. Footings with minimum widths of 12-inches and founded at minimum depth of 24-inches below finished floor elevations could be proportioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 1,700-psf. 5

10 Floor Slabs Soil supported floor slabs may be used in conjunction with the shallow foundations upon 4 feet of compacted engineered fill. An effective plasticity index of 15 was recommended for the slab design. Concrete Sidewalk The subgrade soil underneath the concrete sidewalks should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density, per ASTM D Foundation Settlement The bearing capacities recommended in this Report were determined based on the N values obtained from our Standard Penetration Tests conducted at the site. The bearing capacities will provide a factor of safety of 2 with respect to the design soil shear strength and result in a total and differential settlement of less than 1 inch. Terzaghi Equations under local shear failure conditions were used in bearing capacity calculations. Vegetation & Drainage No trees should be planted within a 10-ft of the perimeter of the apartment structures. Tree roots will always create potential damage to the proposed structures. Some post-construction practices beyond the control of the design engineer can occur to cause distresses to the structure. Planting flower beds or shrubs adjacent to footings and keeping these areas extremely wet will generally cause a net increase in soil moisture content which will in turn create foundation movements. No vegetation is recommended within 10-ft of the perimeter of each building. The construction site should be sloped with enough grade to prevent water from staying within or adjacent to any foundations. The infiltration of surface runoff into the soil underneath any building footing areas may create possible damage to such structures. Landscaping at the site should not block the flow of surface runoff away from the structure. All landscaped areas adjacent to the buildings should be sloped away from the structure at a slope of at least 2 percent. Retaining Structures & Lateral Earth Pressure Lateral earth pressure tends to cause substructures and retaining walls to slide along their base. This sliding force is resisted by friction between the base and the soil. The shear resistance is greatly influenced by the characteristics of the soil. We recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.55 be used for computations against sliding. The factor of safety against sliding should be at least 2. An equivalent fluid density of 38 lbs/ft 3 was recommended for the horizontal active pressure computation based on a soil unit weight of 110-lbs/ft 3 and an angle of internal friction of 29 degrees. An equivalent fluid density of 317 lbs/ft 3 was recommended for the horizontal passive pressure computation based on a soil unit weight of 110-lbs/ft 3 and an angle of internal friction of 29 degrees. All material to be placed behind and under any retaining structures should be engineered fill. The engineered fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D Footing subgrade should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D

11 PARKING LOT & DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTS Based on our field explorations and soil laboratory tests, we recommend that the parking lots and driveways at the proposed project site be constructed as follows: 2.0-inches.... Grade C Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete* 6.0-inches.... Type A Grade III Crushed Stone Base Course 10.0-inches.... Compacted Subgrade * The maximum size of the aggregate in the Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete should be less than 1-inch. At any loading dock or apron areas the hot mix asphalt pavement should be increased to at least 2.5-inches. Construction Guidelines 1. Compacted Subgrade. All material within the top 10-inches of subgrade elevation should not possess a plasticity index larger than 12. The subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 Modified Compaction Test. The water content of the subgrade material should be maintained within ±3 percent of the optimum moisture content until the soil is permanently covered. Density tests should be taken on the subgrade material to confirm the compaction. 2. Base Course. The Base course should comply with the requirements of Item 247, Type A-Grade III Crushed Stone of 2004 Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges of the Texas Department of Transportation. Base course should be compacted to 100 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. The optimum moisture content of the base material should be maintained within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. The construction practice should follow the TxDOT 2004 Standard Specifications. The flexible base should be spread and shaped into a uniform layer with an approved spreader the same day as it is delivered in such a manner as to minimize the handling of the base material once it has been delivered. Density tests should be taken on the base course to confirm the compaction. 3. Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC). The HMAC surface course to be placed at the parking lots and driveways should be at least 2-inches thick. It should conform to Grade C coarse mix paving mixture of Section Plant Mix Bituminous Pavements of the City of El Paso Engineering Department Division II Paving Construction Details. The HMAC surface course to be placed at any aprons or loading dock areas should be increased to 2.5-inches. The HMAC shall be spread on the tacked surface with an approved spreading and finishing machine in such a manner that when properly compacted the finished surface will be smooth and of uniform density. 7

12 The asphaltic concrete surface course shall be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum density as determined by the Marshall Method. The Marshall stability of the mix shall be no less than 1,500 pounds when compacted at 75 blows and have a flow value between 8 and 16. The construction practice should follow the County of El Paso Engineering Department Paving Construction Details. The bituminous mixture shall not be placed upon a wet or pumping surface. No traffic should be allowed at the newly paved parking lots for at least one week after the construction. SPECIFICATIONS FOR EARTHWORK Engineered Fill Soil material used as engineered fill (selected structural fill) should be granular, free of clayey and organic material. Prior to the placement of engineered fill, all vegetation or organic topsoil should be stripped off. Engineered fill should not possess plasticity index larger than 12. Soils classified in the following list according to the Unified Soil Classification System are considered satisfactory for engineered fill: ACCEPTABLE SOILS Classification Silty sand SM* Well graded sand with silt SW-SM* Poorly graded sand with silt SP-SM* *contains 12% to 25% of silt passing #200 Sieve Soils classified in the following list according to the Unified Soil Classification System should not be used as engineered fill: SOILS NOT ACCEPTABLE Classification Fat Plastic Clay CH Lean Plastic Clay CL Silt, Clayey slightly ML Silt, Clayey highly MH Organic silt or clay OL, OH Peat Pt Compaction of Fill We recommend engineered fill be placed in 8 to 10 inch loose lifts. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test. The water content of the fill should be maintained within ±3 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. The Moisture-Density Relationship Proctor Curve should be developed for each kind of fill material to be placed at the site. We only recommend engineered fill be used as backfill material at the construction site. 8

13 Utility Trenches All utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted engineered fill. The fill material should be compacted to no less than 90% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557 below 2.5-ft of finish grade. Fill material should be compacted to no less than 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557 within the final 2.5-ft of the finish grade. Moisture Control The proposed buildings to be constructed at the site will have their floor slabs built on grade. The floor slabs have direct contact with the soils. Therefore, any change of moisture condition in the soil will create the opportunity of foundation movement. We therefore strongly recommend that once the structure is built, the surface runoff should be prevented from penetrating into the subsurface soil under the structures. LIMITATIONS This Geotechnical Report was prepared in accordance with the professional engineering practice and principles. The soil analyses and recommendations provided in this Report were based on soil data obtained from the test borings drilled at the site on March 22 and 23, The Engineering behavior of soil is often controlled by its fracture, joints and any weak layers in the material. Our soil recommendations were therefore prepared based on the worst soil conditions encountered at the site. However, it should be understood that soil engineering is highly empirical and more a state-of-art. Soils are more heterogeneous than homogeneous in nature. The engineering properties of the soil are seldom the same in all directions. It is quite common to find variations of soil conditions within a distance of even a few feet apart. It is possible that soil samples collected from the fourteen (14) test borings may not reflect the change of soil conditions across the site. At the time of construction, if variations in soil conditions are observed at the site, it is necessary to inform us, in order to reevaluate the recommendations of this Report. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this Geotechnical Report for this project. We are looking forward to providing you soil engineering and construction material testing services in the future. Should any questions arise concerning this Report, please feel free to either call KC Kukutla or Alex Woelper at (915) Prepared by: Reviewed by: Patrick L. Shing, P.E. Principal SpeeSoil, Inc. Alex Woelper, P.E. Principal ENCON International, Inc. 9

14 APPENDICES

15 PLATE 1 Test Boring Plan

16 PLATE 1 - TEST BORING PLAN B-3 B-2 B-4 B-13 B-7 B-8 B-10 B-9 B-11 B-5 B-6 B-12 B-1 B-14 (percolation)

17 PLATES 2-15 Test Boring Logs

18 LEGEND FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION & TECHNICAL ABBREVIATIONS COLOR CODE CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (CL) Sandy Lean Clay (SM) Silty sand (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with silt (SP) Poorly graded sand TECHNICAL TERMS Term Definition B-1 Boring # 1 LL PL PI NV NP Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index No Value Non-Plastic % - #200 Percent passing sieve #200

19 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 5 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 4.8 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (12) to (19) (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with Silt LL = NV, PL = NV, PI = NP % - #200 = to (19)

20 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 5 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 5.8 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (11) to (13) (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with silt to (12) LL = NV, PL = NV, PI = NP % - #200 = 8.6

21 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 5 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 5.2 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (13) LL = 33, PL = 16, PI = 17 % - #200 = to (9) (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with silt to (14)

22 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 5 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 8.5 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (14) LL = 42, PL = 16, PI = 26 % - #200 = to (11) (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with silt LL = 25, PL = 12, PI = 13 % - #200 = to (10)

23 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 15 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 7.6 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (12) (SM) Silty Sand to (9) LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP % - #200 = to (18) to (11) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand to (13) WATER TABLE AT to (18) LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, %- # 200 = 3.2 (SATURATED SAMPLE)

24 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 15 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 9.0 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (16) (SM) Silty Sand to (12) LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP % - #200 = 20.4 (SP-SM) Poorly graded to (12) sand with silt LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP % - #200 = to (7) LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP % - #200 = to (9) (SP) Poorly graded sand WATER TABLE AT to (3) (SATURATED SAMPLE)

25 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 1. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 2. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 3. Auger Depth (feet) = 15 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments 5.0 Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 0.0 to (21) (CL) Sandy lean clay to (9) to (9) to (11) (PG) Poorly graded sand to (10) to (25)

26 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 15 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 4.9 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (17) LL = 33, PL = 15, PI = 18 % - #200 = (SM) Silty Sand 2.5 to (9) to (12) to (12) (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with silt to (12) to (13)

27 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 15 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 6.6 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (15) to (10) LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, % - #200 = 15.4 (SM) Silty sand to (12) to (11) (SP-SM) Poorly graded to (12) sand with silt to (5) WATER TABLE AT 13.2 LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, % - #200 = 6.7 (SATURATED SAMPLE)

28 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 15 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 4.2 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (11) to (14) (SM) Silty sand to (12) LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, % - #200 = to (8) (SP-SM) Poorly graded to (7) sand with silt WATERTABLE AT to (5) (SATURATED SAMPLE)

29 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 20 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 6.8 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (10) to (6) (SM) Silty sand to (29) to (33) to (20) (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with silt to (21) WATERTABLE AT to (21) LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, % - #200 = 5.5 (SATURATED SAMPLE)

30 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 20 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 7.8 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (16) to (16) (SM) Silty sand LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, % - #200 = to (14) to (11) to (11) (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with silt to (11) WATERTABLE AT 13.3 LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, % - #200 = 10.4 (SATURATED SAMPLE) to (13) (SATURATED SAMPLE)

31 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 13. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 14. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 15. Auger Depth (feet) = 20 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 9.6 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (13) LL = 39, PL = 16, PI = 23 % - #200 = to (10) (SM) Silty sand to (9) 24.4 (CL) Sandy lean clay 7.5 to (5) LL=26, PL=14, PI=13, % - #200 = (SP-SM) Poorly graded 10.0 to (7) sand with silt to (5) WATERTABLE AT 13.2 LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, % - #200 = 1.7 (SATURATED SAMPLE) (SP) Poorly graded sand to (22) (SATURATED SAMPLE)

32 1. Project Odom Investments Retail Center 2. Location San Elizario, TX 3. ENCON Field Personnel KC and Hiram 4. Boring No. B- 14 (Percolation Test) 5. Model of Drill & Bit used CME-55 & Tooth- mounted 6. Method of Drilling Auger: Hollow Stem 7. Split-Spoon Type Length: 18-inch Sample 8. Date Drilled 3/22/16 & 3/23/16 9. Weather Condition Windy 10. Hammer Type Automatic 11. Angle Drilled 90 degree 12. Direction of Hole Vertical 1. Drilling Agency SpeeSoil 2. Name of Driller JoJon & Steven 3. Auger Depth (feet) = 4 Moisture (%) Depth (2 ) Increments Legend Classification of Materials Split-spoon Samples Remarks Sample Interval Blow counts 5.7 (CL) Sandy lean clay 0.0 to (16) 3.4 (SM) Silty sand 2.5 to (20) LL=NV, PL=NV, PI=NP, % - #200 = 26.1 PERCOLATION TEST BORING

33 PLATE 16 Percolation Test

34 April 21, 2016 Odom Investments, Inc. Attn: Mr. Jerry Odom 7100 Westwind Dr., Suite 230 El Paso, TX Re: Percolation Test Ponding Area San Elizario Retail Center San Elizario, Texas Dear Jerry, As per your request, the ENCON Team performed a percolation test on March 23, 2016 at the proposed San Elizario Retail Center property. This subject property is located on the southwest corner of Socorro Road & Chicken Ranch Road in San Elizario, Texas. The percolation test was performed approximately in the center of the proposed ponding area at the subject site. The test results indicated the water percolation rate at the proposed ponding area was 96 minutes / inch. Soils encountered at the percolation test location varied onsite. Sandy lean Clay (CL) material was observed at a depth of , and Silty Sand (SM) was observed at depths of The results of the percolation test have been provided at the attached sheet. The percolation tests were conducted in accordance with the Percolation Test Procedure of Construction Standards for On-Site Sewerage facilities by the Texas Department of Health. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Should any question arise concerning this report, please feel free to discuss with us. Sincerely, Alex Woelper, P.E. Principal Submittals: Percolation Report 1

35 PERCOLATION TEST P-1 Project Name: San Elizario Retail Center, San Elizario, Texas Date of Test: March 23, 2016 Test Completed By: JoJon and KC Test Location : At proposed ponding area Test Hole Diameter: 8-inches (4-ft deep) Soil Classifications: Sandy lean Clay (CL) Silty Sand (SM) PERCOLATION RATE: 96 minutes / inch Run No. Time TEST RESULTS Water Level (in) Percolation Rate Start End Period Start End Change Time Time (minutes) Time Time 1 2:30 3: ¼ ¼ 120 (Min per in) 2 3:00 3:30 30 ¼ ¾ ½ :30 4:00 30 ¾ 1 ¼ :00 4: ¼ ¼ :30 5: ¼ 1¾ ½ :00 5: ¾ 2 ¼ :30 6: ¼ ¼ :00 6: ¼ 2½ ¼ 120 Remarks: Test was conducted in accordance with percolation Test procedure of Construction Standards for On-site Sewerage Facilities by Texas Department of Health. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Patrick L. Shing, P.E. Principal SpeeSoil, Inc. Alex Woelper, P.E. Principal ENCON International, Inc. 2