Apx D - Geotechnical Evaluation.pdf — Moreno Valley City Council, October 6, 2026

Appendix D
Geotechnical Evaluation
Appendix F
Geotechnical Evaluation
Kimley»Horn

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

PROPOSED BELAGO PARK
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 478-120-027

BRODIAEA AVENUE AND REDLANDS BOULEVARD

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS
333 CITY BOULEVARD WEST, SUITE 1700
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92868

PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878
PROJECT NO. 3966-CR JULY 16, 2024

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

PROPOSED BELAGO PARK
AssessOR’sPARCELNUMBER(APN) 478-120-027

BRODIAEA AVENUE AND REDLANDS BOULEVARD
CITY oF MORENO VALLEY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PREPAREDFOR
PAssco PACIFICA INVESTMENTS
333 City BOULEVARD WEST, SUITE 1700
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92868

PREPAREDBY
GEOTEK, INC.
1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878
PROJECT No. 3966-CR JuLy 16,2024
GEOTEK
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
July 16, 2024
Project No. 3966-CR
Passco Pacifica Investments
333 City Boulevard West, Suite 1700
Orange, California 92868
Attention: Mr. Oscar Graham
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Belago Park
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 478-120-027
Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Dear Mr. Graham:

GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide the results of this Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed Belago Park project to be located southwest of the intersection of Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. This report presents the results of GeoTek’s evaluation, discussion of findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction.

Based upon review and evaluation, site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project.

GeoTek,Inc.
1548North MapleStreet,Corona,California 92878
(951) 710-1160Office (951) 710-1167Fax www.geotekusa.com GEOTEK July 16,2024
Project No. 3966-CR
Passco Pacifica Investments
333 City Boulevard West, Suite 1700
Orange, California 92868
Attention: Mr. Oscar Graham
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Belago Park
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 478-120-027
Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Dear Mr. Graham:

GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide the results of this Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed Belago Park project to be located southwest of the intersection of Brodiaesa Avenue and Redlands Boulevard, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. This report presents the results of GeoTek’s evaluation, discussion of findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction.

GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 2
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact GeoTek.

Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.

Bruce A. Hick
GE 2284, Exp. 12/31/24
Geotechnical Engineer
Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/26
Principal Geologist
Anna M. Scott
Project Geologist
Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file)
\\geotekfs1\Riverside\Projects\3951 to 4000\3966CR Passco Pacifica Investments Belago Park Moreno Valley\Geotechnical Evaluation\3966CR Geotechnical Evaluation Belago Park Moreno Valley.doc PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 2
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact GeoTek.

Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.

Breeco pL Bruce A. Hick Edward H. LaMont
GE 2284,Exp. 12/31/24 CEG 1892,Exp.07/31/26
Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geologist
NG NA
=
A Coto
Anna M. Scott
Project Geologist
Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file)
\\geotekfs I\Riverside\Projects\395! to 4000\3966CR Passco Pacifica Investments Belago Park Moreno Valley\Geotechnical Evaluatio’\3966CR GeotechnicalEvaluationBelagoParkMoreno Valley.doc GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................. 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................... 1

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................................................1

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................................................2

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................ 3

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION...............................................................................................................................................................3

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................................................................................................3

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS........................................................................................... 4

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING................................................................................................................................................................4

4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................4

4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................5

4.3.1 Surface Water .................................................................................................................................................................................5

4.3.2 Groundwater.....................................................................................................................................................................................5

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY....................................................................................................................................................6

4.4.1 Faulting...............................................................................................................................................................................................6

4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters..........................................................................................................................................................6

4.5 LIQUEFACTION........................................................................................................................................................................7

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS .....................................................................................................................................................8

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 8

5.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................................................................................................8

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................................................8

5.2.1 General...............................................................................................................................................................................................8

5.2.2 Site Clearing......................................................................................................................................................................................9

5.2.3 Site Preparation...............................................................................................................................................................................9

5.2.4 Engineered Fill..................................................................................................................................................................................9

5.2.5 Trench Excavations and Backfill .............................................................................................................................................10

5.2.6 Shrinkage and Bulking................................................................................................................................................................10

5.2.7 Grading Plan Review ...................................................................................................................................................................11

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................................11

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................................................11

5.3.2 Slab Underlayment......................................................................................................................................................................14

5.3.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations....................................................................................................................15

5.3.4 Foundation Setbacks...................................................................................................................................................................16

5.3.5 Soil Corrosivity...............................................................................................................................................................................16

5.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content.....................................................................................................................................................................16

5.3.7 Import Soils....................................................................................................................................................................................16

5.4 RETAINING AND GARDEN WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................16

5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................19

5.5.1 Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement ...........................................................................................................................................19

5.5.2 Interlocking Concrete Pavers....................................................................................................................................................20

5.5.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement.......................................................................................................................21

5.5.4 Pavement Construction ..............................................................................................................................................................21 PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT |

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION |

2.2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION 2

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION 3

3.2 LABORATORYTESTING 3

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 4

4.1 REGIONALSETTING 4

4.2 GENERALSOIL CONDITIONS 4

4.3 SURFACEWATER AND GROUNDWATER 5

4.3.1 Surface Water 5

4.3.2 Groundwater. 5
44 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 6

4.4.1 Faulting 6

4.4.2 SeismicDesignParameters 6
45 LIQUEFACTION 7

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS 8

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8

5.1 GENERAL 8

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS 8

5.2.1 Generdl 8

5.2.2 SiteClearing 9

5.2.3 SitePreparation 9

5.2.4 EngineeredFill 9

5.2.5 TrenchExcavations andBackfill 10

5.2.6 ShrinkageandBulking 10

5.2.7 GradingPlanReview I

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 1

5.3.1 FoundationDesignCriteria I

5.3.2 SlabUnderlayment 14

5.3.3 MiscellaneousFoundationRecommendations 15

5.3.4 FoundationSetbacks 16

5.3.5 SoilCorrosivity 16

5.3.6 SoilSulfate Content 16

5.3.7 ImportSoils 16

5.4 RETAINING AND GARDEN WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 16

5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 19

5.5.1 AsphaltConcrete (AC)Pavement 19

5.5.2 InterlockingConcretePavers 20

5.5.3 PortlandCement Concrete (PCC)Pavement 21]

5.5.4 Pavement Construction 21
J83
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION..............................................................................................................................................22

5.6.1 General............................................................................................................................................................................................22

5.6.2 Concrete Mix Design ..................................................................................................................................................................23

5.6.3 Concrete Flatwork........................................................................................................................................................................23

5.6.4 Concrete Performance................................................................................................................................................................24

5.7 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................24

6. INTENT ............................................................................................................................................... 25

7. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 25

8. SELECTED REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 26

ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 – Site Location and Topography Map
Figure 2 – Boring Location Map
Appendix A – Logs of Exploratory Borings
Appendix B – Results of Laboratory Testing
Appendix C – General Earthwork Grading Guidelines
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 22

5.6.1 General 22

5.6.2 ConcreteMix Design 23

5.6.3 ConcreteFlatwork 23

5.6.4 ConcretePerformance 24

5.7 PLAN REVIEWAND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS 24

6. INTENT 25

7. LIMITATIONS 25

8. SELECTED REFERENCES 26

ENCLOSURES
Figure | —Site Location and Topography Map
Figure 2 —Boring Location Map
Appendix A —Logs of Exploratory Borings
Appendix B —Results of Laboratory Testing
Appendix C —General Earthwork Grading Guidelines
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 1

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical engineering and geologic conditions at the project site, as outlined in GeoTek’s proposal P-1007623-CR, dated October 31, 2023.

Services provided for this study included the following:
▪ Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site,
▪ Perform a site reconnaissance,
▪ Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of six (6) exploratory test borings extending to depths ranging from approximately 14.5 to 51.5 feet below existing grades,
▪ Laboratory testing of soil samples collected during the field investigation, ▪ Review and evaluation of site seismicity and geologic hazards, and ▪ Preparation of this geotechnical report which presents GeoTek’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations for this site.

The intent of this report is to aid in the evaluation of the site for future proposed improvements from a geotechnical perspective. The professional opinions and geotechnical information contained in this report may need to be updated based upon review of the final site development plans. These plans should be provided to GeoTek for review when available.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed Belago Park project site is located southwest of the intersection of Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The site is also identified as Riverside County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 478-120-027, which totals approximately 7.54-acres in size.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page |
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical engineeringand geologic conditions at the project site, as outlined in GeoTek’s proposal P-1007623-CR, dated October 31, 2023.

Services provided for this study included the following:
= Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site,
= Perform a site reconnaissance,
= Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of six (6) exploratory test borings extending to depths ranging from approximately 14.5 to 51.5 feet below existing grades,
= Laboratory testing of soil samples collected during the field investigation, = Review and evaluation of site seismicity and geologic hazards, and * Preparation of this geotechnical report which presents GeoTek’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations for this site.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed Belago Park project site is located southwest of the intersection of Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California (see Figure I, Site Location Map). The site is also identified as Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 478-120-027, which totals approximately 7.54-acres in size.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 2
Access to the site is from either Brodiaea Avenue or Redlands Boulevard, an unpaved, dirt road and paved, improved roadway located adjacent to the northern and eastern site boundaries, respectively.

The site is currently vacant land with the exception of a remnant concrete slab in the northeastern portion. The site consists of relatively flat terrain with a moderate covering of native grasses/brush. Site drainage is generally directed down to the south-southwest.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GeoTek has not been provided with a proposed site development plan as of the date of this report. Based upon information provided, GeoTek understands that the project will consist of the construction of a community park, with typical amenities along with associated utility improvements and parking/drive areas.

While structural plans have not yet been provided, GeoTek anticipates the proposed structures for the park development will exert relatively light foundation loading and will be of wood- or masonry-framed construction. Additionally, it is assumed the proposed structures will be supported by conventional shallow foundations with conventional slab-on-grade floors.

Sewage disposal is anticipated via a public sewer system. Stormwater management facilities are anticipated to be included as part of site development, however, the details regarding the proposed facilities to be used for the development are currently unknown.

The Preliminary Grading Plan for future Tract 38158 (Robert Beers, 2024) which will be developed west and south of the park site indicates that the park area will require on the order of one to two feet of cut or fill to reach design grades.

If site development differs from the assumptions made herein, the recommendations included in this report should be subject to further review and evaluation. Site development plans (including final grading plans) should be reviewed by GeoTek when they become available.

Based upon review of historic aerial photographs, the southern portion of the subject property was located within a southwest-northeast trending drainage course that existed prior to mid1960s. In the late 1960s, the referenced drainage appeared to have been channelized as part of a project by Riverside County Flood Control District. Between mid-1960s and early 2000s, the site appeared to have been used as agricultural land with a residential structure and associated improvements located in the north portion of the site. The photos from the late 2000’s indicate that the property was abandoned.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 2
Access to the site is from either Brodiaea Avenue or Redlands Boulevard, an unpaved, dirt road and paved, improved roadway located adjacent to the northern and eastern site boundaries, respectively.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 3

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for this report was conducted on July 1, 2024 and included the drilling of six (6) geotechnical exploratory borings with a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig to depths ranging from about 14.5 to 51.5 feet each below existing grade at the boring locations.

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were recovered at various intervals in the geotechnical borings with a California sampler. The California sampler is a 3-inch outside diameter, 2.5-inch inside diameter, split barrel sampler lined with brass rings. The sampler was 18 inches long.

The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 3550. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. The relatively undisturbed samples, together with bulk samples of representative soil types, were returned to the laboratory for testing and evaluation. The sampler test data are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

In Boring B-1, standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed with a 2.0-inch outside diameter, 1.5-inch inside diameter, and split-barrel sampler. The sampler was 18 inches long.

The inside diameter of the sampler shoe was 1.4 inches. The sampler was unlined. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 1586. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. The sampler penetration test data are presented on the log for Boring B-1.

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on selected relatively undisturbed ring and bulk samples collected during the field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included on the exploratory borings logs included in Appendix A and in Appendix B.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 3

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for this report was conducted on July |, 2024 and included the drilling of six (6) geotechnical exploratory borings with a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig to depths ranging from about 14.5 to 51.5 feet each below existing grade at the boring locations.

The approximate locations of the GeoTek excavations are shown on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). A geologist from GeoTek logged the excavations and collected soil samples for use in subsequent laboratory testing. The logs of the exploratory borings are included in Appendix A
Relatively undisturbed soil samples were recovered at various intervals in the geotechnical borings with a California sampler. The California sampler is a 3-inch outside diameter, 2.5-inch inside diameter, split barrel sampler lined with brass rings. The sampler was 18 inches long.

In Boring B-1, standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed with a 2.0-inch outside diameter, |.5-inch inside diameter, and split-barrel sampler. The sampler was 18 inches long.

The inside diameter of the sampler shoe was |.4 inches. The sampler was unlined. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 1586. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. The sampler penetration test data are presented on the log for Boring B-1.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 4

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The subject property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends approximately 975 miles south of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province.

The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks.

Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province.

The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.

More specific to the subject property, the site is in an area geologically mapped to be underlain by both alluvium and older alluvial fan deposits (Dibblee, T.W., Minch, J.A., 2003). No active faults are shown in the immediate site vicinity on the maps reviewed for the area.

The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-Priolo) as designated by the State of California or a fault zone as designated by the County of Riverside. The County of Riverside has designated the site as “not in a fault zone”, “not in a fault line”, as having a “moderate” potential for liquefaction and as “susceptible” to subsidence.

4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS
A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the following section.

Based on the site reconnaissance, the exploratory excavations and review of published geologic maps, the area investigated is locally underlain by undocumented fill which is in turn underlain by alluvium.

4.2.1 Undocumented Fill
Undocumented fill soils were encountered in all borings excavated, from existing grades to approximately two (2) to three (3) feet in depth. However, deeper fill should be anticipated in the northern portion of the site where previous buildings, underground utilities, septic tank systems and other improvements may have existed. The undocumented fill soils generally PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 4

4. GEOLOGICAND SOILS CONDITIONS

The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks.

Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province.

The SanAndreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.

4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS
A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the following section.

4.2.1 Undocumented Fill
Undocumented fill soils were encountered in all borings excavated, from existing grades to approximately two (2) to three (3) feet in depth. However, deeper fill should be anticipated in the northern portion of the site where previous buildings, underground utilities, septic tank systems and other improvements may have existed. The undocumented fill soils generally G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 5
consisted of silty clay and clayey silt (CL and ML soil typed per the USCS Soil Classification System). These materials are most likely the results of previous agricultural use at the site.

4.2.2 Alluvium
Alluvium, consisting of silty clay and clayey silt with some silty sands and clayey sands (CL, ML, SM and SC soil types per the USCS Soil Classification System), were encountered in the borings excavated, extending below the undocumented fill soils to the maximum depths explored (51.5 feet in Boring B-1). The coarse-grained alluvial soils (SM and SC soils) were found to be medium dense to dense and the fine-grained soils (CL and ML soils) were found to be very stiff to hard.

Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface materials have a “Medium” (51≤EI≤90) Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829). Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface materials have a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent (ASTM D 4327). The test results are provided in Appendix B.

4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER

4.3.1 Surface Water
If encountered during earthwork operations, surface water on this site will most be likely the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from the surrounding areas.

Overall site area drainage is generally to the southwest. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.

4.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings to the maximum depth explored (51.5 feet) at the time of drilling. Based on a review of the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library, current groundwater depths in the site vicinity are greater than 80 feet below existing grade.

Based on the results of the field exploration, review of site area geomorphology and geology, groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect the proposed site improvements.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 5
consisted of silty clay and clayey silt (CL and ML soil typed per the USCS Soil Classification System). These materials are most likely the results of previous agricultural use at the site.

4.2.2 Alluvium
Alluvium, consisting of silty clay and clayey silt with some silty sands and clayey sands (CL, ML, SM and SC soil types per the USCSSoil Classification System), were encountered in the borings excavated, extending below the undocumented fill soils to the maximum depths explored (51.5 feet in Boring B-1). The coarse-grained alluvial soils (SM and SC soils) were found to be medium dense to dense and the fine-grained soils (CL and ML soils) were found to be very stiff to hard.

Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface materials have a “Medium” (51<EI<90) Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829). Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface materials have a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent (ASTM D 4327). The test results are provided in Appendix B.

4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER

Overall site area drainage is generally to the southwest. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.

Based on the results of the field exploration, review of site area geomorphology and geology, groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect the proposed site improvements.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 6

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

4.4.1 Faulting
The geologic structure of the entire California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region.

However, the site is not situated within a State of California designated “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone.

The nearest known active fault is the San Jacinto Fault Zone (San Bernardino Valley section) located approximately 2.25 miles to the northeast of the site.

4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 33.9129 degrees Latitude and -117.1577 degrees Longitude. Based upon the relatively dense/stiff nature of the site soils, a Site Class “D” is considered appropriate for this site. Site spectral accelerations (Sa and S1), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, was determined from the SEAOC/OSHPD web interface that utilizes the USGS web services and retrieves the seismic design data and presents that information in a report format. Using the ASCE 7-16 option on the SEAOC/OSHPD website results in the values for SM1 and SD1 reported as “null-See Section 11.4.8” (of ASCE 7-16). As noted in ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, a site-specific ground motion procedure is recommended for Site Class D when the value S1 exceeds 0.2. The value S1 for the subject site exceeds 0.2.

For a Site Class “D”, an exception to performing a site-specific ground motion analysis is allowed in ASCE 7-16 where S1 exceeds 0.2 provided the value of the seismic response coefficient, Cs, is conservatively calculated by Eq 12.8-2 of ASCE 7-16 for values of T≤1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL≥T>1.5Ts or Eq. 12.8-4 for T>TL.

The results, based on the 2015 NEHRP and the 2022 CBC, are presented in the following table as it is assumed that the exception as allowed in ASCE 7-16 is applicable. If the exception is deemed not appropriate, a site-specific ground motion analysis will be required.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 6

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

However, the site is not situated within a State of California designated “Alquist-Priolo™ Earthquake Fault Zone.

The nearest known active fault is the San Jacinto Fault Zone (San Bernardino Valley section) located approximately 2.25 miles to the northeast of the site.

4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 33.9129 degrees Latitude and -117.1577 degrees Longitude. Based upon the relatively dense/stiff nature of the site soils, a Site Class “D” is considered appropriate for this site. Site spectral accelerations (Sa and Si), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, was determined from the SEAOC/OSHPD web interface that utilizes the USGS web services and retrieves the seismic design data and presents that information in a report format. Using the ASCE 7-16 option on the SEAOC/OSHPD website results in the values for Sy, and Sp, reported as “null-See Section 11.4.8” (of ASCE 7-16). As noted in ASCE 7-16, Section | 1.4.8, a site-specific ground motion procedure is recommended for Site Class D when the value S; exceeds 0.2. The value S, for the subject site exceeds 0.2.

For a Site Class “D”, an exception to performing a site-specific ground motion analysis is allowed in ASCE 7-16 where S, exceeds 0.2 provided the value of the seismic response coefficient, Cs, is conservatively calculated by Eq 12.8-2 of ASCE 7-16 for values of T<1.5Ts and taken as equal to |.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for T.2T>1.5Ts or Eq. 12.8-4 for T>T..

GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 7

SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 2.066g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.825g
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.7
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS

2.066g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1

1.403g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at

0.2 Second, SDS

1.377g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1 second, SD1

0.935g
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) 0.965g
Seismic Design Category E
Risk Category II
Site Class D
Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism.

4.5 LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquakeinduced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.

The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures.

The project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California for liquefaction potential. The County of Riverside has indicated the site has a “moderate” liquefaction potential hazard. However, based on the estimated depth to historic high groundwater, and due to the relatively dense/stiff state of the subsurface materials as encountered in the borings, the liquefaction hazard potential is considered nil for the project site.

PASSCcO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 7

B SITE SEISMIC PARAMETER F
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 2.066g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Si 0.825¢
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.7
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration 2.066g for 0.2 Second, SMs Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration 1.403g for 1.0 Second, SMI 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1.377g

0.2 Second, Sps
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.935¢ | second, SDI Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAw) 0.965g
Seismic Design Category E
Risk Category Il
Site Class D
Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism.

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
Due to the general flat terrain, the potential for seismic induced landslides or lateral spreading is considered nil. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a seiche and tsunami is considered negligible due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water.

Due to the dense/hard nature of the underlying alluvium, seismic induced (“dry sand”) settlements are estimated to be minimal.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL
The anticipated site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations, and those provided by this firm at a later date, are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. Site development, grading, and foundation plans should be reviewed by GeoTek, Inc. when they become available so the recommendations contained in this report can be confirmed.

The upper site soils appear to have been disturbed due to past farming activities and previous demolition of slabs, building foundations and underground utilities. Remedial grading, consisting of overexcavation and recompaction of the upper site soils, is recommended to provide a uniform bearing for the proposed park improvements.

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS

5.2.1 General
Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Moreno Valley, the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix C outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix C.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 8

Due to the dense/hard nature of the underlying alluvium, seismic induced (“dry sand”) settlements are estimated to be minimal.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. GENERAL
The anticipated site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations, and those provided by this firm at a later date, are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. Site development, grading, and foundation plans should be reviewed by GeoTek, Inc. when they become available so the recommendations contained in this report can be confirmed.

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 9

5.2.2 Site Clearing
In areas of planned grading and improvements, the locations of existing utilities should be determined. The utilities should be relocated or abandoned. Initial site preparation should commence with removal of any existing structures, underground utilities, slabs, pavements, demolition related debris, any deleterious materials and vegetation within the limits of the planned improvements. These materials should be properly disposed of off-site. Voids resulting from removing any materials should be replaced with engineered fill materials with expansion characteristics similar to or better than the onsite materials.

5.2.3 Site Preparation
The upper three (3) feet of soil from existing grade or proposed grade, whichever is deeper, should be removed beneath all areas to receive new fill and/or surface improvements. The precise depths of over-excavation should be determined by a GeoTek representative during site construction based on actual soil conditions encountered. The lateral extent of this recommendation should include the area extending at least five (5) feet beyond grading limits, where obtainable. The bottoms of all remedial excavations should be reviewed and approved by a GeoTek representative. Removal bottoms should be relatively uniform in soil type, which is not visibly porous and having an in-place density of at least 85 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.

Once the base of the over-excavation is approved, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, be moisture treated to slightly above the soil’s optimum moisture content (ASTM D1557), and then be compacted to at least 90 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).

Testing by GeoTek is recommended to document that the engineered fill soils have been properly moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended.

5.2.4 Engineered Fill
The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided, they are free from vegetation, demolition related debris, oversized materials (six-inch diameter or greater) and other deleterious material. All areas should be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill materials that are placed and compacted in general accordance with minimum project standards. Engineered fill should be placed in six-to-eight-inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D-1557 test procedures.

5.2.3 Site Preparation
The upper three (3) feet of soil from existing grade or proposed grade, whichever is deeper, should be removed beneath all areas to receive new fill and/or surface improvements. The precise depths of over-excavation should be determined by a GeoTek representative during site construction based on actual soil conditions encountered. The lateral extent of this recommendation should include the area extending at least five (5) feet beyond grading limits, where obtainable. The bottoms of all remedial excavations should be reviewed and approved by a GeoTek representative. Removal bottoms should be relatively uniform in soil type, which is not visibly porous and having an in-place density of at least 85 percent of the soil’'s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.

Testing by GeoTek is recommended to document that the engineered fill soils have been properly moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended.

If wet soils are encountered during remedial grading, methods for drying soils such as stockpiling or mixing with dry soils may be required to bring the soils to the required moisture eX
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 10
content for placement as engineered fill. Placement of engineered fill should be observed and tested on a full-time basis by a GeoTek representative during grading activities.

5.2.5 Trench Excavations and Backfill
Temporary trench excavations within the on-site materials should be stable at a 1.5:1 inclination for short durations during construction and where cuts do not exceed 10 feet in height. Deeper temporary excavations should be reviewed by GeoTek prior to their planned excavation to determine if supplemental recommendations or analysis are warranted. It is anticipated that temporary cuts to a maximum height of four (4) feet can be excavated vertically.

Trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA regulations. The contractor should have a competent person, per OSHA requirements, on site during construction to observe conditions and to make the appropriate recommendations.

Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (as determined by ASTM D-1557 test procedures). Under-slab trenches should also be compacted to project specifications. Where applicable, based on jurisdictional requirements, the top 12 inches of backfill below subgrade for road pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. On-site materials may not be suitable for use as bedding material but should be suitable as backfill provided particles larger than six (6) inches are removed.

Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. Ponding or jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. If backfill soils have dried out, they should be properly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches.

5.2.6 Shrinkage and Bulking
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, subsidence, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography.

For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of about 10 to 20 percent may be considered for materials that need to be removed and replaced. A subsidence of up to about 0.2-inch is estimated. Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork construction.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 10
content for placement as engineered fill. Placement of engineered fill should be observed and tested ona full-time basis by a GeoTek representative during grading activities.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 11

5.2.7 Grading Plan Review
Upon completion of the final site grading plans, it is recommended that those plans be provided to GeoTek for review. Based on that review, some modifications to the recommendations provided in this report may be necessary.

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria

5.3.1.1 Conventional Shallow Foundations
The near surface materials can be classified as having a “Medium” (51-90) expansion index (EI) in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Typical design criteria for the site based upon a “medium” expansion index are tabulated below. These are minimal recommendations and are not intended to supersede the design by the project structural engineer. Once structural loading information is provided, revisions to the recommendations provided in this report may be necessary.

The conventional foundation elements for the proposed structures/improvements should bear entirely in engineered fill soils. Foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC.

Expansion index and soluble sulfate evaluation of the soils should be performed during construction to evaluate the as-graded conditions. Final recommendations should be based upon the as-graded soils conditions.

A summary of the foundation design recommendations is presented in the following table:

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page ||

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria

5.3.1.1 Conventional Shallow Foundations
The near surface materials can be classified as having a “Medium” (51-90) expansion index (El) in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Typical design criteria for the site based upon a “medium” expansion index are tabulated below. These are minimal recommendations and are not intended to supersede the design by the project structural engineer. Once structural loading information is provided, revisions to the recommendations provided in this report may be necessary.

The conventional foundation elements for the proposed structures/improvements should bear entirely in engineered fill soils. Foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC.

A summary of the foundation design recommendations is presented in the following table:

GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 12

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
Design Parameter “Medium” Expansion Index
Minimum Foundation Depth
(Inches below lowest adjacent grade) 18 – One-story
Minimum Foundation Width (Inches)* 15 – One-story
Minimum Slab Thickness (actual) 5 – Actual
Minimum Slab Reinforcing No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18-inch centers, each way, placed in middle of slab
Minimum Footing Reinforcement Four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two near the bottom
Effective Plasticity Index** 18
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil
(Percent of Optimum)
Minimum of 120% of the optimum moisture content to a
depth of at least 18 inches prior to placing concrete
*Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2022 CBC should be complied with. **Effective plasticity index should be verified at the completion of rough grading.

An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of building foundations for a footing depth of 18 inches and a footing width of 12 inches. This allowable soil bearing capacity may be increased by 400 psf for each additional 12 inches of embedment depth and by 200 psf for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum of 3,500 psf. If slab foundations are placed at grade, these should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. The allowable bearing capacity may also be increased by one-third when considering short-term wind and seismic loads. These allowable bearing values contain a minimum factor of safety of three (3).

The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 230 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,300 psf for footings founded on engineered fill or competent native soil. The allowable passive earth pressure contains a factor of safety of 1.5. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with dead load forces. The coefficient of friction contains a reduction value of one-third (1/3).

Passive pressure and frictional resistance may be combined without reduction. The upper one foot of soil should be ignored in the passive pressure calculations unless the surface is covered with pavements.

A grade beam, a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep, should be utilized across large entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 12
B GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION pesicn gil Design Parameter “Medium” Expansion Index
Minimum Foundation Depth 18 —One-story
(Inches below lowest adjacent grade)
Minimum Foundation Width (Inches)* 15 —One-story
Minimum Slab Thickness (actual) 5 —Actual
No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18-inch centers, each way, placed Minimum Slab Reinforcing middle of slab Four No. 4 reinforcing bars, Minimum Footing Reinforcement two placed near the top and two near the bottom
EffectivePlasticity Index** 18
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil Minimum of 120%of the optimum moisture content to a (Percent of Optimum) depth of at least 18 inches prior to placing concrete *Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2022 CBC should be complied with. **Effective plasticity index should be verified at the completion of rough grading.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 13
For footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report, it is anticipated that a maximum static settlement of less than one inch and a maximum differential static settlement of less than ½-inch in a 40-foot span will occur.

Where the slab is to be designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be considered for design based on a presumed value for a 1-foot by 1-foot plate load test. Dependent upon how the mat slab is loaded, the subgrade modulus value may need to be geometrically modified.

5.3.1.2 Drilled Piers
If drilled piers are a design option for this project, these should extend to a minimum depth of five feet below finish grade and be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. The drilled piers can be designed using an average allowable skin friction value of 300 psf. The top foot of embedment depths for the drilled pier foundations should be neglected unless the ground surface is covered by concrete or pavement. This value incorporates a safety factor of 2.0 and may be increased by one-third for temporary wind and/or seismic loading. It is anticipated that the maximum settlement of less than one inch will occur.

A representative of the geotechnical engineer should be present during installation to verify the embedment depth. The capacities are based on soil strength considerations, and stresses within the piers may impose more severe limitations. The recommendations are for singleacting piers. If groups of closely spaced piers are anticipated, GeoTek should be contacted to provide additional design parameters.

If caving soils are encountered, a temporary steel casing or slurry method may be used for pile construction. The temporary casing may be withdrawn as concrete is placed within the drilled pier, keeping a concrete head of at least two feet above the bottom of the casing as it is being removed. It is also recommended that any water which collects on the piers be removed prior to concrete placement. Alternatively, the water may be displaced out of the piers by pumping the concrete into the bottom of the holes with a tremie. It is recommended that drilling of the piers be performed in the presence of the geotechnical engineer representative to document the subsurface conditions encountered. Surface run-off water should be drained away and not be allowed to pond adjacent to the excavations. It is recommended that foundation concrete be placed within 24 hours of the drilled pier excavation being completed.

If it is required that foundation excavations be left open for more than one day, they should be properly covered to prevent personal injury and fall hazards and be protected to reduce evaporation or entry of moisture.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 13
For footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report, it is anticipated that a maximum static settlement of less than one inch and a maximum differential static settlement of less than '/2-inch in a 40-foot span will occur.

Where the slab is to be designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be considered for design based on a presumed value for a |-foot by |-foot plate load test. Dependent upon how the mat slab is loaded, the subgrade modulus value may need to be geometrically modified.

5.3.1.2 Drilled Piers
If drilled piers are a design option for this project, these should extend to a minimum depth of five feet below finish grade and be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. The drilled piers can be designed using an average allowable skin friction value of 300 psf. The top foot of embedment depths for the drilled pier foundations shouldbe neglected unless the ground surface is covered by concrete or pavement. This value incorporates a safety factor of 2.0 and may be increased by one-third for temporary wind and/or seismic loading. It is anticipated that the maximum settlement of less than one inch will occur.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 14
Where drilled piers are to be placed closer than 2.5 diameters center to center, the closely spaced piers should be constructed on different days.

The vertical uplift capacity of the piers due to friction is considered two-thirds (2/3) of the download friction capacity (200 psf), plus the weight of the pier.

Lateral bearing capacity of piers may be computed using any accepted code-allowed “pole” formula. The allowable lateral passive earth pressure for piers may be considered to develop at a rate of 150 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,250 psf. However, the allowable passive pressure can be doubled where the piers will not be adversely affected by ½ inch lateral movements at the ground surface (i.e. 300 psf per foot of depth up to a maximum value of 4,500 psf).

5.3.2 Slab Underlayment
A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2, the 2022 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E 1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane.

It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g., stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the vapor retarder placed atop the underlying aggregate layer, etc.).

These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant.

Although the CBC specifies a 6-mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek’s opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. The membrane should consist of Stego wrap or the equivalent.

Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 14
Where drilled piers are to be placed closer than 2.5 diameters center to center, the closely spaced piers should be constructed on different days.

The vertical uplift capacity of the piers due to friction is considered two-thirds (2/3) of the download friction capacity (200 psf), plus the weight of the pier.

Lateral bearing capacity of piers may be computed using any accepted code-allowed “pole” formula. The allowable lateral passive earth pressure for piers may be considered to develop at a rate of 150 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,250 psf. However, the allowable passive pressure can be doubled where the piers will not be adversely affected by '2 inch lateral movements at the ground surface (i.e. 300 psf per foot of depth up to a maximum value of 4,500 psf).

It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g, stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the vapor retarder placed atop the underlying aggregate layer, etc.).

Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable J83
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 15
properties (i.e., thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level.

Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarder systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, PostTensioning Concrete Institute, ASTM and California Building Code requirements and guidelines.

GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, architect, and/or other experts specializing in moisture control within the building be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture and vapor transmission paths and associated potential impact on the proposed construction. That person (or persons) should provide recommendations relative to the slab moisture and vapor retarder systems and for migration of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures, as deemed appropriate.

In addition, the recommendations in this report and GeoTek’s services in general are not intended to address mold prevention; since GeoTek, along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in the area of mold prevention. If specific recommendations addressing potential mold issues are desired, then a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted.

It is recommended that control joints in concrete slabs be placed in two directions spaced approximately 24 to 36 times the thickness of the slab in inches. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer.

5.3.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations

5.3.3.1 To reduce moisture penetration beneath the slab on grade areas, utility trench excavations should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete, or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge.

5.3.3.2 Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 15
properties (i.e., thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level.

5.3.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 16

5.3.4 Foundation Setbacks
Minimum setbacks for all foundations should comply with the 2022 CBC or City of Moreno Valley requirements, whichever is more stringent. Improvements not conforming to these setbacks are subject to the increased likelihood of excessive lateral movements and/or differential settlements. If large enough, these movements can compromise the integrity of the improvements. The top outside edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least five (5) feet and need not exceed 40 feet.

5.3.5 Soil Corrosivity
The resistivity of the near surface soils at this site was tested in the laboratory on one (1) sample collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing indicate that the near surface soils are considered “highly corrosive” (2,278 ohm-cm) (Roberge, 2005) to buried ferrous metals in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers.

Recommendations for protection of buried ferrous metals should be provided by a corrosion engineer. Additional corrosion testing should be performed at the time of site grading to assess the corrosion potential of the as-graded soils.

5.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content
The sulfate content of the near surface soils was determined in the laboratory on one (1) sample collected during the field investigation. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate content is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered “negligible” (“S0” Exposure Classification) as per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318. Based on the test results and Table

19.3.1.1 of ACI 318, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure.

5.3.7 Import Soils
Import soils should consist of relatively granular soils with expansion indexes in the “Very Low” to “Low” categories. Import soils should be tested for expansion and corrosivity potential prior to their use. GeoTek, Inc. should be notified for a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed.

5.4 RETAINING AND GARDEN WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.3.5 Soil Corrosivity
The resistivity of the near surface soils at this site was tested in the laboratory on one (I) sample collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing indicate that the near surface soils are considered “highly corrosive” (2,278 ohm-cm) (Roberge, 2005) to buried ferrous metals in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers.

5.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content
The sulfate content of the near surface soils was determined in the laboratory on one (I) sample collected during the field investigation. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate content is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered “negligible” (“S0” Exposure Classification) as per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318. Based on the test results and Table

19.3.1.1 of ACI 318, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure.

5.4 RETAINING AND GARDEN WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.4.1.1 General Design Criteria
Recommendations presented in this report apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of up to six (6) feet. Additional review and G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 17
recommendations should be requested for higher walls. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer.

Retaining wall foundations should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into engineered fill.

Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Section 6.3 of this report.

Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer.

All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization.

Earthwork considerations, site clearing and remedial earthwork for all earth retention structures should meet the requirements of this report, unless specifically provided otherwise, or more stringent requirements or recommendations are made by the designer. The backfill material placement for all earth retention structures should meet the requirement of Section

6.4.1.3 in this report.

In general, cantilever earth retention structures, which are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the height of the earth retention structure, may be designed using the “active” condition. Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls, and walls braced at top, such as typical basement walls) should be designed using the “at-rest” condition.

In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharges due to improvements, such as an adjacent building or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth retention structures. Loads applied within a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) projection from the surcharge on the stem of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design.

Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the designer of the earth retention structures.

5.4.1.2 Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to six (6) feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 17
recommendations should be requested for higher walls. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer.

Retaining wall foundations should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into engineered fill.

Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Section 6.3 of this report.

Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer.

All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization.

6.4.1.3 in this report.

In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharges due to improvements, such as an adjacent building or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth retention structures. Loads applied within a I:| (horizontal: vertical) projection from the surcharge on the stem of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design.

Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the designer of the earth retention structures.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 18

ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained Materials
(horizontal: vertical)
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(pcf)
Imported Granular Soils*
Level 42
2:1 65
*The design pressures assume that imported granular soils will be used as wall backfill material.

Wall backfill should have an expansion index less than or equal to 50. Backfill zone includes area between back of the wall to a plane (1:1 horizontal: vertical) up from bottom of the wall foundation (on the backside of the wall) to the ground surface.

5.4.1.3 Restrained Retaining Walls
Retaining walls that will be restrained at the top that support level backfill or that have reentrant or male corners, should be designed for an equivalent at-rest fluid pressure of 68 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner, or a distance otherwise determined by the project structural engineer.

5.4.1.4 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
The wall backfill should also include a minimum one (1) foot wide section of ¾- to 1-inch clean crushed rock (or an approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a back drain to within approximately 24 inches of the finish grade. The upper 24 inches should consist of compacted on-site materials. The rock should be separated from the earth with filter fabric. The presence of other materials might necessitate revision of the parameters provided and modification of the wall designs.

The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than eight (8) inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained.

As an alternative to the drain, rock and fabric, a pre-manufactured wall drainage product (example: Mira Drain 6000 or approved equivalent) may be used behind the retaining wall. The wall drainage product should extend from the base of the wall to within two (2) feet of the ground surface. The subdrain should be placed in direct contact with the wall drainage product.

Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to help prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a four (4)-inch diameter PASSCcO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 18
FE
Surface Slope of Retained Materials Equivalent Fluid Pressure (horizontal: vertical) (pch
Imported GranularSoils*
Level 42
2:1 65
*The design pressures assume that imported granular soils will be used as wall backfill material.

Wall backfill should have an expansion index less than or equal to 50. Backfill zone includes area between back of the wall to a plane (I:1 horizontal: vertical) up from bottom of the wall foundation (on the backside of the wall) to the ground surface.

5.4.1.4 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
The wall backfill should also include a minimum one (1) foot wide section of %4- to |-inch clean crushed rock (or an approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a back drain to within approximately 24 inches of the finish grade. The upper 24 inches should consist of compacted on-site materials. The rock should be separated from the earth with filter fabric. The presence of other materials might necessitate revision of the parameters provided and modification of the wall designs.

Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to help prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a four (4)-inch diameter eX
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 19
perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per linear foot of ¾- to 1-inch clean crushed rock or an approved equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent). The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the walls is undesirable.

5.4.1.5 Other Design Considerations
▪ Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate.
▪ No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders.
▪ The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts, and backfill materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. ▪ Positive separations should be provided in garden walls at horizontal distances not exceeding 20 feet.

5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.5.1 Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement
The following preliminary pavement design recommendations are based on assumed Traffic Indexes of 5.0 for car parking and 6.0 for access/truck delivery/emergency vehicle drives.

Preliminary pavement thickness design is based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2018).

An R-value of 20 was assumed for anticipated site subgrade soils was used for the determination of preliminary pavement sections for this report. Once the traffic loading information becomes more defined, revision to the pavement design recommendations may be warranted. It is recommended that the final pavement design be based on R-value testing of the as-graded subgrade soils within the pavement areas.

Based on the assumptions noted above, the following preliminary pavement recommendations are provided for the site:

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 19
perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of one (I) cubic foot per linear foot of %s- to l-inch clean crushed rock or an approved equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent). The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the walls is undesirable.

5.4.1.5 Other Design Considerations
. Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate.
. No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders.
= The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts, and backfill materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. . Positive separations should be provided in garden walls at horizontal distances not exceeding 20 feet.

5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Preliminary pavement thickness design is based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2018).

Based on the assumptions noted above, the following preliminary pavement recommendations are provided for the site:

GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 20

PRELIMINARY MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Traffic Index Thickness of AC (inches) Thickness of AB (inches)

5.0 (Car Parking Areas)

3.0 7.0

6.0 (Access/Light Truck
Delivery/Emergency Vehicle Drives)

4.0 9.0
AC – Asphalt Concrete, AB - Aggregate Base
Traffic Indexes (TIs) used in the pavement design for the indicated street types should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Irrigation adjacent to pavements, without a deep curb or other cutoff to separate landscaping from the paving may result in premature pavement failure. Traffic parameters used for design were selected based upon engineering judgment and not upon information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel load analysis or a traffic study.

All base material and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. All materials and methods of construction should conform to the requirements of the City of Moreno Valley.

5.5.2 Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Interlocking concrete pavers can be used for this project. The pavers are assumed to be approximately 3.2 inches (80 millimeters) in thickness. Concrete pavers should be underlain by

1.0 inch to 1.5 inches of bedding sand overlying twelve (12) inches of aggregate base founded on compacted subgrade soils. The aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. Where possible, the aggregate base should extend beyond the perimeter of the pavers a minimum distance of twelve (12) inches.

The bedding sand should be placed lightly moistened and compacted. Since this compaction cannot be tested it should be observed by a representative of this firm.

Historically, paver systems have experienced failures in areas where water has degraded the support characteristics of the underlying base and/or subgrade soils. Since paver systems are permeable and allow transmission of water into the underlying materials, it may be prudent to discuss with the paver designer/manufacturer what methods may be employed to address the issue of potential water introduction into the underlying materials. Underdrain systems, local PASSCcO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 20
Ieee. PRELIMINARY MINIMUM PAVEMENT secTioNs Snail
Traffic Index Thickness of AC (inches) Thickness of AB (inches)

5.0 3.0 7.0
(Car Parking Areas)

6.0 (Access/Light Truck 40 9.0
Delivery/Emergency Vehicle Drives)
AC — Asphalt Concrete, AB - AggregateBase
Traffic Indexes (Tls) used in the pavement design for the indicated street types should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Irrigation adjacent to pavements, without a deep curb or other cutoff to separate landscaping from the paving may result in premature pavement failure. Traffic parameters used for design were selected based upon engineering judgment and not upon information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel load analysis or a traffic study.

All base material and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. All materials and methods of construction should conform to the requirements of the City of Moreno Valley.

1.0 inch to 1.5 inches of bedding sand overlying twelve (12) inches of aggregate base founded on compacted subgrade soils. The aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D [557 test procedures. Where possible, the aggregate base should extend beyond the perimeter of the pavers a minimum distance of twelve (12) inches.

The bedding sand should be placed lightly moistened and compacted. Since this compaction cannot be tested it should be observed by a representative of this firm.

Historically, paver systems have experienced failures in areas where water has degraded the support characteristics of the underlying base and/or subgrade soils. Since paver systems are permeable and allow transmission of water into the underlying materials, it may be prudent to discuss with the paver designer/manufacturer what methods may be employed to address the issue of potential water introduction into the underlying materials. Underdrain systems, local G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 21
subgrade reinforcement, or additional structural elements such as geotextiles can be considered, particularly in high traffic areas and/or low areas where water will tend to collect.

The recommendations of the designer/manufacturer should then be implemented in the design and construction of the paver system.

5.5.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement
The following preliminary sections are recommended:

PRELIMINARY MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Traffic Index Preliminary Pavement Section

5.0 (Car Parking Areas)

6.0” PCC over 6.0” AB over 12” compacted subgrade

6.0 (Access/Light Truck
Delivery/Emergency Vehicle Drives)

6.5” PCC over 6.0” AB over 12” compacted subgrade
PCC – Portland Cement Concrete, AB – Aggregate Base.

It is recommended that the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures be utilized.

Requirements of Section 90 of Caltrans Standard Specifications, and various ACI and ASTM standards regarding producing, mixing, placing and finishing concrete should be followed. The PCC pavement should have a minimum modulus of rupture of 550 pounds per square inch, a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi and contain air-entrainment (5±2 percent).

Concrete should consist of a “pavement”-type concrete mix (not a “slab” mix) and incorporate at least 1-inch maximum size aggregate and should be proportioned to achieve a maximum slump of four inches. Instead of increasing the water content, a plasticizing admixture may be utilized to increase the workability of the concrete. The concrete should be properly cured after placement. Concrete should not be placed during hot and windy weather.

Crack control joints should be provided in the transverse direction spaced at horizontal intervals ranging from 24 to 36 times the thickness of the concrete.

5.5.4 Pavement Construction
All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete should be done in accordance with PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 21
subgrade reinforcement, or additional structural elements such as geotextiles can be considered, particularly in high traffic areas and/or low areas where water will tend to collect.

The recommendations of the designer/manufacturer should then be implemented in the design and construction of the paver system.

5.5.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement
The following preliminary sections are recommended:

I. rreuiminary minimum PAVEMENT secTions CEE
Traffic Index Preliminary Pavement Section

5.0 . 6.0” PCC over 6.0” AB over 12” compacted subgrade (Car Parking Areas)

6.0 (Access/Light Truck 6.5” PCC over 6.0” AB over 12” compacted subgrade Delivery/Emergency Vehicle Drives)
PCC —Portland Cement Concrete, AB —Aggregate Base.

It is recommended that the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures be utilized.

Concrete should consist of a “pavement”-type concrete mix (not a “slab” mix) and incorporate at least l-inch maximum size aggregate and should be proportioned to achieve a maximum slump of four inches. Instead of increasing the water content, a plasticizing admixture may be utilized to increase the workability of the concrete. The concrete should be properly cured after placement. Concrete should not be placed during hot and windy weather.

Crack control joints should be provided in the transverse direction spaced at horizontal intervals rangingfrom 24 to 36 times the thickness of the concrete.

5.5.4 Pavement Construction
All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete should be done in accordance with eX
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 22
City of Moreno Valley specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern.

Deleterious material, excessive wet or dry pockets, oversized rock fragments, and other unsuitable yielding materials encountered during grading should be removed. Once existing compacted fill is brought to the proposed pavement subgrade elevations, the subgrade should be proof rolled in order to check for a uniform and unyielding surface. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned at or near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 test procedures. If loose or yielding materials are encountered during construction, additional evaluation of these areas should be carried out by GeoTek. All pavement section changes should be properly transitioned.

Asphalt concrete and aggregate base should conform to current Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 39 and 26-1.02, respectively. As an alternative, asphalt concrete can conform to Section 203-6 of the current Standard Specifications for Public Work (Green Book). Crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base can conform to Section 200-2.2 and 200-2.4 of the Green Book, respectively. The pavement base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 laboratory maximum dry density (modified proctor).

All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with City of Moreno Valley specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern.

5.6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

5.6.1 General
Concrete construction should follow the 2022 CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, GeoTek could provide quality control testing of the concrete during construction.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 22
City of Moreno Valley specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern.

Deleterious material, excessive wet or dry pockets, oversized rock fragments, and other unsuitable yielding materials encountered during grading should be removed. Once existing compacted fill is brought to the proposed pavement subgrade elevations, the subgrade should be proof rolled in order to check for a uniform and unyielding surface. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned at or near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D557 test procedures. If loose or yielding materials are encountered during construction, additional evaluation of these areas should be carried out by GeoTek. All pavement section changes should be properly transitioned.

5.6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 23

5.6.2 Concrete Mix Design
As discussed in Section 6.3.6, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure. Additional testing should be performed during grading so that specific recommendations can be formulated based on the as-graded conditions.

5.6.3 Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork is often one of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being considered “non-structural” components. Cracking of these features is common due to various factors. While cracking usually does not affect the structural performance of the concrete, it is unsightly. It is recommended that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself.

Exterior concrete slabs and sidewalks should be designed using a four (4) inch minimum thickness. A minimum reinforcement consisting of No 3. rebars placed at 18 inches on center, each way, or equivalent is recommended to mitigate the “medium” expansion index of the onsite soils. Final reinforcement recommendation for concrete flatwork should be provided by the project landscape/civil engineer. Some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated as a result of typical mix designs and curing practices commonly utilized in this type of construction.

Sidewalks and driveways may be under the jurisdiction of the governing agency. If so, jurisdictional design and construction criteria would apply, if more restrictive than the recommendations presented herein. The upper 12 inches of hardscape subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned slightly above near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 test procedures.

Subgrade soils, classified as having “Medium” expansion potential, should be pre-moistened prior to placing concrete. The subgrade soils below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, etc. at the subject site should be pre-saturated to a minimum of 120% of optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for “medium” expansive soils.

All concrete installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, should be done in accordance with the City of Moreno Valley specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector, if necessary.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 23

Exterior concrete slabs and sidewalks should be designed using a four (4) inch minimum thickness. A minimum reinforcement consisting of No 3. rebars placed at 18 inches on center, each way, or equivalent is recommended to mitigate the “medium” expansion index of the onsite soils. Finalreinforcement recommendation for concrete flatwork should be provided by the project landscape/civil engineer. Some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated as a result of typical mix designs and curing practices commonly utilized in this type of construction.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 24

5.6.4 Concrete Performance
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are hairline to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time.

One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two orthogonal directions and located at a distance approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness.

5.7 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
It is recommended that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. It is also recommended that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to observe and document for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have GeoTek perform at least the following duties:
▪ Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials.
▪ Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. ▪ Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary.
▪ Observe the fill for uniformity during placement, including utility trench excavation backfill. Also, test the fill for density, relative compaction and moisture content. ▪ Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials with respect to density.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 24

5.6.4 Concrete Performance
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are hairline to more than |/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time.

5.7 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
It is recommended that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. It is also recommended that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to observe and document for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have GeoTek perform at least the following duties:
= Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials.
= Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. = Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary.
= Observe the fill for uniformity during placement, including utility trench excavation backfill. Also, test the fill for density, relative compaction and moisture content. = Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials with respect to density.

G
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 25
If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. It is recommended that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained.

6. INTENT
It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction.

The scope of GeoTek’s evaluation is limited to the area explored that is shown on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to GeoTek by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included.

The scope is based on GeoTek’s understanding of the project and the client’s needs, GeoTek’s proposal (Proposal No. P-1007623-CR) dated October 31, 2023, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region.

7. LIMITATIONS
GeoTek’s findings are based on site conditions observed and the stated sources. Thus, GeoTek’s comments are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data.

GeoTek has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering at this time and location and science professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report.

Since GeoTek’s recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered at the stated times and laboratory testing. Thus, GeoTek’s conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 25
If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. It is recommended that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessarygrading permits can be obtained.

The scope is based on GeoTek’s understanding of the project and the client's needs, GeoTek’s proposal (Proposal No. P-1007623-CR) dated October 31, 2023, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region.

Since GeoTek’s recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered at the stated times and laboratory testing. Thus, GeoTek’s conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 26
during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty of any kind is expressed or implied. Standards of care/practice are subject to change with time.

8. SELECTED REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Publication 302.2R-06, Guide for Concrete Slabs That Receive Moisture Sensitive Flooring Materials.
_____, 2010, Publications 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs-On-Ground.

Beers, Robert, 2024, “Preliminary Grading Plan, TTM 38158, City of Moreno Valley, California,” dated June 17.

Bowles, J. E., 1977, “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Second Edition.

Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 2, 2022 “California Building Code,” 2 volumes.

California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the Division of Mines and Geology), 1977, “Geologic Map of California.”
California Department of Transportation, 2018, “Highway Design Manual”, 6th Edition.

Department of the Navy, 1982, “Foundations and Earth Structures”, Design Manual 7.2.

Dibble, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2003, “Geologic Map of the Sunnymead/South ½ of Redlands Quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California,” Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-110, Map Scale 1:24,000.

GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.

Peck R. B., Hanson W. H. & Thornburn T. H., 1974, “Foundation Engineering”, Second edition.

Roberge, P. R., 2005, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering”, 2nd Edition.

SEA/OSHPD web service, “Seismic Design Maps” (https://seismicmaps.org) Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, Second Edition.

PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page 26
during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty of any kind is expressed or implied. Standards of care/practice are subject to change with time.

8. SELECTED REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Publication 302.2R-06, Guide for Concrete Slabs That Receive Moisture Sensitive Flooring Materials.
, 2010, Publications 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs-On-Ground.

Beers, Robert, 2024, “Preliminary Grading Plan, TTM 38158, City of Moreno Valley, California,” dated June 17.

Bowles, J. E., 1977, “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Second Edition.

Bryant, W.A,, and Hart, E.W,, 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 2, 2022 “California Building Code,” 2 volumes.

California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the Division of Mines and Geology), 1977,“Geologic Map of California.”
California Department of Transportation, 2018, “Highway Design Manual”, 6® Edition.

Department of the Navy, 1982, “Foundations and Earth Structures”, Design Manual 7.2.

Dibble, T.W. and Minch, J.A,, 2003, “Geologic Map of the Sunnymead/South ‘2 of Redlands Quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California,” Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-110, Map Scale 1:24,000.

GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.

Peck R. B., Hanson W. H. & Thornburn T. H., 1974, “Foundation Engineering”, Second edition.

Roberge, P. R., 2005, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering”, 2" Edition.

SEA/OSHPD web service, “Seismic Design Maps” (https://seismicmaps.org) Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, Second Edition.

G
GEOTEK
Passco Pacifica Investments
Proposed Belago Park
Southwest of Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of MorenoValley, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3966-CR
Figure 1
Site Location
and Topography
Map

APPROXIMATE

SITE LOCATION
Modified from: United States Geological Survey (USGS) Sunnymead 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Topographic Map Sheet; USGS Product No. 744233, Map Scale 1:24,000; Survey Date: 2021 a SCALE1:24 000
J 1 0.5 0 KILDWETERS
—] 1000 500 0 METERS
EN | — — 03 — — 0 1 NORTH
5 MILES
EY 1 1000 a 1000 F000 3000 4000 2 5000 4000 700 8000 SO0A 1000G J

APPROXIMATE

SITE LOCATION
pu Modified from: United States Geological Survey (USGS) Sunnymead 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Topographic Map Sheet;USGSProduct No. 744233, Map Scale 1:24,000;Survey Date: 2021 Passco Pacifica Investments
Proposed Belago Park
Southwest of BrodiaeaAvenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley,Riverside County, California
Project No. 3966-CR
Fi (a MWe PTLL
Figure |
Site Location
and Topography
Map GEOTEK
Figure 2
Boring
Location Map
Passco Pacifica InvestmentsProposed Belago ParkAssessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 478-120-027Southwest of Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands BoulevardCity of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, CaliforniaProject No. 3966-CR LEGEND
(Locations are Approximate)
Site Boundary
B-6 Exploratory Geotechnical
Boring Location

APPROXIMATE

SITE LOCATION
Modified from: County of Riverside, MapMyCounty web tool, https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public B-3
B-4
B-1
B-2
B-5
B-6

REDLANDS BOULEVARD

BRODIAEA AVENUE
Tad vrry
tiger . 1HE .. APPROXIMATE

SITE LOCATION
Lebrbe Sh =MMC_Public
Modified from: County of Riverside,MapMyCounty web tool, https://gis| .countyofriverside.us/HtmI5Viewer/lviewer: LEGEND (Locations are Approximate) Vd
al ° BRODIAEA AVENUE
[a yore rrr -d rr
Site Boundary
Exploratory Geotechnical
I FE. Cr mf EE EE Ay. pad Ad ta ad
Boring Location
a
Figure 2
Boring
Location Map
LE 1
GEOTEK
Passco Paci
|| Proposed Belago Park
a J aC

TEETER ITY -
[A SL Pl
ER
EorersA adEas AS TL WEYBaty pr
Lh gs mm a eh ——
fica Investments
Southwest of Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 478-120-027
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
All Project No. 3966-CR
2004t
ld
100
IEEE hs PusEk Er
rie
i

APPENDIX A

LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Belago Park
Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3966-CR

APPENDIX A

LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Belago Park
Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3966-CR
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page A-1

A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring)
The Ring sampler is driven into the ground at various depths in accordance with ASTM D 3550 test procedures. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler
Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed with a 2.0-inch outside diameter, 1.5-inch inside diameter, split-barrel sampler. The sampler was 18 inches long. The inside diameter of the sampler shoe was 1.4 inches. The sampler was unlined. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 1586. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. Disturbed samples are removed from the sample barrel, sealed in a plastic bag, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Bulk Samples (Large)
These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.

Bulk Samples (Small)
These are plastic bag samples which are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices.

B - BORING LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the log of borings:

SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-c Fine to coarse
f-m Fine to medium

GEOLOGIC
B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip
J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip
C: Contact line
……….. Dashed line denotes USCS material change
Solid Line denotes unit / formational change
Thick solid line denotes end of boring
(Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the boring logs) PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page A-I

A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring)
The Ring sampler is driven into the ground at various depths in accordance with ASTM D 3550 test procedures. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with I-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

The StandardPenetrationTest (SPT) Sampler
Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed with a 2.0-inch outside diameter, 1.5-inch inside diameter, split-barrel sampler. The sampler was 18 inches long. The inside diameter of the sampler shoe was 1.4 inches. The sampler was unlined. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 1586. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. Disturbed samples are removed from the sample barrel, sealed in a plastic bag, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Bulk Samples (Large)
These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.

B - BORING LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the log of borings:

SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-c Fine to coarse
f-m Fine to medium

GEOLOGIC
B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip
J:Attitudes Joint: strike/dip
C: Contact line
cree Dashed line denotes USCS material change
_ Solid Line denotes unit / formational change —_— Thick solid line denotes end of boring (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the boring logs) G
GEOTEK
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
4 MD, EI, SH
4 5 R1 CL 13.5 94.0
7 13
20 R2 CL 13.3 100.6
14 18
28 R3 9.0 101.5
7 22
32 R4 7.8 93.2
28 50/6" R5 7.8
26 34
48 R6
16 25
50/6" R7 ML/CL 19.4 107.3
10 15 SC/CL
17 S1
11 18 14.8
28 S2
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
MD = Maximum Density
Silty CLAY, greyish brown, moist, very stiff, trace f sand, indurated Silty CLAY, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, indurated indurated, sample disturbed
Silty CLAY, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, indurated Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, slightly moist, dense/ hard, trace silt Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, slightly moist, dense/ hard, trace silt RV = R-Value Test
LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation 30 20
25 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, moist, hard, trace f sand Silty CLAY, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand 5 Alluvial Deposits:
10 15
Undocumented Fill

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others
7/1/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3966-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Truck
COORDINATES: 33°54'44"N 117°09'30"W ELEVATION: 1,577 Feet DATE:

George
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: Jack Small PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:

GeoTek, Inc.

El 2 | | 3 ils 5
a i MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 2 a
| Undocumented Fill
4 MD, El, SH
4 5 RI CL [Silty CLAY, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand 135 | 940 Alluvial Deposits: 7 13 20 R2 CL [Silty CLAY, greyish brown, moist, very stiff, trace f sand, indurated 13.3 | 100.6 5 14
18 28 R3 Silty CLAY, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, indurated 9.0 101.5 7 22
32 R4 78 | 932
10 28
50/6" R5 indurated, sample disturbed 78
26 34
15 48 Ré Silty CLAY, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, indurated 16 25
20 50/6" | R7 |ML/CL|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, moist, hard, trace f sand 194 | 107.3 25 0
15 SC/CL . . . 17 SI Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, slightly moist, dense/ hard, trace silt 30 In
I $2 Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, slightly moist, dense/ hard, trace silt 148 2 Sample type: [| ---Ring [ | --SPT [sma Bulk DX -sareeBulk [] ---No Recovery hv ---Water Table QO ie Lab testing: AL= tterberg AtterbergLimi Limits El= Expansion ion Ind Index SA= Sieve Al Analysis i RV= R-Value ale TiTest SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
9 13 SC/CL
18 S3
12 15
22 S4 13.4
7 9
14 S5 SM
6 SC/CL
9 20 S6 SM 11.1
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
RV = R-Value Test
LEGEND
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis Boring backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
Silty f SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, trace clay
45 medium dense/ very stiff
Silty f SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense
50 Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, slightly moist, stiff, trace silt BORING TERMINATED AT 51.5 FEET
40 Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, moist, hard/ dense, trace silt 35 Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, slightly moist, dense/ hard, trace silt

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-1 (continued)

George
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: Jack Small PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:

GeoTek, Inc.

Is 3 Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, slightly moist, dense/ hard, trace silt 40 12
15 22 S4 Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, moist, hard/ dense, trace silt 13.4 45 . . 7 medium dense/ very stiff 9
14 S5 SM [Silty f SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense 50 . . . . 6 SC/CL|Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, brown, slightly moist, stiff, trace silt 9 20 S6 SM Silty f SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, trace clay 11.1 BORING TERMINATED AT 51.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled with cuttings 2 Sample type: [| ---Ring [ | --SPT [sma Bulk DX-saree Bulk [] ---No Recovery hv ---Water Table [&] ie Lab testing: AL= tterberg AtterbergLimit Limits El= Expansion ion Indy Index SA= Sieveeve Al Analysis i RV= R-Value ale TTest SR= Sulfate/ResisitivityTest SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
3 4
6 R1 CL 23.1 94.1
6 13
22 R2 ML/CL 19.6 97.1
14 23 6.0 97.6
32 R3
25 40
50/6" R4 7.6 97.1
10 50/6" R5 7.3 91
16 26
42 R6
7 14 ML/CL 13.8 101.4
22 R7
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand Silty CLAY, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand RV = R-Value Test
LEGEND
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 30 20
25 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, moist, very stiff, trace f sand BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings
5 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, moist, very stiff, indurated Alluvial Deposits:
10 15
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, indurated
Disturbed Soil:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-2

George
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: Jack Small PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JackSmall PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: George PROJECT NO.: 3966-CR HAMMER: 1404/30" RIG TYPE: Truck COORDINATES: ~~ 33°54'47"N 117°09'28"W ELEVATION: 1,579Feet DATE: 7/1/2024 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 2 5 3 2 Slgl =| f | Boring No.: B-2 : 5 0
lel 3 | 3 |¢ Sgldg 2
El 2 | | 3 ils 5
id & MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 2 a
| Disturbed Soil:
3 4
6 RI CL [Silty CLAY, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand 23.1 94.1 Alluvial Deposits:
[4
5 13
22 R2 |ML/CL|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, moist, very stiff, indurated 196 | 97.1 14 23 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, 60 | 976 32 R3 indurated
25 40
50/6" | R4 76 | 97.1
10 0
50/6" | R5 73 91
15 16
26 42 Ré Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand 20 7
R7 MUCL Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, moist, very stiff, trace f sand 138 | 1014 i BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
i No groundwater encountered
i Boring backfilled with cuttings
25 =
30 2 Sample type: [| ---Ring [ | --SPT [sma Bulk DX-saree Bulk [] ---No Recovery hv ---Water Table re} Q Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = ExpansionIndex SA = SieveAnalysis RV = R-Value Test — aD testing: SR= Sulfate/ResisitivityTest SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
3 4
4 R1 ML/CL 12.4 109.1
4 5
9 R2 CL/ML 11.6 115.5
9 23
40 R3 8.8 128.7
25 38
50/4" R4 6.4 110.8
37 37
46 R5
14 27
39 R6 9.5 94.7
9 17 6.1 106.8
24 R7
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
MD = Maximum Density
indurated
RV = R-Value Test
LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation 30 20
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, very stiff, trace f sand, disturbed sample
25 5
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, stiff, trace f sand Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand Alluvial Deposits:
10 15
Undocumented Fill:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-3

George
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: Jack Small PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JackSmall PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: George PROJECT NO.: 3966-CR HAMMER: 1404/30" RIG TYPE: Truck COORDINATES: ~~ 33°54'46"N 117°09'29"W ELEVATION: 1,577Feet DATE: 7/1/2024 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 2 5 3 2 p= gl = £ £ Boring No.: B-3 g z "
4 3 wn —_ ] «= =
lel 2 | 2 | MAR £
El 2 | | 3 ils 5
id & MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 2 a
| Undocumented Fill:
3 4
4 Rl |ML/CL|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand 12.4 | 109.1 Alluvial Deposits:
4 5 5
9 R2 |CL/ML|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, stiff, trace f sand 116] 1155 9 23
40 R3 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand 88 | 1287 25 38
50/4" | R4 indurated 64 ( 1108
10 37
37 46 R5
15 14
27 39 Ré 95 | 947
20 9
17 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, very stiff, trace f sand, | ¢| | 106.8 24 R7 disturbed sample i BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
i No groundwater encountered
i Boring backfilled with cuttings
25 =
30 2 Sample type: [| ---Ring [ | --SPT [sma Bulk DX-saree Bulk [] ---No Recovery hv ---Water Table re} Q Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = ExpansionIndex SA = SieveAnalysis RV = R-Value Test — aD testing: SR= Sulfate/ResisitivityTest SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
SR
4 5
5 R1 CL/ML 15.4 95.4
10 14
22 R2 CL/ML 14.4 100.6
11 19
29 R3 8.1 100.5
21 34
50/6" R4 10.7 99.1
25 50/6" R5
18 27
40 R6
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
trace mottling
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, indurated
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, indurated
RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 30LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 25 20
BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings
10 15
5 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, very stiff, trace f sand Alluvial Deposits:

Undocumented Fill:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-4

George
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: Jack Small PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:

GeoTek, Inc.

SR
4 5
5 Rl |CL/ML|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand 154 | 954 Alluvial Deposits:
10 5 14
22 R2 |CL/ML|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, very stiff, trace f sand 144 | 100.6 11 19 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, 29 R3 indurated 8.1 ( 1005
21 34
50/6" R4 trace mottling 10.7 | 99.1
10 25 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, 50/6" | R5 indurated
15 18
27 40 Ré6 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5FEET
No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled with cuttings 20 25
30 2 Sample type: [| ---Ring [ | --SPT [sma Bulk DX-saree Bulk [] ---No Recovery hv ---Water Table re} Q Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = ExpansionIndex SA = SieveAnalysis RV = R-Value Test — aD testing: SR= Sulfate/ResisitivityTest SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
3 4
5 R1 CL/ML 10.9 116.5
4 6
8 R2 CL/ML 13.8 104.7
4 8
15 R3 13.1 111.4
18 32
50/5" R4 6.2 107.9
30 50/5" R5 7.5 102.5
21 50/6" R6
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
hard, indurated
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand Alluvial Deposits:

Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, grey brown to greyish brown, indurated
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, moist, stiff, trace f sand very stiff
RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 30LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 25 20
BORING TERMINATED AT 14.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings
10 15
5 Undocumented Fill:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-5

George
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: Jack Small PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JackSmall PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: George PROJECT NO.: 3966-CR HAMMER: 1404/30" RIG TYPE: Truck COORDINATES: ~~ 33°54'48"N 117°09'30"W ELEVATION: 1,579Feet DATE: 7/1/2024 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 2 5 3 2 £ 2 £ E t Boring No.: B-5 8 2 "
5 S A 5 |g £
Fd =]
i B & MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS g a
] Undocumented Fill:
3 4
5 Rl |CL/ML|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand 109 | 1165 4 Alluvial Deposits:
[J8 R2 |CL/ML|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, moist, stiff, trace f sand 13.8 | 104.7 3 4
8 15 R3 very stiff 13.1 1114
18 32
50/5" | R4 hard, indurated 62 | 107.9
10 30 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, grey 50/5" | R5 brown to greyish brown, indurated 75 | 1025 21 50/6" | R6 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand 15 N BORING TERMINATED AT 14.5FEET
N No groundwater encountered
i Boring backfilled with cuttings
20 25 =
30 2 Sample type: [| ---Ring [ | --SPT [sma Bulk DX-saree Bulk [] ---No Recovery hv ---Water Table Q Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = ExpansionIndex SA = SieveAnalysis RV = R-Value Test — aD testing: SR= Sulfate/ResisitivityTest SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
3 4
5 R1 CL 13.7 107.3
13 23
42 R2 CL 11.5 97.9
24 40
44 R3 CL/ML 8.2 103.5
20 31
48 R4
19 37
50/3" R5
22 37
50/5" R6 13.1 112.3
15 26
34 R7
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
becomes grey brown, moist
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace clay Silty CLAY, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, indurated
RV = R-Value Test
LEGEND
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 20 BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET
25 No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings
30 5
Silty CLAY, moist, hard
Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand Alluvial Deposits:
10 15
Undocumented Fill:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-6

George
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: Jack Small PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:

GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Passco Pacifico DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JackSmall PROJECT NAME: Belago Park DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: George PROJECT NO.: 3966-CR HAMMER: 1404/30" RIG TYPE: Truck COORDINATES: ~~ 33°54'47"N 117°09'25"W ELEVATION: 1,580Feet DATE: 7/1/2024 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 2 5 3 2
: 2 £ £ Boring No.: B-§ 2 z - v glel 1 |2|¢8 SE|SE 5
El 2 | | 3 ils 5
i & MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 2 a
| Undocumented Fill:
3 4
5 RI CL [Silty CLAY, grey brown, moist, medium stiff, trace f sand 13.7 | 107.3 13 Alluvial Deposits:
23 42 R2 CL [Silty CLAY, moist, hard 115] 979
3 24
40 44 R3 |CL/ML|Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand 82 | 1035 20 3] Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace f sand, 48 R4 indurated
10 19
37 50/3" | RS
22 37
Is 50/5" | Ré becomes grey brown, moist 13.1 | 1123
15 26
20 34 R7 Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, greyish brown, slightly moist, hard, trace clay i BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET
7] No groundwater encountered
in Boringbackfilledwith cuttings
25 =
30 2 Sample type: [| ---Ring [ | --SPT [sma Bulk DX-saree Bulk [] ---No Recovery hv ---Water Table re}
[&] ie Lab testing: AL= tterberg AtterbergLimit Limits El= Expansion ion Indy Index SA= Sieveeve Al Analysis i RV= R-Value ale TTest SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Belago Park
Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3966-CR

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Belago Park
Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3966-CR
GEOTEK
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page B-1

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were classified visually in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D 2487). The soil classifications are shown on the Logs of Borings in Appendix A.

Direct Shear
Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 test procedures. The rate of deformation was approximately 0.01 inch per minute.

The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The tests were performed on a soil sample remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. The shear test results are presented graphically in Appendix B.

Expansion Index
Expansion Index testing was performed on one (1) soil sample. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B.

Boring No. Depth (ft.) Description Expansion Index Classification B-1 0-5 Silty Clay (CL) 59 Medium
In-Situ Moisture and Density
The natural water content of sampled materials was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 test procedures on samples of the materials recovered from the subsurface exploration.

In addition, in-place dry density of the sampled soils was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 test procedures on relatively undisturbed samples to measure the unit weight of the subsurface soils. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths in Appendix A.

Moisture-Density Relationship
Laboratory testing was performed on one (1) sample collected during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the soil type was determined in general accordance with test method ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. The results are presented graphically in Appendix B.

Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content
Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4327 test procedures. Resistivity testing was completed in general accordance with ASTM G187 test procedures. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4327 test procedures. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B.

Boring # Depth
(ft.)
pH
ASTM G51
Chloride
ASTM D4327
(mg/kg)
Sulfate
ASTM D4327
(% by weight)
Resistivity
ASTM G187
(ohm-cm)
B-4 0-5 7.4 25.6 0.0033 2,278
PASSCO PACIFICA INVESTMENTS Project No. 3966-CR
Geotechnical Evaluation July 16, 2024
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Page B-1

Expansion Index
Expansion Index testing was performed on one (I) soil sample. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B.

B-I 0-5 Silty Clay (CL) 59 Medium
In-Situ Moisture and Density
The natural water content of sampled materials was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 test procedures on samples of the materials recovered from the subsurface exploration.

Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content
Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4327 test procedures. Resistivity testing was completed in general accordance with ASTM G87 test procedures. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4327 test procedures. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B.

B-4 0-5 74 25.6 0.0033 2,278
GEOTEK
Sample Location:

Date Tested:

Shear Strength: F = 30 O
, C = 88 psf
Notes:

Project Name:

Project Number:
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.
3966-CR
B-1 @ 0-5 Feet
7/10/2024

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions. 1 - The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90% relative compaction from a bulk sample collected during the field investigation.

Belago Park - Moreno Valley

0.0 500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 SHEAR STRESS (psf)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
GEOTEK
Project Name: BelagoPark - Moreno Valley Sample Location: B-1 @ 0-5 Feet Project Number: 3966-CR Date Tested: 7/10/2024
4000.0
3500.0
3000.0 sf)go
o
)
[=] Q
oo
SHEAR,STRESS(p 1500.0 ~~
1000.0 Lo” rd 500.0 >

0.0~~

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 NORMAL STRESS (psf) = Oo = Shear Strength: D= 30° C= 88 psf
Notes: | - The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90% relative compaction from a bulk sample collected during the field investigation. 2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions. 3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.

Ring #: Ring Dia. : Ring Ht.:1"
Weight of compacted sample & ring (gm)
Weight of ring (gm)
Net weight of sample (gm)
Moisture Content, %
Specific Gravity, assumed
Unit Wt. of Water @ 20°C, (pcf)
% Saturation
EXPANSION INDEX = 59
790.8 25.0

62.4 52.5 FINAL MOISTURE
Final Weight of wet
sample & tare % Moisture

2.70 7/9/2024 0.3340 Final

12.8 SATURATION DETERMINATION
Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F) 101.6
Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016) 114.6 7/8/2024 0.2750 10 min/Dry 380.1 7/8/2024 0.2770 Initial

DENSITY DETERMINATION
744.4 READINGS
364.3 DATE TIME READING
Sample Description:

4.01"
Project Number: 3966-CR Date Tested: 7/8/2024
Project Location: Belago Park - Moreno Valley Sample Source: B-1 @ 0-5 Feet

EXPANSION INDEX TEST
(ASTM D4829)
Client: Passco Pacifica Tested/ Checked By: RB Lab No Corona 03 GEOTEK EXPANSION INDEX TEST
(ASTM D4829)
Client: Passco Pacifica Tested/ CheckedBy: RB Lab No Corona Project Number: 3966-CR Date Tested: 7/8/2024
Project Location: Belago Park - Moreno Valley Sample Source: B-1 @ 0-5 Feet Sample Description:

Ring#_ Ring Dia. : 4.01" Ring Ht..1"

DENSITY DETERMINATION
Weight of compacted sample & ring (gm) 744.4 READINGS
Weight of ring (gm) 364.3 DATE TIME | READING
Net weight of sample (gm) 380.1 7/8/2024 0.2770 Initial Wet Density, Ib / ft3 (C*0.3016) 114.6 7/8/2024 0.2750 | 10 min/Dry Dry Density, Ib / ft3 (D/1.F) 101.6

SATURATION DETERMINATION
Moisture Content, % 12.8
Specific Gravity, assumed 2.70 7/9/2024 0.3340 Final
Unit Wt. of Water @ 20°C, (pcf) 62.4
% Saturation 52.5 FINAL MOISTURE
Final Weight of wet
sample & tare % Moisture
790.8 25.0
EXPANSION INDEX = 59
Sample Details
Sample ID: 24-00135-S01 Date Sampled: 7/1/2024
Sampled By:

Material: Silty CLAY
Location: B-1 @ 0-5 Feet
Test Results
ASTM D 1557
Maximum Dry Unit Weight
(lbf/ft³): 120.9
Optimum Water Content (%): 13.1
Method: A
Preparation Method: Moist
Retained Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 1
Passing Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 99
Tested By: Eduardo Cuevas
Date Tested: 7/3/2024
Dry Unit Weight - Water Content Relationship
Proctor Report
Report No: PTR:24-00135-S01
Client:

Project: 3966-CR
Belago Park - Moreno Valley
Phone: (951) 710-1160
GeoTek - Corona
Corona, CA 92880
Fax: (951) 710-1167
1548 N. Maple St.

Passco Pacifica
Orange CA 92868
ATTN: Oscar Graham

THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
CC:

Form No: 110031, Report No: PTR:24-00135-S01 © 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Page 1 of 1 Comments
GeoTek - Corona
1548 N. Maple St. (
Corona, CA 92880
Phone: (951) 710-1160 GEOTEK Fax: (951) 710-1167
R:24-00135-S01
Proctor Report
Client: Passco Pacifica CC:

ATTN: Oscar Graham
Orange CA 92868
Project: 3966-CR
Belago Park - Moreno Valley

THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
Sample ID: 24-00135-S01 Date Sampled: 7/1/2024
Sampled By:

Material: Silty CLAY
Location: B-1 @ 0-5 Feet
ASTM D 1557
Maximum Dry Unit Weight
(Ibfft?): 120.9
121.0 Optimum Water Content (%): 13.1
Method: A
Preparation Method: Moist
120.0 Retained Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 1
Passing Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 99
Tested By: Eduardo Cuevas
Date Tested: 7/13/2024
~ 119.07
&
5=2 1180] A
=
[=55
117.01
116.01 ~~:
115.0 t t t t t t t t t + + { 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 Water Content (%)
Form No: 110031, Report No: PTR:24-00135-S01 © 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Page 10of 1 Project X REPORT S240705B
Corrosion Engineering Page 1
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Results Only Soil Testing
for
Belago Park
July 9, 2024
Prepared for:

Eddy Cuevas
GeoTek USA
1548 N. Maple Avenue
Corona, CA 92878
[email protected], [email protected]
Project X Job#: S240705B
Client Job or PO#: 3966-CR
Prepared by:

M. Williams
Respectfully Submitted,
Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E.

Sr. Corrosion Consultant
NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592
Professional Engineer
California No. M37102
[email protected]
VW 4 Project X REPORT $240705B
Corrosion Engineering Page1
A Corrosion Control — Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab Results Only Soil Testing
for
Belago Park
July 9, 2024
Prepared for:

Eddy Cuevas
GeoTek USA
1548 N. Maple Avenue
Corona, CA 92878
[email protected], [email protected]
Project X Job#: S240705B
Client Job or PO#: 3966-CR
Preparedby:

M. Williams
Respectfully Submitted,
Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc.,P.E.

Sr. Corrosion Consultant
NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592
ProfessionalEngineer
CaliforniaNo. M37102
ehernandez(@projectxcorrosion.com
29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 WWWw.projectxcorrosion.com
Project X REPORT S240705B
Corrosion Engineering Page 2
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Soil Analysis Lab Results
Client: GeoTek USA
Job Name: Belago Park
Client Job Number: 3966-CR
Project X Job Number: S240705B
July 9, 2024
Method ASTM
G51
ASTM
G200
SM
4500-D
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Bore# /
Description
Depth pH Redox Sulfide
S
2- Nitrate
NO3
- Ammonium
NH4
+ Lithium
Li+ SodiumNa+ PotassiumK
+ Magnesium
Mg2+ CalciumCa2+ FluorideF2
2- Phosphate
PO4
3-
(ft) (mg/kg) (wt%) (mg/kg) (wt%) (Ω-cm) (Ω-cm) (mV) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) B4 0-5 33.5 0.0033 25.6 0.0026 4,690 2,278 7.4 147 0.4 48.3 4.4 ND 65.4 9.9 21.5 78.0 5.0 0.2 ASTM
G187
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Resistivity
As Rec'd | Minimum
Sulfates
SO4
2- Chlorides
ClCations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid)
Note: Sometimes a bad sulfate hit is a contaminated spot. Typical fertilizers are Potassium chloride, ammonium sulfate or ammonium sulfate nitrate (ASN). So this is another reason why testing full corrosion series is good because we then have the data to see if those other ingredients are present meaning the soil sample is just fertilizercontaminated soil. This can happen often when the soil samples collected are simply surface scoops. This is why it's best to dig in a foot, throw away the top and test the deeper stuff. Dairy farms are also notorious for these items.

If one sample pops up much more corrosive than all others, we would recommend collecting more samples surrounding the problem sample location to determine if the peak is isolated to it. This allows us to conclude it was a contaminated sample and able to declare it an outlier.

Try out our new online forms: SOIL CORROSIVITY & THERMAL RESISTIVITY LAB REQUEST FORM & IN-SITU WENNER 4 PIN QUOTE REQUEST FORM \ 4 Project X REPORTS240705B
Corrosion Engineering Page2
A Corrosion Control — Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab Soil Analysis Lab Results
Client: GeoTek USA
JobName: Belago Park
Client JobNumber: 3966-CR
Project X JobNumber: S240705B
July 9, 2024
ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM | ASTM SM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM D4327 D4327 G187 G51 G200 4500-D D4327 D6919 D6919 D6919 D6919 D6919 D6919 D4327 Sulfates Chlorides Resistivity pH Redox | Sulfide Nitrate Ammonium Lithium Sodi Potassi Magnesi Calci Fluoride Phosphate 80, cr AsRec'd | Minimum s* NO; NH," Li" Na" XK" Mg Ca®" FP PO; (mg/kg) | (W%) | (mg/kg) | (Wi%) | (@-cm) | (Q-cm) (mV) | (mgkeg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 33.5 10.0033 25.6 0.0026 4,690 | 2,278 | 74 147 0.4 48.3 4.4 ND 65.4 9.9 21.5 78.0 5.0 0.2 Cations and Anions, except Sulfide andBicarbonate, tested withIon Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected |NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown
Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid)
Note: Sometimes abad sulfate hit is a contaminated spot. Typical fertilizers arePotassium chloride, ammonium sulfate or ammonium sulfate nitrate (ASN). So this is anotherreason why testing full corrosion series is goodbecause we thenhave the data to seeif those other ingredients are present meaning the soil sample is just fertilizercontaminated soil. This can happen often when the soil samples collected are simply surface scoops.This is why it's best to dig in a foot, throw away the top and test the deeper stuff. Dairy farms are also notorious for theseitems.

If one samplepops up muchmore corrosive than all others, we wouldrecommend collecting more samples surrounding the problem samplelocation to determine if the peak is isolated to it. This allows us to conclude it was a contaminated sample and able to declare it an outlier.

Try out our new online forms: SOIL CORROSIVITY & THERMAL RESISTIVITY LAB REQUEST FORM & IN-SITU WENNER 4 PIN QUOTE REQUEST FORM 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 WWW.projectxcorrosion.com

APPENDIX C

GENERAL EARTHWORK GRADING GUIDELINES
Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Belago Park
Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3966-CR

APPENDIX C

GENERAL EARTHWORK GRADING GUIDELINES
Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Belago Park
Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3966-CR
GEOTEK

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation – Belago Park Page C-1
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures.

General
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC (2022) and the guidelines presented below.

Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting.

Grading Observation and Testing

1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading.

Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified.

2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor’s overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor’s personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor’s responsibility to properly compact the fill.

3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation —Belago Park Page C-1
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR

General
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC (2022) and the guidelines presented below.

Grading Observation and Testing
I. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading.

Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report” indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified.

J83
GEOTEK

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation – Belago Park Page C-2
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR

4. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm.

5. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill.

More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained.

6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures.

Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials.

7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows:
a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved.

8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete.

Site Clearing

1. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area.

2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials.

This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers.

3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation —Belago Park Page C-2
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm.

In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill.

More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained.

Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures.

Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials.

Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows:
a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved.

Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete.

Site Clearing
All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. [If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area.

Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials.

This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers.

Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative.

G
GEOTEK

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation – Belago Park Page C-3
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR Treatment of Existing Ground

1. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report.

2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative.

3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.

4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.

5. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.

Fill Placement

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report).

2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative.

3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates.
b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557.

4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation —Belago Park Page C-3
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR Treatment of Existing Ground
Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report.

In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative.

Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.

Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.

Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.

Fill Placement
Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report).

Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative.

If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates.
b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557.

Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative.

G
GEOTEK

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation – Belago Park Page C-4
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR

5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested.

6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill.

Slope Construction

1. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.

2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary.

3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades.

Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built.

4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction.

5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization.

UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractor’s responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors’ methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation —Belago Park Page C-4
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR

Slope Construction
I. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.

Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built.

4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction.

5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization.

UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKEFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractor’s responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors’ methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures.

G
GEOTEK

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation – Belago Park Page C-5
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that “worked” on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience.

1. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench.

2. Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is typically limited to the following uses:
a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b) as bedding in pipe zone.

The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction.

3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation.

Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade.

4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil.

5. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractor’s procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractor’s attention.

JOB SAFETY
General
Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility.

However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation —Belago Park Page C-5
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that “worked” on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience.

I. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench.

The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction.

3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation.

Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade.

4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a I:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil.

However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury.

G
GEOTEK

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation – Belago Park Page C-6
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects.

1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings.

2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site.

3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits.

In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.

Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern.

Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.

A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow.

This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation —Belago Park Page C-6
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects.

I. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings.

2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site.

3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits.

In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.

This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results.

GEOTEK

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation – Belago Park Page C-7
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR 50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
Traffic Direction
Vehicle
parked here Test Pit Spoil
pile
Spoil
pile
Test Pit

SIDE VIEW

PLAN VIEW

TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN
10 0 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
Slope Tests
When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during testing.

The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location.

Trench Safety
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill.

All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment.

Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which:

1. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back,

2. exit points or ladders are not provided,

3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation —Belago Park Page C-7
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR

TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN

SIDE VIEW
= ) Test Pit
A
Co 50 ft Zone of
Traffic Direction > Non-Encroachment
p — i pile
-< 10 0 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment 50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
PLAN VIEW 4
Slope Tests
When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during testing.

Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which:
l. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back,

2. exit points or ladders are not provided,

3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or
G
GEOTEK

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation – Belago Park Page C-8
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR

4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.

If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal.

Procedures
In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor’s representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal.

In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general.

The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Evaluation —Belago Park Page C-8
Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Project No. 3966-CR

4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.

In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors’ representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general.

GEOTEK

Moreno Valley City CouncilOctober 6, 2026

Moreno Valley City Council
October 6, 2026