HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3646 Lot 1 Rough Grading Compaction Report
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LAKESHORE
Engineering
~~\ ~,O~ ,\
1,r j\f
L'Z>' CA7'C,
Consulting Civil Engineers
March 24, 2000
Project No: 99-099.CL
Attention: City of Temecula
Building & Safety, Public Works Department
Client:
Mr. Aaron Smith (909) 695-5277
46701-A Pal a Road
Temecula, CA 92592
RECEIVED
MAR 27 2000
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERlNG DEPARTMENT
SUbject:
Rough Grade Certification Letter
Lot 1 of Tract No. 3646
Vallejo Road, City of Temecula, CA.
A.P.N. 922-190-012/ LD99-246GR
Ref: Grading Plan by Lakeshore Engineering
Dated 11/10/99, 30 Scale, P.N. 99-099.GP
Gentlemen:
Per your request, Lakeshore Engineering has conducted a site
inspection on the afternoon of March 24, 2000. The purpose of our
inspection was to verify that the rough grading operation is now
completed, and constructed pads are considered suitable for its
intended use.
Our site inspection indicated that the rough grading is now completed
and in substantial compliance with the approved plan on file. No
major deviations were noted in the field when compared to approved
grading plans, except as noted hereon.
The building pads (main house and detached guest unit), were graded
to within 2/100 tho elevation of designed grades (elev. 1028.50 and
1027.0), respectively, with reference elevation of 1031.50 taken from
edge of pavement at driveway approach. Onsite cut and fill slopes
were manufactured per plan.
This letter is to certify that the rough grading operation for the
subject site is now completed with respect to location of cuts and
fills. The site can now be considered suitable for its intended use.
31520-B Railroad Canyon Road. Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (909) 244-2913 . FAX: (909) 244-2987
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LO ctq-ZA' ~
ROUGH GRADE COMPACTION REPORT
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 3646
VALLEJO AVENUE
CITY OF TEMECULA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA
FOR
MR. AARON SMITH
PROJECT NO. 99-099.COM
DATED: MARCH 24. 2000
Lakeshore Engineering
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LAKESHORE
Engineering
Consulting Civil Engineers
March 24, 2000
Project No. 99-099.COM
Client:
Mr. Aaron Smith (909) 695-5277
46701-A Pala Road
Temecula, CA 92592
SUbject:
Rough Grade Compaction Report
Lot 1 of Tract No. 3646
Vallejo Avenue, City of Temecula, CA.
A.P.N. 922-190-012/ LD99-246GR
Ref:
Soil and Foundation Report by Lakeshore Engineering
Dated 11/29/99, P.N. 99-099.PI
Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION
This is to report the results of our field density tests and
observations made during the placement of compacted fill on the
subject property.
PeriOdic field density tests and site grading observations were
provided by a representative of Lakeshore Engineering to check the
grading contractors on compliance with the approved grading plans and
pertinent earthwork job specifications. The presence of our field
representative at the site was to provide to the owner a source of
professional advice, opinions and recommendations based upon the
field representative's observations of the contractor's earthwork and
did not include any supervision, superintending or direction of the
actual work of the contractors or the contractor's workmen. The
opinions and recommendations presented hereafter are based on our
field and laboratory test results and observations of the grading
procedures used, and represent our engineering judgment as to the
contractor's compliance with the jOb (earthwork) specifications.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The property was a vacant lot prior to being rough graded. The
surrounding neighborhood consists of a scattering of custom built,
upper class, single family homes. The lot fronts Vallejo Avenue and
the terrain is gentle rolling, with less than 10 percent pitch.
A grading plan and geotechnical (soil and foundation) investigation
report (both prepared by Lakeshore Engineering) were prepared for
this site with the intended purpose of developing two single family
residential units.
\
31520-B Railroad Canyon Road . Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (909) 244-2913 . FAX: (909) 244-2987
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VICINITY MAP
LAKESHORE
Engineering
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
VALLEJO AVENUE
TEMECULA, CA.
AARON SMITH'S PROPERTY
Project No:
99-099.C
Dote
3/24/2000
CONSULTING CIVIl:. ENGINEERS
N
N.T.S.
z,.
Figure No;
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 24, 2000
Project No. 99-099.COM
Page Two
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Proposed site development consists of the preparation of two level
graded building pads, for the construction of single family homes. A
larger house pad centrally located on the lot with a guest unit (to
the east) are planned for construction.
Construction will likely be upper scale, custom designed, one and/or
two story structures, of conventional, wood framed and stucco
construction, with tile rOOfing. Foundation will be conventional
spread footings with concrete slab-on-grade flooring. Pad drainage is
by sheetflow and surface swales around building, exiting flows into a
natural gully located at the easterly property line.
Both the proposed referenced grading plan and soil report were used
in the field to aid the grading operation. Xerox copy of grading plan
is attached in the back of this report.
ROUGH GRADING OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Rough grading operation commenced on the later part of February,
2000, interrupted by intermittent rains, and concluded on March 22,
2000, the last day of our field inspection and compaction/density
testing services. Grading was performed using rental equipment,
consisting of a paddle wheel, water truck and dozer (D-6 equivalent)
with sheepsfoot.
Grading was conducted under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula.
The rough grading operation was observed to be performed in the
following manner:
I. Surface vegetation and debris (organic) were removed/cleared
from the areas to be graded.
2. Unsatisfactory soils were excavated to expose competent
materials on which to start the fill. The maximum depth of
fill placed during this grading operation was in the order of 5
vertical feet, at the easterly corner of the guest unit pad.
3. All bottom of substandard soil removal/excavation were inspected
and deem competent prior to fill placement and compaction.
The native soils exposed at the bottom of overexcavation
were inspected and in our opinion, considered suitable for
support of new fills. Prior to placing any fills, the
exposed bottom subgrade was scarified and moisture conditioned.
Lakeshore Engineering
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 24, 2000
Project No. 99-099.COM
Page Three
4. Minimum equipment size keyway of about 13 feet wide by 30 inches
deep were excavated along the toe of fill slope, exposed bottom
inspected and deemed competent prior to the construction of fill
slope.
5. Approved soils were placed in layers on the prepared surface,
and each layer was compacted to the specified density before
the next layer was added. The exposed bottom of
overexcavation was scarified another 6 inches, moisture
conditioned prior to placing fill.
6. The minimum acceptable degree of building fill dirt compaction
was 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.
7. Maximum density and optimum moisture content were determined
by the A.S.T.M. D1557-78 method.
8. Field density tests were performed utilizing the drive tube
and sandcone methods.
9. The soils used in the compacted fill consisted predominantly
of on-site light brown, Silty SAND (SM/ML).
10. Both house pads were capped with about 4 feet of compacted
fill blanket. Limits of overexcavation extended 4-5 feet beyond
building footprints.
11. Field density tests were made during the placement of fill to
determine the degree of compaction and moisture content.
All field density tests are listed in the "Summary of Field
Density Tests", and their approximate locations are shown on
Figure No.2. Also shown are the limits compacted fills placed
and inspected during this grading operation.
GRADING DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLAN
At the conclusion of rough grading, no major deviations were noted in
the field when compared to approved grading plans, except as noted
hereon.
It is understood that fine grading will be needed at end of building
construction to defined parameter swales, flowlines and slope berms
inplaced.
A..
Lakeshore Engineering
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 24, 2000
Project No. 99-099.COM
Page Four
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DENSITY COMPACTION TEST
The procedures outlined in A.S.T.M. Method D1557-78 were used to
determine the compaction characteristics of the fill materials. The
results of our laboratory compaction tests are presented below:
Type
Soil Description
Optimum Moisture Max. Dry Densitv
A
Silty fine SAND
(SM/ML)
10.5 % of dry wt. 122.0 P.C.F.
LABORATORY EXPANSION TEST
Laboratory Expansion Index Tests were performed on representative
soil samples recovered from within the proposed building areas near
the completion of rough grading. The laboratory expansion test was
performed in accordance with U.B.C. Test Method 29-C, and the
pertinent test results are presented on the following page:
Soil
LOCATION
Depth
Moisture %
Before Test
Expan.
Index
Expansion
Potential
Pad A & B
F.G.
8.0
42
LOW/MEDIUM
Based upon a test results obtained, the subgrade materials are
considered to be LOW/MEDIUM IN EXPANSION POTENTIAL. In that regard,
Lakeshore Engineering recommends that the upper 12 inches of subgrade
be pre saturated to at least 120% optimum moisture content, prior to
slab-on-grade pour. Concrete slabs should be 4 inches thick and
reinforced with #6x#6-10x10 W.W.M. or # 3 rebars at 18 inches on
center. Cold jOints should be placed at no further than 14 feet
apart, in either direction.
SULPHATE CONTENT TEST
A Laboratory sulphate content Test was performed on a representative
soil sample recovered from within the proposed building area at the
subject site. The laboratory test was performed in accordance with
E.P.A. Test Method 375.3, and the pertinent test results are
presented below:
Sample
Location
Depth
Sulphate
Content
Recommended Cement
~
PADS A & B
- 611
<150 ppm.
Portland Cement TYPE 11
(2,500 psi concrete)
Lakeshore Engineering
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 24, 2000
Project No. 99-099.COM
Page Five
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the final results of field denSity tests, on observations of
the grading operation procedures used in the field and on our past
experience, it is Lakeshore Engineering opinion that the compacted
fill shown on the Plot Plan, figure no. 2 attached has been placed in
accordance with the applicable portions of the grading specifications
and in accordance with the City of Temecula adopted Ordinance.
Any fill dirt added beyond the limits or above the grades shown on
county approved plans should be placed under engineering inspection
and in accordance with the applicable grading job speCifications, if
it is to be covered by the recommendations of this soil report.
Based upon our field testing results, the compacted fill in our
opinion has been compacted to at least 90 percent relative densities.
Proposed foundation should be constructed and reinforced as follows:
FOOTINGS
Footings should be founded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent
ground surface for proposed bUilding. Minimum width of footing is 18
inches. All continuous foundations should be reinforced with at least
2 rebars (#4), one located at top and one at bottom and consistent
with the recommendations of the Structural Engineer.
FOOTING PLACEMENT AND TRENCH INSPECTION
Due to periodic site inspections conducted during rough grading
operations, footing trench excavations should be inspected by a
representative of Lakeshore Engineering prior to concrete placement
to verify proper embeddment either entirely into competent fills.
CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE
The local subgrade soils are considered LOW/MEDIUM in expansion
potential (E.I. 42) as verified by our laboratory test results. The
floor slabs may be supported directly on properly prepared subgrade.
If a floor covering that could be critically affected by moisture,
such as vinyl tile, slabs should be protected by a plastic vapor
barrier of six-mil thickness. The sheet should be covered by at least
two inches of clean sand cushion to prevent punctures and aid in
concrete cure.
Lakeshore Engineering recommends that the upper 12 inches of subgrade
be presaturated to at least 120% optimum moisture content, prior to
slab-on-grade pour. Concrete slabs should be 4 inches thick and
reinforced with #6x#6-10xl0 W.W.M. or # 3 rebars at 18 inches on
center. Cold jOints should be placed at no further than 14 feet
apart, in either directions.
Lakeshore Engineering ~
I
..
.
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 24, 2000
Project No. 99-099.COM
Page Six
SLOPES AND EROSION CONTROL
The constructed fill and cut slopes, pitched at less than 4:1 (H:V)
and in the order of less than 7 feet high are considered grossly
stable and suitable for its intended use. The onsite granular soils
(fine sand and silt mix), are considered sensitive to surficial
erosion. In order to mitigate surficial erosion, the following
recommendations are presented:
1) Slopes should be planted as soon as possible with
vegetation which is drought resistant and whose root system
extends a minimum of 18 inches into the slope face.
Immediate planting of the slopes is particularly important
where relatively loose sand is exposed.
2) High water content in slope soils is a major factor in
slope erosion or slope failures. Vegetation watering should
be such that a uniform near optimum content is maintained
year-around. A landscape architect should be consulted in
this regard.
3) Shrub and/or tree root excavations should be minimized in
size so that water will not collect and cause saturation of
the surficial materials. Also, back cuts for tree wells are
geotechnically inadvisable because they create a localized
over-steepened condition.
4) All berms should be regularly maintained. Surface drains
should be kept free of debris at all times.
5) Excavated Slope and footing soils should not be spread
loosely on the slope face. Burrowing animals should be
controlled (burrows become avenue for water penetration).
6) Seemingly insignificant factors, such as recreational abuse
(e.g., motorcycles, BMX cycles, etc.), human trespass,
small concentrations of uncontrolled surface/subsurface
water, or poor compaction of trench backfills on slope can
result in major erosion and slope distress.
Lakeshore Engineering '\
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
March 24, 2000
Project No. 99-099.COM
Page Seven
DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of all
structures to minimize water infiltrating into the underlying soils.
Finish subgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down
and away to facilitate surface drainage. All drainage should be
directed off-site to natural swales/gully to the east. The homeowner
should be made aware of the potential problems which may develop when
drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, patios
and pools. Ponding water situation, leaking irrigation systems,
overwatering or other conditions which could lead to ground
saturation must be avoided.
ADDITIONAL GRADING
The project consultant engineer should be notified prior to any fill
placement, regrading of the site, or backfilling of trenches, after
rough grading has been completed. This report is limited to the
earthwork performed through March 22, 2000, the date our last site
inspection.
Any future appurtenant structures such as a detached garage
buildings, home office, barn, spas or pools, etc., that are not shown
on the approved grading plan should be reviewed for subgrade
suitability and permitted separately by county prior to construction.
Our findings have been obtained in accordance with accepted
professional engineering practices in the fields of geotechnical
engineering. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either
express or implied.
-j
Enclosed: 1) Plot Plan, Fig. 2
2) Summary of Test Results
3) Xerox reduction of Grading Plan
cc: 1 copy to city
2 copies to client
~
Lakeshore Engineering
PLOT PLAN
1J('l.vnJ
b'I,
~ <OJ
" I
't. /
-:',/.
~,
\ '-.
-
\
I~
F 'T
~ Fl,
n.Q.ox
\
. I
\ '
\,
5'o&~
J4. -n "
?sf;T?f
"lsV( I""....,
~
".
---t~'
,.J'.
_ .0'
l ~O;;o:;;.
~~l~ OF
I' II \
. ,
.
PL.
..''i\ll'~
f\\.T. ';....Al1:.lL. (~':i~ b
.._. , l,.HTl.
,oi! ~
-
"\I 5'Nt:" ^~ 0.".:.0. r>~"''''
EXPLANATION:
_ -.l JQ,
N
f>,\..
I
_LIe
_(10
N.T.S.
_(,
w
;1.0,-
,,4:1
6~~ SOlllIllM.,
\lu.H ~
'j 'o...~
l} I
t,
<
/
; ~,
/,
"^ / vp'
~i.\O..,\:;,
....~. \,~-I'~"/" :;. ,
}7\~-<"':"--
ti-S%
..,p
-1./
r ".
-;-~
,/
....
- ~ ---:)
. ~ ..,... I
E::x6.i' (j)..1;~ 10 &: S~',_ -+
V~\f'JOil;O Ml
~t~,
-.-.-
~'C QtJ0t=A('/1/lIAO>I PW--
-, ~. .
X-9 APPROX. LOC. OF FIELD DENSITY TEST
APPROX. LIMITS OF FILL PLACEDIINSPECTED
LAKESHORE
Engineering
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
VALLEJO AVENUE
TEMECULA, CA.
AARON SMITH'S PROPERTY
C\
Project No:
99-099.C
Dote
3/24/2000
Figure No:
2
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENS ITV TESTS
DATE ELEVA REFER- MAX IMUM FIELD ~ ~3
<\;\ ,,'<- ,,~ o~
TEST OF TION ErlCE DRY \,A TER DRY u
LOCATION \: :\ " 't-" RENARKS ~
NO. TEST (feet) CURVE DENS !TY CONTENT OEr~S!TY ,,'<- "'-~ 9:::
(pef) (:-;) (pef) <<:-'<: ,,<0 ao::;:
",-
I 317 1<.E.'l ,WA"I. t'Z.. A /11..0 (-z..b lo'1L qc I
z 314 PAD 1=1lJ...>. -+1.. A 1'21..0 1(".3- l1ot. b ~I /
3 31~. PM) t:lll ~ . +..s . A 11.'2.() 1'2.() ,13.5 q3 1'2-€1'e:>1 Of -l} '2. /
4 3.IQ, 2 n~l U ~rT PA'f). -!-2- A 17.2.0 1'.5 110.0 Cjo 1/
5 .)\'2.1- hMlt\t.J PAr-.. l + 4Ii. R,~ A 17'2.0 cVL Ill..1 0,0 /
b 31'2.1.. ,'\1,,\10 PAD ( v) r:.b. A 112.,0 <4'3. In'5. '1f /
1 3\n G.Ut:S:T. P1'\D (t 3'i) F- b. A \,2;2,0 g'7 ~n'b q( /
~ 'SI-Zl. G(.(5T. 1>f\D ( v) f._ . A \?-u () 9,,7 \1'7.2.. Off /
~ ~(n ~LDl'E-1 PM> F.(", A. 11.2..0 ~ ,I 11,.2- ql /
-)( F,r\)I~E{) (../ZAOE: -~ Fe~ b\,(,l2.F ~ (;/2 ~C>E.. .
z.
.
.LAKESHORE VALLEJO AVENUE
TEMECULA. CA. \0
Engineering AARON SMITH'S PROPERTY
PrqJ. No: Date' Tabl,:
Consulting Civil Engineering and Geologis\S 99-099.C 3/24/2000 3
. 'ObIOa ~v" - . Jo'I.lllVS ~V '"1I1I.l
~.- ~-~. - ....-:..--
;/
! n I !i !Ii! i 1 jl,llh ~l' II! I .Rf Ii,l~~}ll!
t i I J II' ,ntj IliJllitiJ"Jj!' iil t, lil"'llill,l~ !.' II!!
f1!J f .lf~..j1 0 P~~!"I' I] ~ 1111 ~ II J" ill if jlll
, 11 i It. +1 f ! hiljl lit i JJ J 'I hi' Ad -fIt ! . I~
, i II" '~' 111).!l' Jhi'J11 iJTl11,! i I)" , tit f : (., "I IIU
. i;l ~ 'I II~ It. J 51 I" 111 'il-, ,.r " , '. .u ).i-III
~idl:!! linl!ll Hili' lIi!l!lh; !'II" i II! !II WI
!i I~Jit ~ J ifr~tll f t Ii . ~ t In lih Hill .Id J tfll!~; ~iH
~ II hli;:I!!h Udh ~ !I.ll!u m~ ~l!!h Iii J !1ft flrJdI
.~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- - -----~-
6i
"
~
m;;
~~
~a
" '., ," ~~
: v ,t>~
~ J <
~ 1 '-,
t
I ~
~ .
~ ~ ~
&\ ~
~I} ~
'. \ t~
~. ~
'l-,l: \
'"
.
.0
~
~
z
\
\
a~ \
~~
E.Q \
It;t I
.
I
,-
a8 I
:j~ '.
.9E
tt;t
- '" .
~ ~.l
R2
~t
~
S
\
-;.\
'2,\
,\
, 1
\
~
~ '~
'fj
:~
.-e-..-p I
,:y'
c;J'
;"
~
J
"-
~
~~ h ~ ~
nun II ~ i
~~~~u,~ ~ ~
II~;II~ I i 'I ~
~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~
~un~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ' ,r I II i o!
~ ~~~~:!j 1 ti I
~~n ~~ i 0
uuuu gel ~ 0
~~~~ ;~t ~ ~ ~ ],
~l~ II ~h ~;; ~
~~~, Iii ~! i i
~~u ~~E ! j
~n~ ~t, I ~ .
~~~~ i, '. t:l <;
. ~ ~~ ~
. , I ~ 1 ~
j ~ I~ -~ ~ ~
~s ii ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ! ~~~ ~,~-
- ~ <;j! ~ri~~~ ~rn""
l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~u~~ l" ~1
~ ~ ~ ~ < ~3~~;' _ a.~
1\ i J . ~~ ~3!l3(~-
~ -= ~ ~ >, ..--~
'" - 1- 1-" ~ g~ .
~,~ "' -:' 13- ~ ' s " ~};.
,~ ~ -~ ,,~ ~,g~ ~ ",
7.:O;S- III &! ~.i ~, "'::." :..
taCT ...., 51 .,. - --
Q Z .' ~ .J :l .~ '.' ~
~4.. ~ 1M;j ~ ~~ ~; ~
~ QI ..J. ;;> ~
;; , ' ~
o
- I. ~ I
j ~ "
- '1: f' i
, 43
7- "
~ ~
~ u' ~
"'!:i~ ~
~ ~ h
I 9 ~ =e,
I ~ \, ~ Q- @-
( . . J ~ ~I ~~ g
i f,J \ ~ I i~ n ~
~S ,=
, 0= 1l~
. ;~ .~
\ 3~ ~~
. ..: ~ 1ii
Lfil:U j ,i m
hi!l! j.llf;il
folll1 ' 11 ~I'l
1. J if f' l 5 ,'1.1
JI~th .' I ,I' *~
III,,!,'I' 1 "1.11 Ii
.JIll t.! i f irlf
!fA'III~ i! ti ' fi,A
,..1 III Ii liof if I
, II~'~I~ ~i · I. J'ff
~Iffm..li j;'ff i~]',
~~] '~H ' J f If I
~;ilm It ! ,'h I
~ .:- ~::! t. '~:e .~ :
~
'" ..: N fi
R N'" ...
~ .; " ,;- ~, ,; " ~ :.'
,.-.\ ~
"
11>: (!j
<i
u~ :Ii
8
u- 3 ~ ?j 1!1
~ '3 " "
. il "
a ~. l
:2 vi ~ ·
s ~ j
;,!" '" j
~ ~" ~ '"
.3 ~
:;;<
'J ~~ ~
(l
0;
.ll ~3 ~
w
Gi @
...
,
,
',~ \ !
,000SOt7 ~,
~)3.'lI.~S.lSI'I
, .l.,.,.,~"()
)" ...
~.>..... .\\,
.. ':).."'3'n.lS ':l.'lf'"
J '",
'I;~!
, ;~~;
~d(
',f'''-''
, ~,
<,
ii~ ~.'
.~ .
~~~ ,~
.~E~ ~
~o .' s
I"~ ~
~ ~~~ ;;
~~d~~~
O;l=~t~~
;;F~~~ ~
~:;~=8 ~
- d ~.-
:i: \,f !C ~
~ ~ 'b
: f j.:-
, . ~ :2 I
.:J A; M
i
~ ~ j
i' ""
~ ..:l
~ CI~Q~
~ 7: . I,Q
~.. ..,
~ '~8!J
<t ~~~
...J t.:le;j.,...
:J P Q!-<
U QQIlQ
~ QIlIio1..:l
loJ
f-
Lo..
o
5.
I I
- -~
~ ~.
~ ~'
j:/
a
Ii ,
~ !
~
>- ~
.
Q >-
" .
0 0
ffi "
~ " i
.
u ~ ~
"
. ~
~
j ~ '::I ~
J j ~- ~ ~
t ~ -~ I ~
ell ~ ~ ~ ~
l~ii~~'f
I ~.~ i! I