Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-13 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Monday, October 28, 2013, at 4:45 p.m. in Common Council Chambers — Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. Agenda 1. Additions or Deletions to Aaenda (Items 1 -6: 15 min. 2. Mayor's Communications 3. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board 4. Response to the Public. 5. Reports Special Committees of the Board Council Liaison Board Liaisons Superintendent and Staff Other Department Heads 6. Approval of Minutes 6.1 November 26, 2012 Meeting Minutes 6.2 May 13, 2013 Meeting Minutes 7. Administration and Communications 8. VOTING ITEMS 8.1 Buildings, Properties, Refuse and Transit 8.2 Highways, Streets and Sidewalks 8.3 Parkina and Traffic 8.4 Creeks, Bridges and Parks A. Driving Range Project Abandonment and Reallocation of Funds -- Resolution 8.5 Water and Sewer 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS 9.1 Residential Parking Permit System Hardship Request for 301 Bryant Avenue 9.2 227 West Spencer Street Traffic Concern 9.3 Odd /Even Parking 9.4 Proposed Street Vending Policy Presentation 10. For Your Information 11. New Business 12. Adjournment If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 607- 274 -6570 at least 48 hours before the meeting. The Board of Public Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the months at 4:45 p.m. Al meetings are voting meetings, opening with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating, planning issues, and requests made to the Superintendent. The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request written comments on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker or author invited to attend. Notes for BPW Agenda, October 28, 2013 8.4A Driving Range Promect Abandonment and Reallocation of Funds — Resolution Newman Golf Course Manager Mike Addicott has reviewed the plans to build a driving range at the golf course. He has found it to be an inappropriate venture, and requests that the driving range money be reallocated to purchase a commercial debris blower, which will enable staff to clear the greens and fairway of debris much quicker than the current system. 9.1 Residential Parking Permit System Hardship Request for 301 Bryant Avenue Transportation Engineer Tim Logue has reviewed and provided a recommendation for the Board's review to the enclosed request from a Cornell University student. 9.2 227 West Spencer Street Traffic Concern In response to the request from new Ithaca residents to make improvements to their street, Transportation Engineer Tim Logue has completed a traffic study and made recommendations for the Board's review. 9.3 Odd /Even Parking A subcommittee meeting was held in September to discuss odd /even parking. 9.4 Proposed Street Vending Policv Presentation The Street Vending Subcommittee has met several times and is ready to propose a new street vending, or mobile vending, policy. K.athU Gelnrivi&o, ExecutCVe.4ssLsti2ot For RAU gew,jawt. Vv,, Ar,tiwro SL perii&tev�olent of Pu.bl.ic VVOKI S October 23, 2ois Page 2 8.4A Driving Range Project Abandonment and Reallocation of Funds — Resolution WHEREAS, The Golf Course Manager has reviewed the site for a Driving Range and noted the proposed site is the lowest area of the golf course where there are frequent drainage issues, and WHEREAS, the range would have to be closed frequently to keep balls from being plugged into the ground making them impossible to retrieve by mechanical means, and WHEREAS, the proposed area does not allow for an adequate safety buffer around the driving range, and WHEREAS, the development of the driving range will require the removal of several mature trees, realignment of several fairways and the building of new greens at considerable cost, and WHEREAS, the Golf Course Manager believes the reduced hours of operation from wet conditions, along with only seasonal use of a driving range, would not be cost effective to develop a driving range; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the plan to build a driving range be abandoned, and be it further RESOLVED, That funds allocated to purchase driving range equipment be available to purchase other needed equipment for the golf course. Page 3 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Ray Benjamin Acting Superintendent Telephone: 607 /274 -6527 Fax: 607/274 -6587 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Public Works FROM: Ray Benjamin, Acting Superintendent of Public Works DATE: October 17, 2013 RE: Request to Purchase Equipment Golf Course Manager Mike Addicott has proposed abandoning plans to build a driving range and to reallocate funds purposed to buy driving range equipment and put it towards purchasing a commercial debris blower. Mr. Addicott reviewed the plans to build a driving range, has evaluated the proposed site and recommends that we abandon those plans for several reasons as stated in the attached memo. Also, Mr. Addicott has looked at ways to make more efficient use of employee time. Currently workers spend hours every day removing goose litter from the greens along with leaves and tree litter from the fairways. A commercial debris blower would drastically reduce the time it takes to do this daily task, allowing workers to pursue other enhancements to the golf course. I am submitting a resolution to abandon the driving range and to re- purpose the funding for other needed equipment for the golf course. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." REQUEST FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASE ITHACA CITY GOLF COURSE (NEWMAN G.C) October 3, 2013 Grassland Equipment Company delivered a Toro Pro force turbine debris blower to the golf course maintenance department for trial purposes as a demo unit. I have evaluated and tested the machine and its performance for two weeks and believe it would be a vital part of the equipment fleet. With falling leaves soon approaching it is imperative to prevent leaves from accumulating on the turf. This unit will clear nearly 11 acres per hour. The pro force turbine has many other uses as well. • Clears all clumped grass clippings from mowed areas during wet periods • Removes leaves, twigs, small branches from turf instead of damaging mowers • Leaf removal prevents lost golf balls and contributes to more play and revenue ® Removes excess sand accumulation on greens and works sand into aeration holes G Removes dew from turf to help prevent diseases (An important IPM strategy) o Removes sand accumulation around bunker edges • Clears cart paths, driveways, parking lots o Gears goose litter from turf areas rather than hand shoveling and dragging which damages turf and creates very strong odors and draws complaints from golfers ® Greatly improves productivity with limited staff • The course will get favorable reviews and the difference will be noticed immediately • Possibility of the course remaining playable longer into fall and early winter With the many advantages this unit offers, the most important would be the increased productivity of the maintenance staff and the improved aesthetics and playing conditions of the course. While reviewing the operating budget of the golf course, there are line items which could be used for the purchase. A line item was added in 2013 for $5000.00 (Line item "Other Equipment") for practice range equipment. This project was reassessed and was dissolved due to layout and construction inadequacies. There are a few line items which can be carefully thinned to account for the remaining balance. I have used these types of blowers for years and it has always been at the top of my list for non mowing equipment. I have attached the product documentation and accompanying quotes for consideration. Driving Range Project When I toured the golf course, 1 looked over the driving range proposal and discovered many inadequacies with the scope of the proposed project. Listed below are the main areas of concern which led to abandoning the project. • Location- The site was the lowest area of the course and is the wettest location. The range would have to be closed the majority of the time to keep balls from being plugged and lost. • Due to the wet area the equipment used to pick balls would not be able to retrieve the balls due to being plugged or height of grass because the mowers couldn't be used. a Layout- The area would be located in an area that would need to be cleared of many mature trees. The design required the relocation of existing holes with construction and grow in of new fairways and greens at a very high cost. Safety- The area did not accommodate the safety of other golfers on adjacent holes. • Cost —The cost of construction, maintenance of the range and replacement holes would be never be recovered through revenue and would continue to be shown as a deficit. ® Revenue- Based on experience, the cost outweighs revenue in most situations. Some of the inherent problems are theft of balls, lack of enforcement, interference with play, increased maintenance and labor hours and yearly purchase of replacement balls estimated at $3- 4,000. Regards, Michael Addicott- Golf Course Manager CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/274 -6587 To: Board of Public Works From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer °� Date: October 21, 2013 Re: Residential Parking Permit System Hardship Request 301 Bryant Avenue I am recommending denial of the enclosed Residential Parking Permit System (RPPS) hardship request from Ms. Sheila Crowell, the current resident of 301 Bryant Avenue, Apartment 4. The property is in a R -3A zone and the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone. Therefore it is not eligible to get RPPS permits. The property has a driveway and, it seems, some off - street parking. Between chapter 260 of the City Code (Residential Parking Permit System) and the BPW regulations implementing the same, there is limited guidance on how to handle hardship requests. The BPW regulations simply state, "Residents may file written appeals with the BPW for either hardship consideration or the denial of permits by the City Clerk's Office." Section 260 -4 of the City Code provides a little more guidance, stating that residents may apply to the BPW for a permit not otherwise available in the following circumstances: 1. Where a home health care provider provides home health care to a resident and regularly drives to the resident's home. 2. Where a resident has a short term health emergency. 3. Where residents living on a street within the Residential Parking Permit Zone without on- street parking wish to purchase a permit for on- street parking on a street where permits are required. 4. Such other instances of hardship (excluding self- created hardship) as the Board of Public Works in their discretion determines sufficient for issuance of additional parking permits. In my opinion, Ms. Crowell's case falls closest to #4 above, but seems to be a self - created hardship. She chose this apartment and is choosing to not pay for off - street parking. I understand and sympathize with her financial situation, but in my interpretation, granting the hardship case would not fit with Common Council's intent in creating the Residential Parking Permit System. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment io workforce diversification." ro Board of Public Works c/o William J. Gray, P.E. Superintendent of Public Works 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 To Whom it May Concern: Sheila Crowell 301 Bryant Avenue, Apartment 4 Ithaca, NY 14850 RECEIVED Del*. of Pubk Wwks SEP 0 5 2013 we� aiwsim 2 September 2013 My name is Sheila Crowell, I am a resident of Bryant Avenue, and I would like to file a petition of hardship in order to obtain a residential parking permit "A." I am a Cornell University student at 301 Bryant Avenue, and have been informed that I am not eligible to purchase a permit "A" based on my housing number. Based on the apparent availability of permit parking on the 200 block of Bryant Avenue, however, I would like to petition for hardship. I have spoken to members of the City Clerk's Office on several occasions to inquire about purchasing a residential permit. I was told that I was ineligible, because my house number was a mere two digits away from qualifying for a parking permit for the 200 block of Bryant Avenue. When discussing my options with the City Clerk's Office, I was told that I could park in the limited 24 -hour parking sections of Collegetown, acquire a lease at a parking garage or residential lot, or file a petition for hardship. While there is a limited section of 24 -hour parking on Bryant Avenue, these coveted spots are difficult to acquire, and are frequently taken by residents from other streets. The small, uncovered parking lot next to my apartment is leased at $1,000 for the school year - $1,800 for non - tenants. Compared to some neighboring lots, $1,000 for a year is relatively cheap. I unfortunately do not have the financial means to spend $1,000 on a parking spot. I am a Cornell student on financial aid and Federal Work Study who selected housing on Bryant Avenue based on its relatively low costs. I drive a used car. In order to save money for graduate school, I work until after 11 PM three days a week, in a section of campus that is dimly lit. The public transportation system, the TCAT bus, does not offer service near my office until after 12 AM. Getting home from work at night was one of the main factors in my decision to keep a car on campus. I understand that parking is limited and that residents within the 200 block should get first priority. However, based on the empty stretches of permit parking during the hours that parking is restricted (9AM -lPM or 1PM -5PM Monday through Friday, based on the section), there seem to be relatively few residential parking permits that have been issued for Bryant Avenue. I would be more than happy to work with the Board of Public Works to determine an appropriate deal. Please consider my difficult position, especially given the exorbitant cost of living in Collegetown. Sincerely, Sheila Crowell CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/2 -14 -6587 To: Board of Public Works From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Date: October 22, 2013 Re: 227 West Spencer Street Traffic Concern In response to the letter dated August 29th and the discussion at the Board meeting in September, staff has investigated the concerns expressed about traffic speeds and safety in the 200 block of West Spencer Street. We placed traffic counting equipment and made two field visits to observe sight lines, vegetation and other conditions. It is our recommendation that, in the short term, the adjacent property owner trim roadside vegetation to improve sight lines, and that, in the long term, that the Board should direct sidewalk construction along the southeast side of the street (including removing the behind -the -curb parking and installing a full height curb). Traffic data was collected at the end of September and early October of 2013. In response to traffic concerns raised by the previous owner of 227 West Spencer Street in 2008, we had also collected traffic data, so we have data to compare over the 5 year period. Data from July /August 2008 Southbound direction: • 57% of traffic is traveling in the southbound direction • 85th percentile speed = 34 mph • Percent of motorists traveling over 30 mph = 36% • Percent of motorists traveling over 35 mph = 4% Northbound direction: • 43% of traffic is traveling in the northbound direction • 85th percentile speed = 33 mph • Percent of motorists traveling over 30 mph = 24% • Percent of motorists traveling over 35 mph = 3% Average daily traffic (combining both directions) = 6,428 vehicles/ day "M Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 4a Data from Sept, Oct. 2013 Southbound direction: • 57% of traffic is traveling in the southbound direction • 85th percentile speed = 32 mph • Percent of motorists traveling over 30 mph = 23% • Percent of motorists traveling over 35 mph = 2% Northbound direction: • 43% of traffic is traveling in the northbound direction • 85th percentile speed = 30 mph • Percent of motorists traveling over 30 mph =15% • Percent of motorists traveling over 35 mph =1 % Average daily traffic (combining both directions) = 6,565 vehicles/ day As you can see, though traffic volumes are up by about 2% over the five year period, speeds are down a bit. The vast majority of motorists are driving at the speed limit (30mph) and the percentage of motorists driving over 35 mph has dropped to 1%-2%. At the base of the stairs to the property, the sight lines for pedestrians and motorists are fairly good, however, trimming some of the vegetation along the hillside may improve the sightlines to the south. According to the City Code, this is responsibility of the adjacent property owner. One can see fairly clearly to the north. Though we have not calculated the number of gaps in traffic that would be available to cross the street, the traffic volumes do not indicate that this specific location would be worse than many other locations in the City. It may take a minute or two to get a good gap in traffic (and that may feel like 20 minutes to a pedestrian), but waiting, having a good line of sight and crossing at a safe time will reduce the risk of any incidents. As noted at the Board meeting, the property does have a driveway; if the residents would like to make changes to their driveway to make it more accessible, we can work with them for any street permit work. Alternately, it seems that a good longer term improvement for them would be to construct a sidewalk on their side of the street to connect them to the sidewalk leading toward Cayuga Street. A few parking spaces would have to be removed, the curb would have to be brought up to full height, and the sidewalk would have to be constructed, but this would not be complicated work. If it does not rise to a priority in the sidewalk improvement districts, the residents can apply for a street permit to do the work with a contractor. Otherwise, it seems like it would be a good sidewalk project. Building the sidewalk would reduce the need to cross the street when walking toward downtown and modifying the driveway would reduce the need to cross the street to an on -street parking space. Otherwise, it seems that it would be an extraordinary use of public funds to make pedestrian crossing improvements for the benefit of one property. August 29, 2013 Svante L. Myrick, Mayor and Chair of Board, Public Works Fourth Floor, City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor, We are writing to ask for your help in making our family's life in Ithaca safe. We are new residents at 227 West Spencer Street, 14850. We have two young daughters, ages 3 and 6. As the house is up on a steep hill, the only way we can come and go to and from our house is by climbing down and up a stone staircase to and from West Spencer Street. We do this multiple times per day, as this is the only way in and out for us. Once we climb down the steps from our house to the street there is a small landing, but no sidewalk to speak of on our side of the house, only a muddy and sludgy area (i.e., not walkable) riddled with large potholes that within approximately ten feet turns into an unpaved parking space for two or three cars. In order to access this parking space, we need to either walk through the deep mud and debris, or walk on the road itself with our back to the traffic, which is quite unsafe, especially with our two daughters in hand. Because the muddy potholes are the only way to get from the landing to the parking on our side of the street, and that parking tends to fill up anyway, we mostly choose to cross the street to the sidewalk on the opposite side, where we usually park our cars. West Spencer, we have discovered, is a very busy street most of the day. Critically, there is a blind spot for cars approaching into the city just behind the point where the stairs meet the street. Crossing the street has been a frightening experience each and every time. The cars zoom by, often driving much above the speed limit of 30 MPH, and unaware that there might be young children crossing the street. Additionally, and this is important: because of the curve and the blind spot that it creates, the cars are not capable of seeing us waiting on the small landing, and we cannot see them, until we have actually stepped into the road. When we estimate that there might be a break in traffic, we all rush through the street hoping that there isn't a car that we cannot see speeding through from either end. Please keep in mind that since we moved here on August 15, 2013, the weather has been dry and clear. We are quite concerned with the prospect of negotiating this passage daily with two young girls in icy or snowy conditions. This is a safety issue, a matter of life and death for our family. We would therefore like to petition the Board of Public Works to request the following: 1. Install "children crossing/at play" and "slow" signs; 2. Pave the parking area on the north side of the street (the side of our house) and pave a short path so that this parking is accessible from our landing without stepping into the road. Alternatively, fix the potholes in the area that connects our landing to the parking spaces as well as in the parking spaces themselves. 3. Install speed bumps for traffic approaching from both sides; 4. Create a crosswalk on West Spencer in front of our landing. 5. Lower the speed limit. We would like to remind the City that although it tore down most of the residences on West Spencer Street a few years ago and created the higher traffic situation on the street, families like ours still live on this street and have to contend with the reconfiguration and increased traffic created by the City. We hope that the City can do the right thing by alerting the motorists —who are largely unaware of families on the uphill side of the street —to slow down and to be advised of children who are routinely crossing the street. At the very minimum, the City should create a crossroad with the proper signage to enable us to cross the street without endangering our lives. We look forward to hearing back to you as soon as possible about our request as this is a life - threatening situation. Respectfully, Dr. Irus Braverman, Professor of Law SUNY Buffalo Law School & Cornell University Society for the Humanities A.D. White House Gregor Harvey, music teacher Both Residents, 227 West Spencer Street Cc: Acting Supt. of Public Works, Ray Benjamin Aaron O. Lavine, City Attorney Members of the Board of Public Works: Claudia Jenkins, Vice -Chair Robert Morache Mitch Paine Govind Acharya Mark Darling Jeanne Leccese Donna Fleming Larry Roberts 2 Proposed Street Vending Policy Summary Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish a uniform City policy for the utilization of city streets for the purpose of vending fresh, prepared and pre - packaged food products to the general public. Retail or service -based vending is not covered under this policy. Vending Permits The types of permits that will be available are: 1. Seasonal — April 1 to October 31 2. Annual — April 1 to March 31 3. Temporary — for small events lasting no more than 5 consecutive days (i.e. sports tournaments). These are not Special Events.requiring.3 or more permits. 4. Round -Up — Four or more food trucks located In..one location to make a community - like setting. 5. Special Event — Applied for through the City Special Events Team, these events require 3 or more permits (i.e. assembly, noise, parade., use of park, etc.). Food vendors wishing to paMcipate must contact the event coordinator. Street vending permits do not ir#dWe special event vending. New applications rust be submitted each gear, or for each event. Fees 1. Appkation Fee - $100, submitted with the application 2. Permit Fees (submitted,once pii cation is approved): a. Snal - $780 b. Annual - $1,560 c. Temporary - $60 per day d. Special Event - fees are determined by event coordinator Rules of Operation 1. Food Trucks or Trailers only; No tents are allowed. 2. Vending sites are 25 foot length by 8 foot width. 3. Vendors shall not block or inhibit pedestrian traffic flow or emergency vehicles. Page 11 k Vil E,. 4. Vendors may not set up any closer than 200 feet from the nearest restaurant, or 100 feet from any public or private school. Vendors must obtain written permission from restaurant owners to park closer than 200 feet. 5. Food trucks may not be closer than 50 feet from any street intersection. 6. Food trucks must be attended at all times. 7. Vendors set up in locations other than an approved vending site will be subject to the revocation of their street vending permit without refund of fees. 8. No overnight parking allowed. 9. Food vendors must maintain the submitted food menu and prices throughout the permit period. 10. Smoke and/or odors must be vented, filtered or disposed of to prevent the release of odor into the surrounding environment. . 11. Vendors are responsible for trash and waste dtsoosal. No dumping is allowed in City trash cans, grates, storm sue, or other arm. 12. Vendors shall keep public spaces within a 10 foot radius of their truck clean and free of refuse generated from the operation of their food truck. ` 13. No music, amptified sound, or repetitive noise may be played by the vendor that can be heard outside of the vending site. 14. The City resorves the rift to move vendors for necessary maintenance and repairs on City streets. 15. The City does not provide water or electric service to street vendors. 16. Applicant shall indemnify the City of Ithaca and hold it harmless with regard to any and all claims.-arising from the operation of the site by the food vendor as herein contemplated Arid permitted. Hours of Operation Four (4) separate vending times are available: 1. Breakfast — 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 2. Lunch — 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 3. Dinner— 4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4. Late Night— 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Page 12 Vending Zones: 1. Residential sites are for Lunch and Dinner times only. No - vending may occur after 10:00 p.m. 2. Business /Commercial sites may be utilized for Lunch, Dinner and Late Night times. No vending may occur after 2:00 a.m. 3. Sites specially labeled for breakfast vendors may not be utilized before 7:00 a.m. Designated Vending Locations 1. Occupation of vending locations is on a first -come "- served basis each day. 2. Locations will not be reserved for specific vendor; 3. If a vendor finds a location that is not a designated vendft location, the vendor must obtain, and submit to the City, written permission from aril restaurants and businesses within 200 feet of the location to set up in that loceson. Proposed Vending Locations: Street Location # Trucks 9keakfast Lunch dinner Late Night Cascadilla St. (dead end near Rick's Rental ) 2 X X Chestnut St. Ext. 2 X X Eddy St. near Eddygate 2 X Geneva St. between Green & Seneca 2 X X X Grandview Ave . /Grandview Court (exception- No Sunday vending due.4o church) 2 X X Pier Rd. cul de sac by clubhouse - 2. X X Stewart Ave. between Williams and Stewart Ave. Bridge 2 X Stewart Ave. next to The Hot Truck 1 X X X Thurston Ave. next to Lou%'s Lunchr truck 1 X X X Titus Ave. cat# de sac by CVS 2 x X X West End Paris Log 2 x x X x Willow Ave. 2 x x City Park Auburn Park Adams Street sides 3 x x Baker Park Plain St. or Park.St:. 3 x x Bryant Park - 3 x x Cass Park 3 -4 x x Conway Park 3 x x Stewart Park 3 -4 x x Titus Ave. by Triangle Park 3 x x Washington Park 3 x x Wood St. Park (north side of street ) 3 x x Page 13 Route -Base Vendors (ice cream trucks) 1. Ice cream trucks may be allowed in residential neighborhoods with the submission of a map showing the route(s) that will be followed. 2. Trucks may not stop for more than 15 minutes at a time. All traffic and parking laws must be followed. Signage 1. Each vendor may place 1 small sign no further than 50 feet in either direction from their food truck (2 sign maximum) within the curb lawn. 2. One "Sandwich Board" may be placed outsidee of each food truck, per specifications listed in City Code Chapter 272. Enforcement The City may revoke a street vending permit for: 1. Violations of the Rules of Ope #on;. 2. Dumping in City trash cans, grates, storm sewers, or other areas; 3. Fraud; or 4. Violation of any ordinances, regulations or laws. Revocation of Permit 1. If a permit is revoked, the permit period, shall end immediately, and no refund will be issued. No application for a now permit may be submitted for one year from the expiratiem of the revoked. permit, 2. Appeals may be submitted for review to the Street Vending Subcommittee via the Superintendent of Public Works. Page 14 ✓i�._si L CID C C W 5� L I y�r fi •' !per ♦ } pp k "alkl ;.- 1 55 e r �tJy - i`T"'"�. � _ ... I n � 4'I ?�''. t a_; 11 � - • 4i I � l � � �� � �.. gas...: �' �. � 4 t� 1 r ` 1w , . S4 _ o u I:. 4:, low °3N - w S I: b �a c' ao.Is-; aN 9 ¢a °3o a asax N 'TU(1 r�4 Aa :1 9 i EB N a IZ-iiZ, I ------------ - - - - - -------------------- `ste� '� 7 ` t 4�4 L I/ Cy,..— 7 `'t 4 W g5 {T ,� - _ .,4 �� -•1 - - 1' W D wa 7 w 1: fi •' !per ♦ } pp k "alkl ;.- 1 55 e r �tJy - i`T"'"�. � _ ... I n � 4'I ?�''. t a_; 11 � - • 4i I � l � � �� � �.. gas...: �' �. � 4 t� 1 r ` 1w , . S4 _ o u I:. 4:, low °3N - w S I: b �a c' ao.Is-; aN 9 ¢a °3o a asax N 'TU(1 r�4 Aa :1 9 i EB N a IZ-iiZ, I