HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix F - Geotechnical Investigation
September 9, 2025 Project No. 25-8074
DLJ Fontana LLC
9895 Double R Blvd.
Reno, NV 89521
Attention: Matt Englhard, President
Subject: Geotechnical Report, Proposed Almond Avenue Trailer Yard, 9822 Almond Ave
(APN 0234-061-04), Fontana, California.
Matt,
In accordance with your request and authorization, TGR Geotechnical, Inc. (TGR) has
completed our geotechnical report for the proposed development at the subject site.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The subject site is located at west side of Almond Avenue, approximately 700 feet south of
intersection of Almond Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue (Figure 1) in City of Fontana,
California. The area of the proposed trailer yard is an unimproved parcel of land, approximately
9.49 acres in size. The proposed development consists of a graded base trailer yard, an
approximately 1,248 sq ft prefabricated office building, trash enclosure etc.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of work included performing the following tasks:
• Review of readily available geotechnical documents for the site.
• Site visit to observe current site conditions.
• Preparation of this pavement recommendation report.
SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A site reconnaissance was performed on February 21, 2025 by members of our firm who
observed current site conditions. The site is covered in most areas by aggregate base and is
currently occupied by few concrete debris stockpiles, concrete “K” rails and other miscellaneous
items.
25-8074 Page 2
DOCUMENT REVIEW
The following previous geotechnical reports were reviewed for the subject site.
Richard Mills Associates (1986)
The subsurface evaluation consisted of six (6) test holes to a maximum depth of 11 feet with a
backhoe using a 24-inch-wide bucket. The test holes were excavated into alluvium at the base
of the quarry. The report indicates that the site contained a closed depression and that the
property had been used as a borrow site during construction of the nearby I-10 Freeway (circa
1955).
Richard Mills Associates (1988)
A Soil Grading Report prepared by Richard Mills Associates documents placement of
compacted fill within the eastern side of the quarry extending from Almond Avenue to about 250
feet to the west. A descending slope is shown on a map in the report extending from 250 to 292
feet west of Almond Avenue. The maximum depth of fill placed during grading was reported to
be 28 feet. The Mills report states that fill soils consisted of onsite and imported soils. A table of
field density tests shows that the fill was compacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
RMA Group (2017)
A geotechnical investigation was performed at the subject site to estimate depths of
uncontrolled fill dumped in a former quarry. The investigation consisted of estimating depths of
uncontrolled fill within the site using available information and geophysical methods. The
seismic refraction data indicated that the contact between the uncontrolled fill and underlying
geologic units slopes downward from all sides and that maximum depth of the uncontrolled fill
within the site is on the order of 60 feet. Based on the results of the investigation, the
uncontrolled fill in its current condition is not suitable for support of structures due to its method
of placement, the type of materials placed and the potential for significant future ground
settlement.
FINDINGS
Geology
Regional Geologic Setting
The project site is located in the northwest portion of the Fontana 7.5-minute quadrangle,
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California (Morton, D.M., 2003). Per the Geologic Map,
the site is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits consisting of unconsolidated cobbly and
bouldery alluvium of Lytle Creek fan. Figure 2 presents the Regional Geology Map.
Earth Units
Based on the review of reference reports, the subject site is underlain by uncontrolled fill (afu),
and compacted fill (afc). The approximate contact between afu and afc are shown on the
enclosed Geotechnical Map (Plate 1).
25-8074 Page 3
Groundwater
The project site has an approximate elevation of 1068 feet (NAVD 88). A review of the California
Water Data Library groundwater data from wells indicates that the seasonal high groundwater in
nearest Station 340935N1174885W001 (approximately 1 mile north of subject site) between
10/25/1925 to 03/01/2022 was 309.4 ft below ground surface elevation of 1164.7 ft above
NAVD88. The seasonal high groundwater in Station 340481N1174911W001 recorded between
01/07/2000 to 03/26/2025 was 225.15 feet below ground surface elevation (NAVD88 ft) of
935 feet. This station is approximately 2 miles south from the site. Figure 3 presents the
Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map.
Seasonal and long-term fluctuations in the groundwater may occur as a result of variations in
subsurface conditions, rainfall, run-off conditions and other factors. Therefore, variations from
our observations may occur. Static groundwater is not anticipated to impact the proposed
development.
Static groundwater is not anticipated to impact the proposed development.
Seismic Review
Faulting and Seismicity
The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region
as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific
tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-
trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These
fault systems produce approximately 5 to 35 millimeters per year of slip between the plates.
We consider the most significant geologic hazard to be the potential for moderate to strong
seismic shaking that is likely to occur at the subject site. The subject site is located in the highly
seismic Southern California region within the influence of several faults that are considered to
be Holocene-active, pre-Holocene or age-undetermined faults. A Holocene-active fault is
defined by the State of California as a fault that has exhibited surface displacement within the
Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A pre-Holocene fault is defined by the State as a
fault whose history of past movement is older than 11,700 years ago and does not meet the
criteria for a Holocene-active fault. An age-undetermined fault is defined by the State as a fault
where the recency of fault movement has not been determined.
These Holocene-active, pre-Holocene and age-undetermined faults are capable of producing
potentially damaging seismic shaking at the site. It is anticipated that the subject site will
periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of small to moderate magnitude
earthquakes. Other Holocene-active, pre-Holocene and age-undetermined faults without
surface expression (blind faults) that are not currently zoned and may be capable of generating
an earthquake are known to be present in the region.
The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist -
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (CGS, 2018). Our review of geologic literature pertaining to
the site area indicates that there are no Holocene-active, pre-Holocene or age-undetermined
faults located within or immediately adjacent to the subject property.
25-8074 Page 4
The nearest fault to the subject site is an unnamed inferred fault near Fontana mapped
approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the site. Other nearby faults include the Red Hill-Etiwanda
Avenue fault mapped approximately 5.4 miles to the northwest of the site, the Sierra Madre fault
zone (Cucamonga section) mapped approximately 5.9 miles to the northeast of the site, the San
Jacinto fault (San Bernardino Valley section) mapped approximately 6.8 miles to the southeast
of the site. The Regional Fault Map, Figure 4, shows the location of the subject site in respect to
the regional faults.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Surface Fault Rupture and Ground Shaking
Since no known faults are located within the site, surface fault rupture is not anticipated.
However, due to the proximity of Holocene-active, pre-Holocene or age-undetermined faults,
severe ground shaking should be expected during the life of the proposed structures.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils
behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs
when these ground conditions exist: 1) Shallow groundwater; 2) Low density, fine, clean sandy
soils; and 3) High-intensity ground motion. Effects of liquefaction can include sand boils,
settlement and bearing capacity failures below foundations.
A review of the Geologic Hazard Overlay Map, San Bernardino County Land Use Plan (Figure
5) indicates that the subject site is not located in an area identified as having a potential for soil
liquefaction.
Seismically Induced Settlement
Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event can produce settlements in sands or in
granular earth materials both above and below the groundwater table. This phenomenon is
often referred to as seismic settlement and is most common in relatively clean sands, although it
can also occur in other soil materials. Due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the potential
for seismic settlement is negligible.
Earthquake Induced Landsliding
Earthquake induced landsliding involve downhill motion of earth materials during or subsequent
to earth shaking. Historically, landslides triggered by earthquakes have been a significant cause
of damage. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides are areas with
steep slopes in poorly cemented or highly fractured bedrock, areas underlain by loose, weak
soil, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.
Based on a review of the Geologic Hazard Overlay Map, San Bernardino County Land Use
Plan, this property is not located within a mapped zone of landsliding (Figure 5). Based on the
above and the relatively flat topography of the surrounding area, the general landslide
susceptibility is considered to be negligible.
25-8074 Page 5
Lateral Spreading
Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily movement of earth materials due to
earth shaking. Lateral spreading is demonstrated by near-vertical cracks with predominantly
horizontal movement of the soil mass involved. The topography in the vicinity of the subject site
is relatively flat. Therefore, the potential for lateral spreading at the subject site is considered
very low.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Seismic Design Parameters
When reviewing the 2022 CBC the following parameters should be incorporated into the design.
The Site Class is based on site soil conditions per Section 11.4.3 of the ASCE 7-16. It is our
opinion Site Class D- Stiff is the most appropriate based on-site soil conditions.
Parameter Value
Latitude (degree) 34.07288
Longitude (degree) -117.49415
Site Class (ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.3) D- Stiff
Site Coefficient, Fa (CBC Table 1613A.2.3 (1)) 1.0
Site Coefficient, Fv (CBC Table 1613A.2.3 (1)) 1.7
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-sec Period, Ss (CBC Section
1613A.2.1)
1.781 g
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-sec Period, S1 (CBC Section
1613A.2.1)
0.664 g
Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-sec Period Adjusted for Site Class, SMS (CBC
Section 1613A.2.3)
1.781 g
Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-sec Period Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 (CBC
Section 1613A.2.3)
1.129 g
Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-sec Period, SDS (CBC Section
1613A.2.4)
1.187 g
Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-sec Period, SD1 (CBC Section
1613A.2.4)
0.753 g
Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) ASCE 7-16 Per 12.8-6
Mapped MCEG, Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.759 g
Site Coefficient for Mapped MCEG, FPGA 1.1
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.834 g
In general, ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 requires site-specific hazard analysis for structures on
Site Class D for values of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 g. When using Equivalent lateral Force
(ELF) and Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA), the ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 Item 1
exception shall be utilized. Increasing SM1 by 50% in Eq. (11.4-2) results in an increase in the
25-8074 Page 6
value of SD1 determined by Eq. (11.4-4) by 50%. These increased values of SM1 and SD1 are
to be used for all applications of these parameters throughout the Standard, including for the
formulation of the design response spectrum where a design response spectrum is needed per
this standard. It should be noted that the 50% increase in SD1 also increases Ts by 50%
resulting in an extension of the acceleration-controlled plateau of the design response spectrum.
Cs is determined in accordance with Eq. (12.8-6).
Conformance to the criteria presented in the above table for seismic design does not constitute
any type of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not
occur during a large earthquake event. The intent of the code is “life safety” and not to
completely prevent damage of the structure, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Foundation Design Recommendations
The proposed office building may be supported on continuous and/or spread footings. An
allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used in the design. These
recommendations assume that the footings will be supported on a minimum of three (3) foot of
engineered fill below the bottoms of footings and shall be observed by TGR. The exposed
bottom shall be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of fill.
All shallow foundations should extend a minimum of twenty-four (24) inches below the lowest
adjacent grade. The minimum recommended footing width is twelve (12) inches for continuous
footing and twenty-four (24) for pad footings. A minimum reinforcement of two (2) No. 4 steel
bar top and two (2) No. 4 steel bar bottom is required for continuous footings from a
geotechnical viewpoint. Foundation design details such as concrete strength, reinforcements,
etc should be established by the Structural Engineer.
A one-third (1/3) increase on the aforementioned bearing pressure may be used in design for
short-term wind or seismic loads.
The total and differential static settlement is anticipated to be 1 inch and 0.5 inch or less over 60
feet, respectively.
Resistance to lateral loads including wind and seismic forces may be provided by frictional
resistance between the bottom of concrete and the underlying fill soils and by passive pressure
against the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used between
concrete foundation and underlying soil. The recommended passive pressure of the engineered
fill may be taken as an equivalent fluid pressure of 280 pounds per cubic foot (2,800 psf max).
Footing located near property lines where the lateral removal cannot be achieved shall be
designed for a reduced bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot and the passive
resistance shall be ignored.
Slab-On-Grade
The thickness and reinforcement of the slab shall be designed by the structural engineer per the
2022 California Building Code and should include the anticipated loading condition (forklift etc.),
the anticipated use of the building and the expansion index of the soil. The subgrade material
should be compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of the maximum laboratory dry
density at near optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of three (3) feet.
25-8074 Page 7
For moisture sensitive flooring, the floor slab should be underlain by minimum 15-mil
impermeable polyethylene membrane (Stego Wrap, Moistop Plus, or any equivalent meeting
the requirements of ASTM E1745, Class A rating) as a capillary break. Sand may be placed
above and below the impermeable polyethylene membrane at the discretion of the project
structural engineer/concrete contractor for proper curing and finish of the concrete slab-on-
grade and protection of the membrane and is considered outside the scope of geotechnical
engineering.
Preliminary Pavement Design
The Caltrans method of design was utilized to develop the following pavement section. The
section was developed based on an assumed “R-Value” of 50 for compacted site subgrade
soils.
Traffic indices of 6.5 were assumed for use in developing graded base pavement section. The
traffic indices are subject to approval by controlling authorities and shall be approved by the
project civil engineer.
Pavement Utilization Traffic
Index
Aggregate Base
(Inch)
Truck Parking-CAB 6.5 12.0
Truck Parking-CMB 6.5 14.0
Aggregate base material for Asphalt Pavement should consist of CAB/CMB complying with the
specifications in Section 200.2.2/200.2.4 of the current “Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction” and should be compacted to at least ninety-five (95) percent of the
maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. The surface of the base should exhibit a firm and
unyielding condition just prior to the placement of asphalt concrete paving.
The pavement subgrade shall be compacted to a minimum depth of two (2) feet at a minimum
of ninety-five (95) percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content per ASTM
D1577.
The R-value and the associated pavement section should be confirmed at the completion of site
grading.
Long-Term Site Settlement
General
The limits of the undocumented fill presented on Plate 1 may undergo significant settlement
over time.
Paving
The presence of the undocumented fill, which will continue to consolidate and/or decompose
over time will result in short pavement life and the need to provide regular maintenance.
25-8074 Page 8
Utilities
It is anticipated that, due to the likelihood of significant settlement of the site surface due to
consolidation and decomposition of the undocumented fill materials, the gravity flow utilities,
such as sewer, storm drain pipes as well as other utility lines, such as water, gas, and electric
lines shall be designed with sufficient flexibility to accept potentially large differential settlement
over a period of time.
Site Development Recommendations
General
During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general procedures of the contractor
should be observed, and the fill selectively tested by a representative of TGR. If unusual or
unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if
warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. During demolition of the
existing buildings, large concrete slab and associated site work, voids created from removal of
buried elements (footings, pipelines, septic pits, etc.) shall be backfilled with engineered fill
(minimum 90% relative compaction per ASTM D1557) under the observation of TGR.
Grading
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the California Building Code (2022
edition), except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, TGR’s
representative should be present at the pre-construction meeting to provide grading guidelines,
if needed, and review any earthwork. Oversize particles may be encountered during grading. All
particles greater than 4-inches shall be removed and disposed offsite.
It is recommended that the upper 3 feet of onsite soils within the proposed prefabricated
building and 2 feet of onsite soils within the pavement areas be removed and recompacted to 90
percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557. Site soils could be reused as
engineered fill provided they are free of oversized particles and the recommendations presented
in this report are implemented. Exposed bottoms should be scarified a minimum of 6-inches,
moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum ninety (90)
percent relative compaction. Subsequently, site fill soils should be re-compacted to a minimum
of ninety (90) percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content. The lateral extent
of removals beyond the footing limits should be equal to at least 2 feet, where possible.
During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general procedures of the contractor
should be observed, and the fill and base selectively tested by a representative of TGR. If
unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this
office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered.
Fill Placement
Prior to any fill placement TGR should observe the exposed surface soils. The site soils may be
re-used as engineered fill provided, they are free of organic content and particle size greater
than 4-inches. All particles greater than 4-inches shall be removed and disposed offsite. Fill
shall be moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of ninety (90) percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. Any import soils
shall be non-expansive and approved by TGR Geotechnical Inc.
25-8074 Page 9
Compaction
Prior to fill placement, the exposed surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6)
inches, fill placed in six (6) inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture
content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of ninety (90) percent in accordance
with ASTM D 1557.
Geotechnical Observation/Testing During Construction
Per sections 1705.6 and table 1705.6 of the 2022 California Building Code, periodic special
inspection shall be performed to:
• Verify excavations are extended to the proper depth and have reached proper material;
• Verify classification and test compacted materials; and
• Prior to placement of compacted fill, inspect subgrade and verify that the site has been
prepared properly
Per sections 1705.6 and table 1705.6 of the 2022 California Building Code, continuous special
inspection shall be performed to:
• Verify use of proper materials, densities and lift thickness during placement and
compaction of compacted fill.
The geotechnical consultant should also perform observation and/or testing at the following
stages:
• During any grading and fill placement;
• During placement of aggregate base;
• When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation
subsequent to issuance of this report.
CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the specific client and their design
consultants. No portion of this report may be used by other parties or for other purposes.
The findings contained in this report are based upon our site visit and review of the referenced
reports. As part of the engineering analysis, it has been assumed, and is expected, that the
geotechnical conditions, which exist across the site, are similar to those presented in the
referenced report.
Our findings were obtained in accordance with currently accepted professional engineering
principles and local practice in the field of geotechnical engineering and reflect our best
professional judgment. We make no other warranty, either express of implied.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
25-8074 Page 10
Respectfully submitted,
TGR GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Prakash Khanal, MS, PE C 94431
Project Engineer
Sanjay Govil, PhD, PE, GE 2382 Edward L Burrows, MS, PG, CEG 1750
Principal Geotechnical Engineer Principal Engineering Geologist
Attachments: Plate 1 –Geotechnical Map
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Regional Geology Map
Figure 3 – Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 4 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 5 – Geologic Hazard Overlay Map
Appendix A – References
Distribution: (1) Addressee
afu: uncontrolled fill
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
9822 ALMOND AVENUE (APN 0234-061-004)
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
PLATE 1
PROJECT NO. 25-8074
afc
afc
afu
afu
afc: compacted fill
Approximate geologic
contact
60
60
28
28
EXPLAINATION
28
Approximate depth of
Compacted fill
60 Approximate depth of
Undocumented fill
SITE LOCATION MAP
9822 ALMOND AVENUE (APN 0234-061-004)
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 1
PROJECT NO. 25-8074
SITE
APN
0234-
061-004
Morton, D.M., 2003, Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, Californi a, U.S. Geological
Survey, Open-File Report OF-2003-418, 1:24,000.
FIGURE 2
PROJECT NO. 25-8074REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
9822 ALMOND AVENUE (APN 0234-061-004)
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
SITE
FIGURE 3
PROJECT NO. 25-8074GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
9822 ALMOND AVENUE (APN 0234-061-004)
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
SITE
~ 1 mile
~ 2 mile
1 Mile
FIGURE 4
PROJECT NO. 25-8074
Modified From: Jennings, C. W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines
and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
9822 ALMOND AVENUE (APN 0234-061-004)
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
SITE
FIGURE 5
PROJECT NO. 25-8074
Modified From: San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, 2007, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlay, Map No. FH29 -C, plotted May 30, 2007.
GEOLOGIC HAZARD OVERLAY MAP
9822 ALMOND AVENUE (APN 0234-061-004)
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
SITE
SITE
25-8074 Page 11
APPENDIX A
References
Morton, D.M., 2003, Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File
Report OF-2003-418, 1:24,000.
International Code Council (ICC), California Building Code, 2022 Edition
San Bernardino Land Use Plan, 2010, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlay, Map No. FH29-
C, plotted May 30, 2007.
J.F. Davidson, 1986, Topographic Map and Grading Plan, Almond Avenue Quarry, Fontana,
CA.
Richard Mills Associates, 1986, Soil Engineering Investigation, Easterly ½ of 20 Acre Site
between Banana Street and Almond Street, Fontana Area, San
Bernardino County, California, dated October 21, 1986 (Job No. 86-264-
11).
Richard Mills Associates, 1988a, Interim Soil Grading Report, Almond Avenue North of Valley
Boulevard, Fontana Area, California, dated February 1, 1988 (Job No. 86-
264-21).
Richard Mills Associates, 1988b, Soil Engineering Report, 8 Acre Parcel West of Almond
Avenue, Fontana, and California, dated June 22, 1988 (Job No. 86-264-
31).
RMA Group, Geotechnical Investigation of Former Almond Avenue Quarry, Phases 1 and 2-
Estimation of Uncontrolled Fill Depths Using Available Information and
Geophysical Methods, 9822 Almond Avenue (APN 0234-061-04-0000),
Fontana, California, Project No: 17-0207-01, dated May 12, 2017
! " #
$ % '' '(" ) " ) *+ ," ) -) .
/$
0 +1+ (& *2 23+ 4 - .0 23+ ' '(" ) " *+ ," ) " ) -) .
/$
0 +1+%'
" 6+3 7 8 ( *2 23+ 4 -*2 0 +( '+"+9 3+( 1 (6 3 ( (+ +6 1 '+ ( 93+ ' ( (+ +( " + 7 ' 1 1 '" 1+ -10 6+3+ 3 ( (+ " ' / 1 1 " 1+ -1 0 6+3+ 3 6( '+ (( 8 7 + ( '" ' + '+ 3 7'+ 7 6 +1+ + + 1 (6 +1+ + 41+ + 1 ( 6 + 3 " 19+1+ 9 " ( )( ( 3 (6 +1+ + +( (+"" +1(+ 3 :+(+9 '" 1+ ( 6 ( 3 " 1+ 7 8 (+( 9"+9 3+( ' ( " 3(+ 3+( 11+ 3+( '' +7 1 (+ 1 7 ( +" @<?ABCDAEFG DCAH J3 5% K
.$ 9+ + 3 K 2K . K"6" ! 6( 5% 2 K2 23+ K9+ ++' K9++9 2 9+(