HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/2000, C3 - RESIDENTIAL SOUNDPROOFING council M° ° s
j Ac en 6A REpoRt 'Q
C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P 0
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works`1&110* '
Prepared By: Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL SOUNDPROOFING
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Approve expenditure of $31,611 from the Parking Fund's completed Capital Improvement
Project (CIP) account to soundproof the apartment building at 865 Morro Street (Berkemeyer
Apartments) as a condition of the approved mitigation measures for the construction of the Palm
Street Parking Garage.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 1986 an initial environmental impact study was completed as part of the approval process for
the construction of the Palm Street Parking Garage. The project was granted a negative
declaration with approved measures (Attachment 1) to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts for the garage construction. One of these measures required"some means of minimizing
noise to the adjacent apartment shall be provided..." to insure compliance with the city's noise
standards. It was anticipated that the operation of the new garage would increase ambient noise
levels that could exceed the city's noise standard (above 60 decibels-dB) for residential areas.
The suggested means for providing soundproofing was the installation of dual-pane windows
and/or construction of a noise barrier between the garage and the adjacent apartment building.
Although the garage was completed in 1987, no formal soundproofing measure was ever
completed for the adjoining apartment building. The exact reason(s) for this is uncertain due to
the time that has lapsed since the garage was built. However, since there was no formal
environmental impact report completed for the garage, no official mitigation monitoring and
reporting program was adopted for this project Moreover, this lack of any formal action is
reinforced by the fact it was the city's first garage with an unknown noise impact to the adjacent
apartment building, so initially nothing was done to soundproof the building.
Over the years there has been an increased use of the Palm Garage, especially on Thursday,
Friday and Saturday evenings. This increased activity has resulted in an intensification of noise
that has been impacting the residents of the adjacent apartment building. This escalation has
prompted the current owner of the building to request that the City fulfill the intent of the 1986
mitigation measure to provide some soundproofing to the apartment building. The owner has
requested that 88 dual-pane windows be provided to insure that the noise levels do not exceed
city standards.
CM
Council Agenda Report—Residential Soundproofing
Page 2
Noise Analysis
Since it has been 13 years since the garage was completed, staff commissioned a sound
consultant (Krause Engineering Services) to ascertain the current noise levels associated with the
operation of the garage. Field surveys were conducted over a four-day period (Thursday-
Sunday) at various times of the day and night in order to assess typical noise exposure at various
times of the week. The survey included measurements during Farmer's Market, late night on
Friday and Saturday, and midday Saturday. Maximum and minimum sound levels were
determined for the survey period, along with average sound levels for the entire survey period.
The results are summarized below and detailed on Attachment 2.
Minimum levels ranged from 48 to 53dB (decibels)
Maximum levels ranged from 60 to 75dB*
* The higher levels were typically short durations (1-3 minutes) from car alarms
Average noise levels were calculated at 59dB Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn)
Based on the city's current noise standard, which allows a maximum of 60dB Ldn, the consultant
concluded that no formal mitigation was required because existing average sound levels
technically did not exceed city standards. The property owner was provided a copy of the sound
study and informed that although the findings technically did not warrant any sound mitigation,
we would agree to soundproof the rear of the building (25 windows) as a good faith effort
because the decibel levels were close to the maximum allowed.
The property owner felt the offer was insufficient because other portions of the building were
affected by the spikes in decibel levels from car alarms, loud music, engine noise, and groups of
users coming and going from the garage. As a result, the owner commissioned his own
independent sound engineer (David Dubbink Associates) to evaluate the city's noise study and
recommendations. The analysis and additional field measurements conducted by Dubbink
(Attachment 3) supported the findings of the city's noise study for typical decibel levels.
However, in a worst-case scenario set up by the consultant for car alarms, noise levels exceeded
city standards. This same finding was reflected in the city's study, which clearly indicated spikes
of up to 75dB. Thus, both studies supported the average sound levels are within established
noise standards,but that the "sound spikes" clearly exceeded the 60dB level set forth in the noise
ordinance.
Considering the magnitude of the sound spikes, and the city's obligation to provide some
soundproofing pursuant to the 1986 mitigation measure, staff had the city's consultant reevaluate
all of the pertinent data. Since the average levels were so close to the maximum (59dB vs. 60
dB), and the sound spikes exceeded levels by up to 15dB (750), our consultant submitted a
revised recommendation for soundproofing the building. The window replacement schedule
(Attachment 4) recommends 65 windows replaced along the south and west faces of the building
including the south face of the courtyard. An additional 11 windows on the north face of the
courtyard were not recommended on technical grounds, but could be considered to provide a
more extensive sound buffer zone. The 65-window proposal was presented to the property
C3-2
Council Agenda Report–Residential Soundproofing
Page 3
owner who felt the additional 11 windows should be included in the final number. After
discussing the sound reflection potential within the courtyard area, staff agreed that the 76
windows would be a more comprehensive soundproofing of the building. The owner accepted
this proposal.
When all of the factors are considered (time delay, increased use, high spike levels, close
proximity to the entrance/exit lane, and the city's legal obligation to mitigate noise) the
recommended proposal of replacing 76 windows to improve the quality of life for nearby
apartment residents is a fair and reasonable offer.
CONCURRENCES
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed all aspects of this request/requirement to provide some
means of soundproofing for the apartment building and supports the final recommendation for
window replacement.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended proposal to provide 76 dual-pane windows will cost $31,611. The breakdown
is as follows:
76 windows of various sizes $25,223
Tax $1,828
Subtotal $27,051
Labor(76 @ $60 each) $4,560
Grand total $31,611
This project can be funded without new appropriations through the use of surplus money
accumulated in the completed CIP account for the Parking Fund. Various completed projects,
Nipomo/Pahn parking lot in particular, have accumulated surplus funds in excess of$200,000 for
unexpected capital projects such as the window upgrade. Thus, the project can be readily
completed without any fiscal impact to current approved projects.
ALTERNATIVES
The property owner and the Public Works Department have reached an agreement on the number
of windows to be replaced to satisfy both parties. However, the Council can direct staff to
replace more or less than the recommended number of windows if it so desires.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1-1986 Mitigation Measure for the Palm Garage
Attachment 2—Krause Engineering Sound Study
Attachment 3—Dubbink Associates Sound Study
Attachment 4--Krause Engineering Window Replacement Schedule
counci Iagendareport/parkingissues/CARHowardFranklinSound
C3-3
ATTACHMENT 1
REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES - ER 17-86
New Parking Structure
Northwest corner of Morro and Palm Streets
The following measures are include in the project to mitigate
potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the original
and return to my office as soon as possible.
1. Left turn lanes northbound from Morro onto Palm and eastbound
from Palm into the structure should be considered to assure that
cars can safely turn into the structure.
2. Construction should begin during the summer, if possible, to
minimize problems with excavation and runoff, to minimize the
overlapping of time during which the parking structure and
City-County Library are under construction and to allow for some
spaces to be available for shoppers during the month of
December.
3. The BIA, City and County should encourage their employees to
carpool and should consider setting up a carpool or vanpool
site.
4. A parking management plan shall be established to encourage
merchants and their employees and government employees to
utilize the garage and to remove parking from residential areas.
5. If the structure is always open to the public, adequate lighting
and regular police patrol of the site should be provided. If
the structure will be closed at certain times, a security
barrier such as a gate shall be installed at the entrance.
6. Building design shall assure that adjacent residents are not
exposed to car exhaust and venting from the structure.
7. Adequate ventilation within the structure shall be provided to
ensure a safe environment for its users.
8. some means of minimizing noise to the adjacent apartment shall
be provided, such as double-glazing windows of that unit and/or
constructing a noise barrier between the structure and adjacent
residences in compliance with city's noise standards.
9. Existing trees within five feet of the property line shall
remain.
C3-4
MAY 3 0 ..,,00 ATTACMfET 2
Krause Engineering Services
City of SLO - Parking Operations May 25, 2000
1260 Chorro St., Suite B
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Keith Opalewski
Subj: Traffic Noise Study
Palm Street Garage
Introduction
The study subject is an existing multilevel parking garage in downtown San Luis Obispo. One side
of the garage faces directly toward adjacent apartment buildings, with potentially significant noise
impact on residents. The study objective is to assess the noise impact of traffic in the garage with
respect to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, and recommend n itigations if
necessary. The study method includes a recent survey of noise levels made at the garage property
line adjacent to the apartments.
Setting
The garage is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Monro and Palm Streets as
shown in Figure 1; garage arrangement with respect to the adjacent apartment buildings is shown in
detail in Figure 2. The northwest comer of the garage and the portion next to the office building
have solid walls, indicated by bold lines. Other sides of the garage are open or have decorative
louvered sheet metal facings which are acoustically transparent to traffic noise.
The main access to the garage is at a toll kiosk on Palm Street. An alley adjacent to the apartment
building serves as an auxiliary access for monthly parking patrons. A small office building is at the
corner of the garage property next to the alley;this building is currently being renovated. The
remaining space on the north side of the garage is designated as a handicap parking area; this space
is currently fenced off and is being used as a staging area for the office renovation project.
Dominant noise source observed in the area is local traffic on Morro and Palm Streets; noise from
other city streets and Highway 101 is also audible during lulls in local traffic. A significant
stationary noise source in the area is rooftop mounted mechanical equipment(heat pumps) for the
Pacific Bell switch gear building across Morro Street from the apartments; this is the dominant
noise source late at night when traffic is minimal.
Noise Descriptors
Sound magnitude is measured using a decibel (dB) scale to describe the relative intensity of
acoustical pressure waves. The subjective impression of a given sound is a function of both sound
wave magnitude and frequency content, and is called loudness. Loudness is measured using a
frequency weighting scale(A-weighting) which relates measurements to human hearing response.
Noise is rated using a loudness scale of A-weighted sound levels expressed in dB.
Annoyance due to noise is associated with how often the noise is present and how long it persists,
as well as how loud it is. Variable noise levels are described by Equivalent Sound Level (L*,
which is the average noise level over a given time period. Community noise is rated using the Day-
Night Average Sound Level (Ldn), which uses hourly Leq values averaged over a 24-hour day,
with the addition of a 10 dB penalty for the nighttime hours between 10 pm and 7 am.
6086 Gary PI. . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 546-8169 FAX 546I8N_5
Palm St. Garage Noise
Page 2
Noise Criteria
The City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element includes policies to avoid or reduce the impact of
community noise sources on residences. This includes maximum allowable noise levels at
residences due to emissions from both traffic and stationary sources as follows.
Maximum daily average noise exposure due to traffic:
Outdoors 60 dB Ldn
Indoors 45 dB Ldn
Hourly noise exposure due to stationary sources:
Maximum 70/65 dB (Day /Nigat)
Average 50/45 dB Leq (Day/Night)
Noise Survey
A noise measurement survey was performed during the period from April 13 (a Thursday) through
April 16(a Sunday) in order to assess typical noise exposure at various times of the week The
survey included sessions in the evening during Farmers Market, late at night on Friday and
Saturday, and midday Saturday . Data were obtained at three survey stations located along the
property line as shown in Figure 1; the stations are similar except for distances from Morro Street.
The survey used a precision sound level measurement system which logged sound levels at one-
second intervals for continuous periods of 15 to 30 minutes duration each. Maximum and
minimum sound levels(Lmax and Lmin) were determined for each period, along with average
sound level (Leq) for the entire period. Records were annotated with observations of noise
sources during specific events which had significantly higher levels than usual.
Survey Results
Results of the survey are shown in Table 1.
Minimum levels ranged from 48 to 53 dB, depending on the amount of traffic on distant streets and
the highway. Minimum noise levels late at night were 49 dB at Station 2 and 48 dB at station 3;
these are due to the rooftop equipment sources at the Pacific Bell building, which operate
continuously (Station 2 is slightly closer to the source).
Maximum sound levels were from 60 to 75 dB, due to traffic on Morro Street and in the garage.
Hourly average sound levels were 51-52 dB Leq late at night and 55-56 dB Leq during most
daytime and evening sessions. The highest hourly average value of 58 dB Leq occurred during the
Farmers Market, when the garage was essentially full.
Typical sound level record segments are shown in Chart 1. Background noise levels from distant
traffic are about 53 to 57 dB. Momentary peaks of 60 to 65 dB occur during traffic passbys on
local streets and in the garage. Periods with maximum sound levels 65 to 68 dB resulted from car
alarms in the garage; in one case, the alarm sounded continuously at 68 dB for about one minute.
Other records are similar, with highest noise level events caused by truck or bus passbys on Monro
Street, and by alarms or horns of cars both parked in the garage and on city streets.
C3-6
Palm St. Garage Noise
Page 3
Other specific sources of intrusive noise events were vehicles with poor quality mufflers (i.e.
jalopies, low riders, and diesel pickup trucks), loud car stereos, racing by particularly aggressive
drivers racing, and the alarm horn used to warn oversized vehicles at the garage entrance kiosk.
Much of the traffic noise which might seem at first to come from the garage is in fact Palm Street
traffic noise passing through the open structure of the garage. This is particularly significant for
busses, trucks, and trolleys accelerating away from stop signs at the intersections.
Average Traffic Noise Exposure
Equivalent average daily noise exposure at the rear alley property line can be predicted with
confidence using the survey data as shown in Table 2, using hou.ly Leq values assumed for a 24-
hour day starting and ending at noon. Daytime noise levels are 55 to 57 dB Leq, with peak
morning and afternoon hours of 58 dB Leq. Early morning and late evening noise levels are 53 to
55 dB Leq. Nighttime noise level is 51 dB due to stationary sources.
Hourly Ldn values are calculated by adding 10 dB to nighttime hours shown in bold type; overall
daily average noise exposure calculated by logarithmic addition of hourly Ldn values is 59 dB Ldn.
The daily average is less than the allowable maximum of 60 dB Ldn; mitigation is not required
Stationary Source Noise Exposure
Continuous noise levels of 48 to 49 dB due to Pacific Bell equipment were measured at the survey
stations near the alleyway. Noise levels of 53 to 55 dB due to this equipment also were measured
at locations along the east lawn area of the apartment building facing Morro Street. Even higher
noise levels are predicted at upper floor windows and balconies of the apartment building.
The average noise level due to this source is greater than the allowable limit of 45 dB at night;
mitigation (by Pacific Bell) to allowable limits is recommended. This also would reduce overall
daily Ldn by lowering the background level during late night hours when traffic is not significant
and the 10 dB penalty is applied.
Discussion
Although no mitigation is required to comply with the Noise Element standards for daily average
traffic noise exposure, the isolated noise events as described above in the discussion are a likely a
source of occasional noise intrusion and annoyance to the apartment residents.
Although individual drivers' actions are largely not under control in the garage, some benefit would
likely be derived by advising garage patrons of the presence of residences nearby, and
discouraging excessive horn use, loud music, and driving fast. This could be done by posting
signs at the kiosk entrance and at selected locations in the traffic flow path, or by including a note
on the preprinted garage parking tickets. The garage security staff rovers also could assist by
advising noisy patrons about the neighbors and requesting cooperation.
IA4-d14Wt.
Nick Krause, P.E.
Krause Engineering Services
C3-'7
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
L_I Ick
� F
o
J
PRLl11 _ _
r=
�- -�
M OW.ERHY MONTEREY
M M ,I i I i7 W7 ITF--Ti
FIGURE 2
IJ LOCAL AREA DETAIL � L-
MILLrL
U
N
� J
~ w am
Za
Lu
2
2 a
a
a
HANDICAP
PARK
GARAGE
4
PALM
C3-S
TABLE 1 TABLE 2
NOISE SURVEY DATA DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE
DATE SURVEY START DUR Sound Level, dB Hourly
STN. TIME (min) Lmax Lmin Leq Leq HR Leq Ldn
4/13 1 18:00 30 69 53 58.9 58 12 56 56
18:30 30 66 53 56.8 13 56 56
" 19:00 30 75 51 57.5 56 14 56 56
19:30 30 73 50 55.4 15 56 56
" 20.00 30 69 49 56.2 16 57 57
17 58 58
4/14 2 20:00 15 58 54 54.7 55 18 57 57
20:15 15 61 52 54.2 19 56 56
"
2 0:3 0 15 73 52 55.6 20 55 55
20:45 15 65 51 53.9 21 53 53
2 2 5 2 6 2
4/14 2 23:45 1 5 59 50 51 .9 2 3 5 2 6 2
4/15 00:00 30 68 49 52.6 52 0 5 2 6 2
" 00:30 30 63 49 51 .9 1 51 61
" 01 :00 25 64 49 51.4 2 51 61
3 5 1 6 1
4/15 2 13:30 30 74 51 57.1 56 4 51 61
" 14:00 30 68 52 55.2 S 5 2 6 2
14:30 30 69 52 56.0 6 5 3 6 3
7 55 55
4/16 3 00:15 15 59 48 50.2 8 57 57
" 00:30 30 62 48 51 .1 51 9 58 58
01 :00 30 . 62 48 50.1 10 57 57
01 :30 30 70 48 51.2 51 11 56 56
"
0 2:0 0 30 60 48 49.9 "
Ldn 5 9
C3-9
CHART 1
EVENING TRAFFIC NOISE
PALM ST GARAGE, SLO
APR. 14, 2000
6:00 pm • Station 1
Leq = 58 dB
5
65- Cr 5 tr S
S
[cdIB60- 5 5
`L
55-
4 -
50- 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MINUTES
6:15 pm • Station 1
Le = 58 dB
70- A
S
dB 60-
55'
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MINUTES
8:15 pm • Station 1
Leg = 56 dB
70-
65- S S S
dB 60- G (r !r
55-
50-1 i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(�ry-
/
MINUTES
�: rlAraafQ ,.gie. S �-t rw j VY.Ii:[ A :
C3-10
ATTACHMENT 3
David Dubbink Associates Interactive Sound Information system
864 Osos Street, Suite D, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 USA
Tel: (805) 541-5325 Fax: (805)54145326 email: dubbink@noisemanagement.org
July 6, 2000
Mr. Howard Franklin
891 Mill Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Franklin:
This is a response to your request to review the city's May 1, 2000 noise study and
recommendations. As the text of the Krause Engineering report states,the city has
multiple noise standards that need to be met by all approved projects.
The Current Situation
The city sets standards for single event, hourly and daily levels. The standards for single
event and hourly exposure are:
Maximum(Lmax) 70/65 Day/Night
Average(LEQ) 50/45 Day/Night
The Krause Engineering study indicated that noise from the parking structure is in excess
of the city's standards for maximum and hourly exposure. The study measured noise at
three locations along the property line adjacent to the garage. The maximum sound levels
recorded were at 68 dB for a one minute period caused by an activated car alarm. Other
peak events related to a warning horn for oversized vehicles and tine screeches from
racing cars. The maximum hourly level of 58 LEQ was recorded at the time of Farmer's
Market.
Krause Engineering estimated the daily noise level dose to be 59 DNL. This is just under
the permitted 60 DNL limit.
We conducted our own study of the situation using a hand held sound level meter(B&K
Type 2230). Our readings of background noise were in line with the Krause study. They
report typical background noise levels(mostly area traffic) are in the range of 53 to 57
dB. We recorded background levels at 56.6 in the early afternoon of July 1.
However, we set up a"worst case" scenario. We parked a truck in a parking stall on the
second level of the structure in the row facing your building. We set off the electronic
alarm using a remote.The alarm produced the familiar repetoir of warbles,whoops and
honks. We also made our measurements from elevated positions, at the top of an outside
stair and from an open bedroom window at the third story. The alarm produced a
maximum level of 77 dB and an average,while sounding, of 74 dB. With the window
closed the maximum sound was 58 dB with a side window open and 55 dB with all
windows closed. This 19-22 dB reduction is consistent with conventional construction.
C3-11
We were also interested in the audibility ofthe alarm within courtyard area on the
apartment building. This faces "southward"and is not directly facing the parking
structure. At the upper level balcony there was a minimal 2 dB change from 58 dBs of
background noise to 60 dBs with the alarm activated. However,the sensory experience
was different than the dB readings would suggest. The alarm sound is designed to be
attention getting. We could hear the alarm quite clearly with the sound echoing back from
the side of the apartment building facing the structure. At this location, most of the
background sound comes from freeway noise. This would be reduced at evening and
nighttime periods so the differential effect of sounds from auto alarms, warning horns,
and screeching tires would be magnified.
The Krause study concluded that noises from the garage, "are a likely source of
occasional noise intrusion and annoyance to the apartment residents." We concur with
this and note that the situation is even more problematic with our`worst case"of an
activated car alarm in the first rank of cars.
Suggested Mitigations
In the section of the Krause study on mitigations it was suggested that drivers be asked to
avoid using horns within the garage and to drive at moderate speeds. Perhaps this might
have some effect but it is unlikely that drivers would disable car alarms or that all drivers
would comply with the requests.
The original project approvals included sound insulation treatment for the apartment
structure. This is justified by the current situation. The parking structure produces noise
in excess of that permitted by the city's standards. Dual paned, acoustic windows can
reduce noise exposure by 10 dB and can bring noise exposure within the living and
sleeping areas fronting the garage to acceptable levels.
In order to produce appropriate reductions in room noise levels it is necessary to treat all
openings. This requires treatment of fronting and side facing windows as well as
structural ventilation openings at the roof line and in the foundation area. If rooms are
completely closed, it is also necessary to provide forced ventilation—and the ventilators
must be designed to suppress exterior noise.
We recommend that a contractor with experience in acoustical insulation make specific
recommendations as to how to most economically bring the situation into conformance
with city noise standar
S' cerel ,
David Dubbink, PhD., AICP
C3-12
' TACHKM 4
Krause Engineering Services
FAX MEMO - 3 PAGES
TO:(805) 781-7267
To: SLO Parking Authority August 25, 2000
1260 Chorro St. Suite B
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Keith Opalewski
Re: Traffic Noise Study
Palm Street Garage, SLO
I have reviewed the recent car alarm noise study (Dubbink, 7/6/00) and
recommendations for treatment to reduce nuisance noise at the adjacent
apartment building. The following is my response.
My prior study (Krause, 60/00) specifically assessed the garage noise with
respect to the day-night average noise level (DNL) limit, which is applied in
the Noise Element to "transportation" sources such as public roadways On
this basis, the surveyed noise levels at the apartment property.line do not
exceed limits and no mitigation is required. The Dubbink study made some
additional average noise level measurements which are consistent with the
Krause survey.
The Dubbink study also investigated the peak or maximum noise levels due
to car alarms located in portion of the garage directly adjacent to the
apartments. Dubbink demonstrated that the maximum sound levels due to
car alarms exceed the Noise Ordinance allowable limits and the Noise
Element allowable limits for "stationary" sources such as mechanical
equipment or commercial facilities. These results are consistent with the
maximum noise levels observed in the Krause survey.
I have also reviewed the window replacement schedule proposed by the
apartment owner and the review by Mr. Trujillo- I agree that the borderline
necessity of mitigation in terms of noise descriptors, along with vague
wording of the initial mitigation measures recommended, merits at least some
action by the city.
58 VIA LA CUMBRE GREENBRAE, CA 94904 (415) 461-5403
C3-13
Palm Street Garage
Page 2
The proposed replacement of windows is the most effective way to reduce
indoor noise in an existing residential building. Normally this is done only
for windows facing toward the noise source.
The proposed replacement window schedule (see attached sketch) shows a
total of 65 such windows, including those on the south and west faces of the
building and on the south face of the courtyard. All these will require
replacement.
The sketch also includes 12 windows on the north and east faces of the
building. These windows do not face toward the garage, and are primarily
exposed to traffic noise on Mill and Morro Streets. Replacement of these
windows as part of the work is not recommended.
The sketch also includes I 1 windows on the north face of the courtyard.
Although these do not face the garage directly, they are exposed to
reflections of garage noise from the other courtyard walls. Replacement of
these windows questionably necessary on purely technical grounds, but is a
reasonable good faith concession to the apartment owner.
Regards,
I-IW/f�f�
Nick Krause, P.E.
Krause Engineering Services
C3-14
r'
�7 wYsh�
TO I-0 I
C3-15