Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Downtwn Dublin SP #1 AppendicesA-DDowntown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan City of Dublin And Notice of Scoping Meeting (PA 07-0 36) Notice is hereby given that the City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan (DDSP). The City of Dublin is requesting comments on the scope and content of this EIR. A Scoping Session will be held on February I I , 20 I 0 at 6:00 pm in the Regional Meeting Room (City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94550). The Scoping Session is part of the EIR Scoping process during which the City solicits input from the public and other agencies on Specifc topics they believe should be addressed in the environmental analysis. The determination to prepare an EIR was made by the City of Dublin. As specifed by the CEQA Guidelines, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be circulated fora 30-day review period. The City of Dublin welcomes responsible and trustee agency input during this review, specifcally input is requested on the scope and content of environmental information that is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR pr~epar~ed by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the proposed project. In the event that no response or request for additional time is received by your agency by the end of the review period, the City of Dublin may presume that your agency has no comment. Written comments on the scope of the EIR should be sent to: Erica Fraser, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 The NOP comment period closes on March 3, 2010. 4/22JZ010 Page Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation Project Location The planning area is located in the City of Dublin in eastern Alameda County, just south of the border of Contra. Costa County. Regional access to the City is from Interstate 580, Interstate 680, and the Dublin/Pleasanton line of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Cities that border Dublin include San Ramon to the north (in Contra Costa County), Pleasanton to the south, and Livermore to the south and east. The regional location is shown in Figure I :Regional Location. 8 ~~, Figure I: Regional Location Project Site F I Source: Google Mapti. 20110 The DDSP project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits that extend beyond those roadways, most notably for a portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway within the Specifc Plan area. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 2: Specifc Plan Area. p ~r ~ ~. ~!_ nn-+~.. JJ :$ P 1 ~~.~ ~~. 4/22J2010 Page 2 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation Project Description The DDSP consists of a comprehensive set of incentives, standards, and requirements that will implement the vision for the future development in downtown Dublin. The DDSP will def ne the physical envelope for downtown Dublin's future growth using height limits, setbacks, density, and design standards. The DDSP will act as the planning tool to guide and direct new development, economic development, transportation improvements (including pedestrian improvements), transit-oriented development, parking, pedestrian amenities, and public open space (e.g. public plazas). The DDSP will be instrumental in promoting a more walkable, livable downtown Dublin, as well as providing incentives for development and supporting retail in Keeping with the City's vision. The DDSP area has been divided into three districts, based on the existing building patterns and land uses within each area and the intended development envisioned for each district. These three districts are shown in Figure 3: Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Districts/Land Use Designations. As described in the DDSP, the vision for downtown Dublin is to become a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living and entertainment that attracts both local and regional residents. Each district will have a particular development focus, as described below. Retail District The Retail District is envisioned to continue to serve as the primary regional and community shopping destination in the City. Given their large building format and existing long-term leases, it is likely that many of the existing buildings will remain. New and remodeled buildings will compliment the existing uses and be designed to create more inviting space that encourage walking between businesses and strengthening the economy of Downtown Dublin. Businesses in the Retail District are envisioned to include a mix of retail (ranging from small independent retailers to national regional-serving retailers), service, offce, civic, and limited residential uses. Efforts to improve pedestrian connectivity and visually soften the large expansive parking lots through landscaping and reconfguration of spaces will be strongly encouraged. Transit-Oriented District The vision for the Transit-Oriented District is to encourage development with land uses that support and compliment transit uses, particularly the West Dublin BART Station. These types of uses would include mixed-use that include offce or residential above ground floor retail and are generally more urban than surrounding areas. 4/zvzo I o Page 3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation Land uses will provide the opportunity for a variety of activities such as offces, hotels, restaurants, shopping, etc. to encourage activity both during the day and at night for both youths and adults. A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by incorporating paseos, plazas, courtyards, benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the district and to areas outside the district will be strongly encouraged. Village Parkway District Village Parkway will be apedestrian-oriented district that also accommodates through traffc. Buildings will be sited at or near the sidewalk with parking provided at the rear to encourage walking and create a more consistent street edge. Opportunities for live/work, mixed-use, and multi-family residential buildings will be encouraged in the district and compliment the predominantly commercial district, largely developed with retail, off ce, and certain automotive uses. Revitalizing and continuing to upgrade the appearance and functionality of the Village Parkway District will be encouraged so that existing and new businesses, particularly those providing specialty commercial services, can continue to prosper. Pedestrian-friendly amenities and features, including gathering places, and landscaping, will be strongly encouraged and thereby reduce vehicular trips. Existing Entitled Projects In addition to new development envisioned as part of the DDSP, there are a number of development projects within the Transit-Oriented District that are entitled but have not yet been constructed, and are identif ed in Table I : Entitled Projects. All of the project sites are located between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. Table I: Entitled Projects Development Existing Residential Retail / Office (sf) Hotel Project Development (DUs) Commercial sf Windstar Site Vacant 309 -- -- -- AMBSite 208,829 sf 308 -- 150,000 -- warehouse buildin BART Project Vacant -- 7,500 -- 150 Hotel (Stage 1 Development Plan onl Total 617 7,500 150,000 150 Source: City of Dublin. 2009. 4/zvzo I o Page 4 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation These entitled projects ar-e addressed as existing conditions in this EIR. Development Plan The DDSP provides a development plan for the next 15 + years. Each Specifc Plan district identif es a broad range of land uses that can be developed, either by right or through a Conditional Use Permit. These land uses include regional retail, community retail, offce, residential, mixed use and public uses. Given the uncertainty in market conditions and the fact that no particular development projeW are proposed as part of the DDSP, this approach will allow greater flexibility in the ultimate development pattern, while still maintaining a common vision for function and urban character within the DDSP project area. For each district, the DDSP identif es a specif c set of development standards that will apply to all new buildings and signifcantly remodeled buildings. These standards include lot size and building placement, access, parking, building density or floor-area ratio (FAR), and building height and setbacks. The actual density of development allowed on a particular parcel will be regulated by the FAR. The DDSP identif es both a base FAR that is allowed by right and a maximum FAR that can be constructed based on the use and District. If a property owner would like to develop a project beyond the base FAR, they may obtain additional square footage up to the maximum FAR by drawing on a density development pool that has been established for Specifc uses in each district. The density development pool applies to both residential and non-residential development. As shown below in Table 2: DDSP Base and Maximum Floor Area Ratios and Density Development Pool, the maximum FAR would be greater than the base FAR for the Retail and Transit-Oriented DistriW but would remain the same in the Village Parkway District. Table 2: DDSP Base and Maximum Floor Area Ratios and Density Development Pool (Residential and Non-Residential) District Base FAR Maximum FAR Density Development Pool (sf)* Retail District 0.35 0.6 660,250 Transit-Oriented District 0.50 1.2 2,145,460 Village Parkway District 0.35 0.35 120, 000 Sowre: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. 2010. `* I his numhrr assumes residential development of I .LUU square teet per unit. When a project applicant proposes to develop using a portion of the density development pool allocation, they will be required to enter into an agreement with the City and provide a community beneft in accordance with the Community Beneft Program which will be used to construct improvements in the DDSP project area, or construct improvements as part of the project which provide a community beneft (e. g. outdoor plazas, high quality 4/2v2o I o Page 5 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation materials, etc.). The life of the agreement will be limited to a specif c time period so that if a project is not constructed, the square footage can be returned to the density development pool and available for use by another development project within the respective district of the DDSP. Future Build-out Development Potential Collectively, the existing fve Specifc Plans that encompass the proposed DDSP project area. allow for the additional development of nearly 3.2 million square feet of non- residential development, 717 dwelling units, and 150 hotel rooms. The proposed DDSP slightly increases this amount of future buildout development potential with 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development and I ,300 residential units. Assuming an average of I ,200 square feet per residential unit and an average of 500 square feet per hotel room, the existing Specifc plans represent a gross future buildout development potential of 4.13 million square feet as compared to 459 million square feet under the proposed DDSP, for a net addition of 460,000 square feet. A breakdown of the DDSP future buildout development potential is shown in Table 3, below. Table 3: DDSP Future Buildout Development Potential (Including Base FAR, Development Pool and Projects which have been approved but not yet constructed)* District Non-Residential (sf) Residential (du) Retail District 737,094 100 Transit-Oriented District 2,277,716 1,100 Villa e Parl<wa District 20,730 100 Total 3,035,540 1,300 Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet constructed. While this represents the theoretical buildout capacity of development in the DDSP project area, the ultimate amount of future development will likely be considerably less due non-tangibles such as market demand, ownership patterns, tenant lease terms, etc., as well as physical limitations such as parcel confgurations, parking, and transportation circulation. Given the fact that the most signifcant restriction on future growth in the DDSP project area is the capacity of the existing roadway network to accommodate additional traff c trips, particularly during the AM and PM peak hours, future development will be particularly limited to the total amount of traffc that can be accommodated on the roadway network under cumulative conditions, while still maintaining a Level of Service (LOS) standard consistent with City policy (as def ned in the General Plan). As such, the approach taken in the EIR will be to identify the limit of future new development by district that only requires minimal transportation improvements (i.e. signalization timing, re-striping of lanes, etc.) versus improvements that would be required under the future buildout development potential. The latter will require more signifcant 4/ZVZO I o Page 6 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation roadway improvements such as right-of--way acquisition, construction of additional lanes, and transportation demand management initiatives. The EIR The EIR will be pr~epar-ed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR will provide information suffcient to evaluate the proposed Specifc Plan and its potential to cause signifcant effects on the environment; examine methods of reducing environmental impacts; and identify alternatives to the proposed Specifc Plan. The EIR will be a program EIR of planned public improvements and a maximum future development potential. Future individual projects will be subject to additional environmental review, in particular of site Specifc attributes (such as heritage trees), as appropriate. The EIR will include the following: ^ Introduction ^ Summary ^ Project Description ^ Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ^ Other CEQA Considerations ^ Report Preparers Probable Environmental Effects The EIR will analyze whether the proposed project would have signifcant environmental effects in the following areas: Aesthetics and Visual Resources The analysis will discuss the impacts of new development in terms of height and intensity, and the potential for increased light and glare impacts on the existing setting. Air Quality The analysis will address the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and analyzes local and regional air quality impacts associated with project implementation including both short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts from mobile and stationary sources, as well as the potential exposure to objectionable odors from surrounding uses. The analysis will be based on air quality modeling performed for the proposed project as part of the traffc impact analysis. 4/22JZ010 Page 7 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation Geology, Soils & Seismicity The analysis will examine potential geologic and seismic hazards as well as any engineering constraints and general soil suitability for the land uses proposed as part of the proposed Specif c Plan. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The analysis will evaluate the potential presence of hazardous materials and contaminated soil within the planning area. The potential for onsite sources of contamination such as leaking hazardous waste containers, residual agricultural chemicals, lead-based paints, and asbestos-containing building materials, among other items will also be addressed The potential r~isl< of these conditions in proximity to proposed development and human activities will be evaluated. Hydrology and Water Quality The analysis will evaluate proposed project impacts related to hydrology, storm drainage, water resources and water quality. The analysis will identify existing drainage patterns, potential flood hazards and stormwater retention requirements of the City of Dublin. Several properties are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain, which would be subject to floodplain regulations. To comply with the requirements of CEQA, the potential effects of the proposed project on flooding will be evaluated. Land Use and Planning The analysis will evaluate the relationship of the proposed project to relevant regional and local plans, and other local planning documents. The analysis will also address project consistency with adopted plans and policies, including the project's relationship to the City of Dublin General Plan. Noise & Vibration The analysis will evaluate the compatibility between the existing noise environment and anticipated noise levels generated by the project-generated traffc, by on-site activities and cumulative noise from area roadways upon completion of the proposed project. The analysis will be based on noise modeling conducted within the DDSP project area. The analysis will also evaluate the potential effects associated with both short-term construction vibration and long-term vibration associated with the adjacent Interstates 680 and 580 and the BART railway line. Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation The analysis will evaluate the availability of existing public facilities and services, and calculate demand generated by the proposed project for additional facilities such as schools, parks/recreation facilities, police, and fre services. It will also analyze additional system 4/zvzo I o Page 8 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation requirements and physical improvements needed to serve the buildout demands of the proposed project. The provision of potable water service, wastewater treatment and disposal, natural gas and electric service, and solid waste impacts will also be addressed. Transportation and Traffic The analysis will evaluate the potential impacts on the area roadway network, including roadway segments and intersections. Scenarios evaluated will include: existing conditions, existing plus project conditions, and cumulative conditions based on City of Dublin General Plan. The analysis also will address alternatives modes of transportation (e.g. public transit, pedestrian access, and bicycle routes). Other CEQA Considerations This section of the EIR will address the required discussions and analyses of various topical issues mandated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, including: signifcant and unavoidable environmental effects; growth inducing impacts; irreversible environmental changes and effects found not to be signifcant. This section will also address alternatives to the proposed project and cumulative impacts. As part of the cumulative analysis, the EIR will discuss the potential for the Specifc Plan to generate greenhouse gases that have a signifcant impact on the environment, and the potential for conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. As per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this section will also describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen the environmental effects of the project. Environmental Effects Not Analyzed The DDSP is not anticipated to result in signifcant impacts in the following areas: ^ Agi7cultural Resources ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Mineral Resources ^ Population & Housing The project site is an urban inf II area and the above resources do not exist on the project site and /or are not considered to have the potential to cause a signifcant environmental impact. As such, detailed analysis of these environmental resources will not be included in the EIR. 4/ZVZO I o Page 9 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation The preparation of the Notice of Preparation has been f Wanted in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this NOP do not necessarily reflect the off cial views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 4/22JZ010 Paoe 0 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Notice of Preparation Comment Form Name: Organization: Would you like to be placed on the mailing list for future meetings on this project? If so, please provide us with your email or mailing address: Please submit your comments no later than Wednesday, March 3, 2010 to: Erica Fraser, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 z e' >'~ `hANAG~~~ ALAMEDA COUNTI' CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220 • OAKLAND, CA 94612 • PHONE: (510) 836-2560 • FAX: (510) 836-2185 E-MAIL: mail@accma.ca.gov • WEB SITE: accma.ca.gov AC Transit Director Greg Harper March 3, 2010 Alameda Couniy Supervisors Nate Miley Ms. Erica Fraser AICP Scott Haggerty ~ Senior Planner City of Alameda Mayor Community Development Department Beverly Johnson Vice Chair City of Dublin City of Albany 100 Civic Plaza UceMayor Dublin, CA 94568 Farid Javandel BART SUBJECT: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Enviromnental Impact Director Thomas Blalock Report for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan City of Berkeley Councilmember KrissWorlhington Dear Ms. Fraser: City of Dublin TimShranii Thanlc you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The Plan consists of City of Emeryville Mayor a set of incentives standards and requirements that will implement the vision for future RulhAlkin development in downtown Dublin. It will include three districts and include a commercial City of Fremont and mixed use center, retail, transportation improvements, and open space. Vice Mayor Rohert Wieckawski City of Hayward The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments: Councilmemher Olden Henson • The City of Dublin adopted Resolution 120-92 on September 28, 1992 establishing City of Livermore Mayor guidelines for reviewing the impacts of local land use decisions consistent with the MarshallKamena Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Based on our review of City of Newark the NOP Councilmember ,the proposed project appears to generate at least 100 p.m. peak hour trips Luis keitas over existing conditions. If this is the case, the CMP Land Use Analysis Program City of Oakland requires the City to conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the Countywide Councilmember LarryReid Transportation Demand Model for projection years 2015 and 2035 conditions. Please City of Piedmont note the following paragraph as it discusses the responsibility for modeling. Councilmember Jahn Chiang o The CMA Board amended the CMP on March 26t1i, 1998 so that local jurisdictions are City of Pleasanton Mayor responsible for conducting the model runs themselves or through a consultant. The JenniterHosterman ACCMA has a Countywide model that is available for this purpose. The City of Dublui City of San Leandro and the ACCMA signed a Countywide Model Agreement on July 17, 2008. Before the Vice Mayor Joyce R.Slarosciak model can be used for this project, a letter must be submitted to the ACCMA requesting City of Union City use of the model and describing the project. A copy of a sample letter agreement is Mayor available upon request. Mark Green Chair • Potential impacts of the project on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) need to be Executive Director addressed. (See 2009 CMP Figures E-2 and E-3 and Figure 2). The DEIR should address all Dennis R. Fay - Ms. Erica Fraser March 3, 2010 Page 2 potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. These include MTS roadways as shown in the attached map as well as BART and AC Transit. Potential impacts of the project must be addressed for 2015 and 2035 conditions. o Please note that the ACCMA does not have a policy for determining a threshold of significance for Level of Service for the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP. Professional judgment should be applied to determine the significance of project impacts (Please see chapter 6 of 2009 CMP for more information). o For the purposes of CMP Land Use Analysis, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is used. • The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25, 1993, the CMA Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DEIR project mitigation measures: - Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain CMP service standards for roadways and transit; - Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate; - Project mitigation measures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or influenced by the CMA must be consistent with the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section of the CMP or the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The DEIR should include a discussion on the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures relative to these criteria. Iu particular, the DEIR should detail when proposed roadway or transit route improvements are expected to be completed, how they will be funded, and what would be the effect on LOS if only the funded portions of these projects were assumed to be built prior to project completion. • Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. (See 2009 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways for bus service and 3.75-15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The DEIR should address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the context of the CMA's policies as discussed above. • The DEIR should also consider demand-related strategies that are designed to reduce the need for new roadway facilities over the long term and to make the most efficient use of existing facilities (see 2009 CMP, Chapter 5). The DEIR should consider the use of TDM measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements, as a means of attauiing acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage ridesharing, flextime, transit, bicycling, telecotnmuting and other means of reducing peak hour traffic trips should be considered. The Site Design Guidelines Checklist may be useful during the review of the development proposal. A copy of the checklist is enclosed. • The EIR should consider opportunities to promote countywide bicycle routes identified in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, which was approved by the ACCMA Board on October 26, 2006. The approved Countywide Bike Plan is available at http://www.accma.ca. gov/pages/HomeB icyclePlan.aspx • The Alameda County Pedestrian Plan, developed by ACTIA, was adopted by both the ACTIA and ACCMA Boards in September 2006 and October 2006, respectively. The EIR should consider opportunities to promote pedestrian improvements identified in the Plan through the project development review process. The approved Countywide Pedestrian Plan is available at http://www.acta2002.corn/ Ms. Erica Fraser March 3, 2010 Page 3 • For projects adjacent to state roadway facilities, the analysis should address noise impacts of the project. If the analysis finds an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e., soundwalls) should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project. It should not be assumed that federal or state funding is available. • Local jurisdictions are encouraged to consider a comprehensive Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program, including environmentally clearing all access improvements nnnrt TnD devel~nment as nart ~f the environmental d~cnmentati~n. '_ ~~ ~ _ -_ Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Preparation. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510.836.2560 if you require additional information. Sincerely, Diane Stark Senior Transportation Planner cc: Beth Wahikas, Manager of Planning file: CMP -Environmental Review Opinions -Responses - 2010 State Highway (CMP &MTS) Principal Arterial (CMP &MTS) MTS Routes s ~ Kilometers 0 p 4 Miles Attachment Design Strategies Checklist for the Transportation Demand Management Element of the Alameda County CMP The Transportation Demand Management Element included in the Congestion Management Program requires each jurisdiction to comply with the "" Required Program". This requirement can be satisfied in three ways: 1) adoption of "Design Strategies for encouraging alternatives to auto use through local development review" prepared by ABAG and the Bay Area Quality Management District; 2) adoption of new design guidelines that meet the individual needs of the local jurisdictions and the intent of the goals of the TDM Element or 3) evidence that existing policies and programs meet the intent of the goals of the TDM Element. For those jurisdictions who have chosen to satisfy this requirement by Option 2 or 3 the following checklist has been prepared. In order to insure consistency and equity throughout the County, this checl~list identifies the components of a design strategy that should be included in a local program to meet the minimum CMP conformity requirements. The required components are highlighted in bold type and are shown at the beginning of each section. A jurisdiction must answer Yes to each of the required components to be considered consistent with the CMP. Each jurisdiction will be asked to annually certify that it is complying with the TDM Element. Local jurisdictions will not be asked to submit the back-up information to the CMA justifying its response; however it should be available at the request of the public or neighboring jurisdictions. Questions regarding optional program components are also included. You are encouraged but not required to answer these questions. ACTAC and the TDM Task Force felt that it might be useful to include additional strategies that could be considered for implementation by each jurisdiction. CHECKLIST Bicycle Facilities Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that foster the development of a countywide bicycle program that incorporates a wide range of bicycle facilities to reduce vehicle trips and promote bicycle use for commuting, shopping and school activities. (Note: an example of facilities are bike paths, lanes or racks.) Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. Local Responsibilities: la. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that include the following: la.l provides a system of bicycle facilities that connect residential and/or non- residentia~ development to other major activity centers? Yes No 1 a.2 bicycle facilities that provide access to transit? Yes No 1a.3 that provide for construction of bicycle facilities needed to fill gaps, (i.e. gap clure), not provided through the development review process? Yes No 1 a.4 that consider bicycle safety such as safe crossing of busy arterials or along bike trails? Yes No 1 a.5 that provide for bicycle storage and bicycle parking for (A) multi-family residential and/or (B) non-residential developments? Yes No lb. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance Design Review Standard Conditions of Approval Capital Improvement Program Specific Plan Other Pedestrian Facilities Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that reduce vehicle trips and foster walling for commuting, shopping and school activities. Local Responsibilities 2a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that incorporate the following: 2a.1 that provides reasonably direct, convenient, accessible and safe pedestrian connections to major activity centers, transit stops or hubs parks/open space and other pedestrian facilities? Yes No Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. 2a.2 that provide for construction of pedestrian paths needed to fill gaps, (i.e. gap closure), not provided through the development process? Yes No 2a.3 that include safety elements such as convenient crossing at arterials? Yes No 2a.4 that provide for amenities such as lighting, street trees, trash receptacles that promote walking? Yes No 2a.5 that encourage uses on the first floor that are pedestrian oriented, entrances that are conveniently accessible from the sidewalk or transit stops or other strategies that promote pedestrian activities in commercial areas? Yes No Zb. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance Design Review, such as ADA Accessibility Design Standards Standard Conditions of Approval Capital Improvement Program Specific Plan Other Transit Goal: To develop and implement design strategies in cooperation with the appropriate transit agencies that reduce vehicle trips and foster the use of transit for commuting, shopping and school activities. Local Responsibilities 3a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that include the following: 3a.1 provide for the location of transit stops that minimize access time, facilitate intermodal transfers, and promote reasonably direct, accessible, convenient and safe connections to residential uses and major activity centers? Yes No Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. 3a.2 provide for transit stops that have shelters or benches, trash receptacles, street trees or other street furniture that promote transit use? Yes No 3a.3 that includes a process for including transit operators in development review? Yes No 3a.4 provide for directional signage for transit stations and/or stops? Yes No 3a.5 that include specifications for pavement width, bus pads or pavement structure, length of bus stops, and turning radii that accommodates bus transit? Yes No 3.b How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance Design Review Standard Conditions of Approval Capital Improvement Program Specific Plan Other Carpools and Vanpools Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips and foster carpool and vanpool use. Local Responsibilities: 4a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that include the following: 4a. l For publicly owned parking garages or lots, are there preferential parking spaces and/or charges for carpools or vanpools? Yes No 4a.2 that provide for convenient or preferential parking for carpools and vanpools in non- residential developments? Yes No Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. 4.b How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance Design Review Standard Conditions of Approval Capital hnprovement Program Specific Plan Other Park and Ride Goal: To develop design strategies that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips and provide park and ride lots at strategic locations. Local Responsibilities: Sa. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that include the following: Sa.l promote park and ride lots that are located near freeways or major transit hubs? Yes No Sa.2 a process that provides input to Caltrans to insure HOV by-pass at metered freeway ramps? Yes No Sb. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance Design Review Standard Conditions of Approval Capital Improvement Program Specific Plan Other Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. ALAMEDA COUNTY I+LOOD CONTROL AND j'VATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 100 NORTHCANYONS PARK11'AY LIVERMORE, CA94551 PHONE (925) 4S4-SOQO FAx (925) 454-5727 March 1, 2010 Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Flaza Dublin, Ca. 94568 ® 1~~9~~ MAR ~ 2 ?,Q10 ~U~~1N P~.AIV~II~V~ Subject: Comments on Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental fmpact Report for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Dear Ms. Fraser: Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced Notice of Preparation (NGP) in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture/ irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management within the Livermore- Amador Valley. Following are our comments for yauz• consideration: Flood Control Facilities Zone 7 maintains several flood control facilities within the Specific Plan area. Any changes in land use that may alter the hydrology andlar impact Zone 7 facilities should be evaluated through a hydrological analysis. The Specific Plan a>'ea is adjacent to and drains into Lines F-4 and J-1 of Zone 7's flood protection and stormwater drainage system. Portions of these drainages may benefit from the implementation oflow-impact development (LID) technologies, such as pervious pavement, rain-gardens, and green roofs. Zone 7 encourages review of such measures for possible inclusion in the pa•ajeet so as to alleviate site >•un-off and peaking issues in these discrete areas. Known Toxic Sites Zone 7 is tracl~ing 9 active toxic site eases within the Specific Plan area (listed below). A map showing the location of these active eases along with past closed cases within the Specific Plan area can be viewed by visiting 3~ttUal~:cotrackel~.si~~1•cl7.c~~~~ovl. - The following 7 cases are fuel sites where petroleum-bases products such as total petroleum hydrocarbon from gasoline {TPHg), TPH from diesel (TPHd), benzene, toluene, ethylebenzene, xylene (collectively known as BTEX) and oxygenates including methyl teriary-butyl ether (MTBE) and tertiary-butyl alcohol (TBA): 1. Former Quest Laboratory; 6511 Golden Gate Dr. 2. Crown Chevrolet; 7544 Dublin Blvd 3. Shamrock Ford; 7499 Dublin Blvd Ms. Erica Fraser Cily of Dublin March 1, 2010 Page 2 of 2 4. Unocal; 7850 Amador Valley Blvd S. Corwood Carwash; 6973 Village Parkway 6, Az-co; 7249 Village Parkway 7. Shell Oil; 7194 Amador Valley Blvd The following 2 cases are chlorinated solvent sites where tetraclrlaroethylene (PCE) andlor teichloroethylene (TCE) have been detected: 1. Crow Canyon Cleazrers; 7272/7242 San Ramon Rd 2. Village Parkway Shopping Center; 7054-7150 Village Parkway We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your project. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or by e-mail at mfizz~ c+~zo~re7~~Jatea~.con~. Sincerely, ~~~~/I . Mary Lim Environmental Services Program Manager cc: Kurt Arends, Joe Seto, Jeff Tang, Carol Mahoney, Cheryl Dizon STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS TRANSPOR'FATIONRND HOLFSING AGENCY ARNOLD $OLIwARZENEGGER Gavernor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAI~LAN-, CA 94623-p660 PHONE (510) 622-5491 FAX {510) 286-5559 T`I'Y 711 March 1, 2010 Ms. E~~ca Fraser City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 9q-568 Dear Ms. Fraser: ~~~~~ MAR ~.9 2010 ®~~~~~ ~~~1~i~11~~ Flex yorcr power! Be energy e~cierat! ALAGEN24'1 S CH##2010022005 Do~vntor~vn Dublin Specific Plan -~ Notice of Preparation Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department} in the environmental review process for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP}. The following comments are based onthe-Notice of Preparation (NOP}: As lead agency,-the CityafDublin is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair shale contribution, financing, scheduling, and implementation responsibilities as well as lead agency monitoz7ng should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures and the project's traffic mitigation fees should be specifically identified in the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be campleted pzxor to issuance of project occupancy permits. An encroachment permit is required when the project involves work in the State's right of way (ROW}. The Department will not issue an encroachment permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly z-ecommend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Department's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA} concerns prior to submittal of the encroachment permit application; see the end of this letter for more infoz~nation regarding the encroachment permit process. Cotntnririrty Plara~aing The Department encourages the City of Dublin to locate any needed housing, jobs and neighborhood services near major mass transit nodes, and connect these nodes with streets configured to facilitate walking and biking, as a means of promoting mass transit use and reducing regional vehicle nniles traveled and traffic impacts on the state highways. As stated in the NOP, the DDSP will act as the planning tool to guide and direct new development. Therefore, to fully access all transportation impacts, the environmental document should include amulti-modal level of service and modeling analysis that includes pedestrian, bicyclist and transit pez-formance or levellquality of service measures. 1n addition, mitigation measures resulting fi-om vehicular impacts can include improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists and connectivity to transit facilities. "Ca.ttrcrns improves nzoUility across Califartaiu" Ms. Ez~ca Fraser/City of Dublin March 1, 2010 Page 3 To apply far an encroachment pezmit, submit a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five {5) sets of plans which clearly indicate State ROW to the address at the top of this letterhead, maz-ked ATTN: Michael Condie, Mail Stop #5E. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Yatman Kwan of zny staff at {S10) G22-1670. Sincerely, ~~ G~ ~`~, LISA CARBONI Distzxct Branch Chief Local Development -Intergovernmental Review c: State Cleaz-inghouse "Caltrans inaproues ~r~obility across Califarnrcc" STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLDSCFiWARZENEGGER, Governor CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1528 NINTH STREET =x~ aC SACRAMENTO, CA 95 81 4-551 2 www.energy.ca.gov February 24, 2010 >~~~® DEB 2 ~ 2010 Erica Fraser City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Fraser: ®U~~~~! ~~,A~f~fl~( The California Energy Commission has received the City of Dublin's Notice of Preparation titled Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, SCH 2090022005 that was submitted on 2/1/2010 for comments due by 31212090, After careful review, the Energy Commission has found the following: We would like to assist in reducing the energy usage involved in your project. Please refer to the enclosed Appendix F of the California Environmental Quality Act for how to achieve energy conservation. In addition, the Energy Commission`s EnergyA>rvare Planning Guide is also available as a tool to assist in your land use planning. For further information on how to utilize this guide, please visit www.energy.ca.govlenergy_aware_guidelindex.html. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review/comment on your project. We hope that our comments will be helpful in your environmental review process. If you have any further ques#ions, please call Gigi Tien at (916} 661-0566. Sincerely, B1LL PFA Supervisor, Local Energy & Land Use Assistance Unit Special Projects Office Fuels and Transportation Division California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS 23 Sacramento, CA 96814 Enclosure C;uQA; California )Lnvironmenfal Qc~nlit}' Acl Appes2di~ F ENERGY CONSERVATION I. Introduc#ion The goa[ of conserving energy implies the wise and effi- cient nse of energy. The means of achieving this goa] include: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, {2) decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and {3} increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Envh~anmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. Energy conservation implies that a project's cost effective- ness bereviewed not only in dollars, but a] so in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, lifetime costs may be deter- mined mare by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. II. EIR Contents tion, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. 2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity, 3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and outer forms of energy. 4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. 5. The effects of the project on energy resources. 6. The project's projected transportation energy use re- quirementsand its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. D, Mitigation Measures may include: 1. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and tnutecessary consumption of energy during cottstruc- tian, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The dis- cussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other meastres were dismissed. 2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to mini- mize energy consumption, including transportation Potentially significant energy implications of a project should be considered in an EIR. The following list of energy impact possibilities and potential conservation measures is designed to assist in the preparation of an EIR. In many instances, specific items may not apply or additional items may be needed. A. Project Description may include the following items: 1. Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation, and/or removal of the projeck. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the project. 2. Total energy requirements of the project by fuel type and end use. 3. Energy conservation equipment and design features. 4. Initial and life-cycle energy costs or supplies. 5. Total estimated daily trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode, B. Environrrtental Setting ma}' include existing energy sup- plies and energy ttse patterns in the region and locality. G Environmental Impacts tray include: The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type far each stage of the project's life cycle including construction, opera- energy. 3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand. 4. Alteratate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts. E. Alternatives shouldbecomparedintermsofovera]]energy consumption and in terms of reducing wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumptions of energy. F. Unavoidable Adverse Effects may include wasteful, inef- fieientand unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or re- moval that cam~ot be feasibly mitigated. G. Irreversible Commitment of Resources may include a discussion of how the project preempts future energy development or future energy conservation. H. Short-Term Gains versusLong-Tenn Impacts can be com- pared by caictdating the energy costs over the lifetime of the project. I. GrowthInduci~tgEffectsma}'includetheestimatedenergy consumption of growth induced by the project. l54 APY)LfYDIC115 AmadorVly-starward.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:26:52 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 Job: 03 Amador and starward RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 110 0.9 0.0 21.3 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 55 1.7 0.0 21.3 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 55 0.9 0.0 21.3 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 55 0.9 0.0 21.3 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 6 0.9 0.0 21.3 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 2 1.7 0.0 21.3 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 76 0.9 0.0 21.3 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 76 0.9 0.0 21.3 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 55 1.7 0.0 21.3 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 4 1.7 0.0 21.3 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 1314 0.9 0.0 27.4 12. X EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 1240 1.7 0.0 27.4 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 1295 0.9 0.0 27.4 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 1295 0.9 0.0 27.4 15. X wBl •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 1002 0.9 0.0 27.4 16. X wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 1002 1.7 0.0 27.4 17. X wB3 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 1006 0.9 0.0 27.4 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 1006 0.9 0.0 27.4 19. X LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 74 1.7 0.0 27.4 20. X LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 0 1.7 0.0 27.4 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Amadorvly-starward.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 301. •• 1. 5 106. °~ 1.6 51. •• 1. 5 230. ~~ 1.5 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •• (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:26:52 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 AmadorVly-Donohue.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:29:34 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 04 Amador and Donohue RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 157 0.9 0.0 19.8 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 55 1.7 0.0 19.8 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 72 0.9 0.0 19.8 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 72 0.9 0.0 19.8 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 102 0.9 0.0 19.8 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 42 1.7 0.0 19.8 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 91 0.9 0.0 19.8 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 91 0.9 0.0 19.8 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 102 1.7 0.0 19.8 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 60 1.7 0.0 19.8 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 1210 0.9 0.0 27.4 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 1161 1.7 0.0 27.4 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 1263 0.9 0.0 27.4 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 1263 0.9 0.0 27.4 15. x wBl •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 1043 0.9 0.0 27.4 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 1026 1.7 0.0 27.4 17. x wB3 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 1086 0.9 0.0 27.4 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 1086 0.9 0.0 27.4 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 49 1.7 0.0 27.4 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 17 1.7 0.0 27.4 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Amadorvly-Donohue.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 301. •• 1. 5 106. °~ 1.6 51. •• 1. 5 230. ~~ 1.5 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •• (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:29:34 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 AmadorVly-AmadorPlza.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:32:37 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 Job: 05 Amador and AmadorPlaza RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 16 0.9 0.0 21.3 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 12 1.7 0.0 21.3 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 456 0.9 0.0 21.3 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 456 0.9 0.0 21.3 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 793 0.9 0.0 21.3 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 536 1.7 0.0 21.3 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 544 0.9 0.0 21.3 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 544 0.9 0.0 21.3 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 4 1.7 0.0 21.3 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 257 1.7 0.0 21.3 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 1186 0.9 0.0 30.5 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 1178 1.7 0.0 30.5 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 1182 0.9 0.0 30.5 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 1182 0.9 0.0 30.5 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 1167 0.9 0.0 30.5 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 723 1.7 0.0 30.5 17. x w63 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 980 0.9 0.0 30.5 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 980 0.9 0.0 30.5 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 8 1.7 0.0 30.5 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 444 1.7 0.0 30.5 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Amadorvly-AmadorPlza.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 293. ~° 1.6 12 6 . ~~ 1.6 52. •• 1.6 180. ~~ 1.6 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •~ (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •~ 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:32:37 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 AmadorVly-Village.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:34:30 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 Job: 05 Amador and village Pky RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 1273 0.9 0.0 33.5 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 1196 1.7 0.0 33.5 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 1404 0.9 0.0 33.5 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 1404 0.9 0.0 33.5 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 1122 0.9 0.0 33.5 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 908 1.7 0.0 33.5 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 1477 0.9 0.0 33.5 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 1477 0.9 0.0 33.5 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 77 1.7 0.0 33.5 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 214 1.7 0.0 33.5 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 1503 0.9 0.0 30.5 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 934 1.7 0.0 30.5 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 1011 0.9 0.0 30.5 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 1011 0.9 0.0 30.5 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 715 0.9 0.0 30.5 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 507 1.7 0.0 30.5 17. x w63 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 721 0.9 0.0 30.5 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 721 0.9 0.0 30.5 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '~ AG 569 1.7 0.0 30.5 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 208 1.7 0.0 30.5 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 AmadorVly-Village.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 303. •• 1.6 126. °~ 1.6 3. 1.6 230. ~~ 1.6 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •• (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:34:30 6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 Dublin-san Ramon.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:39:32 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 Job: 07 Dublin and san Ramon RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 ~` AG 1549 0.9 0.0 42.7 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 861 1.7 0.0 42.7 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 2938 0.9 0.0 42.7 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 2938 0.9 0.0 42.7 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 4681 0.9 0.0 42.7 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 3878 1.7 0.0 42.7 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 4041 0.9 0.0 42.7 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 4041 0.9 0.0 42.7 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 688 1.7 0.0 42.7 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 803 1.7 0.0 42.7 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 1167 0.9 0.0 36.6 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 1004 1.7 0.0 36.6 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 1692 0.9 0.0 36.6 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 1692 0.9 0.0 36.6 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 3367 0.9 0.0 36.6 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 1290 1.7 0.0 36.6 17. x w63 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 2093 0.9 0.0 36.6 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 2093 0.9 0.0 36.6 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 163 1.7 0.0 36.6 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 2077 1.7 0.0 36.6 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Dublin-san Ramon.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 310. ~° 1.9 106. ~~ 1.8 53. •• 1.9 177. ~~ 1.9 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •~ (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •~ 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:39:33 6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 7 8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 Dublin-Regional.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:42:00 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 Job: 08 Dublin and Regional RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 863 0.9 0.0 21.3 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 482 1.7 0.0 21.3 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 656 0.9 0.0 21.3 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 656 0.9 0.0 21.3 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 769 0.9 0.0 21.3 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 279 1.7 0.0 21.3 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 642 0.9 0.0 21.3 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 642 0.9 0.0 21.3 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 381 1.7 0.0 21.3 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 490 1.7 0.0 21.3 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 3707 0.9 0.0 36.6 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 3344 1.7 0.0 36.6 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 3725 0.9 0.0 36.6 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 3725 0.9 0.0 36.6 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 2990 0.9 0.0 36.6 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 2816 1.7 0.0 36.6 17. x w63 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 3306 0.9 0.0 36.6 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 3306 0.9 0.0 36.6 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '~ AG 363 1.7 0.0 36.6 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 174 1.7 0.0 36.6 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Dublin-Regional.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 301. •• 1.8 106. °~ 1.8 52. •• 1.8 230. ~~ 1.8 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •• (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.1 1 LNI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:42:00 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 Dublin-Golden Gate.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:43:44 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 09 Dublin and Golden Gate RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 5B1 •• 684 1256 711 1201 ~` AG 449 0.9 0.0 42.7 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 208 1.7 0.0 42.7 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 453 0.9 0.0 42.7 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 453 0.9 0.0 42.7 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 1202 0.9 0.0 42.7 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 494 1.7 0.0 42.7 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 786 0.9 0.0 42.7 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 786 0.9 0.0 42.7 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 241 1.7 0.0 42.7 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 708 1.7 0.0 42.7 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 3398 0.9 0.0 36.6 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 °° AG 3106 1.7 0.0 36.6 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 3347 0.9 0.0 36.6 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 3347 0.9 0.0 36.6 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 2478 0.9 0.0 36.6 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 2233 1.7 0.0 36.6 17. x w63 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 2941 0.9 0.0 36.6 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 2941 0.9 0.0 36.6 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 292 1.7 0.0 36.6 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 245 1.7 0.0 36.6 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Dublin-Golden Gate.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 296. ~° 1.7 109. ~~ 1.8 52. •• 1.7 229. ~~ 1.7 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •~ (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •~ 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:43:44 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 Dublin-AmadorPlza.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:45:59 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 10 Dublin and Amador Plaza RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 919 0.9 0.0 21.3 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 598 1.7 0.0 21.3 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 843 0.9 0.0 21.3 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 843 0.9 0.0 21.3 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 2319 0.9 0.0 21.3 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 1474 1.7 0.0 21.3 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 1837 0.9 0.0 21.3 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 1837 0.9 0.0 21.3 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 321 1.7 0.0 21.3 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 845 1.7 0.0 21.3 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 3213 0.9 0.0 30.5 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 °° AG 2850 1.7 0.0 30.5 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 3171 0.9 0.0 30.5 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 3171 0.9 0.0 30.5 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 1935 0.9 0.0 30.5 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 1690 1.7 0.0 30.5 17. x w63 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 2535 0.9 0.0 30.5 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 2535 0.9 0.0 30.5 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '~ AG 363 1.7 0.0 30.5 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 245 1.7 0.0 30.5 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Dublin-AmadorPlza.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 293. ~° 1.8 121. °~ 1.8 51. •• 1.8 181. ~~ 1.8 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •~ (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •~ 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:45:59 6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 Dublin-VillagePl<y.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:48:39 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 11 Dublin and village Parkway RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 1152 0.9 0.0 33.5 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 625 1.7 0.0 33.5 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 876 0.9 0.0 33.5 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 876 0.9 0.0 33.5 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 102 0.9 0.0 33.5 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 36 1.7 0.0 33.5 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 787 0.9 0.0 33.5 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 787 0.9 0.0 33.5 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 527 1.7 0.0 33.5 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 66 1.7 0.0 33.5 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 3247 0.9 0.0 30.5 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 2496 1.7 0.0 30.5 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 3023 0.9 0.0 30.5 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 3023 0.9 0.0 30.5 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 2648 0.9 0.0 30.5 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 2397 1.7 0.0 30.5 17. x w63 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 2463 0.9 0.0 30.5 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 2463 0.9 0.0 30.5 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 751 1.7 0.0 30.5 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 251 1.7 0.0 30.5 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Dublin-villagePl<y.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 305. ~° 1.7 105. °~ 1.8 4. 1.7 230. ~~ 1.7 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •~ (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •~ 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.1 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 LNI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:48:39 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 StPatrick-Golden Gate.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:51:14 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 12 st. Patrick and Golden Gate RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 510 0.9 0.0 21.3 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 413 1.7 0.0 21.3 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 434 0.9 0.0 21.3 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 434 0.9 0.0 21.3 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 598 0.9 0.0 21.3 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 594 1.7 0.0 21.3 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 722 0.9 0.0 21.3 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 722 0.9 0.0 21.3 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 97 1.7 0.0 21.3 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 4 1.7 0.0 21.3 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 242 0.9 0.0 21.3 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 114 1.7 0.0 21.3 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 211 0.9 0.0 21.3 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 211 0.9 0.0 21.3 15. x wBl •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 226 0.9 0.0 21.3 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 205 1.7 0.0 21.3 17. x wB3 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 209 0.9 0.0 21.3 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 209 0.9 0.0 21.3 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 128 1.7 0.0 21.3 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 21 1.7 0.0 21.3 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 StPatrick-Golden Gate.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 307. °° 1.5 109. °~ 1.5 4. 1.5 179. ~~ 1.5 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •~ (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •~ 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:51:14 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 StPatricl<-AmadorPlza.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:52:49 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 Job: 13 st. Patrick and Amador Plaza RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 ~` AG 1714 0.9 0.0 21.3 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 896 1.7 0.0 21.3 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 1080 0.9 0.0 21.3 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 1080 0.9 0.0 21.3 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 1019 0.9 0.0 21.3 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 997 1.7 0.0 21.3 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 1181 0.9 0.0 21.3 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 1181 0.9 0.0 21.3 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 818 1.7 0.0 21.3 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 22 1.7 0.0 21.3 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 488 0.9 0.0 21.3 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 304 1.7 0.0 21.3 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 1122 0.9 0.0 21.3 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 1122 0.9 0.0 21.3 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 488 0.9 0.0 21.3 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 304 1.7 0.0 21.3 17. x wB3 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 326 0.9 0.0 21.3 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 326 0.9 0.0 21.3 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 184 1.7 0.0 21.3 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 184 1.7 0.0 21.3 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 StPatricl<-AmadorPlza.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 310. ~° 1.6 98. •• 1.6 10. •• 1.6 179. ~~ 1.6 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •• (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:52:49 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 1 Village-NB ramp.lst CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:56:36 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 14 Village Parkway and 680 NB Ramp RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/S BRG= WORST CASE CLAS= 7 (G) MIXH= 1000. M SIGTH= 5. DEGREES II. LINK VARIABLES Z0= 100. CM VD= 0.0 CM/S VS= 0.0 CM/S AMB= 1.4 PPM TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) ALT= 0. (M) LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Linl< A •• 6284 -181 6284 -246 ~~ AG 83 0.9 0.0 18.3 2. Linl< B •• 6284 -246 6284 -300 °° AG 51 1.7 0.0 18.3 3. Linl< C •• 6284 -300 6279 -453 '° AG 51 0.9 0.0 18.3 4. Linl< D •• 6297 -460 6298 -378 '° AG 916 0.9 0.0 18.3 5. Linl< E •• 6298 -378 6298 -319 '~ AG 916 0.9 0.0 18.3 6. Linl< F •• 6298 -319 6297 -176 ~~ AG 916 0.9 0.0 18.3 7. Linl< G •• 6284 -265 6300 -314 °° AG 32 1.7 0.0 18.3 8. Linl< H •• 6300 -314 6462 -325 '° AG 32 0.9 0.0 16.8 9. Linl< I ~• 6523 -313 6380 -311 °~ AG 0 0.9 0.0 16.8 10. Li nl< J •• 6380 -311 6298 -301 '~ AG 0 1.7 0.0 16.8 11. Li nl< I< •• 6370 -310 6284 -326 ~~ AG 0 1.7 0.0 16.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS •• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 6325 -280 1.7 2. Recpt 2 -• 6315 -339 1.7 3. Recpt 3 ~• 6243 -327 1.7 4. Recpt 4 ~• 6246 -277 1.7 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~° PRED BRG '` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 195. ~° 1.5 347. °° 1.5 28. •• 1.5 158. ~~ 1.5 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 1 Village-NB ramp.lst ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 1. Recpt 1 ~° 0.0 2. Recpt 2 ~~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 ~~ 0.0 4. Recpt 4 °~ 0.0 INI< 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:56:36 Page 2 AmadorVly-SanRamon.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:22:53 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 Job: O1 Amador and san Ramon RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 ~` AG 1542 0.9 0.0 42.7 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 1027 1.7 0.0 42.7 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 1392 0.9 0.0 42.7 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 1392 0.9 0.0 42.7 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 2220 0.9 0.0 42.7 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 2053 1.7 0.0 42.7 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 2097 0.9 0.0 42.7 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 2097 0.9 0.0 42.7 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 515 1.7 0.0 42.7 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 167 1.7 0.0 42.7 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 156 0.9 0.0 27.4 12. x EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 112 1.7 0.0 27.4 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 627 0.9 0.0 27.4 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 627 0.9 0.0 27.4 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 1003 0.9 0.0 27.4 16. x wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 638 1.7 0.0 27.4 17. x wB3 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 805 0.9 0.0 27.4 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 805 0.9 0.0 27.4 19. x LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 44 1.7 0.0 27.4 20. x LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 365 1.7 0.0 27.4 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Amadorvly-SanRamon.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 312. ~° 1.7 103. °~ 1.6 52. •• 1.6 176. ~~ 1.7 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •~ (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •~ 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:22:53 6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 AmadorVly-Regional.lst 1 CALINE4 - (DATED CALINE4x) 3.0.0 PC (32 BIT) VERSION (C) COPYRIGHT 2000, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 4/19/2010 at 9:24:53 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 Job: 02 Amador and Regional street RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 0.5 M/5 Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= 0.0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK ~• LINK COORDINATES (M) ~• EF H W DESCRIPTION ~• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 '` TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) 1. Y 561 •• 684 1256 711 1201 °` AG 94 0.9 0.0 21.3 2. Y 562 •• 711 1201 745 1133 °° AG 54 1.7 0.0 21.3 3. Y 563 •• 745 1133 800 1025 '° AG 298 0.9 0.0 21.3 4. Y 564 •• 800 1025 858 906 '° AG 298 0.9 0.0 21.3 5. Y NB1 •• 868 911 813 1024 '~ AG 573 0.9 0.0 21.3 6. Y NB2 •• 814 1024 761 1138 ~~ AG 243 1.7 0.0 21.3 7. Y N63 •• 761 1138 728 1205 ~° AG 356 0.9 0.0 21.3 8. Y NB4 •• 728 1205 700 1263 '~ AG 356 0.9 0.0 21.3 9. Y LTl ~• 720 1198 753 1134 °~ AG 40 1.7 0.0 21.3 10. Y LT2 •• 753 1134 802 1038 '~ AG 330 1.7 0.0 21.3 11. x EB1 •• 596 1103 682 1125 ~~ AG 1380 0.9 0.0 27.4 12. X EB2 •• 682 1125 750 1141 ~° AG 1267 1.7 0.0 27.4 13. x E63 •• 750 1141 826 1158 °° AG 1307 0.9 0.0 27.4 14. x EB4 ~• 826 1158 923 1182 °~ AG 1307 0.9 0.0 27.4 15. x w61 •• 924 1170 832 1147 '° AG 909 0.9 0.0 27.4 16. X wB2 •• 832 1147 757 1128 ~~ AG 665 1.7 0.0 27.4 17. X wB3 •• 757 1128 687 1111 ~` AG 995 0.9 0.0 27.4 18. x w64 •• 687 1111 599 1090 °° AG 995 0.9 0.0 27.4 19. X LT1 •• 674 1115 753 1134 '° AG 113 1.7 0.0 27.4 20. X LT2 •• 753 1134 841 1157 '° AG 244 1.7 0.0 27.4 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ~• COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR •• X Y Z 1. Recpt 1 ~• 805 1099 1.8 2. Recpt 2 °• 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 '• 729 1093 1.8 4. Recpt 4 ~• 778 1179 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 1 Amadorvly-Regional.lst RECEPTOR 1. Recpt 1 2. Recpt 2 3. Recpt 3 4. Recpt 4 ~` PRED BRG ~` CONC (DEG) ~` (PPM) 292. ~° 1.6 120. °~ 1.6 51. •• 1.6 181. ~~ 1.6 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONC/LINK (PPM) 3 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• CONC/LINK •~ (PPM) RECEPTOR •• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Recpt 4 -~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~`CONC/L ~` (PPM) RECEPTOR •~ 17 1. Recpt 1 °~ 0.0 2. Recpt 2 °~ 0.0 3. Recpt 3 '° 0.0 4. Recpt 4 ~~ 0.0 1 INI< 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run Ended on 4/19/2010 at 9:24:53 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 2 Dublin.rts Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average T able l: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.051 0.093 0.129 1.216 1.774 4.680 0.160 35 0.008 0.014 0.021 0.155 0.398 1.804 0.033 Pollutant Name: Carbon Mo noxide Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.964 1.654 2.050 5.125 12.327 22.073 1.665 35 0.570 0.965 1.108 1.083 2.093 14.292 0.889 Pollutant Name: oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.085 0.171 0.315 4.579 24.765 1.387 0.403 35 0.048 0.095 0.188 1.901 10.873 1.263 0.195 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide speed Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 943.988 1189.129 1681.973 2636.665 2502.932 266.271 1155.518 35 307.093 387.092 522.203 1488.433 2076.256 139.907 402.401 Pollutant Name: sulfur Dioxide Temperatur e: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.009 0.011 0.016 0.025 0.024 0.003 0.011 35 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.014 0.020 0.002 0.004 Page 1 Pollutant Name: PM2.5 speed MPH LDA LDT 5 0.048 0.102 35 0.008 0.017 Dublin.rts Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity 0% MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0.118 0.191 0.551 0.023 0.080 0.020 0.076 0.134 0.011 0.015 Pollutant Name: PM2.5 - Tire Wear speed MPH LDA LDT MDT 5 0.002 0.002 0.002 35 0.002 0.002 0.002 Pollutant Name: PM2.5 - Breal< wear speed MPH LDA LDT MDT 5 0.005 0.005 0.005 35 0.005 0.005 0.005 Pollutant Name: Gasoline - mi/gal speed Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.002 Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.005 Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 9.369 7.427 5.166 3.511 3.470 28.044 8.446 35 28.768 22.796 16.908 17.742 17.545 52.655 25.778 Pollutant Name: Diesel - mi/gal Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 29.156 29.156 19.477 4.688 4.032 0.000 6.817 35 29.156 29.156 19.477 6.115 4.032 0.000 7.943 Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average Page 2 Dublin.rts Table 2: Starting Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Time min LDA LDT MDT 5 0.006 0.010 0.030 10 0.011 0.020 0.059 20 0.021 0.038 0.115 30 0.031 0.056 0.168 40 0.040 0.072 0.218 50 0.048 0.086 0.265 60 0.056 0.100 0.310 120 0.086 0.156 0.510 180 0.083 0.153 0.507 240 0.088 0.162 0.539 300 0.094 0.171 0.571 360 0.099 0.181 0.602 420 0.104 0.190 0.634 480 0.108 0.199 0.665 540 0.113 0.208 0.696 600 0.118 0.217 0.727 660 0.123 0.226 0.758 720 0.128 0.235 0.788 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: ALL HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0.055 0.087 0.652 0.019 0.107 0.170 0.803 0.033 0.204 0.323 1.095 0.059 0.289 0.458 1.371 0.083 0.362 0.575 1.631 0.106 0.425 0.674 1.874 0.126 0.477 0.756 2.052 0.145 0.536 0.850 2.319 0.208 0.569 0.902 2.347 0.207 0.600 0.952 2.495 0.220 0.631 1.001 2.640 0.232 0.660 1.048 2.782 0.245 0.689 1.093 2.921 0.257 0.717 1.137 3.057 0.269 0.743 1.179 3.190 0.281 0.768 1.219 3.320 0.292 0.793 1.258 3.446 0.304 0.816 1.295 3.570 0.315 Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: ALL 5 0.084 0.150 0.400 0.836 0.905 2.976 0.215 10 0.166 0.296 0.791 1.639 1.774 3.587 0.401 20 0.324 0.577 1.545 3.142 3.400 4.757 0.757 30 0.473 0.842 2.263 4.509 4.880 5.858 1.091 40 0.614 1.091 2.943 5.740 6.212 6.890 1.403 50 0.745 1.326 3.587 6.835 7.397 7.854 1.692 60 0.869 1.544 4.194 7.795 8.435 8.749 1.960 120 1.364 2.404 6.652 9.103 9.851 12.384 2.886 180 1.283 2.269 6.375 9.369 10.139 12.001 2.782 240 1.388 2.452 6.932 9.644 10.436 13.017 2.984 300 1.481 2.614 7.423 9.927 10.743 13.956 3.167 360 1.561 2.755 7.847 10.220 11.060 14.818 3.328 420 1.630 2.876 8.205 10.521 11.385 15.602 3.469 480 1.687 2.976 8.496 10.831 11.721 16.310 3.589 540 1.732 3.056 8.721 11.150 12.066 16.939 3.688 600 1.766 3.115 8.879 11.477 12.420 17.492 3.766 660 1.787 3.154 8.971 11.813 12.784 17.967 3.824 720 1.796 3.171 8.996 12.158 13.158 18.365 3.861 Pollutant Name: oxides of Nitrogen Temperature 70F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.037 0.083 0.560 10 0.040 0.089 0.588 20 0.045 0.100 0.638 30 0.049 0.109 0.682 0 .053 .116 0.210 0.409 0.154 0.127 0.317 0.616 0.193 0.140 0.504 0.979 0.262 0.164 0.656 1.275 0.320 0.184 0.719 0.774 1.504 0.365 0.200 Page 3 Dublin.rts 50 0.056 0.122 0.749 0.857 1.666 0.398 0.212 60 0.058 0.127 0.773 0.906 1.760 0.419 0.220 120 0.062 0.136 0.843 0.912 1.773 0.422 0.234 180 0.062 0.137 0.843 0.909 1.766 0.418 0.234 240 0.062 0.136 0.837 0.904 1.756 0.411 0.233 300 0.061 0.134 0.826 0.897 1.743 0.403 0.230 360 0.060 0.132 0.811 0.888 1.726 0.393 0.226 420 0.059 0.129 0.792 0.878 1.706 0.382 0.222 480 0.057 0.126 0.769 0.865 1.682 0.369 0.216 540 0.056 0.122 0.742 0.851 1.655 0.354 0.210 600 0.053 0.117 0.710 0.836 1.625 0.337 0.202 660 0.051 0.111 0.675 0.818 1.590 0.319 0.194 720 0.048 0.105 0.635 0.799 1.553 0.298 0.184 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 12.214 15.293 21.445 2.822 2.014 13.235 13.752 10 13.711 17.212 24.221 5.628 4.016 15.431 15.616 20 17.206 21.672 30.643 11.193 7.987 19.742 19.890 30 21.368 26.964 38.224 16.696 11.914 23.946 24.891 40 26.197 33.087 46.963 22.137 15.797 28.044 30.620 50 31.693 40.042 56.860 27.515 19.634 32.034 37.077 60 37.856 47.828 67.915 32.831 23.427 35.918 44.262 120 88.220 111.091 157.025 55.839 39.846 53.357 101.401 180 100.137 126.143 178.392 65.970 47.075 57.601 115.250 240 112.035 141.161 199.690 75.502 53.877 61.595 129.035 300 123.914 156.146 220.919 84.437 60.253 65.341 142.755 360 135.774 171.096 242.080 92.774 66.202 68.837 156.409 420 147.616 186.011 263.172 100.513 71.724 72.084 169.999 480 159.439 200.893 284.195 107.654 76.820 75.082 183.523 540 171.243 215.741 305.150 114.197 81.489 77.831 196.983 600 183.028 230.555 326.035 120.142 85.731 80.331 210.377 660 194.794 245.334 346.852 125.489 89.547 82.582 223.706 720 206.542 260.080 367.600 130.238 92.936 84.584 236.971 Pollutant Name: sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 40 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 120 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 180 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 240 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 300 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 360 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 420 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 480 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 540 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 600 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 660 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 720 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 ALL ALL Page 4 Dublin.rts Pollutant Name: PM2.5 Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.001 10 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 20 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.002 30 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 40 0.003 0.007 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.005 50 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.006 60 0.005 0.010 0.009 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.007 120 0.008 0.016 0.015 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.011 180 0.009 0.018 0.017 0.005 0.004 0.007 0.012 240 0.009 0.019 0.019 0.005 0.004 0.008 0.013 300 0.010 0.021 0.020 0.005 0.004 0.010 0.014 360 0.011 0.022 0.021 0.005 0.004 0.011 0.015 420 0.011 0.023 0.022 0.005 0.004 0.012 0.016 480 0.012 0.024 0.023 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.016 540 0.012 0.025 0.024 0.005 0.005 0.014 0.017 600 0.012 0.025 0.024 0.006 0.005 0.014 0.017 660 0.012 0.025 0.024 0.006 0.005 0.015 0.017 720 0.012 0.025 0.024 0.006 0.005 0.015 0.017 Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average Table 4: Hot 5oal< Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.026 0.048 0.034 0.004 0.023 0.182 0.034 10 0.047 0.089 0.062 0.007 0.042 0.340 0.062 20 0.081 0.152 0.107 0.012 0.072 0.594 0.107 30 0.105 0.197 0.139 0.016 0.093 0.784 0.138 40 0.114 0.214 0.152 0.017 0.101 0.860 0.150 Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emiss ions for trip leng ths of less than 5 minutes (about 25% of in-use trips). Page 5 Dublin.rts Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average Table 5a: Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 70 0.033 0.071 0.062 0.002 0.001 0.455 0.061 Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average Table 5b: Multi-Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 70 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.005 Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Page 6 Dublin.rts Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average Table 6a: Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 70 0.014 0.040 0.042 0.001 0.001 0.144 0.028 Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average Table 6b: Multi-Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 70 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.002 Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average Table 7: Estimated Travel Fractions Page 7 Dublin.rts Pollutant Name: Temperature: ALL Relative Humidity: ALL LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL %VMT 0.526 0.335 0.089 0.038 0.004 0.008 1.000 %TRIP 0.509 0.300 0.124 0.057 0.001 0.010 1.000 %VEH 0.540 0.324 0.082 0.021 0.001 0.032 1.000 Title san Francisco Air Basin Avg winter CYr 2030 Default Title version Emfac2007 v2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2010/04/19 09:14:15 scen Year: 2030 -- All model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected season winter Area San Francisco Year: 2030 -- Model Years 1986 to 2030 Inclusive -- winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: v2.3 Nov 1 2006 San Francisco Basin Average Basin Average Table 8: Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams/minute) Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Time min LDA LDT MDT 1 0.008 0.247 0.228 2 0.006 0.129 0.119 3 0.007 0.092 0.086 4 0.009 0.075 0.071 5 0.010 0.065 0.062 10 0.013 0.046 0.045 15 0.014 0.042 0.042 20 0.016 0.041 0.041 25 0.017 0.042 0.042 30 0.017 0.044 0.044 35 0.018 0.045 0.046 40 0.019 0.047 0.048 45 0.019 0.049 0.049 50 0.020 0.050 0.051 55 0.020 0.052 0.052 60 0.021 0.053 0.053 Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: ALL HDT UBUS MCY ALL 0.057 0.294 0.004 0.111 0.030 0.152 0.038 0.059 0.021 0.106 0.057 0.044 0.017 0.083 0.069 0.037 0.015 0.069 0.078 0.034 0.010 0.043 0.100 0.028 0.009 0.035 0.114 0.027 0.009 0.033 0.125 0.027 0.009 0.032 0.134 0.028 0.010 0.034 0.142 0.029 0.010 0.035 0.148 0.031 0.011 0.037 0.155 0.032 0.011 0.038 0.161 0.033 0.011 0.039 0.167 0.034 0.012 0.041 0.173 0.035 0.012 0.042 0.179 0.036 Page 8 O O O W (h O O O (O O O O Q1 W V M O O O O O O O ~ ~ n O N ~ ~O ~ O ~ W (~j O O O (O O O O M 00 O W Z N O O O O O O O ~ ~ O n N ~ 00 ~ O Lf) ~O ~ O a ~ ~ 0 0 N ~ p 0 ~„~ Q1 t 0 0 0 V O ~ O O N ~ N O N ~O N ~ ~ pp O N M r ~ N N N O O O O ° ' W M O O O O O O O (O O O O O O W W W a °O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 u°, n „ N Q1 r r d k °~ O y ~ d c m N ~ ~ O k ~ ~ D W O y ~ O o u '~ °? a o W W W z ~ d) O O ~ ~ O n O a N o ~ Z u9 ~ Q1 _ ~ ~ 0 0 0 k ~ t N O O N E l!7 O 0 t 0 t 0 t O a W ~ O 0 0 ~! u~ 0 W W W o z v ri O O ~ c~ N O O o v m 0 ~ 00 ~ 00 M Q1 ~O N ~O O O ~ ~ O O O W O W ~ W 00 O O O Lf) O O W M O O 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ICJ N ~ ~ 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 t O d) O O (O N V O t t t W V ° N ri O o O o N o 00 ui o O o W ~ W n W ~ o N Q1 r r ~ ~ ~ r G1 7 0 0 N (O ~ (O 00 d) O O N 7~ U :+ U ~ ~ p V N N l!7 7 7 W Q ~ N U w 0 O ~ o O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ p V Q ~ p M R R ~ ~ N d ~ ~ C. L y N ~ '~ N N U N ~ C. H ~ w : _ L J ~ ' ~ ~ o J E ~ ~ d J ~ ~ ~ ` H N - a~ ~ O 'a .." ~ ~ ~6 w Y 0 H ~ N d N C f3 J m d N C 0 U N f3 (~ R L Z 0 LL N C .y .~ W ° a Z' W m V o O o O o O l!7 o O o O o O u~ ~ rn 0 o 0 o O o O ~ N .r, Q1 m 00 U p 0 0 0 O V O O O O O O O O ICJ O O a ~O O~ 00 O O O V O O O N O O O ICJ ~O a N W 0 0 0 O I~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~ ~ z~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a N X 0 0 O ~ O O O I~ ~ O) ~ 0 0 0 N n j n n O n O O O ~j O) O O O i O O O ~ M n pp O V O W O O O N O O O p p X 0 0 0 ~ ~ a 00 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ICJ °~ W ° (O V O O O O O O I~ V O O O O O O N ~ O) O O O O O O O O D W r O W r O W ' a o 0 0 0 o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ a , ~ a ~; ~ ~ ~ k~ ~ o O 0 O 0 O W I~ M O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O V V (0 N 0 O 0 O 0 O W W W fq N ~ 0 0 O M O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N M k O' N O O O N O O O V 0 0 0 N 0 r 0 r 0 O W ~ 0 0 O ~ 0 0 O N l!7 O O O W W W z ~ M 0 0 0 N O 0 0 V N O 0 0 ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ,e o ~ ~ (~ ~ W ~ 0 0 0 N O O O V N O 0 0 D O W O W O p ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O W N M ~ ~ ~ N N ° ~O o 0 0 O W ao N o O o O o O ~ O 0 O 0 O O V I~ V V O 0 O 0 O 0 W W W V p N 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ n N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ W N CO ~ V ~ l!7 l!7 N ~ ~ N N N p~ ~` ~ N ~ V N M ~ O N N ~ ~ O Y O t N 7 O 0 0 ~ O p O 00 O ~ ~_ ~ Q p O ~ R _ R ~ a ~ L d ~ Q ~ C) ~ U LL U Q- y N w _ ..-. 0 ~ ~ ~ y ' ~ > > LL LL L.L ~ ~ w C J ~ .~ (n (n L.L j ~ (n ~ ~ 7 ~ J ~ O N ~ ~ ~ _ O L 6 ~ " p j 0 C J Q Q H N N ~ _ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-' O ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ J Q N '6 (n 7 (6 ~ - O N ~ N Y H tll tll tll (6 ~ L E U N p U C ~ O N ~ O p ~ N ~ O 2 N ~ O U ~ 2 O W w 0 O 2 > O > N ~ O m H N d N R J A m d N C O U V ~L ++ V d W 0 LL N C .y .~ W ~ ~ Q ~ a ~ C C ~ O W U ~ E `o °~ N ~ (6 N ~ o L C m N ~ ~ O ~ ~ E L U N L~ O O N O a Q L C O Q C O T a~ W N C O 7 V R U a C O .~ .~ W N L 7 O O I~ M N M V V O O (O f6 0 W M (O M In M O M Gl I~ O W V ~ M O o0 In >. (O I~ O O N W ~ N N C W C O M O ~ ++ y U N 'C w E ~ ~ I~ ~ W V o0 M In N M O f6 I~ M ~ M V O M o0 (O F Gl (O o0 O V A V O o0 In >~ ~n o0 o c y O ~ M ~ N O ~ O O Q (O ~ In M N >• `w f6 v In o V z N ri o o0 ri N ri (O o O > a rn o N v c ~ D 0 ¢ ~ y ~ N 0 O M O ~ I~ rn v m m z ~ ~ ~ ao c~ c N a y m o0 oo rn m V fN6 0 M a .. ¢ N N ~ o0 In (O In Z (O N O O ~ M I~ V M O M r N ~ ~ >_ f6 W ~ V In O O D 'O N ~ O V Q (O 00 In O W N~ (O N O ~ (O O o0 (O OI C 3 O Q M r M V Z O V r O M O M V V I~ a 0 O ~ ~ y V (O M O f6 ~ a >~ ~ M Z N (O O ~ r V O O I~ O O In In O M O U .~ W V In N O O O O O O O O O W ~ D O O O O O O O I~ iy O O O O O O O N c O W o0 Q I~ N r V I~ In y G1 N N In ~ Z M In r O M O M W O I~ M V W N N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 f6 O O 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° Q ° ° ° ° ° ° ~ o o o o o o o o Z v N N N N N N N N > N N N N N N N N 3 Q M M M M M M M M O ¢ f6 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ~ r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N ~ a M M M M M M M M 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 `° `° z `° `° `° `° `° `° ~ ~ p ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 2 0 U z z ~ rn a a U U '~ a ~ O y i O ~ ,~ ~ z ~ `o a ~ m ~ a"i ~ U ~/1 :~ W ~ O ~ 07 N ~ ~ ~ f~ U ~ ~ a G Q O m O ~ i ~ O (6 N ~ ~ O G fl- O ~ ~ ~ w m . ?~ O o ~ Z Y O ~ ~ x ~ O 0 Q U o z a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O` ~ c6 m .O O ~ L ~ ~ 4 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 = rn o U m ~ .o v, N ~ ~' ~ ~ O to ~ N ~ t/1 O (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f/1 U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (J N O ~ ~U N d N Z, (6 W -o U ~ C ~ ~ Q ~ Q w W ~ ~ a N W ~ ~ N O Q ~ ~ N w ~ 0~O a~i ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ `o `o ~ ~ O Q ~ d ~ O ~ W ~ W O (~6 O ~ O ~/1 F .~_ cYO .~_ .O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W 07 W ~ c~i ri v w U U Q (6 .~ O .~ U N O .N N .~ W V d L_ O Q N O U L i+ C (6 N U N O d T N C W rn a~ w a~ m 0 .N .~ O U rn a~ w m .~ 0 .~ U a~ o~ w ~ N ~ U C jp >+ N > .J C tll O 7 U 'O i C N (6 i t O ~ N ~ O N U ~ w j ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ~ U T T ~ ~ i i ~ N C C ~ N O ~ ~ N N Q N +.-' m t ~ • ^ ^ ^ ! 1 ~ •^ ^ ~ ' ^ Project Name: Downtown D~ahlin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Aliee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amadar Plaza Road Segment: Between Amadar Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PRQJECT DATA SITE BATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ;;:.:;;:: ;; Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}; t7 Average Daily Traffic: ±x' Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 761 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1aU Vehicle Speed: 25 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: -: 3.[]..: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: ~ NOISE INPUTS Fad Elevation: t7.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: U FLEET M IX Observer Height [above grade}: t] T pe ^a Evenin Ni ht ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 4.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9d Lft View; -90 Med. Truck x.848 8.049 0.103 0.9184 NDISE 5OURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMiTIGATE^ NOISE LEVELS ~Nv topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Oay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 44.5 53.3 51.5 45.4 54.1 54.7 Medium Trucks: 56.2 48.1 41.7 40.1 48.6 48.9 Heav Trucks: fi2.3 50.4 41.3 42.5 52.9 53.1 Vehicle Noise: BS.a 55.5 52.5 48.7 51.2 57.8 MITIGAT EI] NOISE LEVELS tW ith topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Lsq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL AUtdS: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 80 so AO 20 .. ~i Q LL -2p '4d -(1~ -$0 •. ~ ..• ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70140239 Roadway: Amadgr Plaza Road Segment: Between Dublin Blvd, and 5#. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist tv Barrier 0 Road Grade: ``gym ~ ~`_ ..x:'~;:::.:;~ . Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: `~.~;7 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1077 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: Barrier Near Lane GL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation; ' Barrier Far fans CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ~ e can i ions RDad Elevation: Q FLEET M IX Qbserver Height {above grade}: 0 T e ^a Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auty 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9U Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 D.103 0.01$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 0.108 0.00T4 Autos: p Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATE^ NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 46.1 54.9 53.1 47.0 55.5 55.2 Medium Trucks: 57.7 49.7 43.3 41.7 5a.2 50.4 Heav Trucks: 53.9 51.9 42.9 44.1 54.5 54.5 Vehicle Noise: 66.5 58.1 54.1 50.Z 58.8 59.1 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Paak Leq Leq Day Leq E~ertirtg Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Unmitigated IMitiaated Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -. ..• ~ • Prpject Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amadar Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Amadar Plaza Rd. and Village Pkwy. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier fl Road Grade: 'i==:0 barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: ~~~~~'. Receiver Barrier Dist: Q Peak Hour Traffic: 1693 Genterline Dist. To Observer: 1Dt] Vehicle Speed: _30, Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: la Centerline Separation: ~=-42 Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 17.3 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 4 FLEET MIX ^bserver Height (above grade}: a T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 9d Lft View: -9U Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGAT{=D NOIS E LSVELS {No topographic or barrier attenua#ion) Vehivle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.1 58.9 57.1 51.0 59.6 60.2 Medium Trucks: 60.7 52.6 46.2 44.7 53.1 53.4 Flea Trucks: 66.3 54.4 45.3 4fi.6 56.7 55.8 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 61.3 57.8 53.5 fi2.D 82.4 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [W i#h topograph ic ^r barrier at#enuation) Vehicie Type Peak Leq Leq pay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CN~L Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle !Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Unmitigated 209 30D 66 21 2DD 7DD v D u.. -i DD -20D -3D0 Roadway Centerline Neise Contour -.- •. -~ is •~ ~ ..• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing nalyst: Brian Allee Job #: 74100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between ^onahue Dr. and Amador Plaza Rd. PROJECT DATA SITE ^ATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~~ Barrier 4-wall, 1- berm : 0 t ) Avera a Dail Traffic: 9 Y ~;, 6'I.(}; ,... Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 14fi1 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: -~.. 3Q barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 42 ................ . Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 4 Auto Q.775 Q.129 4.496 0.9742 Rt View: 9U Lfl View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0'184 N015E SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 4.865 Q.Q27 Q.1Q8 Q.OQ74 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: S UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ~ No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEt Autos: 49.4 58.2 56.4 50.4 59.0 59.6 Medium Trucks: 60.0 52.Q 45.6 44.4 52.5 52.7 Heav Trucks: 65.7 53.8 44.7 45.9 56.0 56.2 Vehicle Noise: 68.2 60.7 57.2 52.8 61.4 61.8 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuatian~ Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEt Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 2DD ~~v ~aD ~D -5D iDD 150 zaa -^- ~ '~ ~ ~ is ^ -• ~ ~a • ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^reft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Pkwy. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to barrier 4 Road Grade: ~~~=;;~i',.:.` Barrier {0=wall, 1 ~ bean}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ``~ ~Po'fi'9a Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Haur Traffic: 12T9 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 10D Vehicle Speed: ~'' ~: ~:. Barrier Near Lane Ct ^ist: U Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NDISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can i lens Road Elevation: Q FLEET MIX Obsen+er Height {above grade}; 4 Type Day Evenin Night ^ail barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.098 0.9742 Rt View: 9Q Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0'184 N015E SdURCE ELEVATIDNS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.885 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: Q Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: $ UNMITIGATEI] ND15 E LEVELS { Nv topographic ^r barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Hight Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.9 57.8 55.9 49.8 58.4 59.0 Medium Trucks: 59.5 51.4 45.0 43.4 51.9 52.2 Heav Trucks: 65.1 53.2 44.1 45.3 55.5 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 6T.B GQ.1 5fi.6 52.3 GQ.$ 51.2 MITIGATED NQISE LEVEL5 {W ith topographi c or barrier attenuation} Vehiele Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq l+tight Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 2i1a '[ 5Q 10~ 5a a LL -rJO -~ ~~ -150 -200 •. ~ ~.- ~ f Project Name: Dpwnfown l7ubiin Specific Flan ^raft EIR Scenario: Existing nalyst: Brian Allee Job #: 7D100239 Roadway: Amadar Valley boulevard Road Segment: Between Regional St. and Starward Dr. PROJECT []ATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier D Road Grade: °'k--~Q ~ ~ Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}; D Average DailyTratfic: x-r`"1 ; 3 Receiver barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 1433 Centerline Dist. Ta Ql~server: 1DD Vehicle Speed: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: ` ~..~2.. barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: Q.5 i e can itions Road Elevatiar~: 0 FLEET PIII17[ Observer Height (above grade}: D T e Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 x.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt V'sew: 94 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 OA49 0.103 0.0184 NaISE 5at1RCE ELEVATIQNS tF'eet] Heavy Truck D.865 O.D27 0.108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 . Hea Trucks: $ UNMlTIGATEt] NQIS E LEVELS ~ No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak L$q Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: .49.4 58.1 56.3 50.3 58.9 59.5 Medium Trucks: 60.0 51.9 45.5 43.9 52.4 52.7 Heav Trucks: 55.6 53.7 44.6 45.8 56.0 56.1 Vehicte Noise: 68.1 6D.6 57.1 52.7 61.3 61.7 MITIGAT ED N015E LEVELS iMi' ith topographi c ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Laq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway C®nteriine Noise Contour •.• ~. -r is -. .~• ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin 5pecitiG Plan Draft EiR Scenario; Existing Analyst: Brian Aliee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between San Rarnon Rd, and Regional St. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: ' ~ ~' ~ Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ~ ,;1 Receiver Barrier Dist: f! Peak Mour Traffic: 9506 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 9[IO Vehicle Speed: . Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation- ;;:;;'` Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: d.5 E e con I Ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: 0 T e Da Evenin Ni ht ^ail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 11.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 OA184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 AUtdS: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~aning Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.6 58.4 56.6 50.5 59.1 59.8 Medium Trucks: 50.2 52.1 45.7 44.2 52.7 52.9 Hea Trucks: 65.8 53.9 44.8 46.1 56.2 56.3 Vehicle Noise: 68.4 sU.9 57.3 53.0 69.5 62A MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 250 244 150 100 5D -50 -ifl0 -150 -200 -z5D ~ ~ •. ..• ~ Project Name: tJowntawn Dublin Specific Plan Qraft FIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Job #; 70101}239 Roadway: Amador Valley boulevard Road Segment: Between 5tarward ^r. and Donahue Dr. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Genterfine Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~~'' '' ` Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 0 Average Daily Traffic: - 1 ~3~'I Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hvur Traffic: 1331 Centerline Dis#. To Observer: 140 Vehicle Speed: ;; ; ;..; ` " Barrier Near Lana CL Dist; 0 Centerline Separation: ~~~'~;::;~;;..,,,,.: Barrier Far lane GL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ~ e can i ions Road tievation: 4 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 T pe Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height; 4 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NDiSE SQURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 0.02T 0.108 D.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vahicie Type Peak Leq Leq ^ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.0 57.8 56.0 49.9 58.6 59.2 Medium Trucks: 59.5 51.6 45.2 43.5 52.1 52.3 Hea Trucks: 65.3 53.3 44.3 45.5 55.6 55.8 Vehicle Noise: fi7.8 fifl.3 5fi.8 52.4 fi1.4 61.4 MITIGATED N015E LEVELS [With topograph ic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ ~ • • ~ ~ ~ Project Name: Rowntown ^ublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Anaiyst: Brian A11ee Job #; 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Bauievard Road Segment: West of San Raman Rd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier U Road Grade: ` `.0. ; : Barrier [D=wall, 1=berm}: 0 :: Average Daily Traffic: ~~' Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 296 Centerline Dist. To ^hserver: 100 Vehicle Speed: ~~.. :;30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~ 3 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUT5 Pad Elevation: 0.5 ~ e con itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Qbserver Height {above grade]: 0 T e Day Evening Night Dail Barrier Height; 0 Auto 0.775 D.129 D.D96 D.9742 Rt View: 94 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck ^.848 O.fl49 0.143 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVAT}ONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.855 O.D27 0.108 O.D074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2,3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ~ Na topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehiale Typa Peak Leq L®q Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 42.6 51.4 49.6 43.5 52.1 52.8 Medium Trucks; 53.2 45.1 3$.T 37.2 45.7 45.9 Hea Trucks: 58.8 4fi.9 37.8 39.1 49.2 49.3 Vehicle Noise: 89.4 53.8 50.3 48.0 54.5 54.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR LJnmitipated test 5a 4Q 30 20 _ ~Q Q u. _10 -20 -30 ~0 -50 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ ~ • •a • ••- i Project Name: t]owntown Dublin Specific Plan Draft LIR Scenario: Existing alyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: ^ublin Bouievard Road Segment: Between Amador Pia~a Raad and Village Parkway PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 ;.::; ~ Barrier (0=wai#, 1=berm}: d Average Daiiy Traffic: F M(y,,: Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2030 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1Dt3 Vehicle Speed: 3~: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: d Genterline Separation: ,:~. 4ET Barrier Far lane GL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con Itlons Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Ofserver Height (above grade}: 0 T e Da Evenin Night Bail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lit View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 OA49 0.103 0.0184 N015E SOURCE ELEVATIONS {I=eet~ Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 52.8 6'1.6 59.8 53.7 62.4 53.0 Medium Trucks: 52.5 54.5 48.1 46.5 55.0 55.2 Heavy Trucks: 67.8 55.8 46.8 48.0 57.9 88.0 Vehicle Noise: 70.E 63.6 60.4 55.7 G4,3 84.7 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [With topographic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 444 a44 zc4 100 d a LL -~ oa -204 -340 -404 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour .,. .~ -^ is •. ..- ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR 5cenaria: Existing Analyst: 6rian Allee Job #: 7111 OD239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Parkway PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier U Q.. Barrier {D=wall, 1 ~ berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: '~~~ 21;35f~; Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2'i35 Centerline Dist. To Observer: tQ0 Vehicle Speed: ! - I ':~~~35 ~::, Barrier Near Lane GL Dist: D Centerline Separation: ~:!. 4Q:.: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 4 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con I Inns Road Elevation: 17 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: 4 T pe Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 4 Autn D.775 0.129 D.D96 0.9742 Rt View: 94 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 D.1U3 D.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS ~Feety Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 D.108 D.DD74 Autos: a Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ No topographie or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.0 51.8 EDA 54.0 62.8 63.2 Medium Trucks: 82.8 54.7 48.3 46.7 55.2 55.5 Hea Trucks: 68.D 58.0 47A 48.2 58.1 58.2 Vehicle Noise: 70.4 63.8 Gt7.6 55.9 54.5 64.9 MITIGATED ND15E LEVELS W ith topograph ic or Farrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~ening Leq Night 1-dn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR ~ n m iti 368 ~aa 118 4aQ 37 3aa 20a 1 cfl d a ~` -~aa i -zoo Ctoadway Centerline Noise Contour ~. ~ is -. ..• ~ ~ Project Name: Downtown 17ublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between Golden Gate Drive and Amadar Plaza Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier fl Road Grade: , _. a Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm): 0 Average ^aily Traffic: ">:'F6720 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1672 Centerline Dist. To observer: 1 a0 Vehicle Speed: ~ ~ .~ X Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~"~~ ' '`'.`40 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: t7 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ~ e can i ions Road Elevation: 4 FLEE7 M Ix Observer Height (above grade}: a T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 8 Auto 0.775 0.129 OA96 0.9742 Rt View: 94 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 N015E 50URCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: a Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATE4 NOIS E LEVELS [No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 52.0 60.8 59.0 52.9 61.5 52.2 Medium Trucks: 61.7 53.6 47.3 45.7 54.2 54.4 Heav Trucks: 55.9 55.0 45.9 47.1 57.1 57.2 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 62.7 59.5 54.$ 53.4 63.9 MITIGAT E^ NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} VehiG[e Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 460 300 200 100 -100 -200 -300 -~aa Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ ~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ ^ • •~ ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^ra€t EiR Scenario: Existing Analyst: 6rian Ailee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive PRaJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier Q Raad Grade: ~.:-_:'....0 Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: Q Average Daily Traffic; : 1:7`,`1.~~. Receiver Barrier Dist: d Peak Hour Traffic: 1T't2 Centerline Dist. To ^bserver: tQt] Vehicle Speed: ~: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: Q Centerline Separation: ~'.; 4t} Barrier Far lane CL Dist: ^ NO15E INPUTS Pad Elevation: t7.5 c e con i ions Road Elevation: U FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: 0 T e Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: t] Auto 0.775 0.129 0.09fi 6.9742 Rt View: SO Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 4.848 OA49 0.13 t}.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 0.1U8 x.0074 Autos: U Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: $ UNMITIGATE^ NOIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening L®q Night Ldn GNEL Autos: 52.1 50.9 59.1 53.E 51.5 62.3 Medium Trucks: 61.8 53.7 47.4 45.8 54.3 54.5 Hea Trucks: 57.0 55.1 4fi.0 47.3 57.2 57.3 Vehicle Noise: 69.5 fi2.8 59.6 55.8 53.5 64.Q MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} V®hicle Type Peak Leq Leq Ray Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Cen#erline Noise Gontaur ~ -~ ~ ~ Project Name: ^awntawn ^u61in Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Dut7lin Boulevard Road Segment: Between San Ramon Road and Regional Street PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist fo Barrier 0 Road Grade: 4 Barrier (a=wall, 1=berm}: 4 Average ^aily Tra#fic: ~C~iJ, Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2022 Centerline Dist. To Ct3server: 100 Vehicle Speed: :`35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: t] FLEET MIX Cbserver Height (above grade}; 4 Tye Da Evening Ni ht ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NDISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet) Heavy Truck 0.$fi5 0.1327 0.108 17A074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 52.7 61.5 59.7 53.5 fi2.3 62.9 Medium Trucks: 62.5 54.4 48.0 4fi.4 54.9 55.2 Heav Trucks: 67.7 55.7 4fi.7 47.5 57.8 57.9 Vehicle Noise: 7~.1 63.5 60.3 55.6 64.2 64.6 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [With topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 4flfl 300 200 100 -100 -2oa -sao -aao ~ -~ ^ ^~ + ^ Project Name: Downtown Dur7lin Specific !'Ian Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: West of San Ramon Road PROJECT DATA SITE RATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~ ;" Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: U Average Daily Traffic: `~~ ,;~~~ Receiver Barrier Dist: Q Peak Hour Traffic: 1623 Centerline ^ist. Ta Observer: 1D0 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: =::: ~;;a1: Barrier I^ar lane CL Dish Q NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D,5 ite can i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Gbserver Height above grade}; 0 Type Da Evening Ni ht ^ail Barrier Heigtlf: Q Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck 0.848 OA49 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 OA27 x.148 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED Ni31S E LEVELS {Na topographic ar harrier at#enuatian} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Nigh! Ldn CNEL Autos: 51.7 fi0.5 58.7 52.6 E1.3 51.9 Medium Trucks: fi1.4 53.3 47.0 45.4 53.9 54.1 Heav Trucks: 66.6 54.7 45.6 45.9 56.8 55.9 Vehicle Noise: 89.1 62.a 59.2 54.6 fi3.1 63.6 MITIGAT E^ NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CDNTQUR tJnmitiaated 28 281 ated 400 300 2ao goo avi 0 u. -1Qfl -20p -300 -4a0 ~_. Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -~ Project Name: Downtown Duhlin Specific Plan Draft EIR ..- a s Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 101 x0239 Roadway: Golden Gate Drive Road Segment: Between ^ublin Blvd. and St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: Q. Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: ~;,. Receiver Barrier Dist: a Peak Hour Traffic: 311 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1 DD Vehicle Speed: ~ ~ ::: 25 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: '~`F~- . 24'; Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 itE can ~ ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: D T pe Day Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 t7.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 D.103 OA1$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet Heavy Truck 0.885 0.021 0.108 O.OOT4 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ No topographic ar harrier attenuation} Vehiele Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 40.7 49.5 47.7 41.fi 58.3 50.9 Medium Trucks: 52.4 44.3 31.9 35.4 44.8 45.1 Hea Trucks: 58.5 45.6 37.5 38.8 49.2 49.3 Vehicle Noise: 61.2 52.8 48.7 44.9 53.4 53.8 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS (W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation] Vehiole Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 3D 2Q ~v m a -i o -aa -36 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. ..- ^ Project Name: Downtown ^ublin Specific Plan Draft EfR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 7010fl239 Roadway: Golden Gate ^rive Road Segment: South of St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ,:,~~~:. ,< , Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: ... ..::. 11,. Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 105 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1QQ Vehicle Speed: ;:~~ '. `~.5 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist- 0 Centerline Separation: -: 23 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NGISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i i4ns Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {abQVe grade}; 0 T pe ^a Evening Ni ht ^ail barrier He"sght: D Auto 0.775 4.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 80 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.84$ 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NGISE SGURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.627 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: ~.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED N015 E LEVELS [ No topographic or barrier attenuation Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 36.0 44.8 43.0 36.9 45.fi 45.2 Medium Trucks: 47.7 39.5 33.2 31.7 40.Z 40.4 Heav Trucks: 53.8 41.9 32.8 34.1 44.5 44.6 Vehicle Noise: 56.5 48.1 44.a 40,2 48.7 48.1 MITIGATED NGISE LEVELS [With topographic or Farrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leg Might Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 10 a°i 0 LL -~ -'~ ~ ~... •.• •. . -^ is •~ ..• a Project Name: Downtown Duhlin Specific Plan C3raft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Regional5treet Road Segment: between Amadar Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Raad Grade: ~ . _ '==~"~. Barrier ~0-wall, 1=berm]: 6 Average Daily Traffic: 5,45Q~: % Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 545 :. , Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 1DD Vehicle Speed: . ~, ::::mow 30 Barrier Near Lane C~ Dist: D Centerline Separation: " : 2~: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 Ite con ~ Ions Road t;levaticn: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Fleight (above grade}: D T pe Da Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height: D Auta 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -94 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.'103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ~ No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 45.4 54.2 52.4 46.3 55A 55.5 Medium Trucks: 56.0 48.0 41.6 40A 48.5 48.7 Flea Trucks: 61.7 49.7 40.7 41.9 52.0 52.1 Vehicle Aloise; 64.2 56.7 53.1 48.8 57.4 57.8 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS W ith topographi c or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -.- _~ -^ is •. ..- ~ ^ Project Narne: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR Scenario: ExlSting nalyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Regional Street Road Segment: South of Dublin blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier a Road Grade: ': Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily TrafFic: 57i~~ Receiver barrier Dist; fl Peale Hour Traffic: 557 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 10U Vehicle Speed: ~=;:gip;. Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~~ 5; Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ~ e can itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}; 0 T e Day Evening Ni ht ^ail Barrier Height: d Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 D.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft Vsew: -80 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS ~Feet~ Heavy Truck 4.865 0.027 0.108 O.D074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED NDISE LEVELS ~ No topographic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Laq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 45.5 54.3 52.5 46.4 55.1 55.7 Medium Trucks: 55.1 48.4 49.7 40.1 48.5 48.8 Heav Trucks: 61.8 49.8 40.8 42.0 52.1 52.2 Vehicle Noise: 64.3 56.8 53.2 48.9 57.5 57.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS (1N ith topographi c ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq ^ay Leq Evening Leq N'sght Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour - ~ ~ + ~ • i 1 ~ •^ ^ ~~ ~ Project Name. downtown Dublin Specific Plan !]raft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian A11ee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Raad Segmen#: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: `: ' ~! k.:..:.::: ~ .::: ` Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: :.i: 2~'lbl 0 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2407 Centerline Dist. To flf~server: 140 Vehicle Speed: ~===== .' Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~.. x;;;;: ...~~:. Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con itions Raad Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: 0 T e Da Evenin Ni ht ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 OA96 0.9742 Rt View; 90 Lft View: -80 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0'1$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.148 0.0474 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~N^ topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.9 63.7 61.9 55.8 64.4 65A Medium Trucks: 63.8 55.8 49.4 47.8 56,3 55.5 Heav Trucks: 68.7 5E.7 47.7 48.9 58.6 58.7 Vehicle Noise: 71.1 65.2 62.3 57.4 G5.9 fifi.4 MITIGAT E^ NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks; Vehicle Noise: 800 sad 404 200 0 -2~0 -400 -soo -sod iv a~ LL Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ^ ^ ^ rr • Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Road Segment: North of Amador Valley Blvd. PRO.lECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: -~-i , , , ,4. Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: `19,03 Reoeiver Barrier Gist: 0 Peak Haur Traffic: 19D3 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1Q0 Vehicle Speed: :4D: Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: "` 50 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: Q NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con I ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: Q T pe Day Evenin Night Dail Barrier Heigh#: D Auto 0.775 0.129 x.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet) Heavy Truck 0.8fi5 0.027 0.108 DA074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.9 52.7 50,9 54.8 63.5 64.1 Medium Trucks: 62.9 54.8 48.4 48.9 55.3 55.6 Heav Trucks: 67.7 55.8 45.7 48.0 57.7' 57.8 Vehicle Noise: 70.1 64.3 6'1,4 5fi.4 65.0 65.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {With topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ^ •^ ~ ~^ f Project Name: Qowntawn Qul7lin Specific Plan ^raft LIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian P,Ilee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: San Raman Road Road Segment: South of Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Qist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: ,....:0 Barrier (Q=waI4, 1=berm}: Q Average 17aily Traffic: 31.:~9~kd. Receiver Barrier ^ist: 4 Peak Hour Traffic: 37U4 Centerline ^ist. To Observer: 14U n„~,.~...:: Vehicle Speed: fir: s :~< Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: '" ,65 Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: t7.5 ~ e con itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: Q T e Day Evenin Night fail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View; 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.1x3 0.01$4 NOISE 50URCE ELEVATIONS Feet) Heavy Truck x.855 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: U Medium Trucks: 2.3 Flea Trucks; 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { Na topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.8 55.5 83.7 57.7 fi8.3 66.9 1Vledium Trucks: 65.7 57.8 51.3 49.7' 58.2 58.4 Hea Trucks: 70.6 58.6 49.fi 50.8 60.5 60.6 Vehicle Noise: 72.9 67.1 64.2 59.2 67.8 fi8,3 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL. Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise; Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 1000 504 500 -1040 .,. ., -^ is •. ..- s i'r4ject Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian AI1ee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Road Segment: East of Amador Plaza Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 ;~ `~~A: Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average ©aily Traffic: :,.: `,~:1 ti< ~ ;; Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1050 Centerline ^ist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ~~,; Barrier Near Lane CL Dis#: 0 Centerline Separation: 2 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Autn 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9Q Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 OA49 0.103 O.fl184 NOISE 50URCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.10$ 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks; 8 UNMITIGATED N015E LEVELS [ No topographic ar barrier a#tenuatign} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 46.1 54.9 53.1 47.0 55.7 56.3 Medium Trucks: 57.7 49.7 43.3 41.7 50.2 50.4 Hea Trucks: 63.9 52.0 42.9 44.1 54.5 54.6 Vehicle Noise: 86.E 58.1 54.9 50.3 58.8 59.2 MITIGATED N015E LEVELS W ith topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Fype Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour X00 5a -~a ~aa -.- _~ -~ is •. .~- a f project Name: Downtown ^ubiin Specific Plan Draft E1R Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Jvb #' 70100239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Road Segment: Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to barrier Q ~;'';:~;:-.= 0 barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: 4 Average Daily Traffic: ~ :.. ::2:;340 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 234 Centerline Dist. To observer: 1Q0 Vehicle Speed: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 4 Centerline Separation: .- Barrier Far lane CL Dist; 4 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: t1.5 Ite can Itlons Rvad Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Qbserver Height {above grade}: Q T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: Q Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View; 90 Lft View: -9d Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 4.108 O.OD74 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn GNEL Autos: 39.fi 4$.4 45.6 40.5 49.1 49.7 Medium Trucks: 51.2 43.2 36.8 35.2 43.7 43.9 Hea Trucks; 57.4 45.4 35.4 37.8 48.0 48.1 Vehicle Noise: 614.0 57.6 4'7.6 43.7 52.3 52.6 MITIGAT ED 1VOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ 25 2fl t5 ~o 5 d a LL _5 -1a -~~ -20 -25 -.- •. -~ is -. ..• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee .lob #: 79100239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Road Segment: West of Golden Gate Drive PRnJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier Q ~,;-x" ' `.;`.~; Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: Receiver Barrier Dist: t3 Peak Hour Traf€ic: 31 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1t)Q Vehicle Speed: ~;xs.. 25. , Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: d Centerline Separation: : : . ` .:..... ~a; Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 13.5 Ite con I Ions Road Elevation: Q FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evening Ni ht ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 x.129 0.096 9.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -g0 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 4A1$4 N015.E SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feety Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.148 0.0074 Autos: ~ Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 LJNMITIGATE© Nd15 E LEVELS { No topographic or harrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 39.8 39.fi 37.8 31.7 40.4 41.0 Medium Trucks: 42.4 34.4 28.0 2fi.4 34.9 35.1 Hea Trucks: 48.6 35.7 27.fi 28.8 39.2 39.3 Vehicle Noise: 51.3 42.8 38.8 35.9 43.5 43.9 MITIGAT ED NGISE LEVELS {With topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• ~~ ~ ~: •. ..• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Drat ElR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: '''_' ` .0., Barrier ~0=wall, 1= berm): D Average Daily Traffic: 12,35Ck Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1235 Centerline Dist. To observer: 1D0 Vehicle Speed: .................. . ;:';'x;30 ~: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: ~'`µ 49 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Fteight above grade}; D T pe Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Fleight; D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0'1$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet} Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks; t3 UNMITIGATED NO15 E LEVELS ~Na topographic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.6 57,4 55.6 49.5 58.2 58.8 Medium Trucks: 59.2 51.1 44.8 43.2 51.7 59.9 Heav Trucks: 64.9 52.9 43.9 45.1 55.2 55.3 Vehicle Noise: 87.4 59,9 56.3 52.0 60.5 61.0 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NO15E CONTOUR Unmitigated t3A :::- 15 iti Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. ..• f Prp~ect Name: ^awntawn Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: Brian Allee ,lob #: 701 D4239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: between Dublin Blvd. and 4-680 N6 Dn Ramp PRn.IECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier d Road Grade: ;:.: Barrier 40=wall, 1= berm): Q Average ©aily Traffic: ........... _.:'='~.8", Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 484 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 104 Vehicle Speed: ~'"`rv~ 3Qi; Barrier Near Lane CL Dis#: U Centerline Separation: ~:~~: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 4 N015E INPUTS Pad Elevation: p,5 I e con l Ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height ~abave grade]: d T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Autp O.T75 0.129 4A9fi 4.9742 Rt View: 94 Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck 4.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 4.865 0.027 4.108 4.4074 Autos: d Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED N015E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 44.9 53.7 51.9 45.8 54.5 55.1 Medium Trucks: 55.5 47.5 41.1 39.5 48.4 48.2 Heav Trucks: 61.2 49.2 40.2 41.4 51.5 51.6 Vehicle Noise: 63.7 56.2 5F.6 48.3 5fi.9 57.3 MITIGAT ED NGISE LEVELS ~llll ith topographi c or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Even'sng Leq Hight Ldn CHEL Autos: Medium Trucks' Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 8fl 60 ao 2a d a LL -2Q -40 -6fl -so Roadway Centerline Hoise Contour •.• •. ~ is -. ..- ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Existing Analyst: 6rian Allee Job #: 7010D239 Raadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: North of Amador Valley Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centeriine Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: `~~~. Barrier {0=wall, 1 W bert'n}; D Average Daily Traffic: ~'.13,fi9C>. Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1369 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1 DD Vehicle Speed: ~; :; Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: :k~x~'i4' Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 ite con i ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}; D T pe Da Evening Ni ht DaiE Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 O.D96 4.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -9D Med. Truck D.848 O.D49 4.103 D.D184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIQNS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Atrtas: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS { No topographic ar barrier attenuation Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq l7ay Leq Enening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.2 57.9 56.2 5D.1 58.7 59.3 Medium Trucks: 59.8 51.7 45.3 43.7 52.2 52.5 Heav Trucks: 65.4 53.5 44.4 45.5 55.8 55.9 Vehicie Noise: 87.9 6D.4 58.9 52,6 61.1 61.5 MITIGATE^ NOISE LEVELS (With topographic ar barrier attenuatian~ Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Aay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 2afl ~ 150 100 50 a LL -sa -~ as -~ ~a -2aa Raadway Centerline Noise Contour •. Pro3ect Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~.• ~ Scenario: Existing Analyst; Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: South of I-680 NB On Ramp PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: '. iii Barrier (D=wall, 1-berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: : `t~~9 Receiver Barrier Dist: 4 Peak Hour Traffic: 99 Centerline Dist. To Observer; 1DQ Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~=ia Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPl1T5 Pad Elevation: t1.5 i e con ~ ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MUC Observer Height (above grade}: 0 T pe ^a Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 4.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View; 9U Lft View: -9fl Med. Truck 0.848 4.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIDN5 {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.13fi5 4.027 0.108 0..4074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS [Nv topographic yr kaarrier attenuation} V$hicie Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 38.0 45.8 45.0 38.9 47.6 4$.2 Medium Trucks: 48.6 40.6 34.2 32.6 41.1 41.3 Heav Trucks: 54.3 42.3 33.3 34.5 44.6 44.$ Vehicle Noise: 56.8 49.3 45.7 41.4 50.D 50.4 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Laq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 15 10 5 m d LL _rj -~i fl -15 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• ~~ -~ is •. ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Plaza Road Segment: Between Amadar Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: €]x Barrier [0=wall, ~= berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic „ `~~m~, ;„; .: Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 838 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 2~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Cen#erline Separation: ;;;;`~"`;~3 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can I Sons Road Elevation: 4 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 x.103 0.4184 NO15E SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 4.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: Z.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq E~aning Leq Night Ldn CNEt Autos: 44.9 53.7 51.9 45.8 54.5 55.1 Medium Truclts: 5fi.6 48.5 42.1 40.6 49.1 49.3 Heavy Trucks: fi2.7 50.8 41.7 43.0 53.4 53.5 Vehicle Noise: 65.4 57.U 52.9 49.1 57.6 58.0 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [With topograph ic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Avfos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour $d 60 4Q 20 ~, 0 LL -20 -ao -6D -8fl -• • a • ~ is • ^ • •• + Project Name: Downtown Dublin 5pec'rfic Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Joh #' 70940239 Roadway: Amador Plaza Road Segment: Between Dublin Blvd. and St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: 1:~' Receiver Barrier Dist: 4 Peak Hour Traffic: 1313 Centerline Dist. To Qbserver: 100 Vehicle Speed: 25r Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 2 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NO15E INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: 0 T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auta 4.775 x.129 4.096 0.9742 Rt View: SO Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 4.848 4.449 4.143 4.4184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Peaty Heavy Truck 4.8fi5 4.427 0.148 0.4074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NO15 E LEVELS [No topographsc ar barrier attenuati~nJ Vehicte Type Peak Leq Leq 13ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn GNEL Autos: 46.9 55.7 53.9 47.8 56.5 57.1 Medium Trucks: 58.8 50.5 44.1 42.6 51.1 51.3 Heav Trucks: G4.7 52.8 43.7 45.0 55.4 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 67.4 59.0 54.9 51.1 5g.8 88.0 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topographic ar harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn GNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Center{ine Noise Contour 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -750 • ~ ~ + ~ ~ 4 ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ - • ^ Project Name: Downtown Dutalin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jot3 #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment; between Amador Plaza Rd, and Village Pkwy. I?R~JECT pATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: ` ```' ` 0: Barrier ~0-wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: ;;;1:B4F~: Receiver Barrier Dist: U Peak Haur Traffic: 1784 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 1Q0 Vehicle Speed: x":.30 ~ Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: Q Centerline Separation: ;`;42 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NGISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: p.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Meight {above grade}: 0 T e ^ay Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height: t] Auta 0.775 4.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 94 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NGISE SGURCE ELEVATIGNS Feet] Heavy Truck 0.885 0.027 0.108 0.0074 utas: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NGIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.3 59.1 57.3 51.2 59.9 50.5 Medium Trucks: 60.9 52.$ 46.5 44.9 53.4 53.6 k-leav Trucks: 85.5 54.6 45.6 46.8 55.9 57.0 Vehicle Noise: 69.1 61.6 5t3.t7 53.7 fi2.2 62.7 MITIGATED NGISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Oay Leq E~en'sng Leq !Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: I Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 3DD 2afl 10fl ap1i ~ -1fl0 -200 -300 - a a + ^ ^ ^ 1 ~ '^ ^ ^ ! Project Name: ^owntown f]ublin Specific Plan i7raft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian AIlee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Donahue Dr. and Amador Plaza Rd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~` ::'~: Barrier [0-wall, 1 ~ berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ": '=' "15?~`` Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1504 Genterline Dist. To Observer: 140 ~..,... Vehicle Speed: ;; Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 , Centerline Separation: ~ ;~ .:::x,„ ;°. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NQ[SE INPUTS Pad Elevation; 0.5 i e con i ions Rand Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: 0 7" a ^ay Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 OA184 NO15E SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS { No topographic or harrier attenuatian~ Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos; 49.6 58.3 56.6 50.5 59.1 59.7 Medium Trucks: G0.2 52.1 45.7 44.1 52.5 52.9 Hea Trucks: 65.8 53.9 44.8 45.0 56.2 56.3 Vehicle Noise: 6$.3 60.8 57.3 53.0 57.5 61.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS (With topograplil ic ar barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 2bU 200 150 1 flit 50 d o ~ -50 -100 -150 -20Q -250 ~... Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ ~ / ~ ; Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amadar Valley Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Pkwy. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: „aµ;`;:13;360 Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Maur Traf#c- 1336 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 1DD Vehicle Speed: ~~; : ;-"~` Barrier Near Lane GL Dist: D Centerline Separation: ~"='yw.. ""' Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 4 NOISE INPUTS Pad EEevation: D.5 ~ e can i ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: D T e ^a Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 4 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 fl.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.01$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks; 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.1 57.8 55A 50.0 58.5 59.2 Medium Trucks: 59.7 51.6 45.2 43.5 52.1 52.4 Heav Trucks: 65.3 53.4 44.3 45.5 55.7 55.8 Vehicle Noise: B7.8 6D.3 56.8 5Z.4 61.D 61.4 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [With topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: zoo 150 160 ~a d o LL -50 -'i 00 -150 -240 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. ~ ..• ~ ~ Project Name; Downtown Roblin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 7D1 D0239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Regional St, and 5#arward Dr. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline l7isf to Barrier U Road Grade: ,, ,;; Barrier ~D=wall, 1=berm}- 0 Average Daily Traffic: 1;~ Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1477 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1Dd Vehicle Speed: 3..~, barrier Near Lane CL ^isf: d Centerline Separation: Barrier Par lane CL ^ist: 4 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: Q.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 4 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: 4 T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auto D.775 0.129 O.D96 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 O.D49 0.103 0.0184 N015E SOURCE ELEVATIONS ~feety Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 D.1 D8 0.0074 Autos: d Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ No topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.5 58.3 56.5 50.4 59.D 59.7 Medium Trucks: 60.1 52.0 45.6 44.1 52.5 52.8 Heav Trucks: 65.7 53.8 44.7 46.Q 56.1 56.2 Vehicle Noise: 68.3 60.$ 57.2 52.9 61.4 fi1.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS ~YVfith topograph ic ar barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 250 200 150 100 5a 0 LL -~o -100 -1 sa -zoo -250 RoadwayCenterfine Nbise Contour •~ ..- ^ Project dame: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan t7raft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between San Ramon Rd. and Regional 5t. PROJECT QATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: h; [~, Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: "h' ~~110 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: t 611 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Veh"scle Speed: ~ , .~ ~.~ .. ~ - : Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: .. .nx - ~~~ ';~;`~1. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: 0 T e Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auta 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0'184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 O.OOT4 Autos: U Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [ No topographic or Eaarrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq 17ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.9 58.7 56.9 50.8 59.4 60.0 Medium Trucks: 60.5 52.4 46.0 44.5 52.9 53.2 Heavy Trucks: 56.1 54.2 45.1 45.4 56.5 56.5 Vehicle Noise: 68.7 61.1 57.6 53.3 61.8 62.2 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topographic or harrier attenuation} VehiGlg Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centeriine Noise Contour 250 200 150 100 50 -5fl -100 -156 -aaa -250 •~• ~ ~^ ~ '^ 1. ~ •~ ~ ~~- f Project Name: Downtown Du61in Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst; Brian Allee Job #: 7010x239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Starward Dr. and Donahue Dr. PRGJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~:~; µ .. Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: x`.:''=.':13;7`~~ Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1374 Centerline Dist. To gbserver: 1DD Vehicle Speed: :::.:.; Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: '_ 42: Barrier Far lane CL Dish D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX ~k~server Height (above grade}: U Type Da Evenin Ni ht Daii Barrier Height: D Auta 0.775 0.129 OA96 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.045 0.103 0.0184 N015E SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027" 0.108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NaiS E LEVELS (Na topographic ar harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.2 58.0 56.2 50.1 58.7 59.3 Medium Trucks: 59.8 51.T 45,3 43.8 52.2 52.5 Heav Trucks: 65.4 53.5 44.4 45.6 55.8 55.9 Vehicle Noise: fi$A GD.4 58.9 52.6 61.1 61.5 MITIGATED NDISE LEVEL5 (W ith tapogra{~hic ar barrier attenuatiany Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq ^ay LQq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Unmi#iaated 1~5 IMiti x8w ::...::::.::.. ..: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ •. Project Name: Downtown ^ufilin Specific Plan Draft 1=1R s ..• Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 7D100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: West of San Ramon Rd. PRO.~ECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Rvad Grade: ;''M~ x ~-. ; 6 barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: ~`(~~~~fl10 Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 3D1 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ~~~ ~`'C?. barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: :µ;~~7 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D N015E INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e can t cans Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Heigh# {.above grade}: 0 T e Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auta 0.775 4.129 0.698 D.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -SD Med. Truck 0.848 D.049 0.1D3 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.8fi5 0.027 4.108 DAD74 Au#os: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS (No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 42.7 51.4 49.7 43.6 52.2 52.8 Medium Trucks: 53.3 45.2 38.8 37.2 45.7 46.D Heav Trucks: 58.9 47.0 37,9 39.1 49.3 49.4 Vehicle Noise: 61.4 53.9 5U.4 46.4 54.6 55.0 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ~1111 ith tapograph ia or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq pay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: ~D 46 30 20 14 m D LL -iD Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ •~ ~ ~i ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Graft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between Amador Plaza Road .and Village Parkway PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 ~' ,.,it". Barrier {d=wall, 1=berm): 0 Average ^aily Traffic: ''i~~4,2T0 Receiver Barrier Dis#: ~ 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2427 ................... . To Observer: Centerline Dist 100 ~~.::. Vehicle Speed: -~~ 5 . Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: "" .-~ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ~ e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}; 0 T e ^a Evenin Night ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.01$4 NOISE SaURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.855 O.t]27 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Lsq Evening t.eq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.6 62.4 60.6 54.5 53.2 63.8 Medium Trucks: 63.3 55.3 48.9 47.3 55.8 56.0 Heavy Trucks: 68.5 5fi.6 47.5 48.8 58.7 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 71.0 fi4.3 61,2 5G.5 65.4 G5.5 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation) VehiGe Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR ~ IUnmiti Ifi5 IMiti 1~ ~ soo aoo 2oa --~ ~ a LL -~av -aoo -6~fl Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -.- ^. -~ is •. .~• ~ Project Name: ^owntown Dublin Specific Plan []raft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70140239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Parkway PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier Q =~ :i<<i Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: ~;4f}b Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 2444 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: -;. 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: ~ ~~. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: (].5 Ite con ~ Ions Road Elevation: D FLEET M[X Observer Height tabove grade]: D T e Day Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.'129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 OA49 0.'I03 0.0184 NOISE SdURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet} Heavy Truck 0.8E5 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: U Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATE^ NOISE LEVELS {No topographic or barrier attenuation Vehicle Type P®ak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.6 62.4 60.E 54.5 63.2 63.8 Medium Trucks: 63.3 55.3 48.9 47.3 55.8 56.0 Hea Trucks: 68.6 56.5 47.6 48.8 58.7 58.8 Vehicle Noise: T1.D fi4.4 64.2 56.5 65.1 fi5.5 MITIGATED NDISE LEVELS [W ith topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• •~ -~ is -. Project Name: Downfown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR ..- ^ Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Bouievard Road Segment: Between Golden Gate Drive and Amadar Plaza Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 Road Grade; ''~:'' 0 Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: _~ - 21 >44Q Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: X144 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: :.;~' Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: >:.;:~Ft~' barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 1 e con itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}; 0 T pe Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 fl.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 4.848 0.049 0.103 (3.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet] Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 x.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or barrier attenuatiany. Vehicle Type Peak Lea Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.1 51.8 60.1 54.0 52.6 63.2 Medium Trucks: 62.8 54.7 48.3 46.8 55.2 55.5 Hea Trucks: 58.0 56.1 47.0 48.2 58.1 58.3 Vehicle Noise: 70.4 63.8 fi0.fi 55.9 64.5 65.0 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topographi c or barrier attenuation Vehicle Type Peak Lea Leq ^ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CN1rL Autos: Medium Trucks' Hea Trucks; Vehicle Noise: 500 400 3fl0 zoo goo d o LL -106 -zsao -340 -400 -500 ~.. _ .. Roadway Centerline Noise Contour I~ • r ~ •~ Project Name: Downtown ]]uE~lin Specific Plan Draft EIR ..• ^ Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 7010D239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier d Road Grade: ;~;~;;:: '• ~,x, ~ Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average OailyTraffsc: ' "~ :~. W. Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 2255 ...... Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1p0 Vehicle Speed: , ;. Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: Q Centerline Separation: ''W'~ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: U NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i lons Road Elevation: 0 FLEET INIx Observer Height above grade}; D T pe Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 4.775 0.129 D.096 0.9742 Rt View: 30 Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck 0.848 DA49 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SdURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 OA27 0.108 O.OD74 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS [ No topographic or barrier attenuatiany Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.3 62.1 6D.3 54.2 52.9 63.5 Medium Trucks: 63.0 55.D 48.6 47A 55.5 55.7 Heav Trucks: 58.2 5fi.3 47.2 48.5 58.4 58.5 Vehicle Noise: Tt3.7 64.0 SD.9 55.2 54.7 55.2 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topographi c or barrier attenuatian~ Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~ersing Leq Night Ldn CN1=L Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 500 400 300 200 100 o u. -10fl -2flfl -3fl0 -400 -Sao ~.. Roadway Centerline Nofse Contour -. ..• ~ ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: !Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between San Raman Road and Regional Street PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^istta Barrier 0 Road Grade: ====Y•::: ;;.,~.- ' Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ~~;~~~,4Jb Receiver Barrier Dist; 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 28U9 Centerline ^ist. To Gbseiver: 10a Vehicle Speed: 3 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: fl Centerline Separation: ~°<~:;;3.;;4 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e can i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX ^bserver Height {above grade): D T e Da Evenin Night ^ail Barrier Height: ~ Auto 0.175 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 D.103 0.0184 NGISE SaURCE EL.EVATIGNS +±Feet} Heavy Truck x.865 0.027 D.108 0.4074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 plea Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Nighf Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.2 82.9 6'1.2 55.1 63.7 84.3 Medium Trucks: 83.9 55.8 49.4 47.9 56.3 56.6 Hea Trucks: 89.1 57.2 48.1 49.3 59.2 59.4 Vehicle Noise: 71.5 64.9 61.7 57.p 65.6 6B.0 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS >;Vll ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise; Roadway Centerline Noise Contour fiat 4a0 20iJ 0 -2iJ0 -4p0 -soa ~ • • f w ~ ~ ^ ~ i E Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft E3R 5cenaria: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee ,lob #: 70100239 Roadway: ^ublin Boulevard Road Segment: West of San Ramon Raad PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline gist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ' `` `:;:. Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm): D Average Daily Traffic: 1,2213 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2122 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 10Q Vehicle Speed: :-~ .3~:. Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: Q Centerline Separation: ~ ~"I. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 4 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: Q.5 i e con itions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: 0 T e Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 R# View: 9t] Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ No topographic or k~arrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 52.9 63.8 59.8 53.8 62.4 63.0 Medium Trucks: 62.6 54.5 48.1 46.6 55.0 55.3 Heav Trucks: 6T.8 55.9 46.8 48.6 57.9 58.1 Vehicle Noise: 70.2 63.6 68.4 55.7 64.3 64.7 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS (W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicie Type Peak Lsq Leq flay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn GNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 500 400 300 20D 100 r n~i 0 " -1Da -200 -300 -400 -500 Roadway Genteriine Noise Contour •. ..• ~ f'rDject Name: downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EiR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Joh #: 7910D239 Roadway: Golden Gate Drive Raad Segment: Between Dublin Blvd. and St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA 51TE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 4 Road Grade: ~~' ~-`~" Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: p;` 7,'~i30 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 790 Centerline Dist, To Observer; 1U0 Vehicle S eed: ~'~~~"' Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 4 Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: a NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: Q.5 i e can i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET Mi]C Observer Height [above grade}: 0 T pe ^ay Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 D.129 0.095 9.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 9.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet) Heavy Truck 0.805 O.Q27 9.108 0.9074 Autos: 0 Mediurn Trucks: 2.3 plea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NO15E LEVELS ~No topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Ray Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 44.$ 53.5 51.8 45.7 54.3 55.D Medium Trucks: 5E.4 48.4 42.D 49.4 48.9 49.1 Hea Trucks: 62.6 59.6 41.6 42.8 53.2 53.3 Vehicle Noise: 65.2 56.8 52.8 48.9 57.5 57.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS (With topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.- •~ •^ is •. ..• • Project Name; Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft E1R Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Golden Gate Drive Road Segment: South of 5t. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier Q Road Grade: ;;,:.:~ ~~W . Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: p Average Daily Traffic: ` ~''i' ~ ~3~t3 ........:. Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Waur Traffic: 583 Centerline ^ist. To Observer; 1QU Vehicle Speed: ~,~ Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: t] Centerline Separation: ~i ~.~ ...; barrier Far lane CL Dist; 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ~ e can i inns Road Elevation: Q FLEET MIX Observer Height [above grade): D T e Day Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auta 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 R# View: 9Q Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck 0.848 0.449 0.103 D.D184 N415E SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 D.027 0.108 O.a074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks- Z.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED N015 E LEVELS l aNa topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Might Ldn CNEL Autos: 43.5 52.3 50.5 44.4 53.0 53.6 Medium Trucks: 55.1 47.1 40.7 39.1 47.6 47.8 Heavy Trucks: 61.3 49.3 40.3 41.5 51.9 52.D Vehicle Noise: 53.9 55.5 51.5 47.6 5fi.2 56.5 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [With topograph ic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour • ^ ^ ~ a ^ i 1 ^ -^ ^ ^^• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR 5cenaria: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee .lob #: 781 D0239 Roadway: Regional Street Rvad Segment: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Qist to Barrier Q Road Grade: 0 Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: d Average Qaily Traffic: fi;~~0 :..:.. . Receiver barrier ^ist: D Peak Hour Traffic: fi22 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 117a Vehicle Speed: ~_; ~~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: 2~. Barrier Far Pane CL Dist: 0 ND1SE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 lte Goo itivns Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: 0 T e Qa Evening Ni ht Qail Barrier Height: fl Auto 0.775 0.129 8.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SDLIRGE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 8.$55 0.027 8.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NDIS E LEVELS { N^ topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~ening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 46.0 54.8 53.6 46.9 55.6 5fi.2 Medium Trucks: 56.6 48.5 42.1 40.fi 49.1 49.3 Neav Trucks: 62.2 50.3 41.2 42.5 52.6 52.7 Vehicle Noise: 64.8 57.3 53.7 49.4 57.9 58.4 MITIGATED NDISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Neav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~aa so so as 20 m ~ " _20 -4fl -fifl -80 -~oa •~. -~ t: •. ..- • Project Name: L7owntawn Dublin 5pecifi~ Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Regional Street Rnad Segment: South of Dublin Blvd. RRD.]ECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ,:»..1~$~::. Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Haur Traffic: 782 Centerline Dist. To observer: i40 Vehicle Speed: ~:.~ 30 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ,.;;~~: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INFV7S Pad Elevation: Q.5 i e con Itlans Read Elevation: r3 FLEET MIX Qhserver Height (above grade}: 4 T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 OA96 0.9742 Rt View; 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0'184 NDISE SDL]RCE ELEVATIDNS [Feet Heavy Truck 0.865 0.927 0.108 0.0074 utos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NDIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn GNEL Autos: 47,0 55.8 54.0 47.9 56.5 57.2 Medium Trucks: 57.6 49.5 43.1 41.5 5D.1 50.3 Hea Trucks: 63.2 51.3 42.2 43.5 53.6 53.7 Vehicle Noise: fi5.8 58.2 54.7' Sa.4 58.9 59.4 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topographi c ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq r]ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn GNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 150 tea 50 a LL i -sa -~ as -~ ~o FZoaatway GenterEine Noise Contour _~ • - ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ Project Name: Downtown DuC~lin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 7D10D239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Road Segment: Between Amador Valley 131vd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: :~"m Barrier {p=wall, 1=berm): d Average Daily Traffic: 3=2:~~ ~; Receiver barrier Dist: 0 ... Peak Hour Traffic: 27'09 . ... .. ... . Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 . :.:. . .~,nr r.. Vehicle Speed: 40. Barrier Near lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~. Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 4.5 i e can itians Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: 0 T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto D.775 D. t 29 D.D96 D.9742 Rt View: 90 ~,ft View: -90 Med. Truck D.848 D.D49 D.1D3 D.D1$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck D.865 O.D27 D.1D8 DA074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heat/ TCUGkS: $ UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS [Na topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq aay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 55.4 64.2 52.4 56.3 85.D 65.8 Mediurr3 Trucks: 64.3 55.3 49.9 48.3 56.8 57.D Heav Trucks: fi9.2 57.3 48.2 49.4 59.1 59.3 Vehicle Noise: 71.fi 65.8 fi2.8 57.9 66.5 fi6.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topographi c or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~ening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Cvntvur 800 saa 400 200 -200 -400 -600 -800 -.- ~ ~. -~ is •. .~- ~ Project Name: Dawntawn Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR 5cenaria: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 701x0239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Road Segment: North of Amador Valley Blvd, PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~: Barrier ~0 =wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: ; ~~~--~-,~5~i~: Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2252 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1U4 Vehicle Speed: =; :; 40 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Genterline Separation: `. Via. Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: 0 NdISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: t].5 ite con s ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Ghserver Height (above grade): D T e Day Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auto x.775 x.129 0.096 4.9742 Rt View: 9U Lf# View: -90 Med. Truck x.848 4.049 0.103 0.0184 NG15E SaURCE EI..EVATIdNS Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { Na topographic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Typo Peak Leq Leq flay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.7 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8 Medium Trucks: 63.6 55.5 49.2 4T.6 56.1 55.3 Heav Trucks: 68.5 56.5 47.5 48.7 58.4 58.5 Vehicle Noise: 74.8 85.t] 62.1 57.1 65.7 68.2 MITIGAT ED NQISI= LEVELS r;Vll ith topograph ic yr harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Flay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: fi0f} 4aa 2ao o LL -26I] -4aD -5flD Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• ~. -~ is •~ .~• ~ Project Name: downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Road Segment: South of Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: `''~:0: Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm]: D Average ^aily Traffic: """'~8,54.Q. Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 4854 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 1flD . Vehicle Speed: ?~:~ 4[] Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: `°r~ 65. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET 1N17C observer Height {above grade}: 4} T pe i]a Evening Ni ht Oail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 OA96 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.143 0.0184 NQISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet] HeavyTruck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NGIS E LEVELS {No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 57.9 56.7 54.9 58.8 67.5 68.'4 Medium Trucks; 66.9 58.8 52.4 50.9 59.3 59.6 Hea Trucks: 71.7 59.8 50.7 52.0 61.7 61.8 Vehicle Noise: 74.4 58.3 65.4 68.4 59.D 69.5 MITIGATED N015E LEVELS {With topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Cay Leq Evening Leq Hight Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 1566 ~ aoo goo d a ~. -~ao -taao -t5oa Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. ..• ~ ^ Project Name; Downtown Dublin 5pecifi~ Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term nalyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: 5t. Patrick Way Road Segment: East of Amador Plaza Raad PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D ;~.... : !==~x;0 Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: Q Average Daily Traffic: fit':..; -~ .~~] Y Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 1 2D5 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1DQ Vehicle Speed: ~~~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: t] Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INRLITS Pad Elevation: U.5 ite con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Qbserver Height [above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 4.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9Q Lft View: -gD Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIQNS (Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 OA074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS {No topographic or barrier aHenuationy Vehiale Type Peak Leq Leq Clay Leq Evening teq flight Ldn CNEI_ Autos: 46.7 55.5 53.7 47.6 56.2 56.9 IVledium Trucks: 58.3 53.3 43.9 42.3 50.8 51.0 Hea Trucks: 64.5 52.6 43.5 44.7 55.1 55.2 Vehicle Noise: G7.2 58.7 54.7 5D.8 59.4 59.8 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {With topograph ic ar barrier attenuation} Vehiole Type Peak Leq Leq Clay Leq Evening Laq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Gantaur ~ ^ f ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ Project Name: ^ownt4wn ^uhlin Specific Plan braft trlR ^ ~ ~ ~ Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian ANee Job #' 70109239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Road Segment: Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 `:ii=::: ":0' barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: U Average Daily Traffic: ```.3;84I~.! Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 384 Center#ine Dist. To ~hserver: 1t3D Vehicle Speed: :::.:: -:. 25 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: 2Q: barrier Far lane CL Dist: U NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con I Ions Road Elevation: fl FLEET MI~C Observer Height tahave grade}: 0 T pe Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Aut^ 0.775 0.129 Q.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 9.103 0.0184 NGISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Peaty Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 OA074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED N015E LEVELS { No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.7 50.5 48.7 42.fi 51.3 51.9 Medium Trucks: 53.4 45.3 38.9 37.3 45.8 4G.9 Hsav Trucks: 59.5 47.6 38.5 39.8 50.9 50.3 Vehicle Noise: $2.2 53.8 49.1 45.9 54.4 54.8 MITIGATED NGISE LEVELS [W ith tapagraph ia yr harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -.- •~ ~^ is -. ..• ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin 5peci~c Plan draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Road Segment: West of Golden Gate Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist tti Barrier 0 ~~~;~;: ";, Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: I#STff Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 167 Centerline Dist. To ^bserver: 10ti Vehicle Speed: ;~ !~5 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~~~ ~: ,.. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con Itlons Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}; 0 T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck x.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet] Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos; 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ NQ topographic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicke Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leg Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 38.1 46.9 45.1 39.0 47.7 48.3 Medium Trucks: 49.8 41.7 35.3 33.7 42.2 42.5 Heav Trucks: 55.9 44.0 34.9 3G.1 4fi.5 46.6 Vehicle Noise: 58.fi 5U.1 46.1 42.3 50.8 51,2 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Cay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise; 20 15 14 5 001, 0 LL -.r} -1a -15 -20 itoadway Centerline Noise Centaur •~ ~ ^ Project Name: Dpwntflwn Dublin Specific Plan Draft ElR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Alfee Jab #: 749 DD239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: Between Amadar Valley. Blvd, and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Gist to Farrier 0 Road Grade: D Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: I] Average Daily Traffic: ;:12,9.. Receiver Barrier Dist: ~ Peak Hour Traffic: 9299 Centerline Dis#. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ~~ 3i~~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centeriine Separation: 4~: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NO15E INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite con itions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: d T pe Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 4.9742 Rt View: 90 Lf# View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.9 03 0.0184 NO15E SDtJRCE ELEVATIONS [Peaty Heavy Truck D.865 0.027 0.108 OA074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NO1515 LEVELS ~ No topographic or harrier attenuatian~ Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.8 57.6 55.8 49.7 58.4 59.4 Medium Trucks: 59.4 5'1.4 45A 43.4 51.9 52.1 Heav Trucks: 65.1 53.1 44.1 45.3 55.4 55.6 Vehicle Noise: 67'.6 60.1 56.5 52.E 60.8 61.2 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic or harrier attenuationy VehicEe Type Pea![ Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 20fl 150 1fl0 50 opt, 0 LL -50 -100 -150 -20a Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -, ..- ~ ^ Project Name: t3owntown Dut}lin Specific Plan Draft SIR Scenario: Near Term Analys#: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment; Between Dublin Blvd. and 1-5$Q NB On Ramp PROJECT DATA SITE E1ATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: =;;~ Barrier (Q=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Gaily Traffic: 5,4Q.D Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 54D Centerline ^ist. To Observer: 1DD Vehicle Speed: ,;; .:. `_~~'" ~' ._:.... Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline 5eparatipn: .rte ::::. .......... 25 Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: D N015E INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can I Ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX ^bserver Height (above grade]: 0 T pe Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auta 0.775 Q.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 94 Lft View: -94 Med. Truck 0.848 Q.Q49 0.1 p3 O.Q184 NaISE 50lJRCE ELEVATIONS (Fee#] Heavy Truck 0.$fi5 O.Q27 0.108 O.OQ74 Autos: D Medium Trucks: Z.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ( No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 45.4 54.2 52.4 45.3 55.0 55.6 Medium Trucks: 56.0 47.9 41.5 40.0 48.5 48.7 Heavy Trucks: 61.6 49.7 4Q.7 41.9 52.0 52.1 Vehicle Noise: fi4.2 5fi.7 53.1 48.8 57.3 5T.8 MITIGATED N015E LEVELS ~1111 ith topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 86 fi0 ao zo ~ o -za -40 -5D -SD Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ f a ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a { a•- • ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: North of Amador Valley Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Crade: 'i''~'i' D Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average ^aily Traffic: ~`t4;670 Receiver Barrier Dist; 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 14fi7 .................... . Centerline Dist. T^ Observer: 10fl Vehicle Speed: = ... Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: b . Centerline Separation: ::. !>~:~ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: t3.5 ite can i ions Raad Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade]: 0 Type Da Evenin Night ^ail Barrier Height: 4 Auto Q.775 D.129 OA95 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View; -90 Med. Truck 0.848 D.049 0.103 0.4184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 O.D074 Autos: 4 Medium Trucks: 2.S Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.5 .58.2 56.5 5Q.4 59.0 59.6 Medium Trucks: 50.1 52.0 45.5 44.0 52.5 52.8 Hea Trucks: 65.7 53.8 44.7 45.9 56.1 55.2 Vehicle Noise: 68.2 6a.T 57.2 52.9 fi1.4 61.8 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topographi c or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type PBak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Highf Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: F-leav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Unmitigated 8 1 itl 20D 15D taD 50 0 LL -5a -~ as -15a -~ao Roadway Centerline Noise Contour _~ i -. ..• ^ Project Narne: Downtown Dublin Specific flan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 74104239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: South of I-684 NB On Ramp PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: == Barrier ~4=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Qaily Traffic: °i~ ~'.. 990 Receiver Barrier Dist: i3 Peak Hour Traffic: 99 Centerline Qist. Ta Observer: 144 Vehicle Speed: =~;j:: 3~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist; 8 Centerline Separation: "3:25 Barrier Far lane CL Dist; 0 NOISE 1NPLJTS Pad Elevation: 4.5 Ite can i Ions Road Elevation: 4 FLEET M[7( Observer Height above grade}; 0 T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 4 Auto 0.7T5 4.129 4.096 4.9742 Rt View: 9Q Lft View: -94 Med. Truck 0.$48 4.049 4.103 4.4184 NOISE SGLIRCE ELEVATIQNS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 4.027 4.'108 4A074 Autos: 4 Medium Trucks; 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS +i lVa topographic ar harrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn GNEL Autos: 38.4 45.8 45.9 3$.9 47.6 48.2 Medium Trucks: 48.6 40.5 34.2 32.6 41.1 41.3 Hea Trucks: 54.3 42.3 33.3 34.5 44.6 44.8 Vehicle Noise: 5~.8 49.3 45.7 41.4 5t7.D 50.4 MITIGAT ED NGISE LEVELS {W ith topographi c or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type. Peak Leg Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Ganterline Noise Contour 15 10 5 ~, 4 LL _~j -1fl -15 •. ~ ..• ^ Project Name: Dawntawn Dublin Specific Plan ^raft FIR Scenario; Near Term Plus Project Analyst; Brian Allee Job #: 74104239 Roadway: Amador Plaza Road Segment; between Amadar Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA 517E DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: .......0 Barrier {4-wall, 1-berm}; 0 Average Dai€y Traffic: 11..~~.; ~; Receiver Barrier Dist: Q Peak Haur Traffic: 1269 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1D0 Vehicle Speed: 25;. Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 4 Centerline Separation: ~~~ :;;x r Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NdISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}; Q T e ^a Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9Q Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 N~15E SaURCt= ELEVATIQNS {Feet} Heavy Truck 4.865 0.027 4.108 0.0474 Autos: ~ Medium Trucks; F.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NDiS E LEVELS {No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 46.7 55.5 53.7 47.7 55.3 56.9 Medium Trucks: 58.4 54.3 43.9 42.4 54.9 51.1 Hea Trucks: fi4.5 52.5 43.5 44.8 55.2 55.3 Vehicle Noise: 67.2 58.8 54.7 8U.9 59.4 53.8 MITIGAT ED NQISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 15fl 100 50 m 0 -50 -106 -150 Roadway Centerline Nalse Contour ~ ^ a ^ . - ~ ~ Project Name: ^owntawn Dublin 5pe~ific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Terrn Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #; 70100239 Roadway: Amadar Plaza Raad Segment: Between Dublin t31vd. and St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centeriine ^ist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: 0. Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: x~Q;. Receiver Barrier Dist; 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 3867 Centerline Dist. Ta ^bserver: 10t3 Vehicle Speed: ~5` Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: I} Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 N~15E INPUTS Pad Elevation: U.5 ite con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: U T e Day Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 6.775 0.129 0.098 0.9742 Rt View: 9d Lft View: -9fl Med. Truck 0.$48 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SGURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 AUtQS: d Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.6 59.4 57.8 51.5 60.2 80.8 Medium Trucks: 62.3 54.2 4T.8 46.2 54.7 55.0 Hea Trucks: 68.4 56.5 47.4 48.7 59.0 59.2 Vehicle Noise: 71.1 62.7 58.6 54.8 63.3 63.7 MITIGAT ED NDISE LEVELS rlN ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 30~ 20ff 1qa ~ a LL -3oa -2oa -34~ •.• _. -s is •~ .~• • Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Pius Project Analyst: Brian Allee .tai3 #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Amador Plaza Rd, and Village Pkwy. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}; 4 Average Daily Traffic: '.F r24;~5 ~ Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2055 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ,~~.. Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUT5 Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e can Itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET M17L ^bserver Height (above grade): 0 T e Da Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 R# View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 OA1$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS { Nv topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq vay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.9 59.7 57.9 51.8 E0.5 61.1 Medium Trucks: &1.5 53.5 47.1 45.5 54.0 54.2 Hea Trucks: 67.2 55.2 46.2 47.4 57.5 57.7 Vehicle Noise: 69.7 62.2 58.6 54.3 fi2.9 fi3.3 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (W ith tvpagraphi~ ar harrier attenuation) VehiGie Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night L.dn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Ngise Contour 3p0 200 100 a u. -~ 00 -200 -300 - - ~~ ~~ ;ern:. Y „~ ~= ': =s~ ~ ~,~ ;n ,. - ~;.: ,_ ;, ~.~: ~. ~, -. ~ ..• ~ Preject Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario' Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Donahue Dr. anti Amador Plaza Rd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier Q Road Grade: !!~=~-~~i a :.. . Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: a Average Daily Traffic: :: '(~--1:'f0 Receiver Barrier Dist: U Peak Hour Traffic: 1711 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: r` Barrier Near Lane CL Dsst: d Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 ~ e can i ions Road Elevation: a FLEET MIX ^bserver Height (above grade}; U T pe Day Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 94 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NO151E SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 4 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ Ho topographic or kaarrier attenuatian~ Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 59.1 58.9 57.1 51.0 59.7 60.3 Medium Trucks; 60.7 52.7 46.3 44.7 53.2 53.4 Heav Trucks: 66.4 54.4 45.4 46.6 56.7 56.9 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 61.4 57.8 53.5 62.1 62.5 MITIGAT ED NO15E LEVELS {1fV ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak l.eq Leq aay Leq Evening Leq Nigh; Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR tJnmitipated :`' .°? ated Roadway Centerline Noise Contour C_ 3fl0 240 1 fl0 d o -~ao -2ao -300 -.• ^. -~ is -. .~• ~ ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70'100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Pkwy. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: I~Tt Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1417 Centerline Dist. Ta ^bserver: 1DD Vehicle Speed: . ........... 3L~: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: i3 Centerline Separation: -~ r~~4 ........ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPtJ75 Pad Elevation: 4.5 I e con I Ions Road Elevation: 8 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: D T e Da Evening Ni ht Daily Barrier Height; D Auta 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 84 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOIJRGE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Neavy Truck 4.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 4 Medium Trucks: 2.3 ~leav Trucks: 8 IJNMITIGATEI] NOIS E LEVELS ~No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Laq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.5 5$.3 56.5 50.4 59.0 59.7 Medium Trucks: 50.1 52A 45.5 44.1 52.6 52.8 Heav Trucks: 65.7 53.8 44.7 46.0 56.1 5fi.2 Vehicle Noise: 68.3 6D.8 57.2 52.9 61.4 61.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS (W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuationy Vehicle type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: - Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 250 200 ~5D 10D 5D -5D -~oD -~so -2DD -25D ~ ^ ^ ~ • { ~ ~ - ~ Project !Name: Downtown Duhlin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #; 70104239 Roadway: Amador Valfey Boulevard Road Segment: Between Regional St. and Starward Dr. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier ^ Road Grade: Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: ^ Average Daily Traffic: -fi;l Receiver Barrier Dist: ^ Peak Hour Traffic: 167'9 Centerline Dist. `ro Observer: 1U^ Vehicle Speed: 3~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: ^ Centerline Separation: ;.:; 4 Barrier Far lane GL C?ist: 0 NOISE INPUTS F'ad Elevation: D.5 ~ e can itions Road Elevation: ^ FLEET MIX ^bserver Height [above grade}; ^ T e IDa Evening Night Dail Barrier Height; ^ Auto 0.775 0.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 9^ Lft View; -9^ Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet} Heavy Truck 0.885 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: ^ Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq pay Leq £~ening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.0 5s.s 57,a 51.0 59.6 sa.~ Medium Trucks: fi0.6 52.6 46.2 44.fi 53.1 53.3 Heav Trucks: 6fi.3 54.4 45.3 48.5 56.6 5fi.8 Vehicle Noise: 68.8 61.3 57.8 53.4 62.^ 62.4 MITIGAT ED N015E LEVEL5 liW ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL AUtpS: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR tJnmitipated 207 3q0 65 21 200 ~ 1fl0 I m D LL -100 -200 -300 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour • •^ Project Name: IJowntown Dublin Specific Plan Draft FIR ~ r^ ^ ^ Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between San Ramon Rd. and Regional St. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier U Raad Grade: '.~:.:.~~. ~ ~ Barrier ~D=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average ^aily Traffic: m .::.,'..1 ~ Receiver Barrier Dist: fl Peak Hour Traffic 1826 Centerline Dist. To observer: 1D0 Vehicle Speed: ,.~A„ a Barrier 1Vear Lane CL Dist; D Centerline Separation: ;;; :::~ ~ i Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 f e con Iflans Road Elevation: D FLEET M Ix observer Height (above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evening Ni ht ^aily Barrier Height; 0 Auto 0.775 D.129 0.096 x.9742 Rt View: 917 Lit View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 4.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ( No topographic or kaarrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq pay Leq Evening Leq Night 1.dn CNEL Autos: 50.4 59.2 57.4 51.3 60.0 fi0.fi Medium Trucks: 61 A 53.0 48.8 45.0 53.5 53.7 Heav Trucks: 86.7 54.7 45.7 4fi.9 57.0 57.2 Vehicle Noise: 69.2 61.7' S$.1 53.8 62.4 62.8 MITIGATED NOISE LEVEL5 (With topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Fype Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~gning Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 3fl0 200 160 d a -~ 00 -zoo -300 • ^ i •. .~• ^ Prpject Name: Downtown Dublin 5pe~ific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project nalyst: Brian AIlee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amadar Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Starward Dr. and Donahue ^ r. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Disf to Barrier 0 Road Grade: _~' ``=Wi~ Q .... Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm): 0 Average Daffy Traffic: ..... ~ 1`518[)0 ..... Receiver Barrier Dist: d Peak Hpur Traffic: 15$D . Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: .., . ': Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: U Centerline Separation: barrier Far fans CL Dist: 0 NDISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Its can I Ions Road Elevation: fl FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}; 0 T e Da Evenln Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0. Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 30 Lft View: -50 Med. Truck 4.$48 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NDISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS ~Feet~ Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED NO15 E LEVELS ~ No topographic ar barrier attenuattony Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.8 58.fi 56.$ 50.7 59.3 59.9 Medium Trucks: 60.4 52.3 45.9 44.4 52.8 53.1 Hea Trucks: 66.0 54.1 45.0 48.3 56.4 56.5 Vehicle Noise: 68.fi 61.0 57.5 53.2 61.7 62.1 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [With topographi c ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 250 2ao 950 104 50 d -~d -'i ~~ -'I 5fl -20+7 -250 d m LL Roadway Centerline !Noise Cvntvur -.- ^. -~ is •. ..- ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Val;ey Boulevard Road Segment: W est of San Ramon Rd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: ~_ ;,,~.,,,~ Barrier ~0=wa11, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ' '~~70 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 337 Centerline ^ist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: `:- Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: w ~ Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: 0 INPUTS N015E Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height [above gradeJ: 0 T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auta 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View; 9Q Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.84$ 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Au#os: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE L€VELS ~ Na topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CMEL Autos: 43.1 51.9 50.1 44.1 52.T 53.3 Medium Trucks: 53.8 45.7 39.3 37.7 46.2 46.4 Heav Trucks: 59.4 47.5 38.4 39.6 45.7 49.9 Vehicle Noise: 69.9 54.4 5Q.9 4~.5 55.1 55.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topograph ic nr barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq ldight Ldn CNEL Au#os: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 60 40 ~o o -2D -40 -6D i ~.. Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. ..• ~ ^ Project tvame: 17awntown []ublin 5pec'rfic Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian AIlee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between Amador Playa Road and Village Parkway PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 ;~~x~~ barrier [O~wall, 1=berm}: 4 Average Daily Traffic: ~ 3 Receiver barrier Dist: Q Peak Nour Traffic: 382fi Centerline Dist. To Observer: 10Q Vehicle Speed: 3. Barrier Near Lane GL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ;,; ; ` x~ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: Q NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: Q.5 r e can r ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height ~abave grade}: Q T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: Q Auta 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9A Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Nea~y Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: U Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS {No topographie or barrier attenuatiany Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 55.8 84.4 62.5 55.5 65.1 85.7 Medium Trucks: 65.3 57.2 50.8 49.3 5T.8 58.0 Heavy Trucks: 70.5 58.5 49.5 50.7 80.8 60.8 Vehicle Noise: 73A fifi.3 63.1 58.4 67.D G7.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVEL$ [W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuationy Vehicre Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Flea Trucks: Vehicle Naise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour .~. .. -E is •. .~• ~ ^ Project Name: Dawntawn ^uhlin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Joh #: 70106239 Roadway: ^ublin Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Parkway PROJECT DATA 517E DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 ~i Barrier {0-wall, 1-berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ; ~':`~~SD Receiver Barrier Dis#: 0 Peak Haur Traffic: 3305 CenterFine Dist. To Observer: 140 Vehicle Speed: ....................... it°~~~5 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 3:;. ;'~~.~. Barrier Far lane GL Dist: b NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con l Ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): D T e Da Evening Ni ht ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auta 0.775 D.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -3D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0'[84 N015E SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 D.D27 0.108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NdISE LEVELS [No topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.9 63.7 51.9 55.9 64.5 fi5.1 Medium Trucks: 64.7 55.6 50.2 48.6 57.1 57.4 Heavy Trucks: fi9.9 57.9 4$.9 5D.1 fiU.O 50.1 Vehicle Noise: 72.3 65.7 62.5 57.8 66.4 66.8 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation} V®hicle Type Paak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 80a 66fl 4afl 20a -2DD -4DD -saa -aaa ^ a a ' ! 1 Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan t7raft EfR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project nalyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin boulevard Road Segment: Between Golden Gate !]rive and Amador Plaaa Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier d Road Grade: ~~ ~;.. ~-- ;~~_. ~. Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: d Average Daily Traffic: ,...:;060 Receiver Barrier Dist: d Peak Hour Traffic: 380fi .............. Centerline Dist. To ^bserver: 1flD Vehicle Speed: , Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: ;.:iw-,.,~., Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: U NOSE INPUTS Pad Elevation; 0.5 ~ e con itions Road Elevation: U FLEET MIX Observer Height [above grade}: fl T e Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 O.D96 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9U Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 4.'103 0.0184 NO15E 5O4JRCE ELEVATIQNS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.$55 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Fieav Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [No topographic nr barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night L[!n CNEL Autos: 55.6 64.3 62.6 55.5 55.1 55.7 Medium Trucks: 55.3 57.2 50.$ 49.3 57.7 58.0 Fieav Trucks: 70.5 5$.5 49.5 50.7 50.6 60.8 Vehicle Noise: 72.9 66.3 63.1 58.4 X7.1] GT.4 MITIGAT E^ NOISE LEVELS {With topographic or 17arrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leg Leq Aay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Flea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: ~__.. sea sae aaa aaa d a LL -aDa -400 j -60D -8da Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. .,• ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin 5peci~ic Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project nalyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: :trl Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: ;;~y~`~~; Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 4333 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 'EDD Vehicle Speed: 35; Barrier Near Lane GL Dist: D Centerline Separation: w;;;4p; Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 ~ e can i ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height ~ahove grade}; D T e Da Evening Ni tit Dail Barrier Height: D Auto x.775 0.128 0.095 x.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 x.049 0.103 0.01$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Peaty Neavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.10$ 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hex Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATE^ NOIS E LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Laq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.1 54.9 53.1 57.0 65.7 55.3 Medium Trucks: 55.8 57.8 51.4 49.8 5$.3 58.5 hleav Trucks: 71.1 59.1 50.1 51.3 61.2 61.3 Vehicle Noise: 73.5 66.9 fi3.7 58.D 67.6 68.0 MITIGATED NDISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} VehiGia Type Peak Leq Leq i7ay Leq Evening Leq Nlght Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 1000 800 60Q 400 2Dp -26q -4DQ -6Dfl -SQfl -14[30 ... .~ -r is •. ~ ..- ~ Projecf Name: Downtown Dublin SpeciFc Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Pra}ect Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin l3oulevard Road Segment: Between San Raman Raad and Regional Street PRG.~ECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barr'ser 0 Road Grade: - 0 Barrier t0=wall, 1= bermJ: 0 Average Daily Traffic: 4:9;86 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 4985 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ~~ ~ 35 barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con itians Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: 0 T pe Day Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height; 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 9Q Lft View: -90 Med. Truck Q.848 0.049 0.1Q3 0.0184 NDISE SDIJRCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 O.Q074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: $ UNMITIGATEQ NDIS E LEVELS { No 'topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening teq Nigh# Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.7 fi5.4 63.6 57.6 66.2 56.8 Medium Trucks: 56.4 58.3 51.9 50.3 58.8 5g.1 Hea Trucks: 71.6 59.7 50.6 51.8 6'1.7 51.8 Vehicle Noise: 74.0 fi7.4 fi4.2 59.5 fi8.1 fi8.5 MITIGAT EQ N41SE LEVELS 1;V11 ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Psak Leq Leq Day Laq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEt Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: ' Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ooo 500 ~ D LL -5a0 -~ aoa i •.• ^. -E is ~ •~ Projec# Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR ..• ~ Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: West of San Ramon Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ; `~~_ : - <t?: Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: 'h`~~~3,020 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 23Q2 .................. .... Centerline Dist. To observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: z~; ~h 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Genterline Separation: ='=`' S1 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE #NPtJTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can itions Road Elevation: d FLEET lNl7C Observer Height ~abave grade}: 0 T pe Day Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.$48 0.049 0.03 0.01$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS tFeet] Heavy Truck 0.855 OA27 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS {No topographic ur barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.2 52.0 60.2 54,1 62.8 53.4 Mediurrr Trucks: 62.9 54.9 48.5 46.9 55.4 55.6 Heavy Trucks: fi8.1 55.2 47.2 48.4 58.3 58.4 Vehicle Noise: 70.6 63.9 60.8 56.1 64.6 65.1 MITIGAT ED Na15E LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour aoa aaa 3Dl} 2417 1 fit} d ~ LL -1017 -200 -30fl -4170 -5fla ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ / { { ^ ~ Project Name: Downtown Qublin Specific Plan ^raft )rIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Gallen Gate Drive Road Segmen#: Between ^ubiin Blvd. and St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA 51TE DATA Centerline Dist to barrier 0 Road Grade: - ;:t}.; Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: `~'~} Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1585 Centerline Dist. TQ Qbserver: 10t} Vehicle Speed: 25: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ; ~4; .......... Barrier Far lane CL Dist: Q N015E INPUTS Pad Elevation; d.5 ~ e can i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: ~ Type Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 4 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View; -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.'403 0.0184 ND15E SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.021 D.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ No topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Even€ng Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 47.8 5fi.5 54.8 48.1 57.4 5$.0 Medium Trucks: 59.5 5'1.4 45.0 43.4 51.9 52.2 Heav Trucks: 65.5 53.7 44.6 45.8 58.2 56.4 Vehicle Noise: 88.3 59.8 55.8 52.0 fi0.5 80.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic ar harrier attenuation] VehiCi2 Type Peak Leq Leq Day Lsq Evening Leq N€ghf Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks; Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerl'sne Ngise Contour -.- ^. -^ is •. ..- s Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project nalyst: Brian Allee .fob #: 70100239 Roadway: Golden Gate Drive Road Segment: South of St. Patrick Way PROJEDT DATA SITE DATA Genterline Dist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: 0 Barrier {Q=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average ©aily Traffic: ";0; Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 781 Genterline Dis#. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: -25 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ; Barrier Far lane GL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Fad Elevation: 0.5 i e can itians Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height [above grade]: 0 T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Weight: 0 Auta 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lf# View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 fl.0184 NDfSE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet] Heavy Truck D.865 4.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: fl Medium Trucks: 2.3 Wea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS i ;No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Lep Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 44.8 53.5 51.7 45.7 54.3 54.9 Medium Trucks: 56.4 48.3 42.0 40.4 48.9 49.'1 Heav Trucks: 52.6 50.5 41.6 42.8 53.2 53.3 Vehicle Noise: 65.2 56.8 52.7' 48.9 57.4 57.8 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [With topograph ic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~en3ng Leq Night Ldn CMEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 80 so 40 20 c01, 0 LL -24 -4q -64 -Sg Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •~ ..- ~ Project Name; Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Regional Street Road Segment: between Amador Val]ey Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~====°- - ' 0` Barrier {0-wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Gaily Traffic: ,:,9;67Qq Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 9fi7 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: .. ''~~-,z«~'.` 2fi~ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con Itlans Road Elevation: 0 SLEET MIX observer Height {above grade]: 4 Type Day Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auta 0.775 Q.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.01$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 47.9 56.7 54.9 48.8 57.5 58.1 Medium Trucks: 58.5 50.4 44.1 42.5 51.0 51.2 Heav Trucks: 64.2 52.2 43.2 44.4 54.5 54.6 Vehicle Noise: 66.T 59.2 55.6 51.3 59.8 60.3 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq l3ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: m m t5~ 1 fl0 50 fl -5D -ifl0 -150 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• ~ +. -r is •. ..- ~ ~ Pro}ect Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Regional Street Road Segment: South of 17ublin Blvd. PROJECT ^ATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to barrier 0 Road Grade: `' -~ ~ '' , Barrier ~0=wall, 1-berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic; :>;.~ 1'59f] Receiver Barrier Dist: Q Peak Hour Traffic: 1159 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ~~;3t7F Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: i~:B Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPi1T5 Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite can ~ ions Road Elevation: 0 FL-EET Mfx Observer Height ~abave grade}: 0 T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIQNS (Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ~ No topographic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Paak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.7 57.5 55.7 49.6 58.3 58.9 Medium Trucks: 59.3 5'1.2 44.8 43.3 51.8 52.0 Hea Trucks: 64.9 53.0 43.9 45.2 55.3 55.4 Vehicle Noise: 67.5 50A 5fi.4 52.1 G0.6 G1.1 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topographic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Typa Peale Leq Leq Coy Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL AUtoS: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Nvise Contour .~. .~ -^ is -. ..- ~ ~ Project Name; ^owntown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian AIlee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Road Segment: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and ^ublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier t3 Road Grade: ;:!.;~= ` 0 Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: 32~fi2D. Receiver Barrier Dist: t7 Peak Hour Traffic: 3252 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1UE3 Vehicle Speed: ;-.40 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: t3 Centerline Separation: : ~:5 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: Q NOISE INPi1TS Pad Elevation: fl.5 ite con itions Road Elevation: D FLEET M#X Observer Height above grade}; 4 T pe Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 AutD 0.775 0.129 OA9fi 0.9742 Rt View: 98 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.$48 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE 5l7lJRCl~ ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 OA27 0.10$ 0.0074 Autos: t7 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks; S L3NMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos; 56.2 fiS.D 63.2 57.1 65.8 66.4 Medium Trucks: 65.2 57.1 50.7 49.1 57.6 57.9 Heav Trucks; 70.0 58.1 49.0 50.2 59.9 60.1 Vehicle Noise: 7'2.4 66.6 53.5 58.7 67.3 67.8 MITIGATED N015E LEVELS {W ith topograph ic yr harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Lsq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 1000 800 600 aa0 2ao a -aaa -aao -660 -804 -iooa Roadway Centerline Nalse Contour -~ ~ ~~• i Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Elfi Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Road 5egmen#: North of Amador Valley Blvd. PRO.fECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 'F ; ' Barrier 0=wall, 1= berm : 0 Avera a Dail Traffic: ~:::~. ;.., [. Receiver Barrier Dist: © Peak Hour Traffic: 2919 Centerline gist. To Observer: 1D0 Vehicle Speed: 4 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ':6 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: ~ NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: a.5 i e can i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: 0 T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 . Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9d Lft View: -9U Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 Q.108 0.0074 Autos: t] Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 55.8 64.6 62.8 56.7 65.3 66.0 Medium Trucks: 64.7 55.7 50.3 48.7 57.2 57.4 Hea Trucks: 59.6 57.8 48.5 49.8 59.5 59.7 Vehicle Noise: T2.D fi6.1 fi3.2 58.3 sB.9 fiT.3 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS tVll ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noi&e Contour 800 606 440 2QQ m l} k -z~a -aaa ~ -soa -saa . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ •~ a ~~ ' ~ Project Name: Downtown ^ublin Specific Plan i7raft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 10100239 Roadway; San Ramon Raad Road Segment: South of Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: _~= Barrier t6=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: ~; 6d;'C20 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 6412 Centerline Rist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~ ..,` .:~~. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NDISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can i ions Raad Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX observer Height {above grade}: 0 Tye ^a Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: ~ Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 6.9142 Rt View: 90 Lft View; -90 Med. Truck 6.848 0.049 0.103 6.6184 NOISE 50URCE ELEVATIONS (Feet} Heavy Truck 6.8fi5 0.027 0.'#08 6.6074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~No topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 59.1 61.9 66.1 60.0 68.7 69.3 Medium Trucks; 68.1 60.0 53.6 52.1 66.6 80.8 Hea Trucks: 72.9 61.0 51.9 53.2 62.9 63.0 Vehicle Noise: 75.3 69.5 66.6 6'1.6 70.2 7fl.7 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {With topographic ar harrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trtacks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 20f}~ 15Q4 ~aoa ~aa 0 -~afl -, aaa -~~vv -2aao .~. .~ -^ is .~• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin $pecigc Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee .lob #: 70100239 Roadway: St. Patrick W ay Road Segment: East of Amador Plaza Raad PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist #o Barrier 0 =~= 0 Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: '1`E;730 Receiver Barrier i:]ist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1873 ............. . Centerline Dist. To observer: 109 Vehicle Speed: ;: :~~~~. Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ?- ~`~~~~0 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX observer Height ~abave grade}: 0 T e Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Weight: 0 Auto 0.775 x.129 4.09E 0.9742 Rt View: 9t7 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 4.848 0.049 0.103 6.0184 NO15E SDURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.855 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.1 55.9 55.1 49A 57.7 58.3 Medium Trucks: 59.8 51.7 45.3 43.7 52.2 52.5 Heavy Trucks: 65.9 54A 44.9 46,1 55.5 55.7 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 80.1 56.1 52.3 80.8 61.2 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Nflise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 260 150 100 50 -50 -100 -150 -200 . ~ . + ~ ~ ! 1 • ~ ~ ~~ ' w Project Name: C7awntown ^ublin Specific Plan fJraft EIR 5cenaria: Near Term Pius Project nalyst: Brian Allee Joh #: 7010x239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Road Segment; Between Galden Gate Drive and Amadar Plaza Raad PRQ.IECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 . Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average []wily Traffic: ~=`6,8I] Receiver Barrier Dist: fl Peak Hour Traffc: 880 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ;~; Barrier Near Lane GL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ':,: 2d~ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NGISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite can itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height ~abave grade}: t] T pe Day Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Aut^ 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: SO Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.4184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.8F5 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ,iNo topographic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Paak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 44.2 53.0 51.2 45.1 53.8 54.4 Medium Trucks: 55.9 47.8 41.4 39.8 48.3 48.5 Heavy Trucks: 62.0 50.1 41.0 42.2 52.6 52.7 Vehicle Noise: fi4.7 58.2 52.2 48.4 58.9 57.3 MITIGATED NQISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq ^ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -~ .~- ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin 5peci~c Plan Draft E!R Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70188239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Raad Segment: West of Golden Gate Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 (~:` Barrier [8=wall, 1=berm}: 4 Average Daily Traffic: ' ;36.x, Receiver Barrier Dist: d Peak Hour Traffic: 363 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 10t] Vehicle Speed: 25 barrier Near Lane CL Dist: t7 Centerline Separation: 2Q: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con Itlons Raad Elevation: fl FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}; ~ T pe Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 8 Auto 8.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -94 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 8.865 0.027 0.188 OA074 Autos: Q Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 41.5 58.3 48.5 42.4 51.0 51.6 Medium Trucks: 53.1 45.1 3$.7 37.1 45.6 45.8 Heav Trucks: 59.3 47.3 38.3 39.5 49.9 50.0 Vehicle NoisQ: 61.9 53.5 49.5 45.6 54.2 54.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq.E~ening Leq Nlght Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noisa Contour -.• ~. -~ is •. ..- • Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project nalyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70'100239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: ' 0 :::.. barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}; q Average Daily Traffic: w U0 ; Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: '1730 Genteriine Dist. To Observer; 1q0 Vehicle Speed: ;;x~~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: q Centerline Separation: ~~~~ ~; Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: q.5 I e con I Ions Road Elevation: q FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: 0 T e Da Evening Ni ht ^ail Barrier Height: q Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.10$ 0.0074 Autos: q Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav TruciCS: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS { No topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.'1 58.9 57.1 51.0 59.5 60.2 Medium Trucks: 60.7 52.5 4fi.2 44.5 53.1 53.4 Hea Trucks: fi6.3 54.4 45.3 48.5 55:7 58.8 Vehicle Noise: fi$.$ fi1.3 57.8 53.5 62,0 62.4 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenua#ivn} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerl':ne Ngise Contour 30D 200 10D opt, D LL -~ aD -2QD -30D Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Drat EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70104239 Roadway: Village Parkway Raad Segment: Between Dublin 8ivd. and I-B80 N8 On Ramp PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ' "~'`,; ~: Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm }: 0 Average Daily Traffic: 17fi Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 730 Centerline Dist. T^ observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NDI51" INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can ~ ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX observer Height (above grade): 0 T e Da Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height: 4 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -SO Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 OA184 NDISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 D.1D$ 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NQIS E LEVELS (No tapagraphic or harrier attenuation} Vehicie Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 46.7 55.5 53.7 47.G 5fi.3 56.9 Medium Trucks: 57.3 49.2 42.9 41.3 49.8 50.0 Heav Trucks: fi3.0 51.4 42.0 43.2 53.3 53.4 Vehicle Noise: 55.5 58.4 54.4 50.1 58.6 59.1 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [With topographic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night iwdn CNEL AUtgS: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 1a~ 5~ ® fl -50 -3fl~ Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -. ..- ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Qraft EIR Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Ana#yst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: North of Amadar Valley Blvd. PRaJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline gist to Barrier 0 Raad Crade: ~~x-===~ `F] barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: 19,100` Receiver Barrier ^ist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1510 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: Xi:.': Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can i ions Road Elevation; 0 FLEET M1X observer Height {above grade}: 0 T pe Day Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 p.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.$4$ 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NDISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Weavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {Na topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.6 59.4 57.5 51.5 60.2 fi0.t3 Medium Trucks: 61.2 53.1 48.8 45.2 53.7 53.9 Heav Trucks: 56.9 54.9 45.9 47.1 57.2 57.3 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 61.9 58.3 54.0 62.5 63.0 MITIGATE^ NOISE LEVELS [With topograph ic or barrier at#enuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Genterfine Noise Cantvur 30D zaa 1aa a01i a LL -zaa -zaa -3aa -. ..- ~ ~ Project Name: f7awntown [7ublin Specific Plan Draft EIF~ Scenario: Near Term Plus Project Analyst: Brian AI1ee Job #: 7010b239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: South of I-680 NB On Ramp PROJECT f]ATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~< d -..... Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ,.,:,. ~~0: Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 99 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ,,:. :x: '. 1 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~5. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Ite con I Ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height [above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq bay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 38.0 46.8 45.0 38.9 47.8 48.2 Medium Trucks: 48.6 40.6 34.2 32.6 41.1 41.3 Heav Trucks: 54.3 42.3 33.3 34.5 44.6 44.8 Vehicle Noise: 58.8 49.3 45.7 41.4 5D.0 50.4 MITIGAT ED N41SE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicie Type Peak Leq Leg Oay Leq E~aning Leq Night Ldn CNEL AutQS: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ • ^ ^ • - ~ ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin 5pe~ific Flan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian AIlee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Plaza Road Segment: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. #'RDJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: _ ; Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daiiy Traffic: ~,33~" Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1333 Centerline Dist. To Chserver: 1D0 Vehicle Speed: ~ Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: '-m::3[ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 8.5 ~ e con i ions Road Elevation: fl FLEET MIX Observer Height [a4~ove grade}; t7 T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -90 Med. Truck x.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.8G5 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Aufas: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~Na topographic ar barrier attenuatian~ Vehiele Type Reak Leq Leq ^ay Leq ~~ening Leq Night Ldn GNt:L Autos: 47.0 55.7 53.9 47.9 5fi.5 57.1 Medium Trucks: 58.6 50.5 44.2 42.6 51.1 51.3 Heav Trucks: fi4.8 52.8 43.8 45.0 55.4 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 67.4 59A 54.9 51.1 59.6 60A MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topographi c or fsarrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq !Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 156 '€ 00 50 ~ 0 u. -5d -1 as -15fl ~__.... _ - ^ ^ ^ ^ a ~ f Project Name' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Plaza Road Segment: between ^ublin blvd. and St. Patrick Way PRO.IECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to barrier 0 Road Grade: `` :~~~ x~ : Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}; D Average Daily Traffic: :=::.: ~ ~ ~1.1f Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2911 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 25 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: :::=:~7 Barrier Far lane CL Dis#: 0 N015E INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite can i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET Mlx Observer Height (above grade): 0 T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Daily barrier Height: 0 Auta 0.775 D.129 0.098 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.84$ 0.049 0.103 O.D184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {t=eet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.1 D8 D.DD74 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS {Nv topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.4 59.2 57.4 51.3 80.0 BO.fi Medium Trucks: 62A 54.0 47.6 48.0 54.5 54.7 Hea Trucks; 68.2 56.3 47.2 48.4 58.8 58.9 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 E2.4 58.4 54.8 63.1 fi3.5 MITIGAT ED N015E LEVELS {With topograph ic yr barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos; Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehiale Noise: 300 200 900 ~ 4 -~ 00 -2Q0 -300 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• ~. -~ is •. .~• ~ Project Name: C?vwntown Dublin Specific Plan Draft E!R Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70'100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Amador Plaza Rd. and Village Pkwy. PROJECT DATA SITE l7ATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Raad Crade: ` Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average ^aily Traffic: ~w::; :. ; . i`~16 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 238 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 3t~; Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: tJ Centerline Separation: - ..::;~~. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: 0 T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 4 Auto 0.775 x.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -St] Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0'184 N~iSE SOURCE ELEVATiCNS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.805 0.427 0.1 Q8 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATEQ NOIS E LEVELS {Nv topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 51.4 60.2 58.4 52.3 61 A 61.6 Medium Trucks: 62.0 54.0 47.5 46.4 54.5 54.7 Heav Trucks: 67.7 55.7 46.7 47'.9 58.5 58.2 Vehicle Npise: 7a.2 fi2.7 59.1 54.8 63.4 83.8 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenua#inr7} VehicEB Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks; Vehicle Naise: 40Q 30~ 2aa ~aa a u. -goo -zoo -3Qo -4ofl Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. ..• ~ Pro}ect Name: Downtown Lublin Specific Pian Draft ElR Scenario: Future Analyst; Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between ^onahue Dr. and Amadar Plaza Rd. PROJECT pATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~=`F'?'>i obi Barrier {~=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffc: - `18;~6~:. Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1$75 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 104 Vehicle Speed: ~. '~~~ :i: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~i4~ ,.... . Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Ite con Itlans Road Elevation: 4 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}; 0 T pe ^ay Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0,775 0.'129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck x.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS ~Feety Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 OA074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: S UNMITIGATE© NOIS E LEVELS [No topographic or harrier attenuation] Vehiele Type t'sak Leq Leq Day Laq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.5 59.3 57.5 51.4 60.1 60.7 Medium Trucks: 61.1 53.1 46.7 45.1 53.6 53.8 Heavy Trucks: 86.8 54.8 45.8 47A 57.1 57.3 Vehicle Noise: 89.3 61.8 58.2 53,9 62.5 62.9 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 34fl 2Q0 tQfl m fl -tQfl -2~p -3fl~ Roadway Centerline Noise Contour f i .~• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Qraft EIR Scenario: Future Analys#: Brian Allee Jab #: T0100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: East of Vi#lage Pkwy. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Orade: 0. Barrier ~O=waH, 1-berm}: 8 Average ^aily Traffic: -;.:~1w~20 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1720 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 108 Vehicle Speed: 30; Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 8 Centerline Separation: 42 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 8 NOISE INPUT5 Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can i ions Road Elevation: 8 FLEET AA17C Observer Height ~abave grade}: 8 T pe Da Evenin Night ^ail barrier Height; 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 98 Lft View: -98 Med. Truck 4.848 OA49 0.103 0.01$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 4.855 0.027 x.108 0.D074 AUt05: ~ Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED N015 E LEVELS ~Na topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Paak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.2 58.9 57.1 51.1 59.7 50.3 Medium Trucks: 60.8 52.7 46.3 44,7 53.2 53.4 Heav Trucks: 65.4 54.5 45.4 46.6 56.8 56.9 Vehicle Noise: 58.9 61.4 57.9 53.5 62.1 52.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [With tapograph ia or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 3fl0 200 tflp o k -goo -zoo -300 i Roadway Centerline Noise Contour • ~ ^ + ^ ^ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ^ Project Name: ^owntown Dutalin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: future Analyst; Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Regional St. and Starward Dr. PROJEG`f DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist tv Barrier 0 Raad Grade: '; Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: fl Average Daiiy Traffic: f= .:'f _~0 Receiver Barrier Dist: U Peak Wour Traffic: 9887 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 'tflfl Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 4 Centerline Separation: ;~x: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 4 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 i e con ~ eons Road Elevation: ~ FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: Q T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Weight: t7 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 98 Lf# View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet] Weavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: t7 Medium Trucks: 2.3 W ea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATE^ NOIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.6 59.3 57.5 51.5 60.1 60.7 Medium Trucks: 61.2 53.1 46.7 45.1 53.6 53.9 Heav Trucks: 56.8 54,9 45.8 47.0 57.2 57.3 Vehicle Noise: fi9.3 61.$ 5$.3 53.9 E2.5 62.9 MITIGATE^ NOISE LEVELS [With topograph ic ar barrier attenuation) VehiGe Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Weav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 3aa zoo 1aa a°~i a k -~ as -zoo -3a0 f / ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst; Brian Allee Jvb #: 70100239 Roadway: Amadar Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between San Ramon Rd. and Regional 5t, PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ':.K.;°'~~`::'.` Barrier (0=wail, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: ,x~~,,25~~ Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2025 Centerline ^ist. Tv Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ,~,K Barrier Near Lane CL Dist; 0 Centerline Separation: !^'` 4 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NQISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e can itivns Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Gbserver Height (above grade}: p T e ^ay Evening Ni tit Dail barrier Height; 0 Auta 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 80 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.84$ 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trtacks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED N015 E LEVELS (Na topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Fype P®ak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CMEL Autos: 50.9 59.7 57.9 51.8 60.4 61.0 Medium Trucks: 61.5 53.4 47.0 45.5 53.9 54.2 Heav Trucks: 67.1 55.2 46.1 47.3 57.5 57'.6 Vehicle Noise: 69.7 62.1 58.6 54.3 62.8 63.2 MITIGATED NQISE LEVELS (With topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 300 Sao 100 w 0 -100 -200 -300 Roadway Centerline Npisa Contour •.• ~ ~. -^ is •. ..• • Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario; Future Analyst: Brian Allee fob #: 70140239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between 5tarward ^r. and ^onahue Dr. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Qist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: ,` Barrier (d=wall, 1= berm}: 0 Average Qaily Traffic; ~- i ~x„t Receiver Barrier ^ist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 17'87' Centerline Qist, To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: _3 Barrier Near Lane CL Qist: 0 Centerline Separation: m4, Barrier Far lane CL Qist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET Mlx ^bserver Height [above grade}; 0 T e Qa Evening Night Qaily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 4.775 0.929 0.095 4.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE 5Dl1RCE ELEVATIONS (Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NGIS E LEVELS ~No topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.3 59.1 57.3 59.2 59.9 60.5 Medium Trucks: 60.9 52.9 45.5 44.9 53.4 53.6 Heavy Trucks: fi6.fi 54,fi 45.6 46.8 55.9 57.0 Vehicle Noise: 89.1 61.6 58.0 53.7 G2.3 62.7 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS With topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehiele Type Peak Leq Leq nay Leq E~sning Leq Night Ldn CNEL AUtQS: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 3~D ~aa Sao a -~ ao -zaa -3Q4 •.• ~. ~ is •~ ..• ^ Project Name: Downtown ^ubiin Specific Plan Draft EIR SCenafip: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: West of San Ramon Rd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier U Road Grade: ":::~. Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average DaiEy Traffic: :; -;::x Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 327 Centerline Dist. To Observer; 1DD Vehicle Speed: ` 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ;~: Harrier Far lane CL Dist; D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 ~ e can i ions Road Elevation: I} FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: I} T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.7'75 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 OA49 0.103 x.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet] Heavy Truck 4.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS {Na topographic or barrier at#enuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq {]ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldrl CNEL Autos: 43.0 51.8 50.^ 43.9 52.6 53.2 Medium Trucks: 53.6 45.6 39.2 37.6 48.1 46.3 Hea Trucks: 59.3 47.3 38.3 39.5 49.6 49.7 Vehicle Noise: 61.8 54.3 5Q.7 4fi.4 55.D 55.4 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or harrier attenuation] Vehiole Type Paak Leq Leq bay Lsq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle !Noise; CENTERLINE N015E CONTOUR 131 iti Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ •. Project Name: Dawntvwn Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ ~.• • Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 74104239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 0 Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: 4 Average Daily Traffic: 39,2=~~: Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 3927 Centerline Dist. Ta observer: 1Q4 Vehicle Speed: ~ ~5: Barrier Near Lane CL Disf: Q Centerline Separation: 4,4 Barrier Far lane GL Dist: 8 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can itivns Raad Elevation: Q FLEET MIJC Observer Height {above grade}: Q T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 4.775 0.129 OA96 0.9742 Rt View; 9t] Lft View: -9t7 Med. Truck 4.848 0.049 0.103 4.0'1$4 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Peaty Heavy Truck 4.865 0.027 x.108 4.0474 Autos: t] Medium Trucks: 2.3 Flea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS i ;No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 55.7 64.5 62.7 56.6 65.3 65.9 Medium Trucks: 65.4 57.3 51.0 49.4 57.9 58.'1 Heav Trucks: 70.6 58.7 49.6 50.9 fi4.$ 50.9 Vehicle Noise: 73.1 66.4 E3.2 58.fi fi7.1 fi7.6 MITIGAT E^ NOISE LEVELS [With topograph ic or harrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 800 800 nafl aoo a -~aa -400 -660 -800 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ ~ ~ ~~ ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee ~7ah #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Parkway PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 x~`.,.. Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic ;:7,99 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 3799 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed; Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Se oration: ~:r; 4~. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE iNPUTS Pad 1=levatian: 0.5 i e can i ions Rvad Elevation: 4 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}; d T e Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.098 0.9742 Rt View; 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.'[03 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS ~Feet~ Heavy Truck 0.885 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Flea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS (No topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehiele Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Hight Ldn CNEL Autos: 55.8 84.3 62.5 55.5 65.1 65.7 Medium Trucks: fi5.3 57.2 50.8 49.2 57.7 58.0 Heavy Trucks: 70.5 5$.5 49.5 50.7 80.6 60.7 Vehitrle Nvise: 72.9 6fi.3 fi3.1 58.4 87.0 67.4 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq flay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks; Heav Trucks: Vehicle Nvise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 80a 600 4Qa 20a -aao -aaa -saa -8aa .~. .. -i is ^ -i ~ ~ ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee ,lob #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between Golden Gate Drive and Amadvr Plaza Road PRD.fECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier is Road Grade: "~~' ''~- Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: d Average ^aily Traffic: ::~.... '=~~: ;5.1" Receiver Barrier Dist: U Peak Hour Traffic: 3751 CenterNne Dist. Ta Observer: 1p0 Vehicle Speed: :::.::. Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: "%'~;_ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: U NDISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: fl FLEET MIX ^bserver Height [above grade}: fl T pe ^a Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: fl Auto 0,775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -8fl Med. Truck 0.84$ 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NDISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NO15E LEVELS {Na topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Nigh; Ldn CNEL Autos: 55.5 64.3 82.5 56.4 65.1 85.7 Medium Trucks: 65.2 57.1 50,8 49.2 57.7 57.9 Heav Trucks: 70.4 58.5 49.4 50,7 60.6 80.7 Vehicle Noise: 7~.9 fifi.2 63.4 58.4 fifi.9 67.4 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night L[fn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: I 800 i i fi00 440 200 m 0 LL -200 -400 -~flfl -$fl0 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• •. f ~: -. ~ ..• ~ ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70140239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segmen#: Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: Barrier ~0=wolf, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: °l ,Z~'. Receiver Barrier ^ist; 0 Peak Haur Traffic: 412D Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ;:: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~~: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NDISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Qbserver Height above grade}: 0 T e ^a Evening Ni ht Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9a Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck x.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ No topographte or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 55.9 84.7 62.9 56.8 65.5 56.1 Medium Trucks: 85.6 57.6 51.2 49.6 58.1 58.3 Heav Trucks: 70.8 58.9 49.8 51.1 61.0 51.1 Vehicle Noise: T3.3 fiS.f 63.5 58.8 fi7.3 GT.8 MITIGAT E^ NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq i)ay Leq E~sning Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 800 800 400 200 oq1, 0 u_ -200 -40Q -606 -800 Roadway Csnterline Noise Contour -.• _~ -^ is •. ..- • Project Marne: Downtown Dublin 5pecifc Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst; Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between San Ramon Road and Regional Street PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~'' ' .," 4 ' 5~' Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: 7 I' ~` Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 4715 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 3' Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ;m 45'. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: p.5 ite con ~ ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: Q T pe Day Evenin Nigh# Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View; 90 Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 x.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS tFeet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: ~ Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: $ UNMITIGATED ND[S E LEVELS [Na topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.4 65.2 63.4 57.3 66.0 66.6 Medium Trucks: 66.1 58.1 51.7 50.1 58.6 58.8 Heavy Trucks: 71.3 59.4 50.4 51.6 61.5 61.6 Vehicle Noise: 73.8 67.1 64.0 59.3 67.8 58.3 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS W ith topographic yr barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening L.eq Might Ldn CNEL AutOS: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 1600 800 60fl 40fl zoo o '~ -200 -400 -600 -840 -1040 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• ~~ -~ is •. .~• r Pro}ect Marne: Downtown Dul,lin 5pecifc Plan Draft E#F2 Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70140239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road 5egmen#: West of San Ramon Road PRO.tECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: `. Barrier {0=wail, t=berm}; D Average Daily Traffic: x~~~`~',:44~ , Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Haur Traffic: 2448 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1Ufl Vehicle Speed: 35: Barrier Near Lane GL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: Barrier Far lane GL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade}: ~ T e ^a Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.098 4.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 4.'103 0.0184 N015E SOURCE ELEVATIONS ~Feet~ Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.1x8 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS {No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Euening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.5 62.3 60.5 54.4 63.0 63.6 Medium Trucks; 63.2 55.1 48.7 47.2 55.7 55.9 Hea Trucks: 68.4 56,5 47.4 48.6 58.5 58.7 Vehicle Noise; 70.9 84.2 61.0 56.3 64.9 65.4 MITIGATED N015E LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL. Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Natse Contour -.- A ~ - r is •. .~• ~ ^ ProjsCt Name: Downtown ^ublin Specific Plan Draft E!R Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Golden Gate Drive Road Segment: Between Dublin Blvd, and St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: ~~;u~; „~,,,,° Receiver Barrier Dist: Q Peak Haur Traffic: 1258 Centerline ^ist. Ta Observer: 1Q4 Vehicle Speed: 2 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: -``~~:;.;2 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NDISE INPUTS Pad Elevation; D.5 ~ e con r ions Road Elevation: 4 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}; D T pe Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NDISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: Q Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS r ;Na tvpngraphic yr harrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~enirlg Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 46.9 55.7 53.9 47.9 56.5 57.1 Medium Trucks: 58.6 50.5 44.1 42.6 51.1 51.3 Hea Trucks: 64.7 52.8 43.7 45,0 55.4 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 6T.~4 59.D 54.9 51.1 59.6 60A MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS ~1N ith topograph ic yr harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Clay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: '! 50 100 50 m 0 LL -5O -100 -150 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -. ..- ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Golden Gate Drive Road Segment: South of St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ~:~~0 ~ Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 701 Centerline Dist. To observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: s~d~F;~6 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 23 barrier Far Zane GL Dist: 0 NOISE INPt1TS Pad Elevation: 0.5 t e con itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX observer Height [above grade): 0 T pe Da Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 x.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck fl.$fi5 0.027 0,108 17.4074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks; 8 LJNMiTIGATED NOIS E LEVELS [N^ topographic or barrier attenuatiany Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 44.3 53.1 51.3 45.2 53.8 54.4 Medium Trucks: 55.9 47.9 41.5 39.9 48.4 48.6 Heald Trucks: 62.1 50.1 41.1 42.3 52.7 52.8 Vehicle Noise: 64,7 56.3 52.3 48.4 57.0 57.3 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {Wifh topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contoer 84 so as za .. ~ a -za -44 -fi4 -84 •. ..- ~ Project Name: Downtown f7ubiin Specific Plan Draft EIR 5cenaria: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 7D100239 Roadway: Regional Street Road Segment: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and ^ublin Blvd. PROJECT' DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average ^aily TrafFic: ~.8.Q m Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 9038 Centerline ^ist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ;;,fit? Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation; 0.5 Ite con i Ions Road Elevation: ~ FLEET MIX observer Height [above grade}: ~ T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 D.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 DA184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck D.865 0.027 0.1 D8 0.0074 utas: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or harrier attenuation] Vehlcl& Type Peak Leq Leq eay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.2 57.D 55.2 49.1 57.8 58.4 Medium Trucks: 58.8 50.8 44.4 42.8 51.3 5'1.5 Heav Trucks: fi4.5 52.5 43.5 44.7 54.8 54.9 Vehicle Noise: 67.0 59.5 55.9 51.6 60.2 60.6 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 15D iD0 5D ±~+ D LL -50 -1 DD -15D Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ^ ~ ^ ^ / ~ Project Name: Downtown Duhlin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: 1=u#u re Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 7010x239 Roadway: Regional Street Road Segment: South of ^ublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: .0 Barrier {0=wall, 1=bean}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: i Q~~t7 " Receiver Barrier Dist: 8 27 Peak Hour Traffic: 1'3 Centerline ^ist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: -!' ."'tl Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~ ;Z6 Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}; d T pe Da Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Auta Q.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck Q.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feat) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS {Na topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.2 5fi.9 55.2 49.1 57.7 58.3 Medium Trucks: 58.8 50.7 44.3 42.7 51.2 51.5 Heav Trucks: 64.4 52.5 43.4 44.6 54.8 54.9 Vehicle Noise: 66.9 59.4 55.9 51.6 X0.1 60.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {With topograph ic or barrier attenuatian~ Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 15~ too ~a ~, 6 LL -5a -t 4fl -15fl Roadway Centerline Noise Contour . i . ~ ^ e 1 Projec# Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian A11ee Job #: 7D1 DD239 Roadway; San Ramon Raad Road Segment: Between Arnador Valley Blvd. and Dublin Bfvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier D Road Grade: 0. Barrier (0=wall, 1-berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: 35,5 Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic; 3559 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 1QD Vehicle Speed: `~.'~.Y~~ 4f} Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: ;.....:.6a Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite con Itlons Road Elevation: Q FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: U Type ^a Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: Q Auto x.775 0.129 0.096 D.9742 Rt View: 9D Lft View: -SQ Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 D.D1$4 NGISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet Heavy Truck 0.865 0.D27 0.108 D.0074 Autos: Q Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED Na15 E LEVELS ~No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.6 65.4 63.6 57.5 56.1 66.7 Medium Trucks: 65.5 57.5 51.1 49.5 58.0 58.2 Heav Trucks: 70.4 58.4 49.4 5(].B 60.3 50.4 Vehicle Noise: 7"2.8 66.5 64.Q 59.1 67.6 6$.1 MITIGATE^ NQISE LEVELS [W ith #opograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vahicke Type Peak Leq Leq oay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Aut05: Medium Trucks: Nea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Rvactway Centerline Noise Contour 10D0 500 .., m 0 -50D - 7 DDD -~ ~ ~.- ~ • Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Road Segment; North of Amador ValEey Blvd. PRaJECT I]ATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average C7aily Traffic: ;~.=[?;. ,,.. ~ Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Maur Traffic: 3a52 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 40 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 1} Centerline Separation: ;::,~.C Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 4 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation; 0.5 ite con i ions Road Elevation: Q FLEET AAI]C Observer Height {above grade}; t] T pe Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: d Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 6.9742 Rt View: 9U Lft View: -9fl Med. Truck 0.848 6.649 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIdNS ~Feety Heavy Truck 0.$65 0.027 x.108 0.6014 AUt45: 6 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITICATE^ NOIS E LEVELS [No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicte Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.0 54.8 63.0 56.9 65.5 66.1 Medium Trucks: 54.9 56.9 50.5 48.9 57.4 57.6 Hea Trucks: 69.8 57.8 48.8 50.0 59.1 59.8 Vehicle Noise: 72.2 66.3 63.4 58.5 67.0 67.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {With topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicl® Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1. ~ ~ ^~ i Project Name: Downtown ^ublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Joky #: 74100239 Roadway: San Ramon Road Road Segment: South pf Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist tv Barrier 0 Raad Grade: ~~ Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}; d Average ^aily Traffic: 3~,, Receiver Barrier ^isf: 0 Peak Haur Traffic: fi53a Centerline Dist. To ^bserver: 1OQ Vehicle Speed: 4Q: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~~~~`;=~:fi Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NGISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: D.5 Ite con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: 0 T pe Day Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 4,775 0.129 4.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 4,848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NnISE SOURCE ELEVATInNS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.8fi5 D.D27 0.108 O.d074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks. 2.3 Heavy Trucks; 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS (No topographic ar harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 59.2 fi8.0 66.2 60.1 88.8 69.4 Medium Trucks: 68.2 60.1 53.7 52.1 60.6 fi0.9 Heav Trucks: 73.0 fi1.1 52.fl 53.2 63A 63.1 Vehicle Noise: 75.4 E9.6 $fi.7 G1.7 717.3 70.8 MITIGATED NGISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 2000 1500 1000 500 ~i -5DD -1 DOD -15DD -2DD0 -. .~• ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: i=u#u re Analyst: Brian Aliee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Road Segment: East of Amadar Plaza Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 0: Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: D Average Daily Traffic: ;:. 1.:~~~3~0 Receiver Barrier Dis#: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1783 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 1DD Vehicle Speed: .,.~.... _ 25 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: t} Centerline Separation: ~~.: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPI#TS Pad Elevation: fl.5 Ite con I Ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade); D T e Da Evenin Night ^ail Barrier Height: 0 Au#o 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 R# View: 90 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 N015E SOIiRCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0,108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks; 8 IJNMITIGATE^ NOIS E LEVELS [No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.4 57.2 55.4 49.3 58.0 58.5 Medium Trucks: 60.0 52.0 45.6 44.0 52.5 52.7 Heavy Trucks: 66.2 54.3 45.2 46.4 56.8 58.9 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 60.4 56.4 52.6 61.1 61.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic or kaarrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Cantvur •~ -^ is •. .~• • Project Name: ^awntown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Aliee Job #: 74104239 Roadway: 5t. Patrsck Way Road Segment: Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador F~laza Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 8 ~~': `'~~i Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm]: I} Average Daily Traffic: 'x5;$50 Receiver barrier Dist: 0 Peak Haur Traffic: 565 Centerline Dist. To Df7server: 10Q Vehicle Speed: .:::.s25; ~` Barrier Near Lane CL Dist; D Centerline Separation: ~ .. ~~ Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation; Q.5 I e con I Ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height above grade}: D T e Da Evenin Night Dail barrier Height: 4 Auto 0.775 0.129 x.096 4.9742 Rt View: 80 Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck x.848 (1.449 4.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck x.865 4.027 0,1{78 4.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 43.4 52.2 50.4 44.3 53A 53.5 Medium Trucks: 55.0 47,0 40.6 39.0 47.5 47.7 Heav Trucks: 51.2 49.3 40.2 41.4 5~ .$ 51.9 Vehicle Noise: 63.8 55.4 51.4 47.6 56.1 58.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq oay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Mea Trucks: Vehicie Noise: fiD 4Q 2a m ~ u. -2fl -4D -6d _.... Roadway Centerline Noise Cvntnur •~ ..• ~ ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future nalyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 7410x239 Roadway: St. Patrick Way Road Segment: West of Golden Gate ^rive PRaJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Disf to Barrier {) `!'- rc~.: Barrier {0=wall, 1= bermy: 0 Average Daify Traffic: -. fix,:,,,., Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 298 Centerline Dist. To ^bserver: 10t7 Vehicle Speed: ~~~ Barrier Near Lane CL flist: d Centerline Separation: ~'=~''~_:- Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: 0 NGISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: ^.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: Q FLEET MIX Observer Height [af~ove gradey: 0 T e Da Evenin Ni ht []oily barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9fl Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 OA49 0.103 0.0184 NQiSE SGURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 OA074 Autos: U Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heap Trucks: S IJNIIAITIGATED NGIS E LEVELS (No topographic or harrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq I]ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 40.5 49.4 47.6 41.5 50.2 50.$ Medium Trunks: 52.3 44.2 37.8 36.2 44.7 45A Heav Trucks: 58.4 46.5 37.4 38.6 49.0 49.2 Vehicle !Noise: 61.1 52.6 48.6 44.8 53.3 53.1 MITIGAT ED NGISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic ar harrier attenuation] Vehiele Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CN>=L Autos: Mediur-n Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NGISE CGNTGUR Unmitivated ItE Roaduvay Centerkine Noise Contour i -~• ~ "~ ~ '! is ' ~ •~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR s ~^ ^ Scenario: Future Analyst; Brian Allee Jab #: 737 1 002 3 9 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: Between Amadar Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: [} Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ,. b8$[~ Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic; 1988 Centerline ^ist. Ta ^bserver: 100 Vehicle Speed: 3~. Barrier Near Lane CL Dist; 0 Centerline Separation: `=Yx Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: p.5 tte con itions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX Gbserver Height {above grade}: d T e Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9Q Med. Truck x.848 0.449 0.103 OA184 NOISE SDURCE ELEVATIONS ~Feet~ Heavy Truck 0.$55 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: D Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.7 59.5 57.7 51.6 50.2 60.8 Medium Trucks: 61.3 53.2 46.8 45.3 53.7 54.0 Heav Trucks: 66.9 55.0 45.9 47.1 57.3 57.4 Vehicle Noise: fi9.5 fi1.9 58.4 54.1 fi2.fi fi3.Q MITIGATE^ NOISE LEVELS W ith topographic or barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. It i. ..- ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin 5}~ecific Plan Draft IvIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Jot? #: 7p100239 Roadway: Village Parkway Road Segment: Between Dublin Blvd. and [-fi80 NB ^n Ramp PRaJECT ^ATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade_ 0 Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average ^aily Traffic: x,35€?; Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 795 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: .............. ~~~`: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: ~ Centerline Separation: 25.. Barrier far lane CL Dist: 0 Na15E INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con I Ions Road Elevation: ~ FLEET MIX Qbserver Height (above grade}: 0 T pe ^a Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auta 0.775 0.929 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck p.84$ 0.049 0.103 O.p184 NO15E SOURCE ELEVATICN5 ~Feet~ Heavy Truck 0.8fi5 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: S UNMITIGATIwI] NO15 E LEVELS { No topographic ar harrier attenuation} Vehiela Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 47.1 55.9 54.1 48.a 56.6 57.2 Medium Trucks: 57.7 49.6 43.2 41.7 50.1 50.4 Heavy Trucks: 63.3 51.4 42.3 43.6 53.7 53.8 Vehicle Naise: 65.9 58.3 54.8 50.5 59.0 59.4 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS tlNith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: I 15~ ' 9di} .. ~a LL -54 -100 ~' -~ 50 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ^ +~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ • • ^ ~ Project Name: Downtown Duhlin Specific Plan t7raft EIR Scenario: Future Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 701x0239 Roadway: Vil#age Parkway Road Segment: North of Amador Valley Bivd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier Q Road Grade: 0.. Barrier {0=wall, 1= 4~errri}: Q Average Daily Traffic: ; ~~n~'~? Receiver Barrier Dist: Q Peak Hour Traffic: 2125 Centerline Dist. To 'Observer; 1QQ Vehicle Speed: 3D Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: Q Centerline Separation: ,.4 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevat'son: p.5 I e con ~ ion5 Road Elevation: 13 FLEET Mlx observer Height {above grade): Q T pe Da Evening Night ^aily Barrier Height: Q Auta 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 QA184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.$05 .0.027 D.108 0.0074 Autos: 4 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehiele Type Peak Leq Leq Ray Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 51.1 59.8 58.1 52.0 60.5 61.2 Medium Trucks: f31.7 53.8 47.2 45.6 54.1 54.4 Heav Trucks: 57.3 55.4 46.3 47.5 57.7 57.8 Vehicle Noise: 69.8 62,3 58.8 54.5 63.Q 63.4 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {With topograph ic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 2fi3 Sao 83 28 X44 940 .~ m 4 LL -960 -200 -340 -. ..• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Drat EiR Scenario: l=utUre nalyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Village Parkway Raad Segment: South of I-680 N6 On Ramp PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dis# to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: `=``<0 Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: d Average Daily Traffic: 9~i~; Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Haur Traffic: 99 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: '° .. Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 25: =`. Barrier Far lane CL Dis#: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: q.5 i e con a ions Road Eievation: q FLEET MIX Observer Height [above grade): 0 T e Day Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9q Med. Truck 0.$48 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIQNS {Peaty Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: q Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS [No topographic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Even€ng Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 38.0 48.8 45.0 38.9 47.6 48.2 Medium Trucks: 48.6 40.fi 34.2 32.6 41.1 41.3 Hea Trucks: 54.3 42.3 33.3 34.5 44.6 44.8 Vehicle Noise: 56.8 49.3 45,7 41.4 50A 50.4 MITIGAT ED N015E LEVELS [With topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Typa Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNt:L Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Gsnter€ine Noise Contour 15 ~D 5 d 0 LL _C~ -~ -~i FJ •.• •. -^ is -. .~• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Plaza Road Segment: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline D'€st #a Barrier 0 Road Grade: ,:.x:::' i``~;~m ,; Barrier 0=wa11, 1= berm : D Avera a Dail Traffic: ;........14,00 Receiver Barrier 17ist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1409 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ~; Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~:~:: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con I laps Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}; 0 T e Da Evening Night ^ail Barrier Height; 0 Auto 0,775 0.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0A27 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATE^ NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier a#tenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNE7, Autos: 47.2 5fi.0 54.2 48.1 56.8 57.4 Medium Trucks: 58.8 50.8 44.4 42.8 51.3 51.5 Heav Trucks: ESA 53.1 44.0 45.2 55.5 55.7 Vehicle Noise: 67.7 59.2 55.2 51.4 59.9 60.3 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic yr barrier attenuation} Vehicle "type Peak Leq Leq oay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour f ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR • ~ Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Plaza Road Segment: between ^ublin Blvd. and St. Patrick Way PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to barrier D Road Grade: r~?~;:: -' i, Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ;~`~~x Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 3317 Centerline Dist. To ^bserver: 1d0 Vehicle Speed: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 4 Centerline Separation: x-;;i:z;, Barrier Far lane CL Dist: p NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: U.S i e con i sons Road Elevation: t7 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: d T e Da Evening Night ©ail barrier Height: d Auto 0.775 0.129 0.095 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.84$ 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NDISE Sal1RCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.1 OS 0.0074 Autos: d Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea TruciCS: 8 LfNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS [No topographic yr barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq t7ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 51.0 59.7 58.0 51.9 60.5 61.1 Medium Trucks: 52.6 54.5 48.2 46.5 55.1 55.3 Heav Trucks: 68.8 5fi.8 47.8 49.0 59.4 59.5 Vehicle Noise: 71.4 63.0 58.9 55.1 C3.fi E4.I] MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic yr barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Paak Leq Leq uay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Llnmiticsated itipated aaa 300 200 104 m 4 -100 -200 -300 -4fl0 Roadway Centerline Noise Cantvur •a • ~ ^ i is ^ ^ ^ ^ f ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Amador Plaza Rd. and Village Pkwy. PROJECT []ATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~.: Barrier ~0-wall, 1-berm}: ~ Average ^aily Traffic: ~~x80~':. Receiver Barrier Dist: U Peak Hour Traffic: 2388 Centerline Dist. To Observer: tat? Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: D Centerline Separation: ;;::-per; Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: Q FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auta O.T75 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9fl Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 4.x49 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NO15E LEVELS ~ No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leg Day Leq E~ening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 51.5 60.3 58.6 52.5 61.1 61.7 Medium Trucks: 62.2 54.1 47.7 46.1 54.6 54.9 Heavy Trucks: 67.8 55.9 46.8 48.0 58.2 58.3 Vehicle Noise: T4.3 62.8 59.3 55.0 fi3.5 fi3.9 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {With topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Nigttt Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 4aa 3a0 2aa 1 QO m a LL -~ as -aoa -3Da -aao Roadway Centerline Noise Contour ~ ~ Project Name: Dawntgwn Duhlin Specific Plan Draft EIR • ^^ ^ ^ Scenario: Fufure PIu5 Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between Donahue Dr. and Amadar Plaxa Rd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Raad Grade: ~ `" [} Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: Q Average Daily Traftic: .64 Receiver barrier Dist: d Peak Hour Traffic: 1986 Centeriine Dist. To Qbserver: 10Q Vehicle 513eed: jz- ,. , barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: <,x:;.;i'':.;,,c~. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: fl NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: t].5 1 e con itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX observer Height (above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auta 0.775 6.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lit View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.449 4.103 0.0184 NO15E SOURGE ELEVAT1ON5 [Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.148 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea~+y Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NO15 E LEVELS t No topographic yr barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.8 59.6 57.$ 51.7 60.3 50.9 Medium Trucks: 51.4 53.3 46.9 45.4 53.8 54.1 Flea Trucks: fi7.0 55.1 4fi.0 47.2 57.4 57.5 Vehicle Noise: 65.6 fi2.Q 58.5 54.2 62.7 63.1 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 3130 200 goo o -~ as -aaa -3aa Rpadway Centeriine Noise Contour ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ^ ^ • ~ Project Name; Downtown Dublin Specific Pian t7raft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Pkwy. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: '° `'i° :... i Farrier (0=waft, 1=berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: "`''17',62Q:. Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 17fi2 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ,max .,.:. ;;:~'.:;.;;3Q.; Farrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: '.:::.42 Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: 0 NDISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0,5 i e con ~ ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade]: 0 T pe Da Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto x.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NDISE SOURCE ELEVATfONS (Feet} Neavy Truck 0.865 OA27 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: S UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq 13ay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.3 59.9 57.2 51.2 59.8 60.4 Medium Trucks: 60.9 52.8 46.4 44.8 53.3 53.6 Heav Trucks: 66.5 54.6 45.5 46.7 56.9 57.0 Vehicle Noise: 59A 81.5 58.0 53.5 62.2 52.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic ar harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Oay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks; Vehicle Noise: 3DD X00 100 a~i fl LL -1Da Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •.• •. -~ is -. ..• ~ Project Name: Downtown ^uhlin Specific Plan ^raft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70104239 . Roadway: Amadar Valley Boulevard Road Segment; Between Regional St. and Starward Dr. PRGJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: :` £k` Barrier ~4~wall, 1=berm}: $ Average Daily Traffic: ;;:i9; Receiver Barrier Dist; 0 Peak Naur Traffic: 1954 Centerline Dist. To observer: 10fl Vehicle Speed: ..... 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: Q Centerline Separation: 4 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: p.5 ite con i ions Road Elevation: D FLEET MIX ^bserver Height (above grade}: 0 Type Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auta D.775 0.129 0.096 4.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 4.$4$ 4.049 0.143 4.0184 NQISE 54URCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.1 D8 4.D074 Autos: Q Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NQ15 E LEVELS [Na topographic ar harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Ray Leq Evening Leq Might Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.7 59.5 57,7 51.E 65.3 60.9 Medium Trucks: 51.3 53.2 46.9 45.3 53.8 54.4 Neav Trucks: 67A 55.0 46.0 47.2 57.3 57.4 Vehicle Noise: 63.5 62.0 58.4 54.1 62.G 63.7 MITIGATED NDiSE LEVELS With topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour • ^ ~ ` ^ ~ ~ 1 ^ -^ ~ ~• ~ • Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: Between San Raman Rd. and Regional St. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~. Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: ,. ~;~~] Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffc: 2101 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehic#e Speed: ~0 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ,:1, Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite con i ions Road Elevation: fl FLEET M Ix Observer Height above grade}: 0 Type Da Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: 8 Auta 0.775 0.129 O.D9fi 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck D.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 l1NMIT[GATED N015E LEVELS { No topographic ar barrier attenuatinn~ Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq E~aning Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 5'1.0 59.8 58.0 51.9 60.6 61.2 Medium Trucks: 61.6 53.6 47.2 45.5 54.1 54.3 Heavy Trucks 67.3 55.3 46.3 47.5 57.6 57.8 Vehicle Noise: 68.8 fi2.3 58.8 54.4 G3.0 fi3.4 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS riW ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuationy Vehicle Type Pexk Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise; 300 200 100 ~ 0 -100 -zoo -3DD Roadway Centerline Noise Cgntour ~ -~ ~ ~~- ~ Project !Name: IJowntawn Dublin Specific Plan ^raft FIR Scenario: 1suture Pius Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Amador Valley Boulevard Road Segment: .Between Starward Dr. and Donahue Dr. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist t4 Barrier 0 Road Grade: ,:~n- ;;~~ ': Barrier ~a=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ~m~8;54i~. : Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hflur Traffic: 1854 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 3~3 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: '`€~a:; Barrier Far lane CL 17ist: ~ NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 T e pa Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 D.D49 0.103 0.0184 ND15E SOURCE ELEVATi0N5 Feet] Heavy Truck 0.8fi5 0.427 0.1x8 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS >= LEVELS ~ Na topographie or barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq £~ening Leq Nigltt Ldn CNEL Autos: 50.5 59.3 57.5 51.4 G0.0 60.5 Medium Trucks: 61.1 53.0 46.8 45.1 53.5 53.8 Heav Trucks: 6fi.7 54.8 45.7 47.0 57.1 57.2 Vehicle Noise: 69.3 61.7 58.2 53.9 62.4 62.8 MITIGATE^ ND35E LEVELS [With topograph ic or barrier at#enuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn GNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 300 200 900 ~ 0 -900 -~aa -3ao Roadway Centerline Noise Contour •. • •. . - ~ is •. .~• a Project Name: Downtown Duhlin Specific Plan E7raff EIR Scenariq: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 701 x0239 Roadway: Amadar Valley Boulevard Road Segment: West of San Ramon Rd. PRO.IECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier Q Road Grade: 9 Barrier i;0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average ^aily Traffic: 3.;374}: Receiver Barrier ^ist: 4 Peak Hour Traffic: 337 Centerline Dist. Tq {7bserver: 1x8 Vehicle Speed: ': xx~0 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Cen#erline Separation: ~; : :''`';`37 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: ~ NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con itigns Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height {above grade}: 0 T e ^ay Evenin Night ^ail Barrier Height: Q Auto 4.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.193 0.0184 NOISE 50URCE ELEVATIONS [Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.9974 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 €1NMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { No topographic or barrier attenua#ion} Vehicle Typa Peak Leg Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNt;L Autos: 43.1 51.9 59.1 44.1 52.7 53.3 Medium Trucks: 53.8 45.7 39.3 37.7 45.2 4fi.4 Heavy Trucks 59.4 47.5 38.4 39.6 49.7 49.9 Vehicle Noise: 4i1.9 54.4 50.9 46.5 55.1 55.5 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Laq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour so ao 2a a -2fl -40 -so ~~ ^ i •. .~• ~ Project Name: Dvwntvwn Dublin Specific Plan Draft ElR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst; Brian A11ee ,fob #: 70100239 Roadway: ^ublin Boulevard Road Segment- Between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier a '~'~~ 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1=germ}; 0 Average Daily Traffic: `. 4~~950 Receiver Barrier Dist: a Peak Hour Traffic: 4295 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 'IOQ Vehicle Speed: ''; Barrier Near Lane GL ^ist: U. Centerline Separation: ~ °~"._ ''"4Q Barrier Far lane CL Dist: Q NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite can i ion5 Road Elevation: t] FLEET MIX ~fJSarver Height [above grade}: 4 T pe ^a Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height; 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 4.096 0.9742 Rt View: 9U Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.10$ OA074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ~ No topographic or barrier at#entration} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.1 64.9 63.1 57.0 65.6 fifi.2 Medium Trucks: 65.8 57.7 51.4 49.8 58.3 58.5 Hea Trucks: 71.0 59.1 50.4 51.2 61.2 51.3 Vehicle Noise: 73.5 fifi.8 63.8 58.9 67.5 68.0 MITIGAT ED !NOISE LEVELS ~lAl i#h #apagraph ic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 1000 800 600 400 200 a " _2aa -aao -saa -saa -~aoo •.- _. -~ is •. .~• ^ Project Name: Downtown ^uhlin 5pe~ific Plan Draft E!R Scenario: 1"uture Pius Project Analyst: Brian Allee ,lab #: 70100239 Roadway: Duf3iin Boulevard Road Segment: East of Village Parkway 1PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 `,: Barrier {0=wall, 1-berm]: 0 Average Daily Traffic: X85` Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 3885 Centerline Dist. Ta observer: 1DQ Vehicle Speed: ;~:. i:<'', 35 ~: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 . Centerline Separation: =~~=~; 4Q;: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 N415E INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite con i ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET M IX Qbserver Height {above grade}: 0 T pe Da Evenin Night Dai! Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 OA96 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: ~ Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks; S UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS [No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq aay Leq E~ening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 55.6 54.4 62.8 56.6 65.2 55.8 Medium Trucks: 65.4 57.3 50.9 49.3 57.8 58.1 Heav Trucks: 70.6 58.5 49.5 50.8 60.7 50.8 Vehicle Noise: 73A 66.4 53.2 58.5 87.1 87.5 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or harrier atteneratiun} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 800 800 nao ~Da -~aD -4D0 -600 -800 Roadway Centerline Noise Contour I •~ ..• ^ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 701x0239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segmen#: Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Raad PRD.#ECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline ^ist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: "h .`'i7 :: :::..::.:.: ::.: Barrier 0=wall, 1= berm : ~ } t} Avera a Dail Traffic: 9 Y . rid :: 42;t]60 Receiver Barrier Dist: D Peak Hour Traffic: 42x6 Centerline ^ist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: ;`~:~: Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: ~ '. ~=:~}0 Barrier Far Eane CL ^ist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: t7,5 t e con i ipns Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Gbserver Height above grade]: t] T pe Day Evenin Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: d Auta 0.775 0.129 4.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9U Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 4.108 0.0074 Autos: Q Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hex Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ~No topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.0 64.8 63.0 56.9 65.8 66.2 Medium Trucks: 65.7 57.6 51.3 49.7 58.2 58.4 Hex Trucks: 70.9 59.0 49.9 59.2 61.1 6'1.2 Vehicle Noise: 73.4 6B.T BS.S 58.9 67.4 fi7.9 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS [W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day teq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Nnise Contour •. • Project Name: Downtown ^uhlin Specific Pian Draft EiR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Srian Allee Job #: 7D100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier d Road Grade: 0 Barrier {0=wall, 1=berm}: t] Average ^aily Traffic: X7',330 Receiver Barrier Dist: ~ Peak Hour Traffic: 4733 Centerline ^ist. Ta Observer: 10(f Vehicle Speed: ~~~-~5 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: t] Centerline Separation: x=`-'40 Barrier Far lane CL Qist: 0 NGISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 I e con ~ Ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET INIX Gbserver Height [above grade}: Q Type ^a Evenin Night Daily Barrier Height: t] Auto 0.775 0.'129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 98 Lft View: -9D Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NGISE SOURCE ELEVATIGNS {Feet] Heavy Truck 0.865 O.D27 0.108 0.0074 utas: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Hea Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NGIS E LEVELS {No topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peale Leq Leq Day Leq ,Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 56.5 65.3 63.5 57.4 fifi.1 86.7 Medium Trucks: 68.2 58.2 51.8 54.2 58,7 5$.9 Heav Trucks: 71.4 59.5 50.4 51.7 fi1.fi 61.7 Vehicle Noise: 73.9 87.2 64.1 59.4 87.9 68.4 MITIGATED NGISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Nlght Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Joao $ao soo 4D0 200 m 0 ~ -2Q0 -k00 -660 i -8Q6 -~ aaa ~ - • ~ ~ ^ ' ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin 6QUlevard Road Segment: Between San Ramon Road and Regio nal Street PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier U Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}: t7 Average Daily Traffic: '' S3;8 Receiver Barrier Dist: fl Peak Hour Traffic: 5388 Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 14U Vehicle Speed: '' `": ' `~i barrier Near Lane CL Dist: fl Centerline Separation: ;`~~-;... 45,. Barrier Far lane CL Dist: D NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: d,5 i e con i ions Road Elevation: 4 FLEET MIX Observer ~ieight (above gradeJ: Q T e Da Evenin Night Dail Barrier Height: 4 Auto 4.775 0.129 0.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -SO Med. Truck 4.$4$ 4.449 0.103 0.0184 NDISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS Feet] Heavy Truck 0.885 0.427 4.10$ 0.4474 Autos: a Medium Trucks: Z.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NDIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CN7=L Autos: 57A fi5.8 84A 57.9 65.5 87.2 Medium Trucks: 66.7 58.8 52.3 50.7 59.2 59.4 Heav Trucks: 71.9 60.0 54.9 52.2 62.1 52.2 Vehicle Noise: 74.4 87.7 64.5 59.9 C8.4 88.9 MITIGAT ED NDISE LEVELS {W ith topograph ic or barrier attenuatiany Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centsrlsne Noise Contour I LL iaao ~aaa 500 4 -5a0 -1000 -~ ~aa ' ^ •~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ ai ^ Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jab #: 70100239 Roadway: Dublin Boulevard Road Segment: West of San Ramon Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: ~~° , 0; Barrier t0=wall, 1=berm]: 4 Average Daily Traffic: =~ ~_`: ~fl00 Receiver Barrier Disf: U Peak Haur Traffic: 25aa Centerline Dist. Ta Observer: 10a Vehicle Speed: :~5 Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 4 Centerline Separation: ~;;. ~ 1 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 4 NOISE INPLfTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e can i ions Road Elevation: ~ FLEE7 MIX ^bserver Height {above grade); U T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail Barrier Height: t] Auta x.775 0.129 0.098 0.9742 Rt View: 91] Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.6184 NOISE SDIJRCE ELEVATIONS {Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 4 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNhiIITiGATED NOIS E LEVELS ~ Na topographic ar harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.6 62.3 60.6 54.5 63.1 63.7 Medium Trucks: 53.3 55.2 48.8 47.3 55.8 56.0 Hea Trucks: 68.5 56.6 47.5 48.7 58.5 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 64.3 fi1.1 56.4 65.U fi5.5 M171GAT ED NrD15E LEVELS {Vll ith tapngraph ic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Qay Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour -~• •~ -. is -. .~• r Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ^raft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Golden Gate Drive Road Segment: Between Dublin Blvd. and St. Patrick Way PR~JEGT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier fl Road Grade: ::;0 Barrier ~0=wall, 1=berm}: 0 Average Daily Traffic: ~....::1 ~} Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1585 Centerline [list. To O3~server: 900 Vehicle Speed: `;r ~:::: Barrier Near Lane CL ^ist: 0 Centerline Separation: ::,p;: Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NO15E kNPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite con 1 ions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Gbserver Height {above grade}: 0 T e ^ay Evening Ni h# Dail Barrier i-leight; U Auto 0.775 D.129 a.09fi 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SaURCE ELEVATIONS Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.'108 4.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS (Na topographic or barrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 47.8 5fi.6 54.8 48.7 57.4 58.0 Medium Trucks: 59.5 59.4 45.0 43.4 51.9 52.2 Hea Trucks: 65.6 53.7 44.6 45.8 56.2 56.4 Vehicle Noisa: 68.3 59.8 55.8 52.Q 6t1.5 60.9 IVIITIGAT E^ NOISE LEVELS W ith topograph ic ar barrier attenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: 154 10fl 5D a01i 0 LL -54 -1 pQ -15fl Roadway Centerline Noise Contour " ~ ~ ^ f ~ ~ Project Name: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR 5cenaria: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Aliee Job #: 70100239 Roadway: Golden Gate Drive Road Segment: South of 5t. Patrick W ay PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Rflad Grade: Q. Barrier [0=wall, 1=berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: <.~~81: Receiver Barrier Dist: ~ Peak Hour Traffic: 789 Centerline Dist. To Gbserver: 9t]Q Vehicle Speed: -: 25 Barrier Near Lane GL Dist: l7 Centerline Separation: <:;;~~; barrier Far lane CL Dist: l7 NOISE 1NPl1TS Pad Elevation: 0.5 i e con i i[~ns Road Elevation: 4 FLEET MI74 Observer Height (above grade}: t} T pe Day Evening Night Dail Barrier Height: Q Auto 0.775 0.129 O.Og6 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE 5OURCE ELEVATIONS {Feet] Heavy Truck 0.8fi5 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 4 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOIS E LEVELS { Na topographic ar harrier attenuation Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq ~~ening Leq Night t_dn CNEL Autos: 44.8 53.5 51.7 45.7 54.3 54.9 Medium Trucks: 56.4 48.3 42.0 40.4 48.9 49.1 Heav Trucks: 62.fi 50.6 41.fi 42.8 53.2 53.3 Vehicle Noise: 65.2 58.8 52.7 48.9 57.4 57.8 MITIGAT ED NOISE LEVELS {W }#h #opographi c ar harrier a#tenuation] Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heav Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 8fl 6~ 40 20 o~ m LL -aa -4a -so -SQ • a a + ^ a ~ 1 ^ •^ a ^• + ~ Project Name: Downtown Duf3lin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Brian Allee Jflb #: 70100239 Roadway: Regional Street Road Segment: Between Amador Valley Blvd. and Dublin 131vd. PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to barrier d Road Grade: :~~Ct Barrier (0=wall, 1=berm}; D Average Daily Traffic: '~.°l"1,6Tf1 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak HQUr Traffic: 1167 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 10d Vehicle Speed: 3[ barrier Near Lane Ct_ Dist: d Centerline Separation: ='~.:x:2~: Barrier Far lane CL ^ist: d NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 ite con itions Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height [above grade}: D T e Da Evening Ni ht Dail barrier Height: D Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -9fl Med. Truck 0.848 OA49 0.103 0.0'184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS [Feet} Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: Z.3 Heav Trucks: 8 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS ~ No topographic or barrier attenuation Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Laq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.7 57.5 55.7 49.6 58.3 58.9 Medium Trucks: 59.3 51.3 44.9 43.3 51.8 52.0 Heav Trucks: fi5.0 53.0 44.0 45.2 55.3 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 57.5 6fl.0 56.4 52.1 6d.7 fi1.1 MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS [With topographic or harrier attenuation} Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening E-eq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Hea Trucks: Vehicle Noise: Roadway Centerline Noise Contour 2fl0 150 1Q0 5a 0 -50 -~ oa -150 -200