Resolution No.
30.38 No certificate of Occupancy, or any other final clearance needed prior to occupancy, shall be given until all other conditions are met.
IX MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS
30.39 Owner shall provide refuge service in accordance with State, County and Burrtec standards. A trash bin for organic waste is required and must be provided by this project.
40.0 Building and Safety Division
40.1 A soil report shall be provided to the Building and Safety Division with plan check submittal, to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
50.0 Police Department
50.1 The Police Department shall be included in the construction plan preparation process to ensure the implementation of security measures, including but not limited to, cameras, lighting, emergency phones, access, key card access and ensure that they will be properly designed and implemented.
50.2 The Developer, builder, contractors, sub-contractors, and any other persons associated with this project shall adhere to the Upland Municipal Code (UMC) dealing with unnecessary noises under section
9.40.100. Furthermore, prior to the beginning of construction, a sign shall be posted at the entrance of the property educating everyone entering as to the authorized construction times and failure to comply with such requirements will result in an immediate citation for violating the aforementioned UMC section.
50.3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project must be enclosed with a 6-FT. high chain link fencing to prevent access to construction areas by the public and to minimize theft of building materials and equipment. All fencing and gates shall meet the approval of the Fire Department and Police Department.
50.4 Any vehicles not parked legally may be cited and/or towed if it is in violation of the California Vehicle Code and/or Upland Municipal Code.
50.5 Units with front and rear drive access shall affix or paint address numbering/lettering in a conspicuous location, free from plant obstruction, and readily visible to emergency services personnel on both front and rear accesses.
50.6 Prior to occupancy, the Police Department will conduct an on-site inspection of the property, checking proper lighting has been installed throughout the property, proper locks on exterior doors and doors leading to the interior are in place and functioning properly. In addition,
Resolution No.
the Police Department will check that proper addressing/lettering has been installed.
50.7 If security gates are desired at any access points to the project, the Police Department and Fire Department will be provided access by the Knox Submaster System. If gates are not electronically operated, a “KNOX” padlock may be substituted for electrically operated override systems.
50.8 All fencing and gates shall meet the approval of the Fire Department and the Police Department.
50.9 Each building that has a flat roof shall be required to have the address numbering painted on the roof, as close to the center of the roof as possible, and at least 15 feet (or as far as possible if less than 15 feet) from roof mounted equipment or exhaust stacks, to assist helicopter patrols in quick location of the building. Numbering must be at least 12 inches wide, 48 inches tall, and be painted in contrast to the background on which it is affixed.
50.10 The applicant shall submit for review by the Police Department the design and specifications for all proposed lighting fixtures proposed for the buildings, drive aisles, parkways, parking areas, pathways, and surrounding areas within the development. The fixtures shall be reviewed for quality, aesthetics, illumination values, sustainability values such as LED and shall be decoratively and architecturally consistent with the building design. The number, location, height, style and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department prior to issuance of building permits.
50.11 Submit a Photometric Study providing a minimum of two foot candle all around the structure and surveillance cameras all around the perimeter, common areas, and throughout the parking area, with the ability or resolution to make license plates discernable.
50.12 All exterior doors shall be equipped with a lighting device capable of providing a minimum of two foot-candle of light at ground level.
50.13 All exterior lighting lower than 12 feet from the ground level shall be enclosed in vandal-resistant covers.
50.14 Lighting shall be required in all area of public access.
50.15 All exterior lighting shall be oriented inward onto the project so as not to interfere with adjacent residential areas or vehicular traffic on adjacent public streets.
50.16 Public parking areas and access thereto shall be provided with a maintained minimum of 2 foot candle power of light on the parking
Resolution No.
surface, from dusk to dawn, or as modified by the Chief of Police, based on documented proof that meeting the 2 foot candle power standard is impractical. Lighting shall be provided through the use of photo cells; use of low pressure sodium fixtures and bulbs is prohibited.
50.17 At a minimum, internally illuminated address signs/numbers are required for each building, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Fire Marshal and the Chief of Police.
50.18 A digital video surveillance system is required at the premise. It is required to have a surveillance video/visual media that shall be maintained for a minimum of sixty (60) days and upon request, shall be accessible to law enforcement personnel for viewing, copying and collection purposes during regular business hours. The system shall be able to make license plates discernable. The video system shall cover all ingress and egress points of the parking lots, and buildings.
50.19 Hinges for outwardly swinging doors or hatchway covers shall be equipped with non-removable hinge pins or a mechanical interlock system to prevent removal of the door from the exterior by removal of the hinge pins.
50.20 All hatchways shall be secured from the interior of the building with a sliding bolt or bar mechanism.
50.21 If the hatchway cover is of a wooden material, it shall be reinforced with at least 16-gauge U.S. sheet steel, or its equivalent, on the interior face of the cover and shall be attached with screws no more than six inches apart around the entire perimeter of the interior face cover.
50.22 Landscaping is to be maintained so as not to allow areas of concealment, to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. All landscaping must adhere to the 2’ 6’ rule (all ground cover landscaping must be maintained no higher than 2’ from ground level and all lower tree canopy must be maintained no lower than 6’ in height from the ground level).
50.23 Signs prohibiting loitering shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police, as applicable. They shall be mounted between six and ten feet above ground. The following must be printed on the sign in letters at least two inches tall: “PC 602(m), UMC 9.04.110.” and “NO TRESPASSING.” The signs shall be posted on the front, rear, and sides of the building, and shall be clearly visible to patrons of the licensee.
60.0 San Bernardino County Fire Department
60.1 The City shall submit all necessary plans for required permits to the San Bernardino County Fire Department prior to the start of construction.
Resolution No.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project has been found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19, Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32 (a-e), of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, since the proposed project is consistent with applicable general plan designation and policies, as well as applicable zoning designation and regulations; occurs within city limits on a property that is no more than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban uses; has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects re lating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or clause or phrase in this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases are declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of October, 2025.
Bill Velto, Mayor
I, Keri Johnson, City Clerk of the City of Upland, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 13th day of October, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST:
Keri Johnson, City Clerk
San Jose, California
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
Long Beach, California
watrydesign.com
11/01/2024
DOWNTOWN PS
UPLAND, CA
50% SCHEMATIC DESIGN
(25
.
6 7
)
F
S
(31
.
5 5
)
F
S
(32
.
0 5
)
T
C
(30
.
2 0
)
F
S
(30
.
6 0
)
T
C
(28
.
4 8
)
F
S
(28
.
9 3
)
T
C
(28
.
4 4
)
F
S
(28
.
8 4
)
T
C
(29
.
2 5
)
F
S
(39
.
7 5
)
T
C
(30
.
4 5
)
F
S
(30
.
8 8
)
T
C
FS
(33
.
1 8
)
FS(32
.
9 5
)
FS
(33
.
0 7
)
FS
(32
.
4 6
)
FS
(32
.
5 7
)
FS(31
.
5 8
)
FS
(31
.
4 0
)
FS
(28
.
9 9
)
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(32
.
0 7
)
F
S
(32
.
4 9
)
T
C
(33
.
0 4
)
F
S
(33
.
3 7
)
T
C
(32
.
9 0
)
F
S
(33
.
2 8
)
T
C
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(33
.
2 3
)
F
S
(33
.
2 3
)
T
C
(33
.
2 3
)
F
S
(33
.
2 7
)
T
C
(31
.
5 7
)
F
S
(31
.
9 0
)
T
C
(30
.
7 1
)
F
S
(31
.
0 1
)
T
C
(29
.
5 8
)
F
S
(29
.
9 2
)
T
C
(28
.
8 4
)
F
S
(29
.
1 4
)
T
C
(27
.
6 5
)
F
S
(27
.
9 4
)
T
C
(26
.
2 3
)
F
S
(26
.
6 5
)
T
C
(26
.
7 8
)
F
S
(27
.
0 9
)
T
C
(26
.
7 0
)
F
S
(27
.
2 3
)
T
C
(27
.
3 7
)
F
S
(27
.
9 0
)
T
C
(27
.
2 5
)
F
S
(27
.
8 0
)
T
C
BC
(27
.
3 1
)
T
C
EC
(26
.
7 8
)
T
C
FS(27
.
9 3
)
(27
.
9 0
)
F
S
(28
.
3 1
)
T
C
FS(29
.
0 6
)
(28
.
9 4
)
F
S
(29
.
4 2
)
T
C
FS
(30
.
0 4
)
FS
(30
.
2 4
)
(30
.
1 8
)
F
S
(30
.
6 2
)
T
C
BC
(25
.
8 5
)
F
L
(26
.
5 2
)
T
C
EC
(27
.
3 7
)
T
C
(27
.
5 6
)
F
S
(28
.
2 7
)
T
C
(28
.
1 0
)
F
S
(28
.
6 2
)
T
C
(28
.
6 9
)
F
S
(29
.
3 0
)
T
C
(29
.
7 7
)
F
S
(30
.
3 6
)
T
C
(30
.
6 0
)
F
S
(31
.
1 5
)
T
C
(30
.
9 0
)
F
S
(31
.
4 9
)
T
C
(30
.
9 0
)
F
S
(31
.
5 3
)
T
C
EC
R
BCR
(31
.
3 1
)
F
L
(31
.
5 1
)
T
C
(31
.
8 8
)
F
L
(32
.
4 5
)
T
C
(32
.
0 6
)
F
L
(32
.
6 0
)
T
C
(33
.
3 6
)
F
S
(33
.
7 6
)
T
C
(33
.
2 2
)
F
S
(33
.
7 5
)
T
C
(32
.
7 2
)
F
L
(33
.
1 2
)
T
C
(32
.
7 8
)
F
L
(33
.
2 8
)
T
C
(32
.
6 0
)
F
L
(33
.
1 0
)
T
C
(32
.
4 7
)
F
L
(32
.
9 3
)
T
C
(32
.
4 3
)
F
L
(32
.
9 2
)
T
C
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(32
.
2 4
)
F
L
(32
.
7 0
)
T
C
N00° 01' 15"E 262.15'
N8
9 °
5 7
'
1 3
"
W
1 4
0 .
0 4
'
N00° 01' 31"E 262.21'
N8
9 °
5 8
'
4 3
"
W
1 4
0 .
0 6
'
16 '
REVISIONS
DATENO.BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
10 /
2 8
/
2 0
2 4
9 :
5 0
:
0 0
A
M
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
11/01/2024
MPG
VL / BK
MPG
ON PLAN
4675 MACARTHUR CT.
SUITE 400
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460
www.bkf.com
C3.0
GR
A
D
I
N
G
&
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N00° 01' 15"E 262.15'
N8
9 °
5 7
'
1 3
"
W
1 4
0 .
0 4
'
N00° 01' 31"E 262.21'
N8
9 °
5 8
'
4 3
"
W
1 4
0 .
0 6
'
16 '
REVISIONS
DATENO.BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
10 /
2 8
/
2 0
2 4
9 :
5 0
:
0 0
A
M
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
11/01/2024
MPG
VL / BK
MPG
ON PLAN
4675 MACARTHUR CT.
SUITE 400
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460
www.bkf.com
C4.0
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
(25
.
6 7
)
F
S
(31
.
5 5
)
F
S
(32
.
0 5
)
T
C
(30
.
2 0
)
F
S
(30
.
6 0
)
T
C
(28
.
4 8
)
F
S
(28
.
9 3
)
T
C
(28
.
4 4
)
F
S
(28
.
8 4
)
T
C
(29
.
2 5
)
F
S
(39
.
7 5
)
T
C
(30
.
4 5
)
F
S
(30
.
8 8
)
T
C
FS
(33
.
1 8
)
FS(32
.
9 5
)
FS
(33
.
0 7
)
FS
(32
.
4 6
)
FS
(32
.
5 7
)
FS(31
.
5 8
)
FS
(31
.
4 0
)
FS
(28
.
9 9
)
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(32
.
0 7
)
F
S
(32
.
4 9
)
T
C
(33
.
0 4
)
F
S
(33
.
3 7
)
T
C
(32
.
9 0
)
F
S
(33
.
2 8
)
T
C
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(33
.
2 3
)
F
S
(33
.
2 3
)
T
C
(33
.
2 3
)
F
S
(33
.
2 7
)
T
C
(31
.
5 7
)
F
S
(31
.
9 0
)
T
C
(30
.
7 1
)
F
S
(31
.
0 1
)
T
C
(29
.
5 8
)
F
S
(29
.
9 2
)
T
C
(28
.
8 4
)
F
S
(29
.
1 4
)
T
C
(27
.
6 5
)
F
S
(27
.
9 4
)
T
C
(26
.
2 3
)
F
S
(26
.
6 5
)
T
C
(26
.
7 8
)
F
S
(27
.
0 9
)
T
C
(26
.
7 0
)
F
S
(27
.
2 3
)
T
C
(27
.
3 7
)
F
S
(27
.
9 0
)
T
C
(27
.
2 5
)
F
S
(27
.
8 0
)
T
C
BC
(27
.
3 1
)
T
C
EC
(26
.
7 8
)
T
C
FS(27
.
9 3
)
(27
.
9 0
)
F
S
(28
.
3 1
)
T
C
FS(29
.
0 6
)
(28
.
9 4
)
F
S
(29
.
4 2
)
T
C
FS
(30
.
0 4
)
FS
(30
.
2 4
)
(30
.
1 8
)
F
S
(30
.
6 2
)
T
C
BC
(25
.
8 5
)
F
L
(26
.
5 2
)
T
C
EC
(27
.
3 7
)
T
C
(27
.
5 6
)
F
S
(28
.
2 7
)
T
C
(28
.
1 0
)
F
S
(28
.
6 2
)
T
C
(28
.
6 9
)
F
S
(29
.
3 0
)
T
C
(29
.
7 7
)
F
S
(30
.
3 6
)
T
C
(30
.
6 0
)
F
S
(31
.
1 5
)
T
C
(30
.
9 0
)
F
S
(31
.
4 9
)
T
C
(30
.
9 0
)
F
S
(31
.
5 3
)
T
C
EC
R
BCR
(31
.
3 1
)
F
L
(31
.
5 1
)
T
C
(31
.
8 8
)
F
L
(32
.
4 5
)
T
C
(32
.
0 6
)
F
L
(32
.
6 0
)
T
C
(33
.
3 6
)
F
S
(33
.
7 6
)
T
C
(33
.
2 2
)
F
S
(33
.
7 5
)
T
C
(32
.
7 2
)
F
L
(33
.
1 2
)
T
C
(32
.
7 8
)
F
L
(33
.
2 8
)
T
C
(32
.
6 0
)
F
L
(33
.
1 0
)
T
C
(32
.
4 7
)
F
L
(32
.
9 3
)
T
C
(32
.
4 3
)
F
L
(32
.
9 2
)
T
C
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(32
.
2 4
)
F
L
(32
.
7 0
)
T
C
N00° 01' 15"E 262.15'
N8
9 °
5 7
'
1 3
"
W
1 4
0 .
0 4
'
N00° 01' 31"E 262.21'
N8
9 °
5 8
'
4 3
"
W
1 4
0 .
0 6
'
16 '
(25
.
6 7
)
F
S
(31
.
5 5
)
F
S
(32
.
0 5
)
T
C
(30
.
2 0
)
F
S
(30
.
6 0
)
T
C
(28
.
4 8
)
F
S
(28
.
9 3
)
T
C
(28
.
4 4
)
F
S
(28
.
8 4
)
T
C
(29
.
2 5
)
F
S
(39
.
7 5
)
T
C
(30
.
4 5
)
F
S
(30
.
8 8
)
T
C
FS
(33
.
1 8
)
FS(32
.
9 5
)
FS
(33
.
0 7
)
FS
(32
.
4 6
)
FS
(32
.
5 7
)
FS(31
.
5 8
)
FS
(31
.
4 0
)
FS
(28
.
9 9
)
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(32
.
0 7
)
F
S
(32
.
4 9
)
T
C
(33
.
0 4
)
F
S
(33
.
3 7
)
T
C
(32
.
9 0
)
F
S
(33
.
2 8
)
T
C
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(33
.
2 3
)
F
S
(33
.
2 3
)
T
C
(33
.
2 3
)
F
S
(33
.
2 7
)
T
C
(31
.
5 7
)
F
S
(31
.
9 0
)
T
C
(30
.
7 1
)
F
S
(31
.
0 1
)
T
C
(29
.
5 8
)
F
S
(29
.
9 2
)
T
C
(28
.
8 4
)
F
S
(29
.
1 4
)
T
C
(27
.
6 5
)
F
S
(27
.
9 4
)
T
C
(26
.
2 3
)
F
S
(26
.
6 5
)
T
C
(26
.
7 8
)
F
S
(27
.
0 9
)
T
C
(26
.
7 0
)
F
S
(27
.
2 3
)
T
C
(27
.
3 7
)
F
S
(27
.
9 0
)
T
C
(27
.
2 5
)
F
S
(27
.
8 0
)
T
C
BC
(27
.
3 1
)
T
C
EC
(26
.
7 8
)
T
C
FS(27
.
9 3
)
(27
.
9 0
)
F
S
(28
.
3 1
)
T
C
FS(29
.
0 6
)
(28
.
9 4
)
F
S
(29
.
4 2
)
T
C
FS
(30
.
0 4
)
FS
(30
.
2 4
)
(30
.
1 8
)
F
S
(30
.
6 2
)
T
C
BC
(25
.
8 5
)
F
L
(26
.
5 2
)
T
C
EC
(27
.
3 7
)
T
C
(27
.
5 6
)
F
S
(28
.
2 7
)
T
C
(28
.
1 0
)
F
S
(28
.
6 2
)
T
C
(28
.
6 9
)
F
S
(29
.
3 0
)
T
C
(29
.
7 7
)
F
S
(30
.
3 6
)
T
C
(30
.
6 0
)
F
S
(31
.
1 5
)
T
C
(30
.
9 0
)
F
S
(31
.
4 9
)
T
C
(30
.
9 0
)
F
S
(31
.
5 3
)
T
C
EC
R
BCR
(31
.
3 1
)
F
L
(31
.
5 1
)
T
C
(31
.
8 8
)
F
L
(32
.
4 5
)
T
C
(32
.
0 6
)
F
L
(32
.
6 0
)
T
C
(33
.
3 6
)
F
S
(33
.
7 6
)
T
C
(33
.
2 2
)
F
S
(33
.
7 5
)
T
C
(32
.
7 2
)
F
L
(33
.
1 2
)
T
C
(32
.
7 8
)
F
L
(33
.
2 8
)
T
C
(32
.
6 0
)
F
L
(33
.
1 0
)
T
C
(32
.
4 7
)
F
L
(32
.
9 3
)
T
C
(32
.
4 3
)
F
L
(32
.
9 2
)
T
C
(31
.
3 4
)
F
S
(31
.
9 2
)
T
C
(32
.
2 4
)
F
L
(32
.
7 0
)
T
C
N00° 01' 15"E 262.15'
N8
9 °
5 7
'
1 3
"
W
1 4
0 .
0 4
'
N00° 01' 31"E 262.21'
N8
9 °
5 8
'
4 3
"
W
1 4
0 .
0 6
'
16 '
REVISIONS
DATENO.BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
10 /
2 8
/
2 0
2 4
9 :
5 0
:
0 0
A
M
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
11/01/2024
MPG
VL / BK
MPG
ON PLAN
4675 MACARTHUR CT.
SUITE 400
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460
www.bkf.com
C5.0
ER
O
S
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
P
L
A
N
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
UP
LEGEND
INDICATES NEW PARKING STRUCTURE FOOT PRINT
INDICATES PROPERTY LINE
SITE NOTES
1. FOR PATHWAY WORK EXTERIOR TO BUILDING, SEE CIVIL & LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
2. FOR TREE LOCATION PLAN, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
3. FOR HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL POINTS, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.
4. FOR DRAINAGE EXTERIOR TO BUILDING, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.
5. FOR WORK IN STREETS, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.
6. FOR LIGHTING OF PATHWAYS EXTERIOR TO BUILDING, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS.
INDICATES ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL: PATH OF TRAVEL AS
INDICATED IS A BARRIER FREE ACCESS WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT
VERTICAL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" AND 1:20 (5%) MAX. IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND 1:48 (2%) MAX. CROSS SLOPE, EXCEPT THAT LEVEL CHANGES DO NOT EXCEED 1/4" VERTICAL.
INDICATES EASEMENT LINE
INDICATES PROPERTY SETBACK
INDICATES PROJECT SCOPE
INDICATES EXISTING BUILDING FOOT PRINT
INDICATES ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE
INDICATES ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF PROJECT
SCOPE
A
161
B
C
N. 1 S T S T R E E T
E.
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
ALLEY
SPEED
RAMP UP
SETBACK
10'-0"
RETAIL
UNIT 2
RETAIL
UNIT 1
RETAIL
UNIT 3 RETAIL
UNIT 4
RETAIL
UNIT 5
TRASH
ROOM
ELEC. /
MECH.STORAGE
ELEC. /
MECH.
BIKE
STORAGE
10 '
-
6 "
SE
T
B
A
C
K
3'
-
0 "
EVCS
VAN
EVCS
ACC
EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
1'-3"
1'
-
6 "
REVISIONS
DATENO. BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
As indicated
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 3
:
3 9
A
M
A1.1
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
N
1/16" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0"
UP
UP
A
16151312111098764215
2 A3.2
2 A3.2
A3.1
2 A3.1
3 A3.1
5 A3.1
4 B
C
A.3
A.6
B.2
3 14
TRASH
ROOM
ELEC. /
MECH.
1,400 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 2
SPEED
RAMP UP
A.5
2 A3.3
2 A3.3
1 A3.3
1 A3.3
SOIL
FILL
A.8
B.5
B.7
A.4
A.7
A.9
B.3
B.6
B.8
A
3 .
1 1
EVCS
VAN
EVCS
ACC
EV
STORAGE
EV 12
6 '
-
0 "
1'-0"
16'-6" 14'-0" 14'-0" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 14'-0" 14'-0" 16'-6" 1'-0"
1'
-
0 "
1 4
'
-
9 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
3 "
8 '
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1'
-
3 "
17 '
-
3 "
1 6
'
-
9 "
1'
-
0 "
1'
-
0 "
1 9
'
-
0 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 3
'
-
9 "
1 '
-
0 "
12 6
'
-
0 "
ELEC. /
MECH.
EV EV EV
ROLL-UP
GRILLES
CLEARANCE
BARS
251'-6"
EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
1,384 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 1
1,205 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 3
1,981 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 4
1,907 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 5
BARRIER RAIL
8" CMU
WALLS
BIKE
STORAGE
1 A3.2
1 A3.2
VAN
VAN
5'
-
3 "
20 SPACES
REVISIONS
DATENO.BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
As indicated
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 3
:
3 2
A
M
A2.1
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
LE
V
E
L
0 1
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
3/32" = 1'-0"
LEVEL 01 PARKING PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
0'21'-4"42'-8"10'-8"
N
DN
UP
DNUP
RAMP
UP
SLOPE
UP
A
16151312111098764215
2 A3.2
2 A3.2
A3.1
2 A3.1
3 A3.1
5 A3.1
4 B
C
A.3
A.6
B.2
3 14
OPEN TO
BELOW
A.5
2 A3.3
2 A3.3
1 A3.3
1 A3.3
A.8
B.5
B.7
A.4
A.7
A.9
B.3
B.6
B.8
A
3 .
1 1
SPEED RAMP
DN
12 6
'
-
0 "
1'-0"
16'-6" 14'-0" 14'-0" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 14'-0" 14'-0" 16'-6" 1'-0"
1'
-
0 "
1 4
'
-
9 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
3 "
8 '
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1'
-
3 "
17 '
-
3 "
1 6
'
-
9 "
1'
-
0 "
1'
-
0 "
1 9
'
-
0 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 3
'
-
9 "
1 '
-
0 "
12 6
'
-
0 "
251'-6"
1 A3.2
1 A3.2
REVISIONS
DATENO.BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
As indicated
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 7
:
0 3
A
M
A2.2
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
LE
V
E
L
0 2
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
3/32" = 1'-0"
LEVEL 02 PARKING PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0"
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
0'21'-4"42'-8"10'-8"
N
DN
UP
DNUP
RAMP
UP
SLOPE
UP
RAMP
DN
A
16151312111098764215
2 A3.2
2 A3.2
A3.1
2 A3.1
3 A3.1
5 A3.1
4 B
C
A.3
A.6
B.2
3 14
A.5
2 A3.3
2 A3.3
1 A3.3
1 A3.3
A.8
B.5
B.7
A.4
A.7
A.9
B.3
B.6
B.8
A
3.1 1
12 6
'
-
0 "
1'-0"
16'-6" 14'-0" 14'-0" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 14'-0" 14'-0" 16'-6" 1'-0"
1'
-
0 "
1 4
'
-
9 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
3 "
8 '
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1'
-
3 "
17 '
-
3 "
1 6
'
-
9 "
1'
-
0 "
1'
-
0 "
1 9
'
-
0 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 3
'
-
9 "
1 '
-
0 "
12 6
'
-
0 "
251'-6"
1 A3.2
1 A3.2
REVISIONS
DATENO. BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
As indicated
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 3
:
3 5
A
M
A2.3
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
LE
V
E
L
0 3
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
3/32" = 1'-0"
LEVEL 03 PARKING PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0"
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
0'21'-4"42'-8"10'-8"
N
DNUP
DN
UP
RAMP
UP
SLOPE
UP
RAMP
DN
A
16151312111098764215
2 A3.2
2 A3.2
A3.1
2 A3.1
3 A3.1
5 A3.1
4 B
C
A.3
A.6
B.2
3 14
A.5
2 A3.3
2 A3.3
1 A3.3
1 A3.3
A.8
B.5
B.7
A.4
A.7
A.9
B.3
B.6
B.8
A
3.1 1
12 6
'
-
0 "
1'-0"
16'-6" 14'-0" 14'-0" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 14'-0" 14'-0" 16'-6" 1'-0"
1'
-
0 "
1 4
'
-
9 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
3 "
8 '
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1'
-
3 "
17 '
-
3 "
1 6
'
-
9 "
1'
-
0 "
1'
-
0 "
1 9
'
-
0 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 3
'
-
9 "
1 '
-
0 "
12 6
'
-
0 "
251'-6"
1 A3.2
1 A3.2
REVISIONS
DATENO. BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
As indicated
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 3
:
3 6
A
M
A2.4
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
LE
V
E
L
0 4
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0"
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
0'21'-4"42'-8"10'-8"
N
3/32" = 1'-0"
LEVEL 04 PARKING PLAN
DN
DN
SLOPE
UP
RAMP
DN
AA
16151312111098764215
2 A3.2
2 A3.2
A3.1
2 A3.1
3 A3.1
5 A3.1
4 B
CC
A.3
A.6
B.2
3 14
OPEN TO
BELOW A.5
2 A3.3
2 A3.3
1 A3.3
1 A3.3
16'-6" 14'-0" 14'-0" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 14'-0" 14'-0" 16'-6" A.8
B.5
B.7
A.4
A.7
A.9
B.3
B.6
B.8
A
3.1 1
14 '
-
9 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
3 "
8 '
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1'
-
3 "
17 '
-
3 "
1 6
'
-
9 "
19 '
-
0 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 3
'
-
9 "
12 6
'
-
0 "
1'-0"
16'-6" 14'-0" 14'-0" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 14'-0" 14'-0" 16'-6" 1'-0"
1'
-
0 "
1 4
'
-
9 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
3 "
8 '
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
6 "
1'
-
3 "
17 '
-
3 "
1 6
'
-
9 "
1'
-
0 "
1'
-
0 "
1 9
'
-
0 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 8
'
-
3 "
1 3
'
-
9 "
1 '
-
0 "
12 6
'
-
0 "
251'-6"
1 A3.2
1 A3.2
3/32" = 1'-0"
LEVEL 05 PARKING PLAN
REVISIONS
DATENO. BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
As indicated
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 3
:
3 7
A
M
A2.5
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
LE
V
E
L
0 5
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
0'21'-4"42'-8"10'-8"
N
TYPE DESCRIPTION
1 FINISHES SCHEDULE
2 3
4 .... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
LEVEL 01
16 LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
15 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 15
LEVEL 04
314
EXIT ENTRY
15 '
-
0 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
EL= 0.00'
EL= 15.00'
EL= 25.50'
EL= 36.00'
EL= 46.50'
C S T R E E T
FACING 1ST CTREET
LEVEL 01
A
LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
LEVEL 04
BC A.3A.6B.2 A.8B.5B.7
N 1 S T S T R E E T
ALLEY
FACING C CTREET
LEVEL 01
16 LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
151312111098764215
LEVEL 04
3 14
C S T R E E T
FACING ALLEY
LEVEL 01
A
LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
LEVEL 04
B CA.4 A.7 A.9 B.3 B.6 B.8
ALLEY
LEVEL 01
LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
LEVEL 04
REVISIONS
DATENO. BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
As indicated
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 3
:
5 7
A
M
A3.1
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
2 EAST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
3 SOUTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
5 WEST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
4 NORTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
1 CORNER ELEVATION
LEVEL 01
16 LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
151312111098764215
LEVEL 04
15 '
-
0 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
50 '
-
4 "
3 14
EL= 15.00'
EL= 0.00'
EL= 25.50'
EL= 36.00'
EL= 46.50'
AT SPEED RAMP
ELEC. /
MECH.
C S T R E E T
STORAGE ELEC. /
MECH.
RETAIL
UNIT 4CL
R
.
7'
-
0 "
LEVEL 01
16 LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
151312111098764215
LEVEL 04
3 14
15 '
-
0 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
50 '
-
4 "
EL= 15.00'
EL= 0.00'
EL= 25.50'
EL= 36.00'
EL= 46.50'
AT PARK-ON RAMP OVER RETAIL
RETAIL
UNIT 2
C S T R E E T
RETAIL
UNIT 4
RETAIL
UNIT 3
REVISIONS
DATENO. BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
3/32" = 1'-0"
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 4
:
0 4
A
M
A3.2
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2
2 LONGITUDINAL SECTION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2
1 LONGITUDINAL SECTION
LEVEL 01
16 LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
151312111098764215
LEVEL 04
3 14
C S T R E E T
RETAIL
UNIT 5
LEVEL 01
A
LEVEL 02
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 05
LEVEL 04
BC
SPEED RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
RETAIL
UNIT 2TRASH
ROOM
N 1 S T S T R E E T
ALLEY
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.3
2 TRANSVERSE SECTION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.3
1 LONGITUDINAL SECTION
REVISIONS
DATENO. BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
3/32" = 1'-0"
11 /
1 /
2 0
2 4
1 0
:
5 4
:
1 8
A
M
A3.3
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
KIM
11/01/2024
PRABHUNE
BEDDOW
REVISIONS
DATENO.BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
10 /
2 8
/
2 0
2 4
9 :
5 0
:
0 0
A
M
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
11/01/2024
KY
JC
AS
LICE N E D L A N D S APE
A
RC
H
I
T
E
T
Signature
Date
S
C
C
3 A
NLN NY 2.
C
O 4 Y
A
1 U
OP
S
T
TA
A
A
E
OF C L I F O R N I
Renewal Date
12-31-2026
LI.2
IR
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
UPUP
TRASH
ROOM
ELEC. /
MECH.
1,409 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 2
SPEED
RAMP UP SOIL
FILL
EVCS
VAN
EVCS
ACC
EV
STORAGE
EV
VAN
ELEC. /
MECH.
EV EV EV
CLEARANCE
BARS
EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
1,410 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 1
1,214 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 3
1,998 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 4
1,943 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 5
BARRIER RAIL
8" CMU
WALLS
BIKE
STORAGE
VAN
1st AVENUE
E.
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
ALLEY
MF
WATER METER 'A'
CONTROLLER 'A'
F
E 1
F
E 1
F
E 1
F E 1
F
E 1
FE1
FE1
FE1
F F
F
F
E 1
N
1 GAL -
CASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA
GOLD MEDALLION TREE
-36" BOX 8
-
A, B LP.3
C, D LP.3
PLANT PER PLAN
-
-
GENERAL PLANTING NOTES
1.VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF WORK.
2.WHERE IT IS OBVIOUS IN THE FIELD THAT CONDITIONS DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS INDICATED ON
THE PLANS, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF THESE DISCREPANCIES. IN THE EVENT THIS NOTIFICATION IS NOT PERFORMED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY NECESSARY REVISIONS.
3.ALL NEWLY PLANTED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED BY MEANS OF A FULLY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM & COMPLETE 100% FULL COVERAGE TO ALL PLANTED AREAS. SEE IRRIGATION PLAN AND DETAILS.
4.A DEEPROOT BARRIER IS REQUIRED ON ALL TREES WHEN THE TREE TRUNK IS 5' OR LESS FROM ANY SIDEWALK, CURBING, ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE, WALL OR FENCE.
5.REFER TO AGRONOMIC SOILS TESTING REPORT FOR PREPARATION, AMENDMENTS AND MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
6.GRAVEL ROCK SHALL BE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGH OUT THE PLANTERS AND UNDER PLANTS. SEE INERT LEGEND FOR SIZE, TYPE AND MANUFACTURER.
7.ONLY ONE SUBMITTAL FOR PLANTING MATERIALS AND ONE SUBMITTAL FOR IRRIGATION MATERIALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW. FAILURE TO SUBMIT AS NOTED WILL RESULT IN AN IMMEDIATE REJECTION AND RETURN OF SUBMITTAL.
ALL REJECTED ITEMS MUST BE RESUBMITTED FOR REVIEW OR THE INSTALLED ITEMS WILL BE
FORMALLY REJECTED AND REQUESTED TO BE REMOVE AND REPLACEMENT WITH MATERIAL SHOWN IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
8.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND APPROVE ALL 15 GALLON AND 24" BOX & 36" BOX TREES.
9.ALL TREE & SHRUB MATERIAL SPECIFIED MUST MEET STANDARD INDUSTRY SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONTAINER SIZE INDICATED. IF CONTRACTOR CANNOT LOCATE MATERIAL OF
ACCEPTABLE SIZE AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR SPECIES SUBSTITUTION. DOWN-SIZING OR SUBSTITUTION OF PLANT MATERIAL WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
10.A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THE BOTANICAL NAME TAGS FURNISHED BY THE NURSERY STOCK SUPPLIER SHALL REMAIN ATTACHED TO THE PLANTS UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION.
11.FINISH GRADE IN ALL PLANTER AREAS SHALL BE 2 INCHES FOR SHRUB BELOW FINISH SURFACE OF SURROUNDING HARDSCAPE AND/OR UTILITY BOXES.
12.INSTALL 3 INCHES OF SHREDDED WOOD MULCH UNDER ALL PLANTS AS SHOWN IN DETAIL,OR AS NOTED ON PLANS. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR MULCH MATERIAL.
13.UPON COMPLETION OF PLANTING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION INSPECTION BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CONTRACTOR SHALL CORRECT ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT.
PLANT NAMESYMBOL SIZE QTY.REMARK WUCOL DET.SHT
PLANT NAMESYMBOL SIZE QTY.REMARK WUCOL DET.SHT
SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER
TREES
PLANTING LEGEND
BIKE RACKS
DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL QTY.REMARK
SITE AMENITIES
BENCHES
ASH RECEPTACLES
TRASH RECEPTACLES
BOLLARDS
CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN'
DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH
TBD
NOTE:
AGRONOMICS SOIL TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED ON THE SITE FROM LOCATIONS INDICATED PRIOR TO PLANTING. FOUR (4) TESTING SITES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ALL RESULTS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE WORK ON THIS PROJECT.
TESTING TO BE PERFORMED SHALL BE DETERMINED BY WALLACE LABORATORIES OR APPROVED EQUAL.
REPORT IS TO BE OBTAINED AND PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR. AMEND SOIL PER TEST RESULT RECOMMENDATION. FOR ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTING INFORMATION RERER TO SPECIFICATIONS. #
INDICATES SAMPLE NUMBER
INDICATES SAMPLE SITE
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
GEIJERA PARVIFLORA
AUSTRALIAN WILLOW
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM'
LITTLE GEM MAGNOLIA 24" BOX PLANT PER PLAN
PLANTER POT 5'X2'TBD
-
--
--
-
-
--
-
DODONAEA VISCOSA
HOPSEED BUSH
PODOCARPUS 'MOOD RING'
MOOD RING PODOCARPUS
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY
DIANELLA TASMANICA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED FLAX LILY
DIANELLA CLARITY BLUE
CLARITY BLUE FLAX LILY
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM
CREEPING MYOPORUM
LOMONDRA LONGIFOLIA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY'
PLATINUM BEAUTY LOMANDRA
MYRTUS COMMUNIS 'COMPACTA'
DWARF MYRTLE
SALVIA GREGGI
AUTUMN SAGE
-
DIETES NOLA ALBA
KATRINA AFRICAN IRIS
-
CAREX DIVULSA
BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
15 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
15 GAL
1 GAL
-A, B LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
-C, D LP.3
STAMPED CONCRETE PAVING
DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL REMARK
PAVING
CONCRETE PAVING BANDING TBD
TBD
TREE GRATE TBD4'X4'E LP.3
REVISIONS
DATENO.BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
10 /
2 8
/
2 0
2 4
9 :
5 0
:
0 0
A
M
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
11/01/2024
KY
JC
AS
1" = 10"
LICE N E D L A N D S APE
A
RC
H
I
T
E
T
Signature
Date
S
C
C
3 A
NLN NY 2.
C
O 4 Y
A
1 U
OP
S
T
TA
A
A
E
OF C L I F O R N I
Renewal Date
12-31-2026
LP.1
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
L
E
G
E
N
D
A
N
D
N
O
T
E
S
UPUP
TRASH
ROOM
ELEC. /
MECH.
1,409 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 2
SPEED
RAMP UP SOIL
FILL
EVCS
VAN
EVCS
ACC
EV
STORAGE
EV
VAN
ELEC. /
MECH.
EV EV EV
CLEARANCE
BARS
EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
1,410 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 1
1,214 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 3
1,998 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 4
1,943 SF
RETAIL
UNIT 5
BARRIER RAIL
8" CMU
WALLS
BIKE
STORAGE
VAN
1st AVENUE
E.
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
ALLEYLIGHTED BOLLARD
MEDIUM/LARGE STREET TREE IN TREE GRATE
PLANTER POTS
STAMPED CONCRETE PAVING AND BANDING
PLANTING AREA
TRASH RECEPTACLE
BENCH WITH CENTER ARM REST
SMALL TREE IN TREE GRATE
BIKE RACKS
PLANTING AREA
STAMPED CONCRETE
PAVING AND BANDING
REVISIONS
DATENO.BY
JOB NO.
DATE
DESIGN
DRAWN
CHK. BY
SCALE
SHEET:
:
:
:
:
:
:
©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2024
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Long Beach, California
10 /
2 8
/
2 0
2 4
9 :
5 0
:
0 0
A
M
CI
T
Y
O
F
U
P
L
A
N
D
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
P
S
24-020
UP
L
A
N
D
,
C
A
50% SCHEMATIC
DESIGN
11/01/2024
KY
JC
AS
1" = 10"
LICE N E D L A N D S APE
A
RC
H
I
T
E
T
Signature
Date
S
C
C
3 A
NLN NY 2.
C
O 4 Y
A
1 U
OP
S
T
TA
A
A
E
OF C L I F O R N I
Renewal Date
12-31-2026
LP.2
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
N
CITY OF UPLAND
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AND PARKING
STRUCTURE PROJECT
CEQA Class 32
Categorical Exemption Report
Lead Agency:
City of Upland
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Contact: Josh Winter, Senior Planner
Phone: 909.931.4100
Prepared by:
Michael Baker International
40810 County Center Drive #200
Temecula, CA 92591
Contact: Shannon Liska, AICP
[email protected]
Phone: 858.614.5040
JN 206498
May 2025
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft | May 2025 i City of Upland
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
II. Project Location and Setting ......................................................................................... 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 1
III. Project Description ........................................................................................................ 2
IV. Class 32 Exemption Criteria Analysis ............................................................................ 7 Criterion (a) ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Criterion (b) ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Criterion (c) ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Criterion (d) ......................................................................................................................................... 10 A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................. 10 B. Noise ................................................................................................................................ 11 C. Air Quality....................................................................................................................... 21 D. Water Quality.................................................................................................................. 38 Criterion (e) ......................................................................................................................................... 37
V. Considerations of Exceptions to the Use of a Categorical Exemption ....................... 38 Criterion (a) ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Criterion (b) ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Criterion (c) ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Criterion (d) ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Criterion (e) ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Criterion (f).......................................................................................................................................... 41
V. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 41
VI. References .................................................................................................................... 42
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft | May 2025 ii City of Upland
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity .............................................................................................................................. 4 Exhibit 2: Site Vicinity....................................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 6
List of Tables
Table 1: City of Upland General Plan Project Consistency Analysis ......................................................... 7 Table 2: Human Reaction… for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels ................... 13 Table 3: Short-Term Noise Measurements .................................................................................................. 14 Table 4: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors ............................................. 16 Table 5: Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................................................ 20 Table 6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds .................................... 23 Table 7: Short-Term Construction Emissions ............................................................................................. 28 Table 8: Long-Term Operational Air Emissions ........................................................................................ 30 Table 9: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ..................................................................... 34
List of Appendices
Appendix A Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation Appendix B Noise Data
Appendix C Air Quality Data
Appendix D Trip Generation Memo
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 1 City of Upland
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION REPORT
This report serves as the environmental determination for the Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project (project) in the City of Upland. The intent of the analysis is to document the project’s eligibility as an exempt action pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE) for In-Fill Development Projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332).
The report includes an introduction, project description, and evaluation of the project’s consistency with the requirements for a Class 32 CE.
I. INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that a Class 32 CE would apply to a project when the following criteria are met:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
II. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
Project Location
The City of Upland (City) is located in the westernmost portion of San Bernardino County. The City is bordered by unincorporated San Bernardino County to the north, Rancho Cucamonga to the east, Montclair and Ontario to the south, and Claremont to the west. Regional access to the City is available via Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 210 (I-210), and Foothill Boulevard (formerly State Route 66); refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity.
The approximately 0.85-acre project site encompasses seven parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:
1046-402-02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, and -08) and is located within the Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area, which is in the southeast portion of the City. Specifically, the project site is located at the southeast corner of North 1st Avenue and East C Street; refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity. Local access to the site is provided via North 1st Avenue and East C Street.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 2 City of Upland
Existing Site Conditions
The project site is currently developed as a 107-space asphalt surface parking lot with perimeter street trees and two landscaped medians. According to the project’s Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation (refer to Appendix A), the project site gently slopes from north to south with an approximate elevation differential of 7 feet.
General Plan Land Use and Zoning
The project site has a City of Upland General Plan (General Plan) land use and zoning designation of Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan.1 Within the Specific Plan, the project site has a land use designation of Old Town District with a 1st Avenue Overlay.2 According to the Specific Plan, the Old Town District functions as the historic core and social heart of the City . The Specific Plan notes that some surface parking lots in Old Town will be replaced with parking garages, providing convenient access to downtown for people from elsewhere in Upland and surrounding towns. The 1st Avenue Overlay is intended to provide opportunities for larger scale developments appropriate in scale with the neighboring Euclid District, while ensuring an appropriately scaled transition to buildings in the surrounding Old Town District.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
As shown on Exhibit 2, the site is bound by East C Street and a surface parking lot to the north, mixed-use residential and commercial uses to the east, commercial office uses and East 9th Street to the south, and North 1st Avenue with commercial, residential, and institutional (church) uses to the west. The surrounding uses are primarily zoned Old Town District by the Specific Plan, with a small area to the west of the site zoned Euclid District by the Specific Plan.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would redevelop a 107-space asphalt surface parking lot with an approximately 150,000- square-foot, five-tier parking structure and approximately 9,900 square feet of ground floor commercial uses. Commercial uses would be located at the project’s northwest corner and are anticipated to be leased as 50 percent retail and 50 percent restaurant; refer to Exhibit 3, Conceptual Site Plan. The structure would serve the surrounding downtown businesses as well as Metrolink riders using the downtown station.
The parking structure and commercial uses would be above grade with a maximum building height of
50.9 feet. The structure would accommodate 407 parking spaces, consisting of 376 standard stalls, 6 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible stalls, 2 ADA van-accessible stalls, 21 electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) stalls, and 2 ADA EVCS stalls. Bicycle racks would be located in the walkway along the alley and bicycle storage areas would be located on the first level in the southwest
1 City of Upland, General Plan, Land Use Figure LU-1, 2015; City of Upland, Zoning Map, 2015. 2 City of Upland, Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan, 2011.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 3 City of Upland
corner of the parking structure. Vehicle ingress and egress to the parking structure would be accessed from North 1st Avenue.
Elevators and stairs are proposed at the northeast and southeast corners of the structure. Additional improvements would include new landscape and hardscape walkways along the east and south sides of the structure. An on-site trash enclosure would be installed along the alley for trash collection to serve new and existing commercial uses.
The project proposes a contemporary architectural style designed to complement the four existing historic packing houses located in and around the downtown area. The primary façade of the structure/building would be designed using a combination of corrugated metal panels and brick veneer cladding.
The parking structure would be accessible 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. Retail hours would typically operate between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, while restaurant hours would typically operate between 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Sunday hours for the commercial uses may vary.
Construction is anticipated to occur for a duration of approximately 14 months beginning in January 2027 and would comply with the City of Upland Municipal Code standards, which limit construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Earthwork would include approximately 650 cubic yards of cut and 800 cubic yards of fill.
Anaheim
Azusa
Brea
Chino
Chino Hills
Claremont
Corona
Covina
Diamond
Bar
Eastvale
Fontana
Fullerton
Glendora
Industry
Jurupa Valley
La Verne
Montclair
Norco
Ontario
Orange
Placentia
Pomona
Rancho Cucamonga
Rialto
Riverside
San
Bernardino
San
Dimas
Upland
Villa Park
Walnut
West Covina
Yorba Linda
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
Project Site
°
Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online, Caltrans
Regional Vicinity
Exhibit 1
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AND PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT
3/
2 4
/
2 0
2 5
J
N
2 0
6 4
9 8
\
\
S
a
n
t
c
a
1 h
u
b
\
s
a
n
d
c
a
1 f
s
1 \
H
r
o
o
t
\
P
D
A
T
A
\
2 0
6 4
9 8
_
U
p
l
a
n
d
_
D
T
P
G
_
C
E
Q
A
\
G
I
S
\
A
P
R
X
\
2 0
6 4
9 8
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
a
p
r
x
0 52.5
Miles
!"a$
!"a$
AÆE
!"a$
?zEA¼E
A«E
AôE
AñE
AñE
?×E !"a$
!"a$
?bE
A³E
!"`$
AÎE!"^$
?uE
AÆE
?sE
!"`$
?zE
?uE
A¥E
%&h(
C S t
E 9 t h S t
E 9 t h S t
C S t
N
1 s
t
A
v
e
N
1 s
t
A
v
e
N
2 n
d
Ave
N
2 n
d
A
v
e
E 9 t h S t
E 9 t h S t
°
Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online, City of Upland, San Bernardino County, 2025 Nearmap Imagery Site Vicinity
Exhibit 2
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AND PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT
3/
2 4
/
2 0
2 5
J
N
2 0
6 4
9 8
\
\
S
a
n
t
c
a
1 h
u
b
\
s
a
n
d
c
a
1 f
s
1 \
H
r
o
o
t
\
P
D
A
T
A
\
2 0
6 4
9 8
_
U
p
l
a
n
d
_
D
T
P
G
_
C
E
Q
A
\
G
I
S
\
A
P
R
X
\
2 0
6 4
9 8
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
a
p
r
x
Legend
Project Site
0 10050
US Feet
°
Source: Watry Design, Inc., 11/22/2024
Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 3
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AND PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT
3/
2 4
/
2 0
2 5
J
N
2 0
6 4
9 8
\
\
S
a
n
t
c
a
1 h
u
b
\
s
a
n
d
c
a
1 f
s
1 \
H
r
o
o
t
\
P
D
A
T
A
\
2 0
6 4
9 8
_
U
p
l
a
n
d
_
D
T
P
G
_
C
E
Q
A
\
G
I
S
\
A
P
R
X
\
2 0
6 4
9 8
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
a
p
r
x
NOT TO SCALE
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 7 City of Upland
IV. CLASS 32 EXEMPTION CRITERIA ANALYSIS
CRITERION (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
General Plan Consistency. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan (SP) and zoning of Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan (Specific Plan). Permitted uses within SP designations vary depending on the standards of each individual plan. The SP designation aims to focus growth in specific areas to enhance the City's economic base, provide new housing opportunities, optimize existing and planned infrastructure, and promote the development and use of transit and multimodal transportation. Specifically, the Specific Plan aims to guide development in downtown Upland.
Within the Specific Plan, the project site is zoned Old Town District with a 1st Avenue Overlay.
According to the Specific Plan, the Old Town District allows a mix of residential and commercial uses while maintaining a pedestrian-friendly environment. There are two overlay zones within the Old Town District that establish unique development standards in order to preserve small-scale development in the historic core of the City. The 1st Avenue Overlay is intended to regulate large-scale development such that building scale (and transition of scale) is considerate of the surrounding buildings in the Old Town and Euclid Districts.
The existing surface parking lot and proposed surface parking lots are allowable uses per the SP designation. Further, the Specific Plan states that replacing surface parking lots with parking garages, specifically in the Old Town District, aligns with the Downtown Vision for the City. The proposed restaurant and retail commercial uses are also allowable uses per the SP designation. Thus, the project is consistent with the General Plan, as evaluated below in Table 1, City of Upland General Plan Project Consistency Analysis.
Table 1: City of Upland General Plan Project Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: A viable community with a mix of land uses and building types that offer a wide range of choices to live, work, shop and participate in civic, cultural, open space, and recreational opportunities.
Policy LU-1.3: Strategic Growth. Concentrate
growth in strategic locations that strengthens the
City’s economic base, offers new housing
opportunities, maximizes available and planned
infrastructure, and fosters the development and use
of transit and multi-modal transportation. These
areas include Historic Downtown Upland, Foothill
Boulevard, the Southeast Quadrant, College Heights,
Consistent. The project site is located in Historic
Downtown Upland and proposes the redevelopment
of an existing surface parking lot containing 107
parking stalls into a five-tier parking structure with
ground-floor commercial use. The project, as
proposed, maximizes the potential of the available
surface lot by 1) increasing the amount of available
parking to better serve residents, employees, and
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 8 City of Upland
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis Mountain Avenue, along the Interstate 10 corridor,
and in the 9th Street Industrial area.
visitors of the Historic Downtown area, and 2)
incorporating new commercial uses that strengthen
the City’s economic base. The proposed project
would revitalize the downtown area by providing a
greater quantity of public parking in close proximity
to existing and future businesses and pedestrian
areas. While a parking structure does not directly
revitalize a commercial area, redeveloping the surface
lot into a parking structure would complement future
growth and changes in the surrounding area,
including potential development of other existing
surface lots in the area. The parking structure would
also be available for use by Metrolink riders using the downtown station, providing and encouraging the
use of public transit. Therefore, the project is
consistent with this Land Use Element policy.
Policy LU-1.4: Complete and Balanced
Community. Foster new land uses and building
types that contribute to City revenues and increase
employment while also ensuring the provision of
sufficient housing, shopping, civic, cultural, open
space, and recreational opportunities.
Consistent. In addition to increasing the quantity of
available public parking, the proposed project would
incorporate approximately 9,900 square feet of
ground-floor commercial use, which would be a new
building type and land use for the parcel. The
commercial use is anticipated to be leased as 50
percent retail and 50 percent restaurant, which would
promote new civic and shopping opportunities for
residents, employees, and visitors in the Historic
Downtown area. The parking structure would
improve the utilization of the site by providing
greater availability of public parking, ultimately
contributing to increased City revenues. Therefore,
the project is consistent with this Land Use Element
policy.
Goal LU-2: A community with stable and livable residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-2.2: Historic Residential Districts.
Ensure the protection of Upland’s nine designated
historic residential districts through active
maintenance and upkeep of historic homes, as well
as adequate buffers and transitions to adjacent
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The proposed project is located in one
of the City’s nine designated historic districts.
Specifically, the project is located in the Old Town
Historic District, within the 1st Avenue Overlay. The
project site does not contain a historic home or
structure. According to the Specific Plan, the 1st
Avenue Overlay aims to create opportunities for
larger-scale developments that harmonize with the
neighboring Euclid District, while ensuring a smooth
transition to the buildings in the surrounding Old
Town District. The project would be designed to
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 9 City of Upland
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis complement the four existing historic packing
houses located in and around the downtown area.
Therefore, the project is consistent with this Land
Use Element Policy.
Goal LU-3: A community with high-quality non-residential uses sufficient to serve the shopping, employment, and cultural needs of Upland residents and the region.
Policy LU-3.1: Economic Development. Retain
and attract land uses that generate revenue to the
City, provide employment for residents while
balancing other community needs such as housing,
parks and open space, and public facilities.
Consistent. The General Plan Land Use Element
discusses revitalizing downtown by building upon
existing assets, and creating new zoning that
accommodates higher densities and a mixture of uses
with design that supports walkability. Project
implementation would support this revitalization by
making more parking spaces available for public use
and improving walkability to nearby downtown uses.
Compared to the existing surface parking, the
parking structure would accommodate a larger
number of local and regional visitors to the
immediate downtown area. It would also be near
commercial uses that would generate additional
revenue. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Land Use Element policy.
Policy LU-3.2: Economic Revitalization.
Promote the development of vacant and
underutilized parcels with higher intensity
commercial and industrial land uses.
Consistent. The project site currently exists as a
paved surface parking lot. The project would
redevelop the parcel into a five-tier parking structure above ground-floor commercial space, ultimately
increasing the amount of available public parking
spaces and integrating commercial use to the site.
The addition of commercial uses would be
consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan
land uses and zoning designations for the project
site. The project would redevelop the parcel with a
higher intensity than the existing use. Therefore, the
project is consistent with this Land Use Element
policy.
Goal LU-6: A community that encourages complementary development and maintenance of existing development.
Policy LU-6.1: Quality Development. Ensure that
development is attractive and promotes harmony in
the visual relationships and transitions between
newer and older buildings.
Consistent. The proposed project would be
consistent with the design objectives for the Old
Town District outlined in the Specific Plan. Further,
the project site is located in the 1st Avenue Overlay,
which is designed to ensure a harmonious transition
with the neighboring Euclid District and
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 10 City of Upland
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis surrounding development in the Old Town District.
Therefore, the project is consistent with this Land
Use Element policy.
Policy LU-6.2: Compatibility of Uses. Control the
location, concentration and operations of land uses
that have potential impacts on surrounding
development through effective design principles,
adequate buffering, and enforcement of regulatory
documents.
Consistent. The project would comply with the
latest California Title 24 regulations including
building, electrical, mechanical, fire, and energy
codes regarding project design. The structure would
accommodate approximately 407 parking spaces,
consisting of 376 standard stalls, 6 ADA accessible
stalls, 2 ADA van-accessible stalls, 21 EVCS stalls,
and 2 ADA EVCS stalls. Additionally, the proposed
parking structure would incorporate bicycle racks
and storage areas. Thus, the project would be
consistent with the 2022 Green Buildings Standard
Code. Therefore, the project is consistent with this
Land Use Element policy.
Source: City of Upland, 2015-2035 General Plan, Land Use Element, adopted September 2015.
Zoning Consistency. The project site has a zoning designation of Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan. Within the Specific Plan, the project site is zoned Old Town District with a 1st Avenue Overlay.
• Permitted Uses. The project site is zoned as Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan (SP) and lies within the 1st Avenue Overlay. The desired primary uses in the zone are retail, restaurants, retail, mixed-use residential, and parking. As a parking garage with retail and restaurant space that would serve the Historic Downtown facilities, the proposed project is considered an allowed use in accordance with the Historic Downtown District standards. • Setbacks. The project would be consistent with the Old Town District and 1st Avenue Overlay minimum and maximum setback requirements (0 foot minimum and 10 foot maximum on side or side alleys, 0 foot minimum and no maximum on rear or rear alleys).
The project does not have a frontage along 3rd Avenue or Euclid Avenue and would not be required to incorporate additional setback requirements specific to those properties. • Building Height. The parking garage would be four levels, with a maximum building height of 50.9 feet. As a result, the project would be consistent with the Old Town District’s maximum building height of 55 feet.
As analyzed above, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan and Specific Plan designations and policies and zoning designation and regulations. Thus, the project would meet Criterion (a) requirements.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 11 City of Upland
CRITERION (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The 0.843-acre project site is located within the southeast portion of the City, at the southeast corner of North 1st Avenue and East C Street, in the City of Upland. The project site is located in downtown Upland, surrounded by urban uses, including residential and commercial uses. As shown on Exhibit 2, the site is generally bound by East C Street and a surface parking lot to the north, mixed-use residential and commercial uses to the east, commercial office uses and East 9th Street to the south, and North 1st Avenue with commercial, residential, and institutional (church) uses to the west. The project would be infill development in downtown Upland. The project site (0.843 acres) is less than five acres. As such, the project would meet Criterion (b) requirements.
CRITERION (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
The project site is located within the developed downtown area of the City and is generally surrounded by urban land uses. The project site is currently developed with pavement and surface parking. The only existing vegetation consists of previously landscaped planters with small shrubs and trees.
Therefore, there is no suitable habitat that could support endangered, rare, or threatened species.
Thus, the proposed project would meet Criterion (c) requirements.
CRITERION (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
A. TRAFFIC
A vehicle miles traveled (VMT) assessment was prepared for the proposed project; refer to Appendix D, Trip Generation Memo. As outlined in Appendix D, the project site trips were estimated using trip generation equations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition (2022). Trips would be generated from the commercial uses only, as parking structures are not considered trip generating. The project is forecast to generate approximately 544 daily vehicle trips with 19 AM peak hour trips (11 inbound/8 outbound) and 68 PM peak hour trips (35 inbound/33 outbound).
The City of Upland utilizes the City of Upland Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) to determine if certain projects, due to their size, nature, or location, are exempt from the requirements of preparing a detailed VMT analysis. The project meets the screening criteria based on the “Project Type Screening” criterion, as the retail component of the project is local-serving retail that consists of 9,900 SF, which is less than the 50,000 SF threshold for this screening.
Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required, and the project would have a less than significant impact relative to traffic.
B. NOISE
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 12 City of Upland
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Sound, Noise, and Groundborne Vibration
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air, and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally ranges from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
There are several metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time -varying sound. This is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment. Noise exposure over a longer period is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10 dBA penalty (or an additional 10 dBA) for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when sounds seem to be louder. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient (background) noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for light- and medium-density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA. Similarly, Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of 24-hour noise levels, not an actual sound level heard at any time, that incorporates a 5 dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA penalty for sounds occurring
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 13 City of Upland
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.
Fundamental of Environmental Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of oscillatory (i.e., rapidly fluctuating) motions or waves with an average motion of zero (i.e., no net movement of the vibration element). Sources of earth-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man- made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions).
Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Vibration decibels (VdB) are commonly used to measure the RMS vibration velocity level. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.
Table 2, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those lis ted, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 14 City of Upland
Table 2: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Peak Particle
Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate
Vibration
Velocity Level
(VdB)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006–0.019 64–74 Range of threshold of perception. Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type.
0.08 87 Vibrations readily perceptible.
Recommended upper level to
which ruins and ancient
monuments should be
subjected.
0.1 92
Level at which continuous
vibrations may begin to annoy
people, particularly those involved
in vibration sensitive activities.
Virtually no risk of architectural
damage to normal buildings.
0.2 94 Vibrations may begin to annoy
people in buildings.
Threshold at which there is a
risk of architectural damage to
normal dwellings.
0.4–0.6 98–104
Vibrations considered unpleasant
by people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to
some people walking on bridges.
Architectural damage and
possibly minor structural
damage.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur. However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as pile driving and vibratory compacting activities which require the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per section (in/sec) is used to evaluate construction-generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.
Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, places of worship, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise - sensitive land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multifamily residential
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 15 City of Upland
uses located within the mixed-use building located approximately 15 feet to the east, and a church use and a single-family residence located approximately 75 feet to the west.
Existing Stationary Noise Levels
The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are urban -related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment, parking areas, and pedestrians). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.
Mobile Sources
Most of the existing noise in the project area is generated from traffic along surrounding roadways, including East C Street, Euclid Avenue, North 1st Street, and East 9th Street.
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, three short-term noise measurements were conducted in the project vicinity on April 2, 2025; refer to Appendix B, Noise Data. The noise measurement locations are representative of the typical existing noise exposure at the nearest sensitive receptors. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.
Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The noise measurements were taken during “off-peak” (9:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m.) traffic noise hours as this provides a more conservative baseline. During rush hour traffic, vehicle speeds and heavy truck volumes are often low. Free-flowing traffic conditions just before or after rush hour often yield higher noise levels. The noise levels measured near the project site are identified in Table 3, Short-Term Noise Measurements.
Table 3: Short-Term Noise Measurements
Site No. Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Start Time
NM-1 At the southwest corner of East C Street and North 1st Avenue 55.5 42.4 75.2 11:03 a.m.
NM-2 In front of 231 North 1st Avenue 54.6 41.9 69.7 11:15 a.m.
NM-3 At the northeast corner of East C Street and the
alley way 53.2 44.5 70.2 11:28 a.m.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = Average Sound Level; Lmin = Lowest time-weighted sound level measured; Lmax = Highest time- weighted sound level measured
Source: Michael Baker International, April 2, 2025; refer to Appendix B.
Methodology
Noise levels from construction equipment and activities were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Project construction equipment is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1; refer to
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 16 City of Upland
Appendix C, Air Quality Data. The quantity and type of equipment were then inserted into RCNM to quantify the estimated noise levels generated at each nearby sensitive receptor. The General Noise Assessment methodology prescribed in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recommends evaluating construction noise from the center of the site, stating under the variable distance in its construction noise calculation to “assume that all equipment operates at the center of the project.”
City of Upland Construction Noise Standards
To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project, the City of Upland has established limits to the hours of operation. Chapter 9.40, Unnecessary Noise, Section
9.40.100[M] Noises Prohibited – Unnecessary Noise Standards of the City’s Municipal Code states:
Construction or Repairing of Buildings. It is unlawful for any person to engage in or permit the erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any building other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days or less while the emergency continues, and which permit may be renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues. If the building inspector should determine that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and if he or she shall further determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, he or she may grant permission for such work to be done within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work.
The City of Upland does not have a quantitative threshold that applies to noise levels at active construction sites. To evaluate whether the proposed project would generate potentially significant temporary construction noise levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations, a construction-related noise level threshold was utilized from the Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). As a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every 3 dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, most conservative construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq was used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since this construction-related noise level threshold represents the energy average of the noise source over a given time, they are expressed as Leq noise levels. Therefore, the noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq over a period of eight hours or more is used to evaluate the potential project-related construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations.
City of Upland Operational Noise Standards
Chapter 9.40, Unnecessary Noise, of the City’s Municipal Code was designed to control excessive noise from sources within the City. Specifically, Section 9.40.040, Base Ambient Noise Level, of the City’s Municipal Code limits the base exterior noise levels to 55 dBA Leq during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at the sensitive
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 17 City of Upland
residential receiver locations. Section 9.40.070, Maximum Residential Noise Levels, further provides noise standards based on the duration of time (i.e., the louder the noise, the shorter the time it can last). For the purpose of this analysis, the base exterior noise levels are used as a quantitative threshold for operational noise levels.
NOISE IMPACTS
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
Ground-borne noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts typically occur during the initial grading phase, which has the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Construction equipment produces maximum noise levels when equipment is operating under full power (i.e., the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites typically operates under less than full power conditions, or part power. To characterize construction-period noise levels more accurately, the average (Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage is calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction stage. These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously operating on part power.
The nearest sensitive uses (multifamily residential uses) are located approximately 15 feet from the project site to the east. However, construction activities would occur throughout the project site.
It should also be noted that construction noise levels would intermittently occur for a few days when construction equipment is operating closest to the nearest sensitive uses. The remainder of the time, the construction noise levels would be much lower because the equipment would be working in an area farther away from the existing sensitive uses. Following the above-mentioned General Noise Assessment methodology, the construction noise levels shown in Table 4, Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors are estimated using the distance from the center of the project site to the property line of the existing sensitive receptors, which is approximately 85 feet from the closest sensitive receptors to the east; refer to Appendix B.
Table 4: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors Phase Estimated Exterior Construction Noise Level at 85 feet (Center of the Site to Residential Uses to the East) (dBA Leq)1 Demolition 80.0
Grading 80.0
Building Construction 79.3
Paving 79.7
Architectural Coating 69.1
Notes:
1. These noise levels conservatively assume the simultaneous operation of all heavy construction equipment at the same precise location. Refer to Appendix B for modeled construction equipment.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), 2006.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 18 City of Upland
As shown in Table 4, construction-generated noise levels would range from approximately 69.1 to 80.0 dBA Leq at the nearest residential uses to the east. As such, construction noise would not have the potential to exceed the NIOSH significance of thresholds of 85 dBA Leq. Further, construction activities are exempt from the City’s noise thresholds as they are a normal part of urban life, and the project would be required to comply with the City’s allowable construction hours (Municipal Code Section 9.40.100[M]), which permits construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or government holidays unless approval is obtained from the City manager upon the recommendation of the Building Director or the City engineer. As such, a less than significant noise impact would occur in this regard.
Construction Trips Noise Impacts
Construction activities would also cause increased noise along access routes to and from the site due to movement of equipment and workers, as well as haul trips. Roadways surrounding the project site are categorized as collector streets or local streets and, at full buildout, the average traffic volumes along these roadways would range between 2,500 to 5,000 average daily trips (ADT).3 According to the CalEEMod defaults, it is anticipated that project construction would generate a maximum of 40 hauling trips per day, 144 worker trips per day, and 57 vendor trips per day, for a total of 241 trips. As a result, mobile source noise would increase along access routes to and from the project site during construction. However, mobile traffic noise from construction trips would be temporary and would cease upon project completion. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), a doubling of traffic (100 percent increase) on a roadway would result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels (3 dBA). The project’s construction trips would not double existing traffic volumes and any increase in traffic noise levels would be imperceptible. Therefore, short-term noise impacts from construction traffic would be less than significant.
Long-Term Operational Noise Impacts
Off-Site Mobile Noise
Future development generated by the proposed project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses. As determined by Caltrans in the Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013), a doubling in roadway traffic volumes is required to generate any noticeable increase in roadway noise levels. According to the Upland Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project Trip Generation Analysis, prepared by Michael Baker International (dated April 2025), the project would generate approximately 544 ADT. The nearest major roadway segment near the project vicinity is Euclid Avenue. As previously stated, roadways surrounding the project site are categorized as collector streets or local streets and, at full buildout, the average traffic volumes at these roadways would range between 2,500 to 5,000 ADTs. As such, the project’s trip generation
3 City of Upland, Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan, 2011.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 19 City of Upland
(approximately 544 ADT) would not double existing traffic volumes along nearby roadways and an increase in traffic noise along local roadways would be imperceptible. Project -related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.
Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed project would mainly include noise from the mechanical equipment and parking activities. These noise sources are typically intermittent and short in duration. Noise has a decay rate due to distance attenuation, which is calculated based on the Inverse Square Law. Based upon the Inverse Square Law, sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. All stationary noise activities would be required to comply with the California Building Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation.
Mechanical Equipment
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units typically generate noise levels of approximately 66 dBA Leq at 3 feet from the source.4 HVAC units would be included on the rooftop of the proposed building. The closest sensitive receptors are the residential uses to the east of the project site, approximately 15 feet when measured from the project property line to the property line of the existing mixed-use building. However, mechanical equipment would be located as close as 20 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors. At this distance, potential noise from HVAC units would be approximately 50 dBA. In addition, all HVAC equipment would be located within a parapet wall, blocking the line of sight between the nearest sensitive receptors and the proposed on-site HVAC units, which would reduce noise level by approximately 8 dBA.5 As such, noise levels from the HVAC units would be reduced to 42 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors, which would not exceed the City’s noise standards for residential uses (i.e., 55 dBA for daytime and 45 dBA for nighttime) and would be lower than existing ambient noise levels near the site; refer to Table 4. Therefore, the nearest sensitive receptors would not be directly exposed to substantial noise from on-site mechanical equipment and impacts would be less than significant.
Parking Lot Noise
The project proposes replacing the existing surface parking lot with a parking structure. Parking activities in the proposed parking structure would have intermittent noise due to the movement of vehicles. Noise generated in the parking structure would be inaudible at off-site uses as the structure would block the line of sight between parking spaces and nearby sensitive receptors. The access driveway to the parking structure is located near North 1st Street. Noise from parking activities would also be partially masked by background noise from traffic along Euclid Avenue, North 1st Street, and East C Street. Further, as street and surface parking are typical and currently present in the project vicinity, parking activities on-site during project operation would not result
4 Berger, Elliott H., et al., Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, 2015. 5 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf .
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 20 City of Upland
in substantially greater noise levels in the vicinity compared to the existing conditions. Therefore, parking lot noise associated with the project is not expected to exceed the City’s noise standards and would not introduce a new substantial noise source compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Cumulative Operational
Off-Site Mobile Noise
As discussed above, the project’s trip generation (approximately 544 ADT) would not double existing traffic volumes along nearby roadways and an increase in traffic noise along local roadways would be imperceptible. Traffic noise generated from cumulative development projects would be required to implement any required mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA provisions. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with cumulative projects, would result in less than significant impacts.
Stationary Noise
Although the proposed commercial uses and parking structure may exist in proximity to other future development, the proposed project would not involve stationary noise sources that can produce a substantial amount of noise (typical of industrial projects) above existing ambient noise levels. Stationary noise sources associated with the project would include mechanical equipment and parking lot activities that are currently present in any urban setting. Further, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA analysis, which would address potential noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate.
Additionally, because noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from stationary sources would be limited to each of the respective sites and their vicinities. Thus, the project and any cumulative development in the project vicinity are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION IMPACTS
Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 21 City of Upland
The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural.
The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies various vibration damage criteria for different building classes. As the nearest sensitive receptors (multifamily residential uses located within the mixed-use building to the east) are most likely nonengineered (those not designed by an engineer or architect) timber and masonry buildings, and further are categorized as historic and old buildings, a significant vibration impact would occur if the project resulted in an exceedance of 0.2 in/sec PPV at these receptors. The nearest sensitive receptor is the mixed-use building located as close as approximately 15 feet to the east of the project site, when measured from the existing residential building façade to the project site boundary.
Therefore, construction equipment would operate as close as approximately 15 feet to the nearest sensitive receptor.
Table 5, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment shows the reference vibration levels for construction equipment at 25 feet and the vibration levels for construction equipment at the closest structure (i.e., at 15 feet).
Table 5: Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Reference approximate peak particle
velocity at 25 feet (in/sec)1
Approximate peak particle velocity at 15 feet
(in/sec)1
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.1561
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.1333
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0053
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0614
Notes:
1. Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.1
where: PPV equip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV ref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, September 2018.
As stated above, the nearest structure is the mixed-use building located approximately 15 feet to the east of the construction activities. As indicated in Table 5, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment used during project construction would range from 0.0053 to
0.1561 in/sec PPV at 15 feet from the source of activity, which would not exceed the FTA’s 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold. Additionally, the project would not utilize heavy-duty construction equipment with noticeable vibration levels (e.g., vibratory rollers, pile drivers). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
The project would involve construction of a parking structure with commercial retail uses and would not generate groundborne vibration during its operation that could be felt by surrounding uses. The project operation would not involve railroads or substantial heavy truck operations and
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 22 City of Upland
therefore would not result in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
AIRPORT NOISE IMPACTS
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and there are no public or private airports or airstrips within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest public use airport to the project site is the Ontario International Airport, which is located approximately 3 miles southeast of the project site. According to the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is not located within the Ontario International Airport CNEL contours.6 The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts related to airport land use compatibility would occur.
C. AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Criteria Air Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.
Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the Earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratosphere (the “good” ozone layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOx, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.
While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors,
6 City of Ontario, LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan , 2011, https://www.ont-iac.com/airport- land-use-compatibility-plan/
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 23 City of Upland
children, and people with pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOx are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza.
The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to PM2.5, both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease.
In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards.
Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register that designates the South Coast Air basin as a nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised and established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 is often used interchangeably with SOx.
Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 24 City of Upland
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include:
CO, CO2, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The terms VOC and ROG are often used interchangeably (see below).
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, ROG are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Thresholds
Under CEQA, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is an expert commenting agency on air quality within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the SCAQMD has adopted Federal attainment plans for O3 and PM10. The SCAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would not: (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any air quality standard; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any air quality standard; or (3) delay timely attainment of any air quality standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones of any Federal attainment plan.
The CEQA Air Quality Handbook also provides significance thresholds for both construction and operation of projects within the SCAQMD jurisdictional boundaries. If the SCAQMD thresholds are exceeded, a potentially significant impact could result. However, ultimately the lead agency determines the thresholds of significance for impacts. If a project proposes development in excess of the established thresholds, as outlined in Table 6, South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds, a significant air quality impact may occur, and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts.
Table 6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Phase
Pollutant (pounds/day)
ROG/VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55
Operational 55 55 550 150 150 55
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter up to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter up to 2.5 microns; lbs = pounds
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2023.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 25 City of Upland
Localized Significance Thresholds
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Program Enhancement Initiative I-4. The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, dated July 2008, for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project -specific level proposed projects. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five- acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways.
The SCAQMD recommends that any project over five acres should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
Cumulative Emissions Thresholds
The SCAQMD’s 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) was prepared to accommodate growth, meet State and Federal air quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, project-related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary. If a project exceeds these emission thresholds, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that the significance of a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts should be determined based on whether the rate of growth in average daily trips exceeds the rate of growth in population.
AIR QUALITY PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction in the Basin, which has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both State and Federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of the air pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
On December 2, 2022, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 2022 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the latest applicable growth assumptions, and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. Additionally, the 2022 AQMP utilized information and data from SCAG and its 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). While SCAG has recently adopted the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal 2024), the SCAQMD has not released an updated AQMP. As such, this consistency analysis is based on the 2022 AQMP and the RTP/SCS that was adopted at the time: the 2020-2045
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 26 City of Upland
RTP/SCS. According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects must be analysed for consistency with two main criteria, as discussed below.
Criterion 1:
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations?
Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of a project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the b asis for evaluating project consistency. As detailed below, the project’s short-term construction emissions, long- term operational emissions, and localized concentrations of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would result in less than significant impacts during project construction and operations; refer to Table 7, Short-Term Construction Emissions, and Table 8, Long-Term Operational Air Emissions. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Due to the role VOC plays in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. In conclusion, the project would not cause or contribute to localized air quality violations or delay the attainment of air quality standard or interim emissions reductions specified in the 2022 AQMP.
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations?
As discussed below in Short-term Construction Emissions Impacts and Long-Term Operational Emissions Impacts, the proposed project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD’s thresholds for regional and localized emissions; refer to Table 7 and Table 8. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts regarding localized concentrations during project construction and operation. The proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP interim emissions reductions.
Criterion 2:
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus,
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 27 City of Upland
SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP. Determining whether a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion analyzes each of these criteria.
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
A project is consistent with the 2022 AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the 2022 AQMP.
In the case of the 2022 AQMP, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: the City of Upland General Plan, SCAG’s regional growth forecast, and the SCAG RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth.
Based on the General Plan Land Use Map, the project site is located within the Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan area and is zoned within the plan as Old Town District with a 1st Avenue Overlay.7 The proposed project would replace the existing surface parking lot with a five-tier parking structure, totaling 150,000 square feet. The garage would provide approximately 407 parking spaces, for a net increase of 300 stalls, and the ground floor would include 9,900 square feet of retail uses. Therefore, the proposed project is a permitted use in accordance with the Commercial zoning.
Due to its nature, development of the proposed project would not directly induce population growth. However, the employees of the proposed project may relocate to the City, which would thus result in a growth in population. Nevertheless, the potential population increase would be nominal as the retail use of the project is small and therefore would not exceed the anticipated growth projections in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Since the SCAQMD has incorporated the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS projections into the 2022 AQMP, it can be concluded that the project would also be consistent with the 2022 AQMP. Therefore, the project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use e nvisioned for the site vicinity and would be considered consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Further, population and housing projections, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 AQMP, the proposed project would be consistent with the projections.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures?
As analyzed below under Short-Term Construction Emissions Impacts and Long-term Operational Emissions Impacts, the proposed project would not require mitigation and would result in less than significant air quality impacts. In addition, the project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Rule 403, which requires excessive
7 City of Upland, Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan, Figure 2-2 Existing Land Uses, 2011.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 28 City of Upland
fugitive dust emissions controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, and Rule 1113, which regulates the ROG content of paint. In conclusion, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP?
Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2022 AQMP are primarily based on the 2020 - 2045 RTP/SCS. The project site is located within 0.25-mile of an existing bus stop (i.e., Euclid/9th Street bus stop) operated by Omnitrans. Further, in compliance with the CALGreen Code, the project would provide EV parking spaces and EV charging stations, and bicycle parking for long-term and short-term storage. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. In addition, as discussed above, the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.
In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long- term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Further, the proposed project’s long-term influence on air quality in the Basin would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP.
EMISSIONS IMPACTS
Short-Term Construction Emissions Impacts
The project involves construction activities associated with demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating applications. The project would be constructed over approximately 14 months. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on CalEEMod version 2022.1 program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site.
The proposed project would demolish approximately 36,000 square feet of surface parking and would result in an export of approximately 1,655 tons of debris during demolition.8 The project would also result in an import of approximately 150 cubic yards of earthwork material during the grading phase. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared using CalEEMod.
Refer to Appendix C for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table 7, Short-Term Construction Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions.
8 Based on the California Emissions Estimator Model, every square foot of building would result in approximately 0.046 tons of debris. As such, 36,000 square feet of asphalt surface would result in approximately 1,655 tons of debris.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 29 City of Upland
Table 7: Short-Term Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1
ROG/VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 Construction Emissions2 1.02 8.81 12.2 0.02 1.89 1.06 Year 2 Construction Emissions2 4.95 5.44 11.8 0.02 1.35 0.43 Maximum Daily Emissions 4.95 8.81 12.2 0.02 1.89 1.06
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1.
2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stoc kpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Source: Refer to Appendix C, Air Quality Data, for detailed model data.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from demolition, site preparation, and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. It should be noted that most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health.
Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and sulfur oxides (SOX) combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.
Construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site, and Rule 403, which requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 would greatly reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. It should be noted that these estimated
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 30 City of Upland
reductions were applied in CalEEMod. As depicted in Table 7, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions (e.g., NOx and CO) from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on- site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transpo rting materials to/from the site.
As depicted in Table 7, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions would be below the established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts from equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions would be less than significant.
Reactive Organic Gas Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. As required, all architectural coatings for the proposed project structures would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulating the ROG content of paint. ROG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant; refer to Table 7.
Total Daily Construction Emissions
In accordance with the SCAQMD Guidelines, CalEEMod was utilized to model construction emissions for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. As indicated in Table 7, criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, total construction-related air emissions would be less than significant.
Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986.
Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and increase the risk of asbestos-related diseases and cancer (i.e., scarring of lungs [asbestosis], pleural disease, lung cancer, and mesothelioma). These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities.
Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 31 City of Upland
grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos-bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area. As such, the project is not subject to naturally occurring asbestos, and there would not be any asbestos-containing materials.
Long-Term Operational Emissions Impacts
Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from project- related traffic, and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. Emissions associated with each of these sources were calculated and are discussed below. The project site currently consists of an existing surface parking lot. As a conservative analysis, the existing operational emissions are not deducted from the proposed emissions. Operational emissions generated by the proposed project were calculated with CalEEMod and are detailed in Table 8, Long-Term Operational Air Emissions.
Table 8: Long-Term Operational Air Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (lbs/day)1
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Summer Emissions
Area Source 1.48 0.06 7.51 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Energy Source 0.01 0.16 0.13 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Mobile Source 1.94 1.85 18.5 0.05 4.49 1.16
Total Emissions3 3.43 2.08 26.1 0.05 4.52 1.18
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Project Winter Emissions
Area Source 0.24 - - - - -
Energy Source 0.01 0.16 0.13 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Mobile Source 1.82 1.99 15.30 0.05 4.49 1.16
Total Emissions2 2.07 2.15 15.50 0.05 4.50 1.17
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1. Higher emissions between winter and summer are presented as a conservative analysis.
2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.
Source: Refer to Appendix C, Air Quality Data, for detailed model data.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 32 City of Upland
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipes and evaporative emissions.
Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5); however, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod and are based on the Upland Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project Trip Generation Analysis, prepared by Michael Baker International (dated April 2025). The proposed project would result in approximately 544 daily trips during weekdays and weekends. As shown in Table 8, emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the project would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated from architectural coating and landscaping. As shown in Table 8, area source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5.
Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, landscaping equipment, and electronics. Criteria air pollutant emissions from electricity use were not quantified since criteria pollutants emission occur at the site of power plant, which is off-site. The project would also include features that would reduce energy consumption such as installing high- efficiency lighting and appliances in accordance with Title 24 standards. However, as a conservative analysis, these project design features were not accounted for in the modeling. As shown in Table 8, energy source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5.
Total Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 8, the total operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Air Quality Health Impacts
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 33 City of Upland
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, ozone precursors, VOCs and NOx, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region.
Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.
As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD, the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons, including modeling both limitations and where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form.9 Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for the same case, the SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.10
The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from ozone, as an example , is correlated with the increases in ambient level of ozone in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. The SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over the entire region.
The SCAQMD states that based on its own modeling in the 2012 AQMP, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce ozone levels at highest monitored site by only 9 parts per billion. Accordingly, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, since the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts as well.
Cumulative Impacts
With respect to the proposed project’s construction-related air quality emissions and cumulative Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant
9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2015. 10 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Inte rest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2015.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 34 City of Upland
emissions, which are outlined in the 2022 AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates.
The proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and the adopted 2022 AQMP emissions control measures. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted 2022 AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Basin, which would include related projects.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, project-related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in short- or long-term air quality impacts, as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted construction or operational thresholds. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, the project’s incremental construction and operational impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and impacts in this regard are less than significant.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential uses within the mixed-use building located approximately 15 feet east of the project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction and operations impacts (area sources only). The CO hotspot analysis, following the LST analysis, addresses localized mobile source impacts.
Localized Significance Thresholds
LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Program Enhancement Initiative I-4. The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST screening lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 35 City of Upland
methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The project is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 32, Northwest San Bernardino County.
Construction
The SCAQMD guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day.11 The SCAQMD provides LST thresholds for one-, two-, and five-acre site disturbance areas, but no LST thresholds for projects over five acres. According to the CalEEMod output, the project would actively disturb an average of one-half acre per day. Therefore, the LST thresholds for one acre was utilized for the construction LST analysis, as it is the lowest acreage that the guidance allows.
The closest sensitive air quality receptors are the residential uses associated with the mixed-use building located approximately 15 feet to the east of the project site. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities.
LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 15 feet (4.6 meters) from the planned construction area, the lowest LST values for 25 meters were used.
Table 9, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the localized construction-related emissions. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 9 are less than those in Table 6 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (i.e., from construction equipment and fugitive dust), and do not include off-site emissions (i.e., from worker, vendor, and hauling trips). As shown in Table 9, emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 32. Construction LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
11 The number of acres represent the total acres traversed by grading equipment. To properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with equipment may be required. The disturbance acreage is based on the equipment list and days of the grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8 - hour workday.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 36 City of Upland
Table 9: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Maximum Emissions Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 11 8.70 9.56 1.77 1.03
Year 22 4.30 6.91 0.15 0.14
Maximum Daily Emissions3 8.70 9.56 1.77 1.03
Localized Significance Threshold4 118.0 863.0 5.0 4.0
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Note:
1. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during the grading phase for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 1.
2. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during building construction phase for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 2.
3. The maximum daily construction emissions includes fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD Rule 403, which inclu de the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
4. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (1 acre per day), the distance to sensitive receptors (4.6 meters to the project site; as such, the 25-meter threshold was used), and the source receptor area (SRA 32).
Source: Refer to Appendix C, Air Quality Data, for detailed model data.
Operations
According to SCAQMD’s LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long - term LST analysis is necessary. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow.
Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly).
The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area under State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though VMT on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased; estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions, including exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 37 City of Upland
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 parts per million (ppm), which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard. As previously discussed, the site is in SRA 32. Communities within SRAs are expected to have similar climatology and ambient air pollutant concentrations. The monitoring station closest to the project site is the Ontario – Near Etiwanda Avenue Monitoring Station, located at the northwest corner of Interstate 10 and Etiwanda Avenue, Ontario, California, 91764, which is located approximately 7.8 miles southeast of the site. The CO measurements collected by this monitoring station are representative of the background CO concentration due to its close proximity to the project site. The maximum CO concentration at Ontario – Near Etiwanda Avenue Monitoring station was measured at 1.464 ppm in 2024.12 Given that the background CO concentration does not exceed 9.0 ppm, a CO hotspot would not occur at the project site.
Additionally, a detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP, which is the most recent AQMP that addresses CO concentrations. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the CO Plan are the worst-case intersections in the Basin and would likely experience the highest CO concentrations. Thus, the CO analysis in the CO Plan is utilized in comparison to the proposed project since it represents a worst-case scenario with heavy traffic volumes within the Basin.
Of these locations, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection in Los Angeles experienced the highest CO concentration (4.6 ppm), which is well below the 35-ppm 1-hr CO Federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection is one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an ADT volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Based on the Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan, roadways surrounding the project site are categorized as collector streets or local streets and, at full buildout, the average traffic volumes at these roadways would range between 2,500 to 5,000 ADT. Therefore, even with the addition of the project’s traffic generation of 544 ADT, the surrounding roadways would not experience traffic volumes exceeding 100,000 vehicles per day. Since CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections near the project site due to the comparatively low volume of traffic that would occur as a result of project implementation.
Therefore, CO hotspot impacts would not be experienced in the project’s vicinity and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
OBJECTIONABLE ODORS
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed
12 California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data (PST) Query Tool, accessed on April 4, 2025, https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php .
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 38 City of Upland
project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. As such, operation of the proposed project would not generate odors that would impact nearby receptors and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
However, certain odors may emanate from construction operations if diesel-powered construction equipment is used for the project. These odors would be limited to the construction period and would disperse quickly; therefore, they would not be considered a significant impact. Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy -duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and less than significant in this regard.
D. WATER QUALITY
As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the EPA has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements.
The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The State Water Resources Control Board works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality.
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB addresses the obligation to implement the CWA by periodically issuing permits for the County of San Bernardino and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County.
The City of Upland is subject to the NPDES permitting process as a permittee under the Santa Ana RWQCB Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS618036) that issues the regional NPDES permit to the City. In particular, municipal permits regulate discharges from the City’s urban runoff, its wastewater treatment facility, and its water reclamation facility.
The project site is paved and pervious surfaces are negligible, limited to two planters each containing a single ornamental tree. Stormwater runoff currently drains to existing City drainage facilities. Project implementation would not change the permeability or hydrology of the site as it is already paved and all levels of the garage would be above ground.
Thus, as no disturbance of surface soils or removal of vegetative cover would occur, project implementation would not result in water quality impacts associated with erosion and
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 39 City of Upland
sedimentation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant effects related to water quality.
CRITERION (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The project site is served by existing utilities and public services. With project implementation, existing underground utilities would be rerouted to serve the structure. Water services would be provided by the City of Upland and would connect to the existing 6-inch water main in the alley. The proposed fire service line for the fire sprinklers would connect to the 6-inch water main in the alley as well.
Sewer services would be provided by the City of Upland and connect to an existing sewer main in the alley. Electricity would be provided by Southern California Edison and connect to existing electricity facilities off-site. Natural gas would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company and connect to existing services off-site. Accordingly, the project would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project would not result in any significant effects related to utilities and public services.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 40 City of Upland
V. CONSIDERATIONS OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE USE OF A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 identifies the following exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption:
a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state s cenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
As evaluated below, none of these exceptions apply to the proposed project. Therefore, the lead agency is not precluded from categorically exempting the proposed project from CEQA.
CRITERION (A) Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
Criterion (A) does not apply to the project since the project qualifies for a Class 32 CE, not a Class 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11 CE. Accordingly, this exception has no application here.
CRITERION (B) All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 41 City of Upland
The project involves the replacement of an existing paved parking lot with a five-tier parking garage.
The project site is located within a developed area of the City’s downtown area. The City of Upland has not successively approved any prior projects of this type in the same place and, as such, no cumulative impacts would occur and this exception has no application here.
CRITERION (C) A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
There are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exemption class; therefore, there are no unusual circumstances. The project involves the replacement of an existing paved parking lot with a five-tier parking garage. The project is a permittable use under the SP designation and the Old Town District and 1st Avenue Overlay zoning. Further, the project is located within an urbanized area and has been disturbed by the existing surface parking lot use. Thus, there are no unusual circumstances related to the proposed project and a significant effect on the environment is not anticipated.
CRITERION (D) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
There are no officially designated or eligible State scenic highways in the City of Upland. The closest officially designated or eligible State scenic highway is State Route 330, which is located over 13.5 miles northeast of the project site.13 Views of the project site are not afforded from State Route 330 due to distance from the site and intervening topography, structures, and vegetation. Additionally, scenic trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or other scenic resources are not present on the project site, which consists of an existing paved parking lot. The project site does not contain any landmark or heritage trees as identified by the City or support the types of trees identified as potentially landmark or heritage. There are two ornamental trees on the project site. The project is within a historic district and is near City-designated historic buildings. There are no existing buildings or structures on the project site. Furthermore, the project has been designed to complement the character of the area. The project proposes a contemporary architectural style designed to complement the four existing historic packing houses located in and around the downtown area. No impact would occur in this regard.
CRITERION (E) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
13 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, accessed May 5, 2025, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa .
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 42 City of Upland
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State Water Resources Control Board to compile and update a hazardous materials sites listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Public Health is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste.
The project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.14 No impact would occur in this regard.
CRITERION (F) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
The project site is currently developed with an existing paved surface parking lot. There are no existing historical resources on the project site. The project is located in the Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan area and is located near identified historic resources. The project would not utilize heavy- duty construction equipment with noticeable vibration levels that would impact nearby historical resources. The project would not generate groundborne vibration during its operation that could be felt by surrounding uses and would not involve railroads or substantial heavy truck operations and therefore would not result in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. Additionally, the project is designed to complement the four existing historic packing houses located in and around the downtown area and would be consistent with all applicable policies that protect historic character.
Therefore, project development would not replace or disturb any existing historical resources. The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no impacts would occur in this regard.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on this analysis, the proposed Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project meets all criteria for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. Further, none of the exceptions enumerated under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the proposed project. Therefore, the lead agency (the City of Upland) is not precluded from categorically exempting the proposed project from CEQA.
14 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a), , accessed May 5, 2025, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/ .
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 43 City of Upland
VII. REFERENCES
Berger, Elliott H., Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, 2015.
California Air Resources Board. Air Quality Data (PST) Query Tool. Accessed on April 4, 2025, https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php .
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, 2000.
California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed May 5, 2025.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa.
California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. 2013. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). Accessed May 5, 2025. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/ .
City of Ontario. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan , 2011. https://www.ont- iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-plan/.
City of Upland. City of Upland General Plan, 2015.
City of Upland. City of Upland Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. 2020. https://www.uplandca.gov/uploads/files/DevelopmentServices/Planning%20- %20Current%20Projects/VMT/City%20of%20Upland%20Final%20TIA%20Guidelines%2 0July%202020.pdf
City of Upland. Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan, 2011.
City of Upland. Zoning Map, 2015.
Federal Highway Administration. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf .
Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. US Department of Transportation.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 44 City of Upland
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf
GeoTek Inc. Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Multi-Level Parking Structure Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 1046-40-208, -207, -206, -205, -203, & -202 East C Street And North 1st Avenue City Of Upland, County Of San Bernardino, California, 2024.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2022. Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition.
Michael Baker International. Air Quality Data, 2025.
Michael Baker International. Noise Data, 2025.
Michael Baker International. 2025. Upland Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project Trip Generation Analysis.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2015.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae.
In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Vot ers of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2015.
Downtown Commercial and Parking Structure Project
Draft| May 2025 45 City of Upland
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A: Geotechnical
and Infiltration
Investigation
GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION EVALUATION
PROPOSED MULTI-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS (APN) 1046-40-208, -207, -206, -205, -203, & -202 EAST C STREET AND NORTH 1ST AVENUE
CITY OF UPLAND, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730
PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878
PROJECT NO. 4049-CR NOVEMBER 12, 2024
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
November 12, 2024
Project No. 4049-CR
Madole & Associates, Inc.
9302 Pittsburgh Ave., Suite 230
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mr. Mark Bertone, President
Subject: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Multi-Level Parking Structure
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 1046-040-208, -207, -206, -205, -203, &-202 East C Street and North 1st Avenue
City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California
Dear Mr. Bertone:
GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide the results of this Geotechnical and Infiltration E valuation for the proposed multi -level parking structure to be located at the southeast corner of East C Street and North 1st Avenue in the City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, 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.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, 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.
Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/26
Principal Geologist
Michael A. Lucas
PE 95468, Exp. 12/31/26
Project Engineer
Bruce A. Hick
GE 2284, Exp. 12/31/26
Geotechnical Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file)
\\geotekfs1\Riverside\Projects\4001 to 4050\4049CR Madole & Associates, Inc City of Upland Parking Garage Structures\Geotechnical Evaluation\4049-CR GEO 11-11-24.doc
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................................................................... 1
2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 2
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 2
3. FIELD EXPLORATION, LABORATORY TESTING AND INFILTRATION EVALUATION ......... 3
3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................................................. 4
3.3 INFILTRATION EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................... 4
4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 5
4.1 REGIONAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................................ 5
4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 6
4.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill..................................................................................................................... 6
4.2.2 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits .................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ......................................................................................................... 7
4.3.1 Surface Water ....................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 7
4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.4.1 Faulting .................................................................................................................................................. 7
4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 8
4.5 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC-INDUCED SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL .................................................................. 9
4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS .............................................................................................................................. 9
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 10
5.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................... 10
5.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 10
5.2.2 Site Clearing......................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2.3 Removals and Over-excavations ............................................................................................................ 11
5.2.4 Pavement Areas ................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2.5 Hardscape Areas.................................................................................................................................. 11
5.2.6 Engineered Fill ...................................................................................................................................... 12
5.2.7 Re-use of On-site Demolished Portland Cement Concrete ....................................................................... 12
5.2.8 Oversized Rock Disposal ....................................................................................................................... 12
5.2.9 Excavation Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 13
5.2.10 Trench Excavations and Backfill ....................................................................................................... 13
5.2.11 Shrinkage and Subsidence ............................................................................................................... 13
5.2.12 Grading Plan Review ........................................................................................................................ 14
5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 14
5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria .................................................................................................................... 14
5.3.2 Moisture and Vapor Retarding System .................................................................................................. 15
5.3.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations ......................................................................................... 17
5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................... 18
5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 21
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.5.1 Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement........................................................................................................... 21
5.5.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement ........................................................................................... 22
5.5.4 Pavement Construction ......................................................................................................................... 22
5.6 SOIL CORROSIVITY ....................................................................................................................................... 23
5.7 SOIL SULFATE CONTENT .............................................................................................................................. 24
5.8 IMPORT SOILS............................................................................................................................................... 24
5.9 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 24
5.9.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 24
5.9.2 Concrete Mix Design ............................................................................................................................ 24
5.9.3 Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................................................ 24
5.9.4 Concrete Performance .......................................................................................................................... 25
5.10 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION ........................................................................................................ 26
5.10.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting .............................................................................................. 26
5.10.2 Drainage ........................................................................................................................................ 26
5.11 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................... 26
6. INTENT .............................................................................................................................................................. 27
7. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 28
8. SELECTED REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 28
ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 – Site Location and Topography Map
Figure 2 – Site Exploration Map
Appendix A – Logs of Exploratory Borings
Appendix B – Results of Laboratory Testing
Appendix C – Infiltration Test Data and Porchet Calculations Appendix D – General Earthwork Grading Guidelines
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, 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’s P-0602324-CR, dated August 15, 2024.
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 two (2) exploratory test borings extending to depths of about 20.5 and 38.0 feet below existing grades at the boring locations,
▪ Excavation of two (2) additional borings to depths of about 10 and 15 feet below existing grades and performing a percolation test in each boring to estimate preliminary infiltration rates of the subsoils for the preliminary design of a stormwater infiltration system,
▪ 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.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 2
2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject rectangular shaped parcels total approximately 0.85 acres in area and are located southeast of the intersection of East C Street and North 1st Avenue in the City of Upland in the County of San Bernardino, California (See Figure 1- Site Location and Topography Map).
The parcels are identified as San Bernardino County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN’s) 1046-40-208, -207, -206, -205, -203, and -202. The project site is bound by East C Street, followed by an asphaltic concrete parking lot to the north; by retail structures, followed by North Second Avenue to the east; by an office complex, followed by East 9th Street to the South; and by North 1st Avenue, followed by retail properties and Upland First United Methodist Church to the west.
The project parcels are currently improved with an asphaltic concrete parking lot, landscaping consisting of domestic trees, and numerous underground utilities. Topographically the site can be considered as gently sloping. The parcels predominantly descend in elevation from north to south with an approximate elevation differential of 7 feet across the site, with surface drainage directed to subsurface drains as the surface of the site is predominantly improved with asphaltic concrete pavement.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the Conceptual Site Plans provided by Madole & Associates, it is proposed to construct a parking garage up to five-stories in height. No subterranean levels are proposed at this time. The first level is proposed to consist of approximately 9,900 square feet (SQF) of retail space and ground level parking. The remaining levels are proposed to consist of parking decks. It is also anticipated the proposed improvements will include associated pavement, flatwork, hardscapes, typical landscaping, utilities, and an underground storm water management facility.
Underground stormwater management plans were not available at the time of this proposal; however, GeoTek anticipates that underground stormwater management facilities are to consist of an offsite drywell, based on discussions with Madole & Associates, Inc.
GeoTek has assumed that the structure will be a concrete framed podium structure with concrete decking and that the parking/retail structure will be supported by a mat foundation.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 3
Loads are anticipated to be approximately 5.5 kips per lineal foot with isolated column loads of approximately 200 kips. Sewage disposal is anticipated via a public system.
Cuts and fills of up to about ±5 feet are anticipated to reach design grades, excluding any remedial grading.
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 should be reviewed by GeoTek when they become finalized. Structural loading information was not available at the time of this report. When structural loading information becomes available, the recommendations included in this report should be reevaluated and likely updated.
3. FIELD EXPLORATION, LABORATORY TESTING AND
INFILTRATION EVALUATION
3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
GeoTek conducted a field reconnaissance prior to field explorations at the site. The field explorations were conducted on October 1, 2024 and consisted of drilling two (2) exploratory geotechnical borings, and two (2) infiltration test borings. The geotechnical borings and infiltration test borings were drilled with a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig to depths of approximately 20.5 and 38.0 feet below existing grades and to depths of approximately 10 and 15 feet below existing grades, respectively. Boring B-1 was terminated at approximately
38.0 feet due to encountering gravel and/or cobbles.
In the geotechnical borings, relatively undisturbed in-situ soil samples were recovered at various intervals with a California sampler. The California sampler is a 2.9-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 sampler penetration test data are presented on the Logs of Exploratory Borings in Appendix A.
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at various depths in both geotechnical borings 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
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 4
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 Logs of Exploratory Borings in Appendix A.
A geologist from GeoTek kept detailed logs of the borings, and collected disturbed as well as undisturbed soil samples at selected boring depths. The approximate locations of these excavations are shown on Figure 2 – Site Exploration Map. Detailed boring logs are presented in Appendix A.
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 in Appendix B and on the exploratory borings logs included in Appendix A.
3.3 INFILTRATION EVALUATION
Stormwater management plans were not available at the time of this report. The location and depth of the test borings were determined by Madole & Associates, Inc. The two (2) percolation test borings (I-1 and I-2) were excavated to depths of approximately 10 feet and 15 feet to evaluate the general infiltration characteristics of the underlying soils on-site. Based on information provided by Madole & Associates, it is anticipated that an offsite drywell will be utilized for infiltration. Infiltration/percolation testing was conducted in these borings in general accordance with the requirements of the County of San Bernardino.
The locations of the percolation test borings (Borings I-1 and I-2) are shown on Figure 2 - Site Exploration Map. The test borings were drilled with a hollow stem auger drill rig to depths of approximately 10 feet and 15 feet to assess the infiltration rates of the underlying soils to aid in BMP design for the site. All borings were approximately eight inches in diameter. A three -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe and encapsulated in filter sock was inserted into each of the test holes. The annular space between the test hole sidewalls and PVC pipe was filled with gravel to prevent boring caving. Water was placed in the borings to presoak the holes, and testing was conducted soon after. Testing after presoaking indicated that a falling head test using a time interval between readings of about 5 minutes and 10 minutes for test Boring I-1 and test Boring I-2, respectively, was suitable for the site conditions. Testing was subsequently
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 5
conducted until stabilized rates were achieved. The field percolation rates were then converted to an infiltration rate using the Porchet Method and are summarized as follows:
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Boring Test Depth
(ft)
Field Infiltration Rate
(inches per hour)
I-1 10 30.69
I-2 15 17.38
The results of the conversions indicate infiltration rates at the test locations ranged from approximately 30.69 inches per hour (Boring I-1) to approximately 17.38 inches per hour (Boring I-2). Copies of the percolation data sheets and the Porchet infiltration rate conversion calculations are presented in Appendix C. No factors of safety were applied to the rates provided. Over the lifetime of the infiltration areas, the infiltration rates may be affected by sediment build up and biological activities, as well as local variations in near surface soil conditions. A suitable factor of safety should be applied to the field rate in designing the infiltration system.
It should be noted that the infiltration rates provided above were performed in relatively undisturbed on-site soils. Infiltration rates will vary and are mostly dependent on the underlying consistency of the site soils and relative density. Infiltration rates may be impacted by weight of equipment travelling over the soils, placement of engineered fill and other various factors. GeoTek assumes no responsibility or liability for the ultimate design or performance of the storm water facility.
Representatives of GeoTek should observe the soils at the bottom of all stormwater disposal facilities during construction/earthwork operations to confirm suitability and that the conditions exposed are as anticipated for the proposed stormwater management facilities.
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
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 6
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 young alluvial fan deposits (Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K., 2006). No active faults are shown in the immediate site vicinity or are known to project into or through the project site for the geologic maps reviewed for the area. The closest zoned active fault to the project site, the Red Hill-Etiwanda Avenue Fault, is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the project site.
The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (“Alquist-Priolo”) as designated by the State of California. The site has not been evaluated by the California Geologic Survey (CGS) for liquefaction or seismic induced landslide hazards. The San Bernardino County General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlay Map FH27C has not identified the project site in area susceptible to liquefaction or landslides (San Bernardino County, 2010).
4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS
A brief description of the earth materials encountered is prese nted 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 artificial fill associated with the previously existing improvements overlying young alluvial fan deposits.
4.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill
Undocumented artificial fill was encountered in all borings to depths of up to approximately 4 feet below the existing grade. The undocumented artificial fill generally consisted of gravelly and/or silty fine to coarse sand (SP and SM soil types based upon the Unified Soil Classification System). The soils were found to be medium dense. This existing undocumented artificial fill was likely placed during construction of the asphaltic concrete parking lot.
Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface materials have a “Very Low” (0≤EI≤20) Expansion Index (EI) when tested in general accordance with ASTM D 4829 test procedures.
Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface materials have a soluble sulfate content
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 7
of less than 0.1 percent by weight (ASTM D 4327). The test results are provided in Appendix B.
4.2.2 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Young alluvial fan deposits were encountered below the undocumented artificial fill in all the exploratory borings and extended to the maximum depth explored (38.0 feet). As encountered in the borings, the young alluvium consisted of interbedded layers of gravelly fine to coarse sand with trace cobbles or silt, fine to coarse sandy/silty gravel, and gravelly fine to coarse sand with silt (SW, GP, GM, & SW-SM soil types). The sand and gravels were found to be dense to very dense.
4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
4.3.1 Surface Water
Surface water was not noted during GeoTek’s investigation. If encountered during earthwork construction, surface water on this site will most likely be the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from immediately surrounding properties. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.
4.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within any of the borings performed, to the maximum depth explored (38 feet below existing grade) at the time of drilling. The historical high groundwater is anticipated to be at a depth of 100 feet or greater based on published public well data.
4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
4.4.1 Faulting
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within a State of California designated “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The closest zoned active fault to the project site, the Red Hill-Etiwanda Avenue Fault, is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the project site.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 8
The site has not been evaluated by the California Geologic Survey (CGS) for liquefaction or seismic induced landslide hazards. The San Bernardino County General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlay Map FH27C has not identified the project site in area susceptible to liquefaction or landslides (San Bernardino County, 2010). Based on the estimated distances to currently mapped active faults, the surface fault rupture hazard potential is considered nil at the project site.
4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 34.096859 degrees West Latitude, and -117.649360 degrees North Longitude. Based on the conditions observed in the site excavations and review of regional geologic maps, a Site Class “D” appears to be the appropriate category for the property. Site spectral accelerations (Sa and S1), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, were 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.
The following seismic design parameters, based on the 2015 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)/ASCE 7-16/2022 CBC, are presented below:
SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.642g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.60g
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.7**
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS 1.642g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1 1.53g*
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at
0.2 Second, SDS 1.095g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1 second, SD1 1.02g*
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) 0.737g
Seismic Design Category D
Risk Category II
Site Class D
*ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 Section 11.4.8 requires a ground motion hazard analysis for structures on Site Class “D” for values of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2g. However, a ground motion hazard analysis is not required where the values of SM1 and SD1 are increase d by 50%. The SM1 and SD1 values shown above already include the 50% increase, so that exception can be obtained. **ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 Section 11.4.8 indicates that the value of Fv should only be used for calculation of Ts, determination of Sei smic Design Category, linear interpolation for intermediate values of S1, and when taking the exceptions under Items 1 and 2 of Se ction 11.4.8 for the calculation of SD1.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 9
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 AND SEISMIC-INDUCED SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced 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 site has not been evaluated by the California Geologic Survey (CGS) for liquefaction or seismic induced landslide hazards. The San Bernardino County General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlay Map FH27C has not identified the project site in area susceptible to liquefaction or landslides (San Bernardino County, 2010). Due to the relatively dense nature of the subsurface soils as encountered in the borings and based on the estimated depth to historic high groundwater in exceedance of 50 feet, it is GeoTek’s opinion that the liquefaction potential at the site is very low.
4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
Due to the relatively dense nature of the underlying alluvium and proposed site grading, seismic induced (“dry sand”) settlements are estimated to be minimal.
Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during the site reconnaissance. Due to the relatively flat topography, the potential for earthquake-induced slope instability (i.e. landslides) is considered negligible. Final development plans should be provided to Geotech for final review and evaluation.
Additionally, the potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a tsunami or seiche is considered negligible due to site elevation and great distance to the ocean or body of water.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 10
The San Bernardino County General Plan Hazard Overlay Map FH27B has identified the project site in a dam inundation area (San Bernardino County, 2007).
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. Final site development, grading, and foundation plans should be reviewed by GeoTek when they become available.
Structural loading information should be reviewed by GeoTek, when available. It is likely that updated recommendations will be provided once structural loading information is available.
The upper on-site soils exhibit a “Very Low” (0-20) Expansion Index. Expansion Index testing should be conducted at the completion of earthwork operations to verify this condition.
The upper site soils were found to consist of non-uniform artificial fill within the existing parking lot. In addition, the upper site soils are anticipated to be disturbed by the demolition of existing underground utilities and site pavement within the existing parking lot. Remedial grading, consisting of overexcavation and recompaction of the upper site soils is recommended to provide a uniform bearing for the proposed structure.
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 Upland/County of San Bernardino, the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix D 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 D.
5.2.2 Site Clearing
Initial site preparation should commence with removal of all existing undocumented fill, debris, existing pavements, underground utilities, deleterious materials and vegetation within the limits
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 11
of the planned improvements. Demolition of the existing pavement and utilities/vaults should include removal of all foundations, slabs, and any of below-grade construction.
Existing utilities, not planned for re-use, should be capped off at the property boundaries and removed. All materials generated by demolition and site clearing operations 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 the onsite materials.
5.2.3 Removals and Over-excavations
The upper site soils are anticipated to be disturbed by the demolition of existing underground utilities and site improvements. Due to the presence of relatively loose non-uniform undocumented artificial fill, it is recommended that the soils be removed beneath the planned building footprint to a depth of at least five (5) feet below existing grade, or five (5) feet below the base of the proposed foundations, whichever is greater. The lateral extent of this recommended over-excavation should extend at a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation beyond the building limits, where feasible. 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.
Following review and approval of the excavation bottoms, the exposed soils should be scarified approximately twelve inches. The scarified soil should then be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content and then recompacted to at least 92 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. A representative of GeoTek should observe and verify that adequate moisture conditioning and proper compaction is attained on the lots.
5.2.4 Pavement Areas
Soils beneath the proposed site pavement should be overexcavated to a depth of 24 inches below existing grade or 24 inches below proposed finished grade, whichever is deeper.
Finished grade is defined as the top of the subgrade. The exposed soils in these areas should be scarified to a depth of approximately twelve inches, moistened to slightly above the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.
5.2.5 Hardscape Areas
Soils beneath the proposed site hardscape should be overexcavated to a depth of 12 inches below existing grade or 12 inches below proposed finished grade, whichever is deeper.
Finished grade is defined as the top of the subgrade. The exposed soils in these areas should be scarified to a depth of approximately twelve inches, moistened to slightly above the optimum
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 12
moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.
5.2.6 Engineered Fill
The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris, oversized materials (6-inch diameter or greater) and other deleterious materials. 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 6-to-8-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.
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 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.
5.2.7 Re-use of On-site Demolished Portland Cement Concrete Portland Cement Concrete generated from the demolition of existing site improvements may be incorporated into site fills provided the following guidelines are implemented: 1) concrete should be free of rebar, pipe plastic, or other deleterious materials and should be broken down to a maximum dimension of six (6) inches; 2) concrete should not be placed within three (3) feet of finish grade in the building pad areas or within one (1) foot of subgrade elevations in the street/drive areas; 3) concrete should be distributed in the fill and should not be “nested” or placed in concentrated pockets.
Asphalt concrete (AC) should not be used in fill for building pads or landscape areas. This material may be broken down to a maximum dimension of six (6) inches to be used in pavement areas of the project, or should be removed from the site. Please see details on placement of PCC and AC in engineered fill in Appendix D.
5.2.8 Oversized Rock Disposal
Oversized cobbles, boulders and rock fragments may be encountered during rough grading and utility trench operations. If encountered, on-site disposal of oversized materials is possible, provided the oversized materials are placed as recommended on Plate D-4 within Appendix D.
Alternatively, oversized materials can be exported from the site.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 13
5.2.9 Excavation Characteristics
Excavations of the on-site undocumented artificial fill and alluvial soils are anticipated to be feasible using conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment in good operating condition. All excavations should be formed in accordance with current Cal-OSHA requirements.
Oversized cobbles, boulders, or rocks may be encountered during excavations. Specialized equipment or techniques may be required to remove or grind down the oversized cobbles, boulders, or rocks, if encountered.
5.2.10 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 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 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.
Oversized gravel and cobbles may be encountered on this site at varying depths during project grading and utility trenching operations.
5.2.11 Shrinkage and Subsidence
For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor from 5 to 10 percent may be considered for the artificial fill. A subsidence value of up to about 0.1 feet is anticipated to occur upon preparation of removal bottoms.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 14
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography. Shrinkage and bulking are primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction, depth of fill and underlying site conditions. Removal of oversize materials may effect shrinkage quantities and should be accounted for.
Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork construction.
5.2.12 Grading Plan Review
Upon completion of the 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
The site surficial soils possess a “Very Low” (0≤EI≤20) Expansion Index in accordance with ASTM D 4829. However, verification testing should be performed after site remedial grading.
The foundation elements for the proposed structures should bear entirely in engineered fill soils and should be designed in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC).
Due to the type of structure proposed and the subsurface soils encountered in the excavations, it is GeoTek’s recommendation that a mat foundation be used to support the proposed structure. An allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of a mat foundation having a minimum embedment of 24 inches. This allowable soil bearing capacity may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of mat embedment depth to a maximum value of 4,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g., seismic and wind loads). These bearing values contain a minimum factor of safety of three (3).
Alternatively, a modulus of subgrade reaction (E1) of 250 pci may be used in the design of the mat foundation. It should be noted that this value is based upon a standard one foot plate load test. Depending upon the design methodology and foundation geometry this value will need to be modified by the following equation:
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 15
where: Es = design modulus
L = footing length (ft)
B = footing width (ft)
B1 = 1 ft
m = L/B
*Bowles, J., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Ed.
This modulus of subgrade reaction is a preliminary starting value for the design of the mat foundation based on the site soils encountered. Mat foundation design is an iterative process between the structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer. After the initial mat foundation analysis is completed, GeoTek should review the computed settlement and bearing pressure profiles to evaluate the recommended modulus of subgrade reaction. Based on review of the analyses, revisions to the modulus of subgrade reaction may be provided and additional analyses may be required.
The structural mat foundation should be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC, and to withstand a total static settlement of 2 inches and maximum differential static settlement of one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. These settlements are based on an allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 psf. Seismic-induced settlements are estimated to be minimal.
The passive earth pressure for use in design of the mat foundation may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 290 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,900 psf for footings founded on engineered fill. This passive earth pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. This coefficient of friction includes a reduction factor of 1/3. The upper one foot of soil below the adjacent grade should not be used in calculating passive pressure unless the ground is covered by asphalt and concrete. The passive pressure and friction along the base of foundation can be combined without reduction.
5.3.2 Moisture and Vapor Retarding System
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, ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E 1643.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 16
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 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 properties (i.e., thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level.
GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as a flooring contractor, structural engineer, architect, and/or other experts specializing in moisture control within the buildings be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture and vapor transmission paths and associated potential impact on the proposed construction. That person 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.
GeoTek does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation, since this does not fall under the geotechnical disciplines. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, and/or architect be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction and should provide recommendations for mitigation 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 no practice in areas of mold prevention. If specific recommendations are desired, a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 17
5.3.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations
• To minimize moisture penetration beneath the slab-on-grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge.
• 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.
5.3.4 Foundation Setbacks
Minimum setbacks for all foundations should comply with the 2022 CBC or City of Upland/County of San Bernardino 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 to 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.
• The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/2 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any ascending slope. The setback should be at least 5 feet and need not exceed 15 feet. Where a retaining wall is constructed at the toe of the slope, the height of the slope should be measured from top of the wall to the top of the slope.
• The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened to extend below a 1:1 (h:v) projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall footing.
• The bottom of any proposed foundations should be deepened to extend below a 1:1 upward projection from the bottom edge of the nearest excavation and the bottom edge of the closest footing.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 18
5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
5.4.1 General Design Criteria
Recommendations presented in this report apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer.
Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of this report. A minimum foundation embedment of 24 inches into engineered compacted fill with “Very Low” Expansion Index is recommended.
Wall footings should be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 psf. This bearing value contains a minimum factor of safety of three (3). An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads).
The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 290 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 4,350. The upper 1 foot of soil below the adjacent grade should not be used in calculating passive pressure, unless the ground is covered by asphalt or concrete. The allowable passive earth pressure contains a factor of safety of 1.5.
A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 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 a reduction.
Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer. All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by GeoTek 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 5.4.2 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 wall to the base of the footing, may be designed using the active condition. Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls, and
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 19
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 (h:v) projection from the surcharge on the footing 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.
5.4.2 Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions.
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained
Materials
(horizontal : vertical)
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(pcf)
Select Backfill*
Level 42
2:1 63
*The design pressures assume the backfill material has an expansion index less than or equal to 20 and a friction angle of at least 32. 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.
For walls with a retained height greater than six (6) feet, an incremental seismic pressure should be included into the wall design. Where needed, it is recommended that an incremental seismic load for unrestrained walls with level backfill of 12H 2 [Units: pounds per lineal foot of wall] should be included into the wall design to account for seismic loading conditions, where H is the retained height of the wall. For unrestrained walls with a retained height greater than six (6) feet with backfill of a 2:1 [horizontal: vertical] gradient, a dynamic
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 20
load increment of 21H2 should be included in the wall design. These incremental seismic loads may be assumed to be applied at a point 1/3H above the base of the wall.
5.4.3 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
The wall backfill should also include a minimum 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 8 inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90% 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 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 4-inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of 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.
5.4.4 Restrained Retaining Walls
Retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have reentrant or male corners should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 64 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading, for native backfill and level back slope condition.
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. For walls with a retained height greater than six (6) feet, an incremental seismic pressure should be included into the wall design. For restrained walls with a retained height greater than six (6) feet with level backfill, a dynamic load increment of 20H2 should be included in the wall design. These incremental seismic loads may be assumed to be applied at a point 1/3H above the base of the wall.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 21
5.4.5 Additional Retaining Wall Design Considerations
▪ Retaining and garden wall foundation elements should be designed in accordance with the building code and City of Upland/County of San Bernardino setback requirements. ▪ 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.
5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.5.1 Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement
Although planned final grades beneath the street improvements surrounding the proposed parking structure are not yet known, the following preliminary pavement design recommendations are based on assumed Traffic Indexes of 6.0 for automobile parking areas and
7.0 for vehicle access drives. Preliminary pavement thickness design is based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2018). An R-value of 40 was assumed 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 and the assigned TI values within the pavement areas.
Based on the assumptions noted above, the following preliminary pavement recommendations are provided for the site:
PRELIMINARY MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTION
Traffic Index Thickness of Asphalt
Concrete (inches)
Thickness of Aggregate Base
(inches)
6.0 (Automobile Parking Areas) 4.0 5.0
7.0 (Vehicle Access Lanes) 5.0 5.0
*Minimum asphaltic concrete or aggregate base thickness per San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, 2019
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 22
Traffic Indices (TIs) used in the pavement design 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.
The recommended pavement sections provided are intended as a minimum guideline and final selection of pavement cross section parameters should be made by the project civil engineer, based upon the local laws and ordinates, expected subgrade and pavement response, and desired level of conservatism. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. Final pavement design should be checked by testing of soils exposed at subgrade (the upper 12 inches) after final grading has been completed.
5.5.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement
For the proposed on-site vehicle parking and drive areas, it is recommended that a minimum of 5 inches of PCC pavement over 12 inches subgrade 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 City of Upland/County of San Bernardino specifications, and under the observation and testing
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 23
of GeoTek and a City/County Inspector where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements more than the 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 to check for a uniform and unyielding surface. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned to slightly above the 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.
All base material 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 Upland/County of San Bernardino.
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 Upland/County of San Bernardino specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements more than the minimums may govern.
5.6 SOIL CORROSIVITY
The resistivity of the onsite soil was tested in the laboratory on a sample collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing indicate that the onsite soils are considered “mildly corrosive” to (Roberge, 2005) to buried ferrous metal in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers. Recommendations for protection of buried ferrous metal 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.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 24
5.7 SOIL SULFATE CONTENT
The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory on a sample collected during the field investigation. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate result is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered “negligible” (“S0” Exposure Classification) as per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-19. Based on the test results and Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-19, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure.
5.8 IMPORT SOILS
Import soils should consist of soils similar or better than the on-site soils and should be tested for expansion and corrosivity potential prior to their use. GeoTek should be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed.
5.9 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
5.9.1 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.
5.9.2 Concrete Mix Design
As discussed in Section 5.7, 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.
5.9.3 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 4-inch minimum thickness.
No specific reinforcement is required due to the non-structural nature. However, the use of some reinforcement should be considered. Recommendations can be provided upon request.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 25
Some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated because of typical mix designs and curing practices commonly utilized in residential construction.
Sidewalks 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 the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.
Subgrade soils, classified as having “Very Low” (0≤EI≤20) Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829), should be pre-moistened prior to placing concrete. The subgrade soils below exterior slabs, sidewalks, etc. at the subject site should be pre-saturated to slightly above the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for “Very Low” Expansion Index soils.
All concrete installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, should be done in accordance with the City of Upland/County of San Bernardino specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City/County Inspector, if necessary.
5.9.4 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 a distance approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 26
5.10 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION
5.10.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate.
Overwatering should be avoided. Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decrease the long -term performance of slopes.
It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of landscaping should be avoided.
5.10.2 Drainage
The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings. Roof leaders and downspouts should discharge onto paved surfaces sloping away from the structure or into a closed pipe system which outfalls to the street gutter pan or directly to the storm drain system. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements.
It is the owner’s responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season.
5.11 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
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 27
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.
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 Site Exploration 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 P-0602324-CR, dated August 15, 2024; and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 28
7. LIMITATIONS
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 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 ar e 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.
_____, 2008, Publications 330R-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots.
_____, 2010, Publications 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs-On-Ground. _____, 2019, Publications 318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.
ASCE, 2017, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16”.
Bowles, J. E., 1996, “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Fifth 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 Department of Transportation, 2020, “Highway Design Manual”, 7th Edition.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 29
California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library (WDL) Station Map website, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/ .
California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 1977, “Geologic Map of California.”
____, 1998, “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,” International Conference of Building Officials. ____, 2000, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Ontario 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California,” Seismic Hazard Zone Report 040.
Department of the Navy, 1982, “Foundations and Earth Structures”, Design Manual 7.2.
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K., 2006, “Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California,” U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, Map Scale 1:100,000.
Peck R. B., Hanson W. H. & Thornburn T. H., 1974, “Foundation Engineering”, Second edition.
Roberge, P. R., 2005, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering”.
San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, 2019, “General Permit Conditions and Trench Specifications,” Updated September 1.
____, 2007, “San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Hazard Overlays,” Hazard Map FH27 B, Map Scale 1:14,400, Plot Dated May 29.
____, 2010, “San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays,” Geologic Hazard Map FH27 C, Map Scale 1:14,400, Plot Dated March 9.
SEA/OSHPD web service, “Seismic Design Maps” ( https://seismicmaps.org) .
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Martin, G. R., and Lew, M., ed., “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,”, dated March 1999.
State of California, California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, Second Edition.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page 30
United Stated Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (Web Soil Survey - Home (usda.gov)).
Madole & Associates, Inc.
Multi-Level Parking Structure Development
APN’s: 1046-40-208, -207, -206, -205, -203, and -202
East C Street and North 1st Avenue
City of Upland, San Bernardino County, California
Project No. 4049-CR
Figure 1
Site Location and
Topography Map
Site Location
Modified from USGS Ontario
Quadrangle, California, 7.5-minute
series, Topographic Map Sheet, 2021
Madole & Associates, Inc.
Multi-Level Parking Structure Development
APN’s: 1046-40-208, -207, -206, -205, -203, and -202
East C Street and North 1st Avenue
City of Upland, San Bernardino County, California
Project No. 4049-CR
Figure 2
Site Exploration
Map
I-2I-1
LEGEND
(Locations are Approximate)
B-2 Hollow-stem Auger
Boring Location
Approximate Site
Boundary
B-2
B-1
North 1st Avenue
Infiltration Test
Boring Location
I-2
0 ft 50 ft 100ft Ea
s
t
C
S
t
r
e
e
t
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Multi-Level Parking Structure
Assessor’s Parcel Number 1046-040-208, -207, -206, -205, -203, & -202 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California
Project No. 4049-CR
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, 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 Sampler (SPT)
The SPT sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550. The sampler, with an external diameter of 2.0 inches and inner diameter of approximately 1.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 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 logs of borings.
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
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
0 EI, MD, SH, SR
Expansion Index = 0
10 S1 SP-SM 1.6 Percent Passing
10 #200 Sieve = 8.9%
19 25 R1 SW 1.9 126.9 Percent Passing
50-6"#200 Sieve = 4.5%
11 S2
25 24
50-6"
20 S3
50-2"
50-3"R2 GP
50-4"
50-0"
35 S4 GM 2.2
50-4"
35 S5 SW-SM 2.9 Percent Passing
50-2"#200 Sieve = 11%
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff
CLIENT:Madole & Associates, Inc.DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:JC PROJECT NAME:Multi-Level Parking Structure DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
10/1/2024
PROJECT NO.:4049-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig
COORDINATES:34.096552, -117.649211 ELEVATION:1225 ft amsl DATE:
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
Boring No.: B-1
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6 i
n
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits:
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
2.5" Asphalt Concrete Over 0" Aggregate Base
F-c SAND with silt, brown, slighlty moist, medium dense, with gravel up to about 2.0" in maximum dimension
Artificial Fill:
15 F-c sandy GRAVEL up to about 3.0" in maximum dimension, grey to 5 Gravelly f-c SAND with trace cobbles, brown, slightly moist, very dense, Becomes dense
10 Becomes very dense
trace silt
dimension, brown, slightly moist, very dense, trace silt
20 25 Gravelly f-c sandy SILT with gravel up to about 2.0" in maximum RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 30 Gravelly f-c SAND with gravel up to about 2.0" in maximum dimension, trace silt, brown, slightly moist, very dense.
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis orangish white, slightly moist, very dense, trace silt
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
50-5"S6 SW
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff
CLIENT:Madole & Associates, Inc.DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:JC PROJECT NAME:Multi-Level Parking Structure DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
10/1/2024
PROJECT NO.:4049-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig
COORDINATES:34.096552, -117.649211 ELEVATION:1225 ft amsl DATE:
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
Boring No.: B-1 (continued)
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6 i
n
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits:
35 Gravelly f-c SAND with gravel up to about 1.5" in maximum dimension,
brown, moist, very dense, trace silt
50 40 Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
45 BORING TERMINATED AT 38.0 FEET (REFUSAL)
No groundwater encountered
55 60
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
0 10 S1 SM
21 19
50-2"
40 SW
50-6"
20 50-6"
30 50-5"
35 50-5"
50-2"
50-5"GP
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff
CLIENT:Madole & Associates, Inc.DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:JC PROJECT NAME:Multi-Level Parking Structure DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
10/1/2024
PROJECT NO.:4049-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig
COORDINATES:34.097025, -117.649385 ELEVATION:1229 ft amsl DATE:
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
Boring No.: B-2
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6 i
n
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
5 Very dense
Gravelly f-c SAND with trace cobbles, brown, moist, very dense, trace silt Young Alluvial Fan Deposits:
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
2.5" Asphalt Concrete Over 0" Aggregate Base
Silty f-c SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, with gravel up to about 1.5" in maximum dimension
No groundwater encountered
20 GRAVEL with trace f-c sand, light grey, slightly moist, very dense, trace silt 10 15 Gravel up to about 1.5" in maximum dimension
25 Borinng backfilled with soil cuttings
RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 30 LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis Trace cobbles
BORING TERMINATED AT 20.5 FEET
Artificial Fill:
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
0 SP/SM
SW
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table PROJECT NAME:Multi-Level Parking Structure DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR:Jeff CLIENT:Madole & Associates, Inc.DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:JC COORDINATES:34.096568, -117.649503 ELEVATION:1226 ft amsl DATE:10/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:4049-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
Boring No.: I-1
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6 i
n
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Artificial Fill:
Gravelly/Silty SAND with gravel up to about 2.0" in maximum dimension, brown, slightly moist
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
3" Asphalt Concrete Over 0" Aggregate Base
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits:
5 Gravelly f-c SAND with trace cobbles, brown, slightly moist, trace silt 15 10
BORING TERMINATED AT 10.0 FEET
No groundwater encountered
20 30
25 RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum DensityLE G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
#####
0 SP/SM
SW
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table PROJECT NAME:Multi-Level Parking Structure DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR:Jeff CLIENT:Madole & Associates, Inc.DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:JC COORDINATES:34.096603, -117.649503 ELEVATION:1226 ft amsl DATE:10/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:4049-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
3" Asphalt Concrete Over 0" Aggregate Base
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
Boring No.: I-2
Laboratory Testing
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6 i
n
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(%
)
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits:
5 Gravelly f-c SAND with gravel up to about 3.0" in maximum dimension, brown, slightly moist, few to little silts
Artificial Fill:
Gravelly/Silty SAND with gravel up to about 2.0" in maximum dimension, slightly moist
10 Trace cobbles
15 BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20 No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
30 25
RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum DensityLE G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Multi-Level Parking Structure
Assessor’s Parcel Number 1046-040-208, -207, -206, -205, -203, & -202 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California
Project No. 4049-CR
MADOLE & ASSOICATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, 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.
In-Situ Moisture and Density
The natural water content was determined (ASTM D 2216) on samples of the materials recovered from the subsurface exploration. In addition, in-place dry density determinations (ASTM D 2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples to measure the unity weight of the subsurface soils.
Results of these tests are shown on the logs at the appropriate sample depths in Appendix A.
Moisture-Density Relationship
Laboratory testing was performed on a sample obtained during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. The results of the testing are provided graphically in Appendix B.
Expansion Index
Expansion Index testing was performed on samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. 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 SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 0 Very Low
Materials Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve
A #200 sieve wash was performed on selected samples of the soils according to ASTM Test Method D 1140. The results of this testing are presented on the boring logs 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 to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The test was performed on in-situ ring samples and soil samples 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.
Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content
Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed by others in general accordance with ASTM D 4327. Resistivity testing was completed by others in general accordance with ASTM G 187. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed by others in general accordance with ASTM D 4327. The results are included below and in Appendix B.
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. 4049-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation November 12, 2024 City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, California Page B-2
Boring No. Depth (ft.) pH
ASTM D4972
Chloride
ASTM D4327
(mg/kg)
Sulfate
ASTM D4327
(% by weight)
Resistivity
ASTM G187
(ohm-cm)
B-1 0-5 8.1 11.5 .0031 10,050
Sample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =32 O , C =69 psf
Notes:
10/9/2024
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
4049-CR
B-1 @ 0-5'
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.
Upland Parking Garage StructuresProject Name:
Project Number:
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.
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 SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Sample DetailsSample ID:24-00204-S01 Date Sampled:10/1/2024Sampled By:Material:Silty Fine to Coarse SAND w/ GravelLocation:B-1 @ 0-5 Feet Test Results ASTM D 1557Maximum Dry Unit Weight(lbf/ft³):135.1Optimum Water Content (%):5.8Method:CPreparation Method:MoistRetained Sieve 3/4'' (19mm) (%):30Passing Sieve 3/4'' (19mm) (%):70Tested By:Eduardo CuevasDate Tested:10/7/2024ASTM D 4718Corrected Maximum Dry UnitWeight (lbf/ft³):143.7 Corrected Optimum WaterContent (%):4.3
Specific Gravity (Oversize):2.70Sieve Size (Oversize):3/4Oversize Particles (%):30 Dry Unit Weight - Water Content Relationship
Proctor Report Report No: PTR:24-00204-S01
Client:
Project:4049-CRCity of Upland, Parking Garage Structures Phone: (951) 710-1160
GeoTek - Corona
Corona, CA 92880
Fax: (951) 710-1167
1548 N. Maple St.
Madole & Associates, Inc.
Rancho Cucamonga CA 917309302 Pittsburgh Ave.
THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
CC:
Comments
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 =0
810.6 9.7
62.4 50.4 FINAL MOISTURE
Final Weight of wet
sample & tare % Moisture
2.70 10/8/2024 0.2500 Final
7.0 SATURATION DETERMINATION
Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F)122.6
Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016)131.1 10/7/2024 0.2500 10 min/Dry 434.8 10/7/2024 0.2510 Initial
DENSITY DETERMINATION
799.0 READINGS
364.2 DATE TIME READING
Sample Description:
4.01"
Project Number:4049-CR Date Tested:10/7/2024
Project Location:City of Upland, Parking Garage Structures Sample Source:B-1 @ 0-5 Feet
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
(ASTM D4829)
Client:Madole & Associates, Inc. Tested/ Checked By:RR Lab No Corona