Geotech Evaluattion.pdfJune 8, 2017
Updated May 24, 2018
ES-5264
Select Homes, Inc.
16531 —13th Avenue West, All 07
Lynnwood, Washington 98037
Attention: Ms. Kayla Clark
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Single -Family Residence
1122 Viewland Way
Edmonds, Washington
Reference: RAM Engineering, Inc.
Preliminary Utility Plan
March 14, 2018
Earth
Solutions
NW«<
Earth Solutions NW LLC
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction
Observation/Testing and Environmental Services
May 25 20��
uEVELOp��1T SEMAGES
G00%JE-R
Department of Ecology (DOE)
2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWM)
As Amended, December 2014
James P. Minard
Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles
Washington, 1983
Dear Ms. Clark. -
As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared geotechnical evaluation report for
the proposed single-family residence. Our scope of services included subsurface investigation,
engineering analysis, and preparation of this letter report with recommendations pertinent to the
geotechnical aspects of the project. As part of the subsurface investigation, ESNW observed the
excavation of two test pits on May 12, 2017.
Proiect Description
The subject site located at 1122 Viewland Way in Edmonds, Washington, as illustrated on the
Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site consists of one residential tax parcel (Snohomish County parcel
number 00548900001903) totaling approximately 0.46 acres of land area. The property is
currently developed with a single-family residence and associated improvements. The majority
of the site is relatively level; elevation changes two to four feet along the west and east property
margins. The subject site is bordered to the north by Viewland Way, to west by Olympic Avenue,
and to the east and south by residential structures.
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 0 Bellevue, WA 98005 0 (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711
Select Homes, Inc.
June 8, 2017
Updated May 24, 2018
ES-5264
Page 2
Based on the site plan provided to us, a new single-family residential structure will be constructed
at the subject site, improvements will also include underground utility installations. We anticipate
grading activities will include cuts and fills to establish the planned building alignment. Based on
the existing grades, we estimate cuts to establish building pad and foundation subgrade
elevations will be on the order of up to five feet. However, grading plans were not available at
the time this letter was prepared.
At the time this letter was prepared, specific building load values were not available. However,
we anticipate the proposed residential structure will consist of relatively lightly -loaded wood
framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar
developments, we estimate wall loads on the order of two kips per linear foot and slab -on -grade
loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psf).
If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review
the recommendations in this evaluation. ESNW should review the final design to verify the
geotechnical recommendations provided in this letter have been incorporated into the plans.
Subsurface Conditions
As part of this geotechnical evaluation, An ESNW representative observed, logged, and sampled
two test pits on May 12, 2017, excavated at accessible locations within the proposed
development area, using a mini-trackhoe and operator provided by the client. The approximate
locations of the test pits are depicted on Plate 2 (Test Pit Location Plan). Please refer to the test
pit logs (attached) for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions. Representative soil
samples collected at the test pit locations were analyzed in general accordance with the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) methods
and procedures.
Topsoil and Fill
Topsoil was observed extending to depths of approximately 4 to 6 inches below existing grades.
The topsoil was characterized by dark brown color and fine organic material. Fill was
encountered within both test locations extending to depths of two to five feet below the existing
ground surface (bgs). The fill encountered at test pit location TP-1 was immediately underlain by
the relic topsoil layer. Where fill is encountered during construction, ESNW should be consulted
to verify the suitability for reuse as structural fill.
Native Soil
Underlying the topsoil and fill, soil conditions at the test pit locations were observed to consist of
silty sand with gravel (Unified Soils Classification System: SM) deposits. The native soil deposits
were generally observed to be in a medium dense condition beginning at depths of approximately
three to five feet below existing grades. The native soils were observed to be in a dense condition
beginning at depths of approximately five to six feet below existing grades, extending to the
maximum exploration depth of about seven -and -one-half feet bgs.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Select Homes, Inc.
June 8, 2017
Updated May 24, 2018
Geologic Setting
ES-5264
Page 3
The referenced geologic map indicates the project location is underlain by Vashon advance
outwash (Qva). The near -surface soil conditions observed at the test pit locations were generally
not consistent with outwash soils.
Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was encountered at the time of our subsurface exploration at the test pit
locations between depths of four -and -one-half to five feet below existing grades. The presence
of groundwater seepage should be expected in excavations, especially in a perched condition at
the contact between the fill and native soils. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate
depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and
soil conditions. In general, groundwater elevations and flow rates are higher during the winter,
spring and early summer months.
Critical Areas
Based on our investigation and review of applicable codes, there are no critical areas (geologic)
present on or adjacent to the site.
Geotechnical Considerations
Based on the results of our investigation, the proposed single-family structure can be supported
on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on undisturbed competent native soil or
new structural fill placed on competent native soil. Based on our subsurface exploration, medium
dense conditions suitable for foundation support are expected to be encountered beginning at
depths of approximately three to five feet bgs. Existing fill and relic topsoil should be removed
throughout footing subgrade areas. Removal of existing fill soils- throughout slab subgrade areas
should be evaluated by ESNW during construction. The soils encountered at the test pit locations
generally have a high sensitivity to moisture based on the fines content of the soil. Compaction
of the soil to the levels necessary for use as structural fill will be difficult during wet weather
conditions. Structural fill should consist of suitable granular soils compacted to 95 percent of
Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557), reuse of existing fill soils as structural fill should be evaluated
by ESNW during construction.
Provided the structure will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be
used for design of the new foundations:
Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf
• Passive earth pressure 300 pcf (equivalent fluid)
6 Coefficient of friction 0.40
A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term wind
and seismic loading conditions.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Select Homes, Inc.
June 8, 2017
Updated May 24, 2018
ES-5264
Page 4
With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with
differential settlement of about one-half inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during
construction, as dead loads are applied.
Seismic Considerations
The 2015 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. In accordance with Table 20.3-
1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class D, should be
used for design.
In our opinion, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. The native soil relative density and the
absence of an established shallow groundwater table are the primary bases for this opinion.
Drainage
Surface grades must be designed to direct water away from the building. The grade adjacent to
the building should be sloped away from the building at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a
horizontal distance of at least four feet. In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed
at or below the invert of the building footings.
Infiltration Evaluation
We understand the use of infiltration to control stormwater must be evaluated and utilized to the
extent feasible. Low permeability existing fill was encountered at all test pit locations extending
to depths of two to five feet below existing grades. The fill soil is underlain by relatively
impermeable native glacial till soils. Additionally, perched groundwater was observed at the time
of our subsurface exploration. Based on the site soils and shallow depths to seasonal
groundwater, we do not recommend utilizing infiltration to control stormwater runoff for the
proposed project. In general, the site soils should be considered impermeable for practical design
purposes.
On -site Stormwater Management
Pursuant to City of Edmonds stormwater management requirements, implementation of on -site
stormwater BMPs are required for proposed developments in accordance with specified
thresholds, standards, and lists. The intent of BMP implementation is to infiltrate, disperse, and
retain stormwater runoff on site to the extent feasible. The table below summarizes our
evaluation of low impact development methods, as outlined in the referenced stormwater manual,
from a geotechnical standpoint. It is instructed in the referenced stormwater manual that BMPs
are to be considered in the order listed (from top to bottom) for each surface type, and the first
BMP that is determined to be viable should be used. For completeness, however, we have
evaluated each listed BMP for the proposed surface types.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Select Homes, Inc. ES-5264
June 8, 2017 Page 5
Updated May 24, 2018
BMP I Viable? Limitations or
Infeasibility Criteria
Lawns and Landscaped Areas
T5.13: Post -construction soil quality and depth None. No slopes greater than 33 percent
(Volume V, Chapter 5) Yes are present.
Roofs
T5.30: Full dispersion (Volume V, Chapter 5) No The proposed project will not preserve at
least 65 percent of the site.
T5.10A: Downspout full infiltration systems No
(Volume III, Chapter 3)
T7.30: Bioretention (Volume V, Chapter 7) No
T5.14A: Rain Gardens (Volume V, Chapter 5)
T5.10B: Downspout dispersion systems (Volume Yes*
III, Chapter 3)
T5.10C: Perforated stub -out connections (Volume Yes
III, Chapter 3)
The existing fill and native glacial till soils
should be considered impermeable for
practical design purposes.
The existing fill and native glacial till soils
should be considered impermeable for
practical design purposes.
No flooding or erosion impacts are
anticipated. However, adequate
vegetative flow paths are likely not
available.
Perforated stub -out for Lot 2 should be
setback at least 25 feet from Lot 1 due to
the grade transition.
Other Hard Surfaces
No critical areas and/or buffers are
present. No flooding or erosion impacts
T5.30: Full dispersion (Volume V, Chapter 5)
No
are anticipated. However, adequate
vegetative flow paths are likely not
available.
The upper existing fill soil and underlying
T5.15: Permeable pavement (Volume V, Chapter
No
very low permeability native soils adjacent
5)
to sloped topography indicate infeasibility
of permeable pavement.
The existing fill and native glacial till soils
T7.30: Bioretention (Volume V, Chapter 7)
N0
observed at relatively shallow depths
T5.14A: Rain Gardens (Volume V, Chapter 5)
should be considered impermeable for
practical design purposes.
Sheet flow dispersion and concentrated
T5.12: Sheet flow dispersion
T5.11: Concentrated flow dispersion (Volume V,
Yes*
flow dispersion may be feasible, however,
Chapter 5)
proper setbacks and vegetated flow paths
may not be available.
*Viability is stated from a geotechnical standpoint, available
flowpaths
and setbacks will ultimately determine
viability.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Select Homes, Inc. ES-5264
June 8, 2017 Page 6
Updated May 24, 2018
Small -Scale Stormwater Facility Feasibility
We understand that a small-scale stormwater facility (tank or pipe) may be installed in lieu of
detention vault construction. Provided competent native soil is used for stability and/or foundation
purposes, it is our opinion installation of a smaller -scale tank or pipe will likely be feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. ESNW should be provided the opportunity to review stormwater tank
and/or pipe design as project plans develop to ensure appropriate geotechnical considerations
have been incorporated. Supplementary recommendations may be provided at the appropriate
phase of design, where necessary.
Utility Support and Trench Backfill
In our opinion, the native soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations should generally
be considered suitable for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered
in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. The native soils should
generally be suitable for use as structural trench backfill. Moisture conditioning of the soils will
likely be necessary prior to use as structural backfill; reuse of existing fill soils should be evaluated
by ESNW during construction. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to 95
percent of the modified proctor, or to the presiding jurisdiction specifications.
Limitations
The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical evaluation report are
professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in
the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not
expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit
locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate
the conclusions in this geotechnical evaluation letter if variations are encountered.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Select Homes, Inc.
June 8, 2017
Updated May 24, 2018
Should you require additional information, or have questions, please call.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
Adam Z. Shier, G.I.T.
Staff Geologist
/t9
Attachments: Plate 1 - Vicinity Map
Plate 2 - Test Pit Location Plan
Test Pit Logs
Grain Size Distribution
Henry T. Wright, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
cc: RAM Engineering, Inc.
Attention: Mr. Rob Long, P.E. (Email only)
Earth Solutions NW. LLC
ES-5264
Page 7
,s' S•lpyll 1 :r _ �.�CtJSlA - PIA
j I rnl# It}1� r3• z,i qa tf`y� t
J C rl[I.'T .SKSI :w 't ,�6�g�
7I/h
ihyT9- i^ ? ,,'� "si- 71
J r�X �- IMYF ►llfr tW r` Ir�l =l 'A' fCaQY.h� `ice i•tll St 4A tutuN TOY2.• �
/e►%: e1Nl 41 2 -T1e iq "p,._ d t 1 at•
c FrL itr, _81 t J- l t r x '�tLt. v rl.
rti� 1. •.Y TN
•;�� i+!NS
I i � •7 t _ i r� .fir I a •�c
•L r L•',s 7 J'J)w EZ +F Yrr.
A
�c 1 II C.91tN_ ik�tVlt `t = t1WIN¢�
'�; it itifJ. jti,l• ,.y <<C:IiTH �.. h" -SI SN A
1'
pGE7 s+ r. r t. yt 196T111 ST •'
„w N'9x�-., -1y 4ifhharK.r :.• yr h /'C aY715Q CI " r taM.
PAhY s , �yt
rk
�. n 1Y►AC{} sl'rNsr�
AR♦1 -�� 7GCt11
�br
'♦.v
~•c.rJl�:, a Iw u I �I `��I r y •mac G= " � �
rrn� % �,r� *` • a s►�ct_,* 1y turn_; I
taws
t i¢� 1 : • �} s `ttYN �i Cl��✓ ap9 sY`�''r'
m 1, �c
n Gill st
y, Utz ._42U.14 sr----.� _- l �^i`• "fix f�ff11��e
sit
.
1X�4/' .:e Itl151E
aw D , R4Hf +L;
tYACN 4. d �'L . ■ AINcj 4 %' 14 ' . _� _►�'kl� r' ,a c�t�,-tt Sr, Zi
tPN a 1• 'n C n a.w
sT
I x e
rt�_ nit
s
sect�:rr 1 "^! •�. �.�t _�•:len �1.: �l'141I1JT .i t � o-;� I �.
AiFtIG[ C CAMz,�•r.t;utnx�r' S ,�„y1�rr 30 ►:%x .2i�
11RRR K . Ctll _fit--_'C'/j4va�(•�aai r=sw
NO fl ti'i 011v
s KYICIrY 'LpT v ,aNa,AwnrhV _t �ILGA.t"I, �'R wtC I lut`ar :•��'prt7 Nu. L
l+iit �IUH ! .? l . 1 SAA t • !`
ieu ir,.^ runl rtsw
sj a :•- sliA it11t� 'Slstli r '`''
f4iAC:" I s r
rA>:4�ttuv
s- rF.
.5-Id psi vy
f1w�4,,.� r - � ��J:.� Iwo
li 1,9tx R �
,f• LL 1 1 s ,6
sy.: N1kjrY eri�'Nx I t•ii R•a'. i
9A' y
S7 t�VY I
Reference: NORTH
Snohomish County, Washington ' 1
Map 454 z
By The Thomas Guide
Rand McNally
32nd Edition Vicinity Map
1122 Viewland Way
Edmonds, Washington
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. MRS Date 05/26/2017 Proj. No. 5264
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked AZS Date May 2017 Plate 1
L----------
VILWLAND WAY
LEGEND i i TP-1
TP-1 I Approximate Location of
— ■ — ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No.. I I I
ES-5264, May 2017 I w
I I
r Subject Site
� I I
I < I —■— /�
TP-2 /
v I I
I i I
NORTH
I
I I I
I
I I I
I I I
I I
0 25 50 100
1 "=50' =� Scale in Feet
NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design
purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the
approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of
existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated
is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our
study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes
or interpretation of the data by others.
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate.
Earth
Solutions
NW,,,
Test Pit Location Plan
1122 Viewland Way
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. MRS
Date 05/30/2017
Proj. No.
5264
Checked AZS
Date May 2017
Plate
2
Earth Soo utions NWLLC
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
GRAPH
LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
CLEAN
GRAVELS
' �� ' ��
��•��
0
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
FINES ND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
°
°
�, O�o 0
Q °Q
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
oo
Q
°
�'
°
o�
"
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SAND
AND
CLEAN SANDS
SW
WELL-GDED SANDS,
ANDS, LLIITTLE OR NO F NRE,4SVELLY
LARGERTHAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SANDY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SP
POORLY -GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SANDS WITH
FINES
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
S+C
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
ML
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
CLAYS
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
_
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
SIZE
SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT
CLAYS GREATER THAN 50
CI I
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
�
„
PT
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications.
The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1
MaiBellevue, Washington 98005
Telephone: 425-449-4704
Fax: 425- 49-4711
CLIENT Select Homes, Inc. _ PROJECT NAME 1122 Viewland Way
PROJECT NUMBER 5264 PROJECT LOCATION_Edmon_d_s, Washington
DATE STARTED 5/12/17 COMPLETED 5/12/17 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Select Homes GROUND WATER LEVELS:
EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION ---
LOGGED BY AZS CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION —
NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass AFTER EXCAVATION ---
w
0.
� W U
wCoTESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
In
CL
z c�
Lo
0
MC = 12.20% I SM
im
MC = 15.80%
5 1 I I SM
MC = 16.80%
Fines = 35.00%
MC = 13.40%
MM TFJF,-A IL, r0018
silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill)
SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
-light groundwater seepage
-iron oxide staining
[USDA Classification: gravelly sandy LOAM]
-becomes wet, dense
7.0
test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 4.5
feet during excavation. Caving observed from TOH to 2.0 feet.
Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet.
Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Telephone: 425-449-4704
WAS% Fax: 425-449-4711
CLIENT Select Homes, Inc- PROJECT NAME ,1122 Vewland Way
PROJECT NUMBER 5264 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds, Washington
DATE STARTED 5/12117 COMPLETED 5/12/17 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Select Homes GROUND WATER LEVELS:
EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION —
LOGGED BY AZS CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION --
NOTES Depth of Topsoil $ Sod 6": grass AFTER EXCAVATION —
w
w
-j �
TESTS
0-0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
z
C7
N
Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist (Fill)
MC = 23.10% 1 PM
Fines = 6.80% [USDA Classification: gravelly loamy SAND]
SM
5 $ 0 -light groundwater seepage at 5'
MC = 27.80% 1—"
Gray silty SAND, medium dense to dense, wet
SM
MC = 19.00% I 7.5 [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly sandy LOAM]
Fines = 35.00% Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 5.0
feet during excavation. Caving observed from 5.0 to 6.5 feet.
Bottom of test pit at 7.5 feet.
-'
" IIYI111111111Y YNEIY
IIY 11111YYi11111111m11111111■
IIY�IIIIIII■
�����.
.,
IIY
Illllll■®II
,1111111111111�11111111M11111111■
501IIIIIIIYm11111111
11111111■
IIIIIIII®IIII
HIM
MINI11111111�1111MEN
IIY�IIIIIIII®IIIIIII1�11�11i1Yoll111111�1111Ills
IIIY01111Hills
IIIIIII1
Ell
1111111111111111■
IIIIII■
IIY�IIIIII■
.
IIIIIIIImI
III
►1►■
Illllll■
IIMINE
.,
IY�II
I1111o11111110111111111am
IIIIIII1m111
WIN
IY�IIMENEM
I
I1
III111\kimIIIIIII1m111111
1111
IY�IIIIHIRE11111111■
111E111111
■■
IN
®IIUNION1111111011111111111111
lIIIIIII1m1111
I
■
MEII
III
MI
UNION
1111110
HIRE
1111111
11��
II
111®Il
IIII1■
1111111
1111111■
Ills
IIII1
,11■
1111111■\III
11
1111111■
10
III
IIIImIIIIIII
1111111■
?
►11111111111
HIRE
M
11
�II11111111\
11111
II
11■1ME
IIIYY�
11111
I1
Ell
11
w1�1
11
IIY�IIIIIlls
IIII
Iism
/
IIIII
HOW
II
IIII1o111111■
IIY�IIIIIII■
111111101111111NEI111In
Ills
II��IIIIIII■
III
1
IIIIIIIImIIIIIIIYm1111111■,1111111kill
1 11
.�
1Y
• - •- •
11Moore.I
1
_C
1