HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils Report for Foundation DesignlGrtffi,ffifffi;;*x';*"
An Employ;c Ourpd €*mFany
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email : kaglenwood@Jcumarusa.com
www.kumarusa.com
Of,Ece Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING RESIDENCE
131 BUCK POINT ROAI)
LOT 7, PAI\ORAMA RANCHES
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.22-7-434
AUGUST 8,2022
PREPARED FOR:
MATUSZESKI
C/O BLACK SHACK ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 1847
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
ATTN: GLENN RAPPAPORT
grappa@blackshack.net
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ...........
SITE CONDITIONS
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
I
-2-
-2-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOLTNDATIONS
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
FLOOR SLABS
LINDERDRAIN SYSTEM
SITE GRADING...............
SUMACE DRAINAGE...
LIMITATIONS........
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2 -LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
.....-2 -
.....- 4 -
.....- 4 -
2-
5-
5-
....- 6 -
1
-1-
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 22-7-434
PURPOSE AI\D SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed addition to the existing
residence located at l3l Buck Point Road, Lot7, Panorama Ranches, Garfield County, Colorado
The project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop
recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our
proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Matuszeski c/o Black Shack Architects, dated
June 17,2022.
An exploratory boring was drilled to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples
of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine
their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of
the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for
foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This
report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design
recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed
construction and the subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed addition will be on the east side of the house and will be one story of wood frame
construction over a crawlspace. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with
cut depths between about 2 to 3 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of
the proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above,
we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is occupied by the existing one-story, single-family residence. Access to the area of the
proposed addition on the east side of the house was not possible due to the steep slope away from
the house down to the east. Access to the southeast side of the house was not possible due to the
existing leach field and fencing on the south side of the house. The house is on a south-trending
ridge and the hillside is relatively steep sloping down to the east in the proposed addition area.
Vegetation at the site consists of grass around the house and sage, juniper and pinyon trees in the
area east ofthe house.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 22-7-434
-2-
F'IELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on July 19, 2022. One exploratory boring
was drilled at the location shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The boring
was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by truck-mounted CME-
458 drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1%-inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30
inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586.
The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the
subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are
shown on the Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory
for review by the project engineer and testing
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A graphic log of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils consist of about I foot of gravelly sand and clay fill overlying 5 feet of stiff, silty sandy
clay. Below the clay, at a depth of 6 feet, relatively dense, clayey sandy basalt gravel and
cobbles was encountered down to the bottom of the boring at 16 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture
content, density and percent finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of swell-
consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the sandy silty clay,
presented on Figure 3, indicate low compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting and
a minor expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge.
No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly
moist.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building addition be founded with spread footings
bearing on the natural sandy soils below any existing fill and topsoil.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
l) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.22-7-434
aJ
3)
settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will
be about I inch or less.
The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and
2 feetfor isolated pads.
Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement
of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
area. --r
Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist
lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and
the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural soils. The
exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted.
A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
4)
6)
FOLINDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to
undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site clay soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence
and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition
should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit
weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site clay soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
suicharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90%o of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway
areas should be compacted to at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care
2)
5)
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.22-7-434
-4-
should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this
could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall
backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to
facilities constructed on the backfill. Backfill should not contain organics, debris or rock larger
than about 6 inches.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil
strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will
occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material compacted to at least
95%o of themaximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade
construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movemento floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained
vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage
cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the
designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-
draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This
material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregatewith at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve
and less than2o/o passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95Yo of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
site granular soils or a suitable imported gravel, such as '/o inch road base, devoid of vegetation,
topsoil and oversized rock.
LINDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy
precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched
condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 22-7-434
5
basement areas? be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain
system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above
the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of
excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum lYoto
a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should
contain less than 2%o passingthe No. 200 sieve, less than 50olo passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least lYz feet deep.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the addition is
located above the steep slope as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut
depths for the foundation level will not exceed one level, about 4 to 6 feet. Fills should be
limited to about 8 to l0 feet deep, especially at the downhill side of the residence where the slope
steepens. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least95o/o of the maximum standard
Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be
carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to at least 95o/o of the
maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside
exceeding 20%o grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to I vertical or flatter
and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will
be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is
encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage
will adversely affect the cut stability.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the addition has been completed:
l) Inundation ofthe foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided
during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95%o of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to
drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum
slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.22-7-434
-6-
4)
3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill (if any)
should be covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feet af the on-site
soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance rvith generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory boring drilled at the iocation indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not inciude determining the
presence? prevention or possibility of mold or other biological cantaminants {MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identilied at the exploratcry boring and variations in the subsurface
conditions rnay not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during ccnstruction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the reccmmendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for dssign pu{poses. We are not
responsible for technical interpretations by othsrs of our infarrnation. As the project evolves, we
should pravide continued ccnsultation and field services during constructian to review and
monitor the inrplernentation of our recommendations, and to veriry that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We reccmmend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer
Respectfu I ly Submitted,
Kermav & Asso*ta€eso
Daniel E. Hardin,
Rev. by: SLP
DEHlkac
n{(}ij,&
24f[t
Kum*r & As*ociates, lnc. ei Frcject No. 22-7"434
€
/,
I HOMESTEAD 7
131 BUCK POINT ROAD
I
1 30
/APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET
22-7-434 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 1
t
$
ff:
BORING 1
EL. 7299'
0
FILL; SAND AND CLAY WITH GRAVEL, FIRM, SLIGHTLY MO|ST,
BROWN.
CLAY (CL): SANDY, SILTY, VERY STIFF T0 HARD, SLIGHTLY
MotsT, BRoWN, TRACE CALCAREoUS.
5
11/12
WC=9.8
BASALT GRAVEL AND CoBBr.fS (GC)
SUGHTLY MOIST, BROWN, SUGHTLY
SANDY, CI,AYEY, DENSE,
CALCAREOUS.
DD=1 1 6
-200=55
F
i
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CAUFORNIA LINER SAMPI."E.
F
UJ
UJ
l!
I-F(L
UJo
10
8s/11
DR|VE SAMPLE, 1 S/8-|NCH r.D. SPL|T SP00N STANDARD
PENETRATION TEST.
4712DRIVE SAMPLE BL0W COUNT. INDICATES THAT 44 BLOWS 0F,'I '- A 140-POUND HAMMER FALTING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED
TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
15 38/12
WC=9.6
-200=65
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON JULY 19, 2022
IYITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
20
2, THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MEASURED
APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE
SITE PI.AN PROVIDED.
3. THE ETTVATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED
BY INTERPOLATION BENVEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN
PROVIDED.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING TOCATION AND ELEVATION SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY
THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY
BORING LOG REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES
BENYEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE
GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING AT THE
TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER O0NTENT (x) (ASTM D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (PCf) (ISTV D 2216);
-200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING N0. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
Fis. 222-7 -434 Kumar & Associates LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silty Cloy
FROM:BoringlO5'
WC = 9.8 %, DD = 116 pcf
-2OO = 55 %
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
t--
)
\
ont
l.d.
hrftD-4546.
1
)s
JJIJ
=a
I
z.o
F
o
=o
anzo(J
o
-1
-2
- KSF 't0 i00
22-1 -434 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3
qpublic.net - Garfield County, CO - Property Record Card: R011092 https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=103.
GlqFrklic,nef- Garfield County, CO
Summary
Account
Parcel
Property
Address
Legal
Description
Acres
Land SqFt
Tax Area
Mill Levy
Subdivision
R011092
239177r070o7
131 BUCK POINT RD,CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Section: lTTomship:7 Range: 87 SuMivision: PANORAMA
RANCHES HOMESTEAD 7 5.12 ACRES
5.119
0
7t
81.0290
PANORAMA RANCHES
lriew l.4ro
Owner
MATUSZESKI, JOHN ANDREW & STEWARD, CHERY
131 BUCK POINT ROAD
CARBONDALE CO 81623
Land
UnitType
Square Feet
Buildings
Building#
Units
BuildingType
Abstract Codes / (PropefiType)
Architectural Style
Stories
Frame
Actual Year Built
Gross Living Area
Total Heated SqFt
Bedrooms
Baths
Heating Fuel
Heating Type
AirConditioning
RoofType
Roof Cover
Actual Values
Assessed Year
SINGLE FAM.RES..LAND - 1112 (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
0
t
7
SFR
SINGLE FAM.RES-IMPROVEMTS-1212 (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
1-STORY
7
WOOD FRAME
7991-
7,477
1,477
a
2
GAS
HTWTR RAD
NONE
RIDGE FRME
PREFAB MET
2023 20zt 2027
$47s,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00La-ld Actlal
lmprovement Actual $588,230.00 $419,450.00 $419,450.00
Total Actual
Assessed Values
Assessed Year
$1,063,230.00 $619,450.00 $619,450.O0
2023 2022 2021
Land Assessed $33,010.00 $13,900.00 $14,3O0.00
$40,880.00 $29,1s0.00 $29,990.00lmprovement Assessed
Total Assessed
Tax History
Tax Year 2022
Taxes Billed $3,488.28
$73,890.00 $43,050.00 w290.oo
2027 2020 20L9
$3,078.84
1of 3
Clici< here io l:iewtlre tax information for ihis Farcel on tte Garfiel{i Covniv n:e asulrer's we bsite
$3,533.28 $3,Os1.72
5n12023,2:45PM
qPublic.net - Garfield County, CO - Property Record Card: R011092 https:i/qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=103...
Transfers
Sale Date Deed Typ€Book - Page Sale Price
at2,/202L
a/2/2021
PERSONA-L REP DEED
STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY
?6Q94r _
950940
$85s,000
9,0
Tlel?o_21
5tt/202L COVENANTS
LETTERS .26S_e-3?$o
956397 $o
$o2/70/2027 DEATH CERTIFICATE 960?3E
4/7/2020
3/17/2020
WARRANWDEED
POWER OF ATTORNEY 933757
$750,000
$o
$o1!,17129t6
5/21/2007
s/21/2007
RESOLUTION
AFFIDAVIT
gge-1gg
724005 7929-0526 $o
WARRANryDEED 724A42 7929-0505 $654,000
5/76/2@7
sll/teeg
2/24t7987
POWEROFAfiORNEY
WARRANryDEED
CONTRACT
7?4003
414327
1929-0506
o773-0722
o56A-0422
$49,000
$o
$o
to/70,17979 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS 2eB-3.91 0536-0878 $o
8/30t1979 COVENANTS
Property Related Public Documents
f ljck ttere io vi€w Prope|Ly-8glglgd&lblSpSgllretl9
Photos
Sketches
,sA2A.9 0536-0799 $o
2of3 5n2023,2:45PM
qpubtic.net - Garfield County, CO - property Record Card: R011092 https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=103.
:S'
ONE
1477 st
ee{FGR
624 s{
2S st
The Garfield county Assessor's office makes wery effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or
implied are provided forthe data herein, its use or interpretaiion, Data is subject to constant change and its accuracy and completeness
cannot be guaranteed.
User Privacv Policy.
GDPR Privacv Notice
Last Data tJ0lgAcLi!512Q23-$:31:15 PM Verslon 3'1'7
Developed by
{-}ffilHs
3of3 5nD023,2:45PM
GlqFshlic.net* Garfield County, Co
Overview
Legend
I Parcets
Roads
Parcel/Account
Numbers
OwnerName
Address
i:J TaxDistricts
CountyZoning
Ei:q ^^l:..r* Lu -
Commercial/General
J crw- lncorporated
City orTown
il cL-
Commercial/Limited
i-] l- lndustrial
f1ff pn- PublicAirport
lij el-euutictands
L] euo - errnned Unit
Development
I n-nurat
i l nl-Rutort."
Lands
i -i nvnp-
Residential/Mobile
Home Park
i*-i ns -
Residential/Suburbar
* nu-
Residential/Urban
il 'all other valuesr
ffi Lakes&Rivers
fficiti.t
* CountyBoundary
Line
Date created: 517 /2Q23
Last Data Uploaded: 5/ 5/2O23 !0:31:75 PM
Deveroped bvlF;i) *tl*n Sfl
GlqPrrhliE.nst* Garfield County, Co
131 BUCK POINT RD
CARBONDALE
MATUSZESKI, JOHN ANDREW &
STEWARD,CHERY
131 BUCK POINT ROAD
CARBONDALE CO 81623
2O19Total
ActualValue
Overview
Legend
Parcels
Roads
Parcel/Account
Numbers
OwnerName
i€ Lakes & Rivers
* CountyBoundary
Line
$1,063,230 Last2Sales
Date Price
aa2o2t $855,000
4/U2020 $7s0,000
Account
Number
Parcel
Number
Acres
Land SqFt
Tax Area
2019 Mill
Levy
R011092
239717LO\OO7
5
0
011
81.0290
Physical
Address
Owner
Address
81623
Datecreated:517/2O23
Last Data Uploaded: 5 15 / 2023 !O.3Lt15 PM
Dweroned bv{i1) ffit;$?drt
GlqFuhllc,n€** Garfield County, co
131BUCK POINTRD
CARBONDALE
MATUSZESKI, JOHN ANDREW &
STEWARD,CHERY
131BUCK POINT ROAD
CARBONDATE CO8t623
2019Total
Actual Value
Overview
Legend
[-*l Parcels
Roads
Parcel/Account
Numbers
OwnerName
i.1j Lakes & Rivers
* CountyBoundary
Line
$1,063,230 Last2Sales
Date Price
8/A2O27 $855,000
4/U2020 $750,000
Account
Number
Parcel
Number
Acres
Land SqFt
Tax Area .
2019 Mill
Levy
R011092
239tt7tOtOO7
Physical
Address
Owner
Address
8t623
5
0
0
8
tt
7.O290
Date created:5/7 /2O23
Last Data Uploaded: 5 /5 / 2O23 70133:.!5 PM
Deverooedbvlpl)ffigd*r