Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgreement A-21-169 with Westlands Transmissions LLC.pdf1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Recording Requested for the Benefit of the County of Fresno , Department of Public Works And Planning When Recorded Return To : Department of Public Works And Planning Development Services Division Stop 214 Attn : Development Engineering AGREEMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 17-04 (KINGS COUNTY) TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES 12 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 11th day of May, 2021, by and between the 13 COUNTY OF FRESNO , a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter "COUNTY") and 14 Westlands Transmissions , LLC, a California corporation , located at 4700 Wilshire Boulevard , Los 15 Angeles , CA 90010 , the developer for Kings County Conditional Use Permit No. 17-04 (hereinafter 16 "DEVELOPER"). COUNTY and DEVELOPER may be referred to herein individually as a "Party " and 17 collectively as "Parties." 18 WITNESSETH 19 WHEREAS , on September 9, 2019 the Kings County Planning Commission approved 20 Conditional Use Permit No . 17-04; and 21 WHEREAS , said Initial Study (IS)/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Application contained 22 a Transportation Analysis (TA) that identified mitigation measures related to traffic impacts; and 23 WHEREAS , mitigation measure TR-1a(d) requires that the DEVELOPER enter into an 24 agreement with the COUNTY to provide for funding of the traffic impact fees prior to the issuance of a 25 building permit for development associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 17-04; and 26 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors , as required by Fresno County Ordinance Code section 27 17 .88 .120, has by resolution on May 11, 2021, after noticed public hearing and following all other 28 1 21-0248 Agreement No. 21-169 1 procedures required by law, established the amount of the traffic impact fees for Kings County 2 Conditional Use Permit No . 17-04 (''Traffic Impact Fee "); and 3 WHEREAS , DEVELOPER will be required to pay the Traffic Impact Fee prior to the issuance of 4 a building permit for any development on the subject property . 5 NOW THEREFORE , the parties hereto agree as follows: 6 1. DEVELOPER shall pay the Traffic Impact Fee for Conditional Use Permit No . 17-04 (Kings 7 County) in the amount of $98 ,355 .00 as shown in Exhibit A to this Agreement. 8 2 . In addition to the amoun t in Paragraph 1, DEVELOPER shall pay three percent (3 %) of the 9 amount shown in Exhibit A to the COUNTY for administration of the Traffic Impact Fee Fund. 1 O 3 . The amount of fee shall be adjusted on January 15 annually beginning in 2022 by a 11 percentage equal to the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for 20 Cities 12 for the preceding year as published in the Fourth Quarterly Cost Issue in the preceding December. 13 4. The Traffic Impact Fee shall be imposed and collected in accordance with Section 66000 et 14 seq . of the Ca li fornia Government Code and Chapter 17 .88 of the Fresno County Ordinance Code . 15 5. NOTICES . The persons and their addresses having authority to give and receive notices 16 under this Agreement include the following : 17 COUNTY OF FRESNO DEVELOPER 18 Director of Public Works and Planning Westlands Transmission LLC , 19 County of Fresno a California Corporation 20 2220 Tulare Street, 6th Floor 4700 Wilshire Boulevard 21 Fresno , CA 93721 Los Angeles , CA 9001 O 22 All notices between the COUNTY and DEVELOPER provided for or permitted under this 23 Agreement must be in writ ing and delivered either by persona l serv ice , by first-class United States mail , 24 by an overnight commercial courier service , or by telephonic facsimile transmission . A notice delivered 25 by personal service is effective upon service to the recipient. A notice del ivered by first-class Un ited 26 States mail is effective three COUNTY bus i ness days after deposit in the United States mail , postage 27 prepaid , addressed to the rec ipient. A notice delivered by an overnight commercial courier service is 28 effective one COUNTY business day after deposit with the overnight commercial courier serv ice , 2 1 delivery fees prepaid , with del ivery instructions given for next day delivery , addressed to the recip ient. 2 A notice delivered by telephonic facsimile is effective when transmission to the recipient is completed 3 (but , if such transmission is completed outside of COUNTY business hours , then such delivery shall be 4 deemed to be effective at the next beginning of a COUNTY business day), provided that the sender 5 maintains a machine record of the completed transmission . For all claims arising out of or related to 6 th is Agreement, nothing in this section establishes , waives , or modifies any claims presentation 7 requirements or procedures provided by law, including but not limited to the Government Cla ims Act 8 (Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code , beginning with section 810). 9 6 . VENUE AND GOVERNING LAW. Venue for any action arising out of or related to this 1 O Agreement shall only be in Fresno County , California . The rights and obl igations of the parties and all 11 inte rpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the 12 State of California. 13 7. SEVERABILITY . In the event any provisions of this Agreement are held by a court of 14 competent jurisdiction to be invalid , void , or unenforceable , the Parties will use their best efforts to meet 15 and confer to determine how to mutually amend such provisions with valid and enforceable prov isions , 16 and the remaining provisions of this Agreement will nevertheless continue in full force and effect without 17 being impaired or invalidated in any way . 18 8. HEADINGS ; CONSTRUCTION ; STATUTORY REFERENCES . The headings of the 19 sections and paragraphs of this Agreement are for conven ience only and shall not be used to interpret 20 this Agreement. This Agreement is the product of negotiation between the Parties . The language of 21 this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against 22 any Party. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting 23 party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. All references in this Agreement to particular 24 statutes , regulat ions , ordinances or resolutions of the United States , the State of California , or the 25 County of Fresno shall be deemed to include the same statute , regulation , ordinance or resolut ion as 26 hereafter amended or renumbered , or if repealed , to such other provisions as may thereafter govern 27 the same subject. 28 3 1 9 . LEGAL AUTHORITY . Each individual executing or attesting this Agreement hereby 2 covenants , warrants, and represents to the other Party : (1) that he or she is duly authorized to execute 3 and deliver th is Agreement on behalf of his or her respective Party in accordance w ith the following : for 4 the DEVELOPER , its articles of organization and operating agreement ; and for COUNTY , it s governing 5 legal authority ; (2) that this Agreement is binding upon his or her respective Party ; and (3) that his or 6 her respective Party is duly organized and legally existing in good standing in the State of California . 7 10 . BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon , and inure to the benefit of, the 8 successors and assigns of the Parties. 9 11. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES . Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary herein , 1 O the Parties acknowledge and agree that no other person , firm, corporation , or entity shall be deemed an 11 intended third-party beneficiary of this Agreement. 12 12. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts , each of 13 which shall be deemed to be an original , and all of which taken together shall constitute the same 14 instrument. 15 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT . This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the 16 DEVELOPER and COUNTY with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all previous 17 Agreement negotiations, proposals , commitments , writings , advertisements , publications , and 18 understanding of any nature whatsoever unless expressly included in this Agreement. 19 (Signature page follows.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 IN WITNESS THEREOF , the parties have executed th is Agreement on the date set forth above . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEVELOPER: Westlands Transmission , LLC a California ::~ Jennifer Gandin , Vice President (Printed Name, Title) 4700 Wilshire Blvd . (Address) Los Angeles , CA 90010 (City , Zip) FOR ACCOUNTING USE ONLY: FUND: 0088 5 COUNTY OF FRESNO: By J h__ Steve Brandau,Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Fresno ATTEST : Bernice E. Seidel C lerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Fresno , State of California By dux.:. ½'.:§ Deputy CIVIL CODE§ 1189 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ·-. _. -·-... --'. _ ...... • ... _.·· . --· --·. --.. · .•' -. ·•.' -·-· _. __ ·.··. _.·. ·. ·-_;_;_ -~---. --· ·. ___ .. ·--.. · .. --.: .. __ .. -· :-·. ~: -· -·.:. .. ·-.. , -· . ·: .. ·--· .. --. --· --·-·--·--·--·---·---·-·-•-•'. _._ A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached , and not the truthfulness , accuracy , or validity of that document. State of California County of Los Angeles } On ~ £ j_ t-fJ cf)_ OJ/ before me MAGGIE MU RADIAN, Notary Public ' Date 1 --'-'-'-'--'-'H~er~e=,n~s"""ert~N~am~e~an~d~T~it~le=o~,f~th~e=O~'ffi~ic_e_r ------- ~ 1/ / personally appeared J l::Jv'N/ f f::(e,,, GA1v[YN--------- Name(s) of Signer(s) Who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Do ~ fi_ 1. i ~ I; /) / .,, ·J 17 q A -[ }. •'1-0t.f Tit I e or Type of Document: ~ ~fr/ tV!.-t t,_,Jt:, f-.w/Yl/ /4 'O, I I DocumentDate: ____________________ Numberof Pages: ___ _ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ______________________ _ Capacity(ies) Cl~ed by_Signer(s) _ • 1 Signer's Name:"/ t:l·/JVl ~il <iJPrf/Dl1v .lsl;-co rporate Officer -Title(s): --"i}'._,--'p'-· _. ___ _ D Partner-• Limited • General D Individual • Attorney in Fact D Trustee • Guard ian of Conservator D Other: Signer is Representing: ________ _ Signer 's Name: D Corporate Officer -Title(s ): ______ _ D Partner-• Limited • General D Individual • Attorney in Fact • Trustee • Guardian of Conservator D Other : Signer is Representing: ________ _ ·.•_-_-_-___ •-_•._-··_': • .r,, -·_._-_·. ·_ ·_._._-_--.-.·_-_-_•_· .-•• _ .. _·._. __ ·_•_• __ ;-•• :_•• ~-•--_;_-.-_-_--.-..,.-_-_ .. _·• •. ~_-•. •_·. • .• -.-~--·· • •• ··• __ '._'. ·._:_•--f~.::_:. •. \ :_ ... -~._: ___ ~._:. ©2018 National Notary Association EXHIBIT A <irn1ey ·:>>l orn Page 1 FINAL REPORT To: Bert Verrips , AICP From : Tim Miller, P.E. Date : October 3 , 2019 Subject: Jayne Avenue Pavement Evaluation Report Introduction This report summarizes the results of a pavement condition evaluation conducted in September 2019 along Jayne Avenue in Fresno County, California. The objective of the study is to assess current pavement conditions along a 14 .3-mile corridor extending from CA-33 (S Alpine Ave) to the west to the Fresno County/Kings County line to the east. The information collected in the study describes existing pavement conditions along the corridor in terms of pavement condition index (PCI) values. Determining PCI values allows for the assignment of appropriate pavement maintenance and repair (M&R) treatments to roadway sections within the corridor . M&R work is assigned based on a roadway section's PCI value , projected deterioration rate , priority within the network, and engineering judgment. Once the required work type is determined, opin ions of probable cost are developed to provide an estimate of how much investment is required to implement a repa ir strategy that ma intains the pavement over the next 10 years. By understanding current pavement condit ions and assessing traffic data , appropriate M&R strategies can be identified to maintain the corridor's structural and functional performance in the coming years during and after the construction of the proposed deve lopments . Truck traffic due to project construction is evaluated to determine a fair share of roadway repair costs attributable to the project. Methodology The Jayne Avenue corridor was evaluated in accordance with the standard method for conducting visual pavement evaluations, namely ASTM D6433-18 Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys . The ASTM method relies on a qualified pavement engineer to select representative roadway areas and assess pavement distress types, quantities, and severities to determine the PCI value . A PCI value of 100 signifies a road in excellent condition while a PCI value of O represents a road in failed condit ion . PCI values are assigned to a condition category , as shown at right. • , -.:, , _.,, • ;•,, .. ),• < •: I ,._ _,1.,. "\,."'i1J•:.~•Jt .. l,:.T"" l "•'" ;"' H .~ ,i-°.. •' ,. "! --.•--' ••,• ' :' . : · 555 Capitol Mall ,: Sl.iite~300;·Sacramento,=.CA 95814 . ·. '.' ·., · -~ . .. . ~ .. ~ ,.,. -., ... --,,,,_, ..,. ·, ...... , . •' . .. . . . _, •. _, ......... ' ,: •;• '.>,;.',t••t,• · 916 .571.1015 '•'.t , . " (~ -. .. ~; ....... i(imley :)) Ho ~n Page 2 Pavement conditions deteriorate over t ime as loading from vehicles, environmental conditions , and drainage factors undermine the integrity of a pavement's structure and underlying support layers . Well-timed M&R activities can slow or reverse this deterioration . Systematically applying preventive maintenance treatments to the pavement before sign ificant distress has been observed helps preserve pavement condition. The alternative of repairing the pavement after damage has occurred increases cost , often sig n ificantly . Figure 1 shows the financial impact of performing maintenance at different times in the pavement life cycle . C Good B6-100 .Q Satisfactory .-:: 71-85 "C t: 0 (.) F;,ir 56-70 Poor 41-55 • W i th Tre at m ent ,-....___ • -----i.. f ?rev~nti 1:e-f·;l ::i ntenor-c e f $) ---..._ i '"\ J ·Cr ci cJ: 5co l /Fi l l . '"--.:. \ . /\ · "' I \ 1 ,. ,'\ 1 , •Rejuven3ti o n _________ !, ___ .. __ ': .. '· ____ >, 1 __ .\1 ___ ·\ ______ ·Slu rrt/f og Se als \ \ •• ,, I ., .. ✓_,.. \ \ ( \ \ !.•l in or P.ehcs b ili~2 ti o n :55 i 4 Ch i p Se;:i {Se a 1 Co ~t) -r·..-liG o Si.:rfa cin g ·Th in O 'lc rl o 'I / \ CFi.JTIC:tL PC/ ,. 5 t'1 \ --------'-----,\--------·'----1,laicr Re.~a b i l itati on ,SS S W n,1o ut Tr e,t mcn: •·· \ \. •r,-111 :-an c-o ver1a 1 Vcry 2 P 64 °~ 0 ;· 1;'. ·St ru~w ra l O•.e r1a·1 "' -------------~--------·'~ 4 Hot /Cold l n·?l ace P.e{','cl i n g ' Serious 11-25 , ....... ~ ~e c.c n~tf:Jc:licn ,s;s :;; •Fu ll•Oep t h ~:::c lcma :,on -F u 1:•De pti1 Ee co nst rcci i on f'ailed 0-10 0 5 10 15 20 25 Age (Years) Figure 1. Proacti ve Maintenance and Repair Strategies Pro long Pavement Life and Sa ve Money Maintaining pavements in good condition prolongs financial resources because less costly trea tment app li cations like rejuvenation , surface treatments , and crack sealing can help ma intain present cond itions . The consequence of applying preventive maintenance treatments late (or not at all) is twofold in that pavement cond itions are likely to deteriorate more rapidly , and treatment options become more ex pens ive. Data Collection Data collection occurred on Jayne Avenue on September 5 , 2019 in accordance with ASTM D6433- 18 guidelines. In total, 58 pavement sample units across the 14.3-m ile corridor were selected for evaluation . Pavement sample areas were spaced at an interval of approximately 0.25 m iles . Data co ll ected during the assessment included pavement distress data (e .g . type, quantity, severity), general observations , lane measurements, and representative condition photographs . I~ •• , 1,•,,-:.1 r• ... ,r,1•,.i.-•;··"> ... l ... ..__,_. t -,:,:~.-~ .. ~ ... -~,"i~;,-;'ltt:r"'1•~':+, ·•zr.;•,-...,., ...... ;_;-:.:~ ..... ,,Ji'1 : . : :· '555 Capijol Mall; Sui_te ~00,:S~Cf'c!~ento,•"CA 95814 -;"·-,:. -';'• ·:. . . -, . . . .. , . ~ .. ' -, .. ' ' ~ . Page 3 The visual pavement inspection process described in ASTM 06433-18 defines distress types for rigid pavement (Portland cement concrete, or PCC) and flexible pavement (asphalt concrete, or AC). In total, 20 d istinct distress types exist for AC pavement, and 19 distress types exist for PCC pavement. Because the Jayne Avenue corridor is comprised of only AC pavement, only AC distresses are shown in Table 1 . Distress types identified during the pavement condition evaluation are balded in Table 1. Table 1. Asphalt Concrete Pavement Distress Types t-:·'."".:4 Dlt'2fl •....1,.._"""'---"U,. ••• ~ 't r~~~~~~Da __ :.. -:--..• ,~ ... ~~:.~ .... . .. . .-~ ;;'~,;::,,;, . . ... •1 ~j':~.r._~ .. ··.: 1 Alligator Cracking 2 Bleeding 3 Block Cracking 4 Bumps/Sags 5 Corrugation 6 Depression 7 Edge Cracking 8 Joint Reflective Cracking 9 Lane/Shoulder Drop-Off 10 Longitudinal/Transverse Cracking 11 Patching/Utility Cut 12 Polished Aggregate 13 Potholes 14 Railroad Crossing 15 Rutting 16 Shoving 17 Slippage Cracking 18 Swelling 19 Raveling 20 Weathering Distress types observed across the corridor are related primarily to load, environmental conditions , construction methods, and other factors . Load-related distresses arise from both static and dynamic tire interaction with the pavement surface . Climate-related distresses include those distresses caused by variations in temperature and asphalt binder oxidation . Distresses can also be caused by other factors such as construction or utility maintenance . Distress type examples and failure mechan isms are shown in Table 2. • , • -,. • • • ,, •· ,~. • 1, r, ,1' · • , • -,._• . • ..,. •,, \, ., ~ f'.,,,r• ..,, .... } _,.,.t; : ,,.,1 . ·.: 555·cai5itol .Ma~I ;·suife '300 ,'Sa~ranient_o, CA95814:· ... -: 'P', ' /':'f'.,'~~--• '-.J~t ), ,1, ! : 916 .571'. 10'15 :, .. , .. ,. ( ~ Ki rn ley >>) Ho ~n Page 4 Table 2. Distresses Observed on Jayne Avenue .. . ,·1:~\ _ .. :•• .... . ... _..:... Alligator (fatigue) cracking is a series of interconnecting cracks caused by fatigue failure of the asphalt concrete surface under repeated traffic loading . Cracking typically begins at the bottom of the bound pavement layer where tensile stresses and strains are the highest under wheel load ing . The cracks propagate t o the surface and begin to resemble the skin of an alligator. Alligator cracking is a major structural distress and is often accompanied by rutting . More significant treatments such as mill-and-overlay or full-depth reconstruction are required to adequately address alligator cracking. Bleeding is a film of bituminous material on the pavement surface that creates a shiny, glasslike surface that can become tacky in hot weather. As aggregates in the surface course are pressed into the asphalt surface by vehicle tires, the asphalt binder is flushed to the surface . Bleeding is caused by excessive amounts of asphalt binder during application or a low air void content in the AC mix. Bleeding results in a loss of surface texture and skid resistance on the pavement surface. Surface treatments such as a racked-in seal or inverted seal may help reduce the impacts of bleeding . Longitudinal and transverse cracking occu rs parallel or perpendicular, respectively, to the roadway centerline. Longitudinal cracks typ ically arise due to a poorly constructed paving joint or contraction of the pavement surface due to temperature changes . Transverse cracks extend across the width of the roadway and result from daily temperature cycling . They are not typically load-related, though loading can exacerbate crack severity . • ,,.t •, • I .. ', -• • ~(••' ,'r ••·•--~°'";•~ "'"~~1,•~•. -•• C •_.,) •r. •'J.~ • •• •'J' ·. · 555 Capitol Mall , Suite 300,. Sacramento , CA 95814 · · · . , ~•~ f" ~.,t:: " .J " r • 916.571.1015 ;'_ I I • • •-• ... . ~ . ' ... Kiml ey·1>H rn Page 5 Patching and utility cuts are areas in which the original pavement has been partially removed and rep laced. Patching often results from subsurface water or utility work, or as a remedy to other surface distresses such as alligator cracking or potholes . A patch is considered a pavement defect no matter the size or condition of the patched area . Raveling is the d islodging of coarse aggregate particles from the pavemen t surface due to a loss of bond between the asphalt binder and aggregate particle . Raveling may be caused due to aggregate segregation , in adequate compaction during construction, or mechanical dislodging due to certain types of traffic . Rutting appears as a depression in the wheel path and is a structural defect resulting from traffic loading. In some instances, rutting is most noticeable after a rain event when water pools at the bottom of the rut and creates dangerous hydroplaning conditions. Rutting results from permanent deformation of either the bound or unbound pavement layers . Static traffic loading and turning movements in hot weather can i ncrease the likelihood of rutting given the higher viscosity of the asphalt binder. Rutting is a major structural distress that requires extensive rehabilitation to correct. Kirnley >>>Horn Page 6 Weathering refers to the loss of fine aggregate and aspha lt binder on the pavement surface. Weathering is related to the aging and oxidation of the asphalt binder, result ing in a loss of adhes ion between the binder and aggregate . In addit ion to loss of aggregate , the color of the pavement surface may appear faded . The edges of coarse aggregates may also be apparent on a weathered surface . Pavement distresses encountered along the Jayne Avenue corridor are summarized in Figure 2. Distresses are presented in terms of the t otal number and percent of sections in which the distress was observed. In total, 15 pavement sections (o r segments) were evaluated . Distress mechanism is a lso represented , with alligator c racking and rutt ing both resulting from load-re lated factors . I.'} .;-:r. :i ··· ,:;,-· ,;·" .... ·~-:-·· ... ~..,. ., .. , .::· ·l..O:':i . C h i lr.i~f•i():r.~;-r .:., :' i' :~ 1 i" ]. ?'.·: ..5 ,:.:_.~ . .-::- Figure 2. Pavemen t Dis tresses Observed on Jayne Avenue Weathering is the most commonly observed d istress . In addition, long itud inal and transverse cracking and bleeding appear on over half of the roadway sections evaluated. Alligator cracking was mostly confined to local ized areas , though roadway sections near Interstate 5 between S Glenn Avenue and S Butte Avenue are heavily distressed and contain most of the distress types identified here . Less common d istresses such as raveling , patching , and rutt ing were also observed in localized areas wit hin this section . Since this road section includes the I-5/Jayne Avenue interchange and associated freeway ramp junctions and approaches on Jayne Avenue , it was assumed that most or all of th is "•~r., •'-t•,···,.· ,. , •,,,•,1 .. ~ .\., •~=•~-~:•'""'l':,J.''~:1~':l•'·',';r,,,,i:.;l.· .. · ,',"t'J11Jl;~,:'-,,..-.,.,:,.. ,-t,•.,. · ··.· ·· ·•,555 ·capitol 'Mall, Suite '300, Sacramento ;CA95814 \:."'-' ·_ -·~·· : I , , ,. " & , ~ • '• • • .,, , o, , • • • , i , ,._ 1,. • \ , , • Page 7 section of Jayne Avenue is in State right-of-way and managed by Caltrans . This has been confirmed with senior staff at Caltrans District 6, who provided parcel information showing the limits of State right-of-way associated with the interchange. The parcel map provided by Caltrans is contained in Appendix A . Data Collection Results Pavement cond ition results for the corridor are summarized in Table 3 and depicted graphically in Figure 3. Overall, the Jayne Avenue corridor is in Good condition with a PCI value of 87 . With the exception of the roadway area near the 1-5 interchange between S Glenn Avenue and S Butte Avenue, the extent of State ownership of wh ich is presently being confirmed with Caltrans , pavement sections are in Satisfactory or better condition . Sections that have been recently overlaid such as Sections 1 through 3 and Section 10 remain in Good condition. A few areas exhibit localized structural distress (e.g . Section 8 , Sample 3 and Section 9, Sample 3) that may need to be addressed through base repair prior to the application of a surface treatment or overlay. Table 3. Roadway Conditions on Jayne Avenue • fh •' ; S Alpine Ave 1.0 Good 96 3 Prison Good 96 4 Good 96 1 Good 96 2 2 Pleasant Valley Coalinga 1.0 Good 96 3 State Prison State Hospital Good 96 4 Good 96 1 Good 96 2 Good 96 3 3 Coalinga State S El Dorado 1.4 Good 96 4 Hospital Ave Good 96 5 Good 96 6 Good 96 4 S El Dorado Sutter Ave 0.6 Satisfactory 71 83 2 Ave Good 95 Satisfactory 72 2 Satisfactory 78 3 Satisfactory 76 4 Glenn Ave Satisfactory 85 5 5 Sutter Ave (Caltrans 2.1 Good 91 · 84 6 ROW LimitW) Good 92 7 Good 91 ... ~. 8 Good 87 9 Satisfactory 85 •, -• • ¥1.' ",.,,,, "'1.(,r ,•:_,, ~~,rrti'I< .. ,}.!'~•-•;, •, • ~~t•. ~••. :-'10 •-:•, • · ~q5 Capitol'Mall ; Suite ·300, Saci:?rfierit6 ,"CA 95814 : . Kin1 ley ,» Horn Page 8 ·~<!.:;.</; ·::>";7 ..... ,.¾''-<1i, '·i~: ' .. ~: 1i : ' I t.r:r.ri'fm, .-.... ,· ' J' i"; '" ""' "'" :.: • 1, .. "-"'<:Tithlf:l' ·,, If. • •• 'J •' -r -• 1 • ·.• '~. {itiiJ ·, . ~.·:~ 1-/·.,?:~~~~ ,., :; ~l.\ \:' -'i.:M :?·-~;~,•._-lij: ;:-!-~ . . . ., .. ;\···.' 1·· .:,::-.• • : . . l . • ·~ • .• .. c;,:;:; ;; . :. :. . ,: " ... -•.. . -~ . : ,;·. . .... 6 1 Glenn Ave Butte Ave Very Poor 34 (Caltrans) 2 (Caltrans ROW (Caltrans 0.5 Very Poor 37 3 LimitW) ROW Limit E) Serious 24 1 Butte Ave Satisfactory 84 7 2 (Caltrans ROW S Lake Ave 0.9 Satisfactory 80 82 3 Limit E) Satisfactory 82 1 Satisfactory 76 8 2 S Lake Ave S Trinity Ave 1.0 Satisfactory 72 74 3 Fair 63 4 Satisfactory 84 1 Satisfactory 83 -·- 9 2 S Trinity Ave S Lassen Ave 1.0 Satisfactory 72 71 3 Poor 52 4 Satisfactory 78 1 Good -87 10 2 S Lassen Ave S Siskiyou Good 93 3 Ave 1.0 Good 93 4 Good 93 1 Satisfactory 84 .. 11 2 S Siskiyou Ave S Madera Ave 1.0 Satisfactory 79 8.2 3 Satisfactory 79 4 Satisfactory 84 12 1 S Madera Ave Canal 0.5 Satisfactory 80 80 2 Satisfactory 80 13 1 Canal S Goldenrod Satisfactory 83 8'1 2 Ave 0.5 Satisfactory 78 -., 1 Satisfactory 78 14 2 S Goldenrod S Howard Ave 1.0 Satisfactory 77 77 3 Ave Satisfactory 77 4 Satisfactory 77 .. , .. 1 Satisfactory 79 15 2 S Howard Ave County Line 0.8 Satisfactory 80 . 78 3 Satisfactory 74 Overall S Alpine Ave County Line 14 .3 Good -- r.; • ' •••• ••: •• --•.-•":;:••••:.•;\ I~ ~'11' ... t~••,., ,' ••" ,, ~~,,,~•"Ii;,.-'\-~~-=•?:~",.,,.•, 1° · . 555 _Ca_p1~ol l\/!aU,· _Suite _ ~09 ,'Sacramento ,:CA_ 9?814 .. _;_ · l(imley>>> Horn Page 9 i ;;_t_.•--~:it)~~?·:: ~1f±!i~. h"""fw. ·-•~t.. -~ ·.r ;p;a -"u--•1•• wm,,_ ._ .. ,~\-1 Figure 3. Roadway Conditions on Jayne Avenue . 555 Cap{t~i ~all, $~ite 3ocDsa6ra~J~tb,,'.c~-9{~{tY . .; ... -. -.,·._ ..... _-._ ., ... •·--.. •.·. ·.,..:' --~-·•-·. -·•--'-=-----,···-··· 'I"\.,:~ 4.:: ::,; ..... , .... .r~:1~f~ ;;jJJ>.~~1:rn11~~~~~ <irnley ;)) Ho n Page 10 Traffic Analysis A traffic analysis was conducted previously by VRPA Technologies, Inc. to provide traffic count and projected construction vehicle usage information. Using data from this study, truck traffic due to construction is analyzed to determine how much of the overall traffic along the corridor over the next 10 years can be attributed to project construction traffic. Table 4 contains a summary of releva nt traffic data . Base li ne equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) refer to truck loading due to the existing traffic mix, while construction ESALs refer to additional load ing due specifically to site development and construction traffic. Additional data from the traffic analysis can be found in Appendix B. Table 4. Traffic Analysis Jayne 1 Eastbound 991,628 15 .5% 15 .5% CA-33 to 1-5 ROW Westbound 1,067,622 1,221,772 14.4% Jayne 2 Eastbound 1,994 ,615 2 ,148,765 7 .7% 9.3% 1-5 ROW to CA-269 Westbound 1,656 ,199 1,810,349 9.3% Jayne 3 Eastbound 530 ,554 684 ,7 04 29 .1% CA-269 to Ki ngs County 29 .1% Line Westbound 1,2 13,985 1,368,135 12 .7% The development of the three solar projects (Aquamarine , Solar Blue , and Chestnut) will generate additiona l truck deliveries of concrete, aggregate , and gen-tie materials to the corridor. Traffic volumes are expected to increase due to the addit ion of approximately 4,000 concrete trucks, 19,860 aggregate trucks, and 7,770 gen-tie delivery trucks. The combination of these 4-and 5-axle vehicles is expected to generate approximately 154,150 additional ESALs beyond baseline traffic volumes . Maintenance & Repair (M&R) Options Present roadway conditions and available funding generally dictate the range of possible M&R treatment options. Accord ing to the Fresno County Road Improvement Program (RIP) 2017-2022, the County considers a range of M&R options when performing roadway maintenance and repair. These options include full-depth reconstruction , overlay, chip seal, and slurry seal, among others . The RIP provides appro ximate costs for the treatment options from which unit cost information can be derived . In determining possible M&R options for Jayne Avenue , chips seals, overlays and full-depth reconstruction are the primary options considered with the understanding that the County may use other treatments (including slurry seals ). Table 5 lists unit cost information for each of the pr imary treatment options , with overlay and chip seal costs coming directly from Fresno County . Additional cost information can be found in Appendix C . -. • •., •• ..::, ••'..t •'' -••,:";••.,.•,,•;~_.._,.,1,;:-.-t,,1-.,. ••~•;_,.,,,~ •,:: • • • .,': · ' 555 Capitol ·Mall, Suite 300,:Sacramehto, CA'95814 · :· · . • ,...,.,.~ ••• .,~,, ' ... r ,· ,:,; ..,. , ·.a·~:, ...... -:-·-916iii1015·,:,, . \• . .. . . ~,. . .;... . ,.__. l(iml ey :)) Horn Page '11 Table 5. Unit Costs for M&R Options Reconstruction 15-20 yr RIP 2017-2022 , Appendix A $2 ,535,363 $ 16 .01 $ 144 .05 Overlay 7-10 yr Fresno County $ 398 ,891 $ 2.52 $ 22 .66 Chip Seal 3-5 yr Fresno County $ 52 ,299 $ 0.33 $ 2 .97 As shown in Figure 1, applying preventive maintenance while pavement conditions are Satisfactory or better extends the pavement life cycle and delays more costly treatment interventions . Treatments are less expensive when appropriately applied to pavements in Good or Satisfactory condition and become increasingly costly when applied to pavements in poorer condition . It is assumed that PCI values return to 100 following reconstruction or overlay due to fortification of the pavement structure. Pavement sections may also see a modest increase in PCI after the application of preventive maintenance treatments such as a chip seal or slurry seal, though these treatments are meant to maintain existing conditions and not improve them as they provide little structural reinforcement. Table 6 shows proposed M&R treatments by section and generally includes two M&R treatments over the next 10 years . Sections receiving a single M&R treatment (e.g., Sections 1, 2, 3 , 10) have been recently overlaid (in 2018) and are unlikely to need a second treatment within the next 10 years . a e T bl 6 P ropose rea mens '{ ec 10n d M&R T t t b S f • A, ,;; ·' ....... • • ., • \~Aw·\:.t ~-~~~~~~ ,·':~}~\~': _,, ·: :\(/4/r 1:.~~~--·1t1, 1t,,~· •t;~, '.~t ~' ·;;@~it: '" -i l1-'\."")';;r(!-.~1,:\1~,:-~_:.~~if-:~ ··, -~1. ,.o~ '. , .. ;' .:~q'!;.:°'i, .'' 'r" ... }ti,;\ ,, .. ,, •. ,-,t; 1 S Alpine Ave Pleasant Valley State Prison Good 96 ST - 2 Pleasant Valley State Prison Coalinga State Hospital Good 96 ST - 3 Coalinga State Hospital S El Dorado Ave Good 96 ST - 4 S El Dorado Ave Sutter Ave Satisfactory 83 ST ST 5 Sutter Ave Glenn Ave Satisfactory 84 ST ST (Caltrans ROW Limit W) 6 Section is entirely comprised of Caltrans Right-of-Way 7 Butte Ave S Lake Ave Satisfactory 82 OL ST (Caltrans ROW Limit E) 8 S Lake Ave S Trinity Ave Satisfactory 74 OL ST 9 S Trinity Ave S Lassen Ave Satisfactory 71 OL ST 10 S Lassen Ave S Siskiyou Ave Good 91 ST - 11 S Siskiyou Ave S Madera Ave Satisfactory 82 OL ST 12 S Madera Ave Canal Satisfactory 80 OL ST 13 Canal S Goldenrod Ave Satisfactory 81 OL ST 14 S Goldenrod Ave S Howard Ave Satisfactory 77 OL ST 15 S Howard Ave Coun ty Line Satisfactory 78 OL ST Note: FDR-full-depth reconstruction; OL -overlay; ST -surface treatment I'., •~:;•,1 .• ,,: .. 1'-~•1••,•/1,.:-:, ....... ~~:,.."-."~"'l,•~;.J",.:..:•1.~,;11.;,j•'• ... '•.,•-'1\.•""''-"''-'~,•;..,n · ·. ' : 555 ·capitol Mal l;'Suite 3'00,' Sacramento, CJ\'95814 ·· -., ' "· '·; '.•' • _, ,,. ' ,,. ... J) • ,• I,> I -> • '•" Pag e 12 M&R treatments are assigned to each section based on current condition , common M&R treatment options available to the County, and engineering judgment. Given that AC pavements typically deteriorate at a rate of 1-3 PCI points per year, one can reasonably expect that over the next 10 years, each section will drop 10 to 30 PCI points during this period in the absence of M&R treatment application . For example, sections presently rated as Good will drop to Satisfactory or Fair condition , while sections in Satisfactory condition now w ill drop to Fair or Poor in the future . Thus, preserving present conditions through surface treatments and overlays is a viable option for maintaining roadway conditions while efficiently utilizing available funding. One section is in notably worse condition than the rest of the corridor. Section 6 contains the roadway section between S Glenn Avenue and S Butte Avenue and incorporates the Interstate 5 interchange . Truck traffic is particularly heavy at this location and current pavement conditions indicate areas of structural failure . Since this section of Jayne Avenue consists entirely of State right-of-way associated with the 1-5/Jayne Avenue Interchange, as confirmed by Caltrans District 6 , this roadway section is not evaluated further in this report. Determining Project Contribution Determin ing the project 's contribution to pavement repa irs can be assessed given anticipated traffic volumes, material unit costs , and recommended M&R treatments . By taking the section's approximate area and applying a material unit cost , the total M&R cost can be estimated per section . Once the full cost is known , the project's contribution can be determined by analyzing the project's truck traffic contribution and prorating the project contribution based on the project's contribution to overall truck traffic. Table 7 displays the project's contribution to the overall roadway maintenance program . The estimated project contribution to roadway M&R activities within the portions of Jayne Avenue that constitute Fresno County Road over the next 10 years is $712 ,041 . l(iml ey :>) Ii rn Page 13 Table 7 . Project Contribution by Section l~: °"~ • . .;.; 1·,~t: I~'": -1~~?'; "tr.r:iftfrr' ;ti.; • ..... --. ~ "~J. -~~;: ·"t :.to • 1 '1t-:lll l t-!..,. ,/ • • I • • ,• . ·•--1'!...IM llf t~- tr'r~ ... -"' -~ ~~-~-;~" 1~~ ~:·. ~~~irt:nltrrtfuxtf-.., :~h~:,,·~·r.:,1--· ' . -.• ,. . ,~·. a • ,-, ·(''I. , -::,:-~~ • .-r - • • 1 96 162,930 ST $ 53,795 -$-$8,362 2 96 150,570 ST $49,714 -$-$7,728 3 96 229,440 ST $75,754 -$-15 .5% $11 ,776 4 83 90,990 ST $30,042 ST $30,042 $9,340 5 84 328,890 ST $108,590 ST $108,590 S 33,761 6 Sectio n is en ti rely comprised of Caltrans Right-of-Way 7 82 143,400 OL $361,117 ST $47,346 $38,018 8 74 158,400 OL $398,891 ST $52,299 9.3% $41,994 9 71 158,040 OL $397,984 ST $52,180 $41,899 10 91 158,250 ST $52,249 -$-$15,181 11 82 158,760 OL $399,798 ST $52,418 S 131,389 12 80 77,160 OL $194,308 ST $25,476 $63,857 29.1 % 13 81 84,210 OL $212,062 ST $27,804 $69,6 92 14 77 159 ,3 30 OL $401,233 ST $52,606 S 131 ,861 15 78 129,510 OL $326,139 ST $42,760 $1 07,182 Total M&R Cost $ 3 ,553,198 Total Project $712,041 Contribution Recommendations and Closure The results of this visual pavement condition survey indicate that that the overall condition of the Jayne Avenue corridor is Good with a PCI of 87 as of September 2019 . The essence of pavement management is applying the correct treatment to the correct roadway at the correct time. Keep ing roads in Fair or better condition costs less on the front-end than if conditions slip into Poor or worse cond itions. Therefore, the calculation of the project's fair share of M&R costs assumes that the County will undertake timely main tenance and repair of the roadway segments , as itemized in Table 7 , in order to avoid more costly maintenance and repairs that would result if such maintenance and repairs are not undertaken in a timely manner. This pavement evaluation was conducted in accordance with the ASTM methodologies described above, which constitute the best available methodologies for pavement analysis using a visual suNey technique . It sho u ld be no ted that Kimley-Horn has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equ ipment, or broader market conditions. Opinions of probable cost are based on the information known at the time of reporting and represent the Consultant's judgment as a design professional familiar with the industry. 'irnl ey ))) Horn Page 14 Appendix A -Caltrans Parcels at Interstate 5 -Jayne Avenue Interchange , -•,-t.,.,, 1 • , ••. •.• -~'1.;,"'I •.~\.~ .• • r • •. ,. •,tT, ,. , . 555 Capit~I M~ll ; S,uite 300 ; Sa~ra'mento , CA 95814 · · · . · t.:. .~~.'I::-;,.._, •• ,."-l"..#, ·. 9"16.571",101"5 ~ . ~ . . ~ .. ,. . (irnley >>)Hori· Page 15 Appendix B-Traffic Analysis Segment hyne ,Aunue {EO), C:A·33to _l•S ~ielin~ Cfassiflt..ltion Truck a:a:nlfic.rtlon 1 AOTT2D1' counu r.nnu,11 Growth ltlte fxpllnded AOTT Pro cctA0TT ESAL lO--YrConsunt !SAU •.s 2-Axlc I 5l r,; ., 0 '"" .:.2.s31,so ' 3·:.Xlc I ll 2,S 27 0 l ,&-:0 49,J;.u , .. 4-.:.xlc I z;; ,..., 2~103 9,10.11,12 >S-A,.Jc I 101 if . 127 6.S~ EJ,l,Z)] TOTAL BASEUtlt ESAU ~1.G23 Sccmcnt Jayne Avenue {WB}, CA·33to l·S ~uilfnc Omslfiation TrudcCl;,sslfic:atlon ADn20t!J Counts Annual Growth R.Jtc Exo;i.ndcd ADTT ProicctAOTT ESA1.1CHrConfbnt ESAU <.5 2-~!c ,1 l ~i so 0 '"" 3-:.SH ' 3-Axlc 27 "' " l,S.10 60.610 7,6 4-A:dc 1l 7.# 13 2.9-.0 39,.aS!i 9.lD.lL12 >S-AJlc 11] "' 13S 6,Sro 933.o:J :TOTALBASEUNEESAIJ: 1,067,622 Sccmcnt ~c Avcn~ (EB), f-S to CA-269 D.uallne a.u~ncatfon I Truck a~lia1ion ADTT2019 Counts Annu11 Growth Ible Expanded ADTT Proj1ctADTT I ESAllO-YtConsbnt !SA!, •.s I 2•A1dc "'' 2'/4 '"" 0 I "" 269,376 G I 3-Axle ~~ I 1.640 G,734 , .. I 4-Axh: .. ~; a.: 2.9-:0 :?.:;7.~9 9,10,11.12 I >S-Axlt' 175 2'}~ 2)4 6,SSO 1,471.01.S TOTAL8ASEU"Ef.5AU l ,994.61S Sccmcnt hync Avt'nUt' JWO), I-~ to~•lf.,9 &11:lintt C 2Sslnatfon Trudi: O.:t11lrladon AOTT2019 Counts Ann~I Growth R.:i.te Expwdt'd ADTT P10Jc:C\AOTT tsALlO-Yt Consblnt <SA!, •.s 2·Axle i:l9 "' 170 0 .. , 117.010 6 3-A.xlc: s ,.~ 6 l,&:0 ll,22J 7,8 4-Axlc: .. "' 54 '-""' 157,819 9.10.11,12 >~Axle 163 r.~ 199 6.€~ 1,370,145 TOTALBASEUNE ESAL:s 1,656,199 k~nl J~yne Avtl"iUt (EB), CA0269 to County Une ~st'lfne C uslOatlon TrucltC.:t1slRCiltJon AOTT Z019 Counts Annu~ Growth R.:i.to Ex1>-o1ndedADTT Pro/c:ctAOTT ESAl.10-YtCornunt !SAU •.s 2·A:d e 2J.l 2'i 265 6,0 ]$,S,!1 6 3-Axlc 2'~ 1,&-.0 13.:G-9 , .. 4•Allle 33 2~; 40 2.'>10 118,36,; 9,10.lJ,12 >S-Ax lc " 2!~ 29 6,S;-O :ol,7J9 1TOTAL BASElJNE ESAU S30,554 Scc:mcnt J~vne Avenue (W 8), CA-269 to County Une ~lelln• a ~slfitation I Trudi.Ousln~tlon ADTT 2019 Coun~ Annu,t Growth Ible Ex01nded AOTT ProkctAOTT ESALIO-YrCon stant ESAU 4,S I 2•Axle 142 2,~ 173 . ., ll9.S36 I 3-Axlc: r.:. 0 1,&;0 7.8 I .;-Axle ., ,.~ ss 2.9,l,0 161.406 9,10,ll,12 I >S-AJ:l t' 1l1 2" m 6,890 933,0\4 TOTA LPROJEC1'~ls l,2l3,'JS5 ki:mcnt Dln:ctlon Buclfne ESAls \[nc+ConitructionE! Chanceln(SA.lJ: %\nc:reale Jayne l ,. CA -3Jto l•S ws 991.628 l,US.718 lSUSO ],067.622 1.221.m l ~.150 lS.5% ]4 . .:¼ 15.~ 15.5¼ l:iync:2 EB 1.99-:.615 2.14S.765 IS.USO l·SloCA-269 we 1.&56.199 1,1:110,349 1~.150 J~yn e3 '" 530.55' 6Sl,?0; ,S.,,150 CA·269toCountvUnt' WB 1,213.935 l.!ES.135 lSUSO ll.7.'~ ProkctTrli:is lovcr2vursl ToUITrudu Alllu/Trutk Pt1:1Ic!ctESAU .;.;ucle(conaetc) <,OCXl 4 l~OCXl S-nlcf•r.v;e1:,,1 te) 19,tGO s ""·"" S-u1e (Ren-tle) 7.770 s 3&650 Tot-,1 3),630 14 lSU!.O ••1,,, l• I,;,_.;-._,~..-";--~~.• •• _...,.,_. ,~ : J .,, ':•, ••~•••'\1~-,j'•••' · -: : • 555 Capitol l\llall, .Suite 300, ·sacraniento, CA-95814 ·-:, · -.-. ·· , ~ , J • .i.,_· ,,,,, •• .;;... 1"~~~ 't :'916.571:1015 ;. ' o} •' < ~ -•,...h, Vimley r)) Horn Page '16 Appendix C -Unit Cost Analysis Reconstruction Cost Estimates Treatment Type Source $/mi $/SF $/SY Project Mileage Budget $/mi $/SF $/SY Reconstruction RIP 2017-2022 Appendix A s 2,535,363 s 16.01 S 144.05 1 1-97 $ 5,100,000 S2,588,832 $ 16.34 $147.09 Overlay County s 398,891 s 2.52 $ 22.66 2 1.06 s 2,600,000 $2,641,509 s 16.68 $150.09 Chip Seal County s 52,299 s 0.33 s 2.97 3 1.39 $ 3,600,000 $2,589,928 $ 16.35 $147.16 4 1.00 $ 2,000,000 $2,000,000 s 12.63 $113.64 s 1.43 s 3,718,000 $2,600,000 $ 16.41 $147.73 6 1.43 $ 3,700,000 $2,587,413 $ 16.33 $147.01 7 1.16 s 3,000,000 S2,SS6,207 $ 16.33 S146.94 8 1.16 s 3,000,000 $2,586,207 $ 16.33 $ 146.94 9 1.36 s 3,500,000 $2,573,529 $ 16.25 $146.22 10 1.00 s 2,600,000 $2,600,000 s 16.41 $147.73 Average $ 2,S35,363 $ 16.01 S144.05 , .,. __ .. •,,-.~ .. ~r ~ . :· ... ~--:~ ..... , .... ~ ~,it:n•-.,.,_!..!•~· ..... "'· • •· .-:-,;1 ·~.,.: ".'t ~1 / •\·· 1. -..•1 .;· .. ·. •., :·555 •eapitol Mall, Suite-300; sa·crarhento:CA -95814 • ,-;_:-,--·.-. • •• • • ~ , • • : ' • • t ~ -., l, • • ; : • 1 • • ' • ~ Fresno County-Summary of Estimated Maintenance and Repair (M&R) Fees for WSP Cluster 8 Projects -From Kimley-Horn Studies -Oct. 2019 (as accepted by County of Fresno and Kings County) 11-18-20 Jayne Avenue Pavement Evaluation Report (Final Report) -October 3, 2019 . Based on final County direction on analysis methodology, this report arrived at a total fair-share M&R cost attributable to all Cluster 8 projects and the gen-tie to Gates Substation of $712,041. Jayne Avenue Memorandum -Fair Share Roadway Improvements Attributable to the Construction of the Fresno County Segments of the Jayne Avenue Gen-Tie Line (Final)-October 3, 2019. Based on the Pavement Evaluation Report (above), this Memo identified the total fair share M&R cost attributable to construction of the entire 15-mile long Gen-Tie line (Fresno and Kings County segments) to be $179,454. The proportionate share attributable to the Fresno Gen-Tie segments only was determined to be $81,099. Fresno County Planning Commission Approval Resolution for UCUP for Construction of Fresno County Segments of the Gen-Tie-November 14, 2019. Mitigation Measure #3 requires payment of the $81,099 fair- share M&R cost for the Fresno County Gen-Tie segments prior to issuance of Building Permits for construction of the Fresno County Gen-Tie segments . The Resolution cites the total M&R cost for the entire Gen-Tie line of $179,454 . The Resolution also references the Kimley-Horn Pavement Report and Fair-Share Memorandum (see above) as the source for these fee amounts, indicating acceptance of the report and memo as the basis of the fee amounts for Cluster 8 solar projects and the Gen-Tie line. Calculation of Fair-Share M&R Fees for Cluster 8 Solar Projects and Kings County Gen-Tie. The fair-share fee amounts for the Cluster 8 solar projects and the Kings County Gen-Tie segments were calculated as follows: Kings County Gen-Tie Segments Total Calculated Gen-Tie M&R Cost: $179,454. Minus M&R Fees for Fresno County Gen-Tie: $81,099. Remaining M&R Fees Attributable to Kings County Gen-Tie: $98,355. Cluster 8 Solar Projects Total Calculated M&R fees for Cluster 8 projects and Gen-Tie: $712,041. Subtract Total M&R Fees Attributable to Gen-Tie Line: 179,454. Remaining M&R Fees Attributable to Cluster 8 Solar Projects: $532,587. Total Mega Watts in Cluster 8 Projects: M&R Fees per MW: 1 650MW $819.365 Calculated Fees for Cluster 8 Projects: Aquamarine : 250 MW X $819 .365 = $204,841. Solar Blue: 250 MW X $819.365 = $204,841. Chestnut: 150 MW X $819 .365 = $122,905 . Amounts Payable to Fresno County for M&R Fees Separate payments for each, as follows: Fresno County Gen-Tie = $81,099.00 {Payable to Fresno County prior to issuance of Fresno County Bu i lding Permit for Fresno County Gen-Tie segments.) Aquamarine Solar and Kings County Gen-Tie = $303,196.00 (Payable to Fresno County prior to issuance of Kings County Building Permits for Aquamarine Solar and Kings County Gen-Tie segments.) 2 Instructions for Check Payments to Fresno County for Fair-Share M&R Fees -11/18/20 Check#l Make out the check to : County of Fresno Check Amount: $81,099.00 Memo Portion : "UCUP No . 3650 ; Mitigation Measure 3. Transportation" Transmittal Memo : "Payment of $81,099 to satisfy Fresno County Planning Commission condition of approval for Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No . 3650 , specifically Mitigation Measure No . 3 (Transportation), approved by Resolution No . 12803, on November 14, 2019 ." Check#2 Make out the check to : County of Fresno Check Amoun t: $303 ,1 96.00 Memo Portion : "Kings County CUP No.17-04 ; Mitigation Measure TR-1a(d)" Transmittal Memo: "Payment of $303,196 to satisfy Kings County Plann ing Comm ission condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 17-04 (Aquamarine Solar Project and Gen-Tie Line), specifically Mitigation Measure TR -1 a(d), approved by Resolution No . 19-02, on September 9, 2019." Mail (via Certified or Registered Mail) To: County of Fresno 2200 Tulare Street, 6th Floor Fresno , CA 07721 Attention : Mr . Hector Luna , Site Plan Review