Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
STBG Application - Olive Ave McKinley Ave Overlays.pdf
2025/2026 Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Regional Bid Application COUNTY OF FRESNO CO ti �C Q� 185�p ORES OLIVE AVENUE AND MCKINLEY AVENUE OVERLAYS 1 OF 1 $5,775,000 $5,112,607 2 APPLICATION INDEX PAGE APPLICATIONINDEX PAGE...............................................................................................................................................3 PART A:GENERAL APPLICATION QUESTIONS....................................................................................................................4 PartAl:Applicant Information........................................................................................................................................4 Part A2:General Project Information..............................................................................................................................4 PartA3:Project Type .......................................................................................................................................................6 PartA4: Project Details....................................................................................................................................................7 PartA5:Project Delivery Schedule...................................................................................................................................9 Leveraging%....................................................................................................................................................................9 PartA6: Project Funding Sources...................................................................................................................................10 Part A7:Project Scalability&Partial Funding................................................................................................................11 PARTB:NARRATIVE QUESTIONS ...................................................................................................................................12 PARTC:APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS...........................................................................................................................18 Attachment A: Project Submittal Checklist and Signature Page....................................................................................19 AttachmentB: Financial Plan.........................................................................................................................................20 AttachmentC: Project Estimate.....................................................................................................................................21 Attachment D:Sample Council/Board Resolution.........................................................................................................22 Attachment E: RTP Project Documentation...................................................................................................................23 Attachment F: Project Location Map.............................................................................................................................24 Attachment G:Cost Benefit Ratio Calculation...............................................................................................................25 Attachment H: Environmental and ROW Documentation or Certification...................................................................26 Attachment I (Optional): Photos of Existing Conditions................................................................................................27 Attachment J (Optional):Additional Attachments........................................................................................................28 APPENDIX A:AIR QUALITY SCREENING CRITERIA(176A).................................................................................................29 3 PART A: GENERAL APPLICATION QUESTIONS Part Al: Applicant Information Implementing Agency:This agency must enter into a Master Agreement with Caltrans and will be financially and contractually responsible for the delivery of the project within all pertinent Federal funding requirements, includingbeing responsible and accountable for the use and expenditure of program funds. This agency is responsible for theaccuracy of the technical information provided in the application and is required to sign the application. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY'S NAME: COUNTY OF FRESNO IMPLEMENTING AGENCY'S ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIPCODE: 2220 TULARE STREET, 6T" FLOOR FRESNO CA 93721 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY'S CONTACT PERSON: CONTACT PERSON'S TITLE: Mohammad Alimi, Ph.D., P.E. Design Engineer CONTACT PERSON'S PHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON'S EMAIL ADDRESS: 559-600-4505 malimi@fresnocountyca.gov Part A2: General Project Information PROJECT NAME: (To be used in all program referenced project lists) Olive Avenue and McKinley Avenue Overlays Project/Application Number: (Priority#- Max 10 per Agency) 1of1 FTIP Proposed Project Title: (Maximum 34 characters) Olive Ave and McKinley Ave Overlays SUMMARY OF PROJECT SCOPE: Summary of existing condition, project scope, what the project is intended to do and the expected benefits: Existing Condition: Olive from Hayes to Hughes and McKinley from Dower to Marks are 2-lane roadways with dirt shoulders and 12-foot-wide travel lanes (24 feet total).The existing roadway surface is old, oxidized, fraught with alligator cracking, and longitudinal and transversal cracking in places. Resurfacing will provide a smooth driving surface, enhancing safety and increasing the longevity of the road.The project is expected to provide a useful life of at least 20 years, provided that timely maintenance is performed as necessary. Scope:The proposed project consists of a 0.2' asphalt concrete overlay Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)on the existing 24-foot travel way on McKinley Avenue from Dower Avenue to Marks Avenue and Olive Avenue from Hayes Avenue to Hughes Avenue (approximately 10 miles). 4 Expected Benefits: The expected benefits of the project are to preserve the existing road and reduce accidents by creating a smoother and safer road surface. Prolong its useful life, improve the driving conditions of the road, reduce airborne particulate matter and amount of dust in the air caused by passing traffic. In general, the advantages of overlaying roads are: • Smoother road surface creates more efficient trips. • More stable surface reduces obstacles and allows drivers more control to correct evasive maneuvers to avoid potential crashes or reduce severity. • More reliable connections for residents to vital destinations. • Increased visibility of lanes with refreshed striping of center and edge lines. • Structural support is given to the pavement and can better handle heavy weight vehicles such as freight trucks and agricultural vehicles. • Eliminates water intrusion into the pavement to minimize cracking. 5 PROJECT PURPOSE: Describe the main purpose of the project: The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the quality of the existing road by overlaying it with new asphalt.The project will also increase safety as mentioned above in the Expected Benefits paragraph of the previous section. FTIP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (Maximum 156 characters) [(Location :) + (Limits)+ (;)+ (Improvement)] Install Asphalt Concrete Overlays on Olive from Hayes to Hughes and McKinley from Dower to Marks (excluding some city-maintained segments). PROJECT LOCATION: (Include Route#or Name, Post Mile Limits/Length of Project, and Project Limits) McKinley Avenue from Dower Avenue to Marks Avenue and Olive Avenue from Hayes Avenue to Hughes Avenue (approximately 10 miles). In addition to the Location Description provided, please attach a location map to the application as specified in "Attachment F" below. The location map needs to show the project boundaries in relation to the Implementing Agency's boundaries. Functional Classification: Projects must be on federally eligible routes. Examples of local function include: arterial, expressway, major collectors, etc.; as designated within local circulation plan. Provide both local classification and federal classification if different.The federal classification takes precedence. Projects may not be on rural minor collectors. Minor Collector on McKinley Avenue from Dower Avenue to N Grantland/ Major Collector on McKinley Avenue from N Grantland to N Carnegie Avenue/ Minor Arterial on McKinley Avenue from N Carnegie Avenue to Marks Avenue. Major Collector on Olive Avenue from Hayes Avenue to Hughes Avenue. The application to reclassify W McKinley Avenue from SR 145 (Madera Ave) to Grantland Ave from a Minor Collector to Major Collector was submitted by the County of Fresno on 02/27/2025.This segment of road is listed as a Major Collector in the Fresno County General Plan. Part A3: Project Type Road Reconstruction/Preservation Project❑x Transit ❑ Bicycle/Pedestrian Project❑ Other Type of Project ❑ Is this a capacity increasing project? YES❑ NO❑X 6 Part A4: Project Details Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT): (also, please provide source of ADT data) Olive Ave:4,075; McKinley Ave: 2,900(Source: Fresno County Traffic Census, 2024) Accident Rate—Last 3 Years:Accidents divided by millions of vehicle miles. For traffic signal or bridge, use accidents divided by millions of vehicles. Only include accidents occurring over past three years. Olive Ave: 113; McKinley Ave: 114 Air Quality Assessment Code(s): Refer to Appendix A for air quality screening criteria code sheet and list all that apply. 3.12 Pavement Resurfacing & Rehabilitation Cost/Benefit Results: Please reference question#5a in Part B for methodology. Olive Ave: 2.49; McKinley Ave: 1.77 Right of Way(ROW) Impacts (Check all that apply) ® Agency has site control. Project is 100%within the Implementing Agency's ROW and/or is within their control at the time of this application submittal. (This includes temporary construction easements) ❑ Private ROW and/or Utility Relocations Required. Project will likely require ROW in fee ownership, permanent easements and/or temporary construction easements from private owners and/or will require utility relocations from utility companies outside that implementing agency's governmental control. The federal ROW process involving private property acquisitions and/or private utility relocations can often take 18 to 24 months after environmental document approval. The project schedule in the application for ROW needs to reflect the necessary time to complete the federal ROW process. ❑ Public ROW Required. Project will likely require ROW, Easements, encroachment and/or approval involving Governmental, Environmental, or Railroad owner's property What is the total number of months included in the project schedule to account for all ROW and/or utility impacts selected above? 0 months Anticipated ROW Certification Date. Expected date project will receive ROW certification or RFA for certification will be submitted. 03/31/2025 Is this project listed on the Financial Constrained List of the 2022 RTP? Documentation required as specified in "Attachment E" in part C of this application. Potential point 7 reduction up to 10 points if the project is not in the RTP. ❑ Project is on the constrained project list in the 2022 RTP. If the project is on the constrained project list in the 2022 RTP please provide the project ID number: F I ❑X Project is NOT on the constrained project list in the 2022 RTP. If not, does the project meet the goal and objectives of the RTP policies? YES 0 NO❑ Optional: Please explain why the project is not on the RTP.The STBG Scoring Committee may take extenuating circumstances into consideration. (up to 5 points can be considered) FRF250008- Programmed FTIP FRE504484—McKinley Avenue—RTP 2026 FRE504485—Olive Avenue—RTP 2026 Entered as new project for the 2026 RTIP in December 2024. Programmed in FTIP as new project 2025 in January 2025. Length/Width (in miles/feet) of Any New Active Transportation Facility(Class I/ II / III/ IV): N/A Length/Width (in miles/feet) of New Sidewalk: Number/Type of New Crosswalks: N/A N/A Number of New ADA Ramps: Number/Type of New Pedestrian Signals: N/A N/A If ITS Project, Number of Signals Connected: Length of Connected Signals: N/A N/A 8 Part AS: Project Delivery Schedule Fund Work Phase 120261271202712812028129120291301 Total STBG Grant Funds 88.53%1 Percent share of costs—typically 88.53% PE ROW Construction 5,112,607 Sub-total 5,112,607 5,112,607 Local Matching Funds 11.47%1 Matching fund rate—minimum 11.47% PE ROW Construction 662,393 Sub-total 662,393 662,393 Project Total PE ROW Construction 5,775,000 Grand Total 5,775,000 5,775,000 • Please fill out the Project Delivery Schedule according to the planned years of implementation for your project. • Actual programming will depend on financial capacity. Leveraging% 0 9 Part A6: Project Funding Sources Proposed Source of Local Match Funding: Place a checkmark in the box signifying where local matching funds for this project will be coming from and specify dollar amount. Sales Tax ❑City ❑ County ❑ Other(Transportation Development Act) Sales Tax sub-total]- Gas Tax ❑ Gas Tax(Subventions to Cities) ®Gas Tax(Subventions to Counties) 300,000 Gas Tax sub-total 300,000 Q Other Local Funds U 0 ❑ City General Funds ❑ Street Taxes and Developer Fees ❑ Other Other Local Funds sub-total: Transit ❑ Transit Fares ❑ Other Transit(parcel/property taxes,parking revenue, etc.) ❑ Tolls(e.g., non-state-owned bridges) ❑Other(e.g., RTEP) Transit sub-total: ❑ Tolls ❑ Bridge ❑ Corridor ❑ Regional Transit Fares/Measures Q ®Regional Sales Tax"Measure C" Local Pass Through 362,393 z O ❑ Regional Bond Revenue UJ ❑ Regional Gas Tax ❑ Vehicle Registration Fees(CARB Fees,SAFE) ❑ Other Regional sub-total: 362,393 Grand Total: 662,393 10 Part A7: Project Scalability& Partial Funding Is this project scalable? YES❑ NO© If yes, specify the minimum funds required: rs Please provide an explanation of scalability with specific reference to budget line items on the Financial Plan (Attachment B). N/A Would your agency accept partial funding for this project? YES® NO❑ If yes, please explain your contingency plan to fully fund and implement the project. The County will accept partial funding for this project and make up the difference with SB1 and Measure C. 11 PART B: NARRATIVE QUESTIONS 1. Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Replacement (Preservation): Explain how the project addresses preservation of existing infrastructure. Describe current condition of roads/assets and how the project will improve current condition, including estimated lifespan and pavement condition index information, if applicable. Projects will be scored based on the high, medium, and low scoring criteria. (40 points) The pavement is in poor condition and needs to be treated to continue its service life.The road exhibits alligator cracking, edge line cracking, potholes, and longitudinal and transverse cracking in varying degrees of severity. As recently as 2022, sections of this road have a pavement condition index as low as 10, scored out of 100.This falls into the poor to serious range, which indicates need for rehabilitation or reconstruction.This project will correct the surface deficiencies, improve ride quality, and extend the useful life of the roadway.Additionally, this will require less maintenance over time.The project is expected to provide a useful life of at least 20 years. It is important to preserve the existing roadway as it is a critical transportation route for residents to reach schools,jobs, recreation facilities, and essential services. Freight trucks carrying produce and other goods, and agricultural vehicles integral to the local economy, utilize this road. For residents of nearby Biola and Kerman, it provides a connection to SR 99, which takes users the cities of Kingsburg, Selma, Fowler, and Fresno. Repavement of Olive and McKinley Avenues will not only preserve the roadway infrastructure but will enhance safe pathways to community destinations and improve transportation connectivity. 12 2. Safety/Security: Explain how the project addresses safety and/or security issues and demonstrate how the project improvements will remedy potential safety hazards. Include data to clearly demonstrate these issues. Projects will be scored based on the high, medium, and low scoring criteria. (10 points) Olive and McKinley Avenues receive frequent truck traffic accessing the agricultural areas to and from the surrounding farming community.The project would improve connection for residents to different destination points.These destinations include places of worship, local businesses, McKinley Elementary School and nearby Addams Elementary School, and the Fresno Chaffee Zoo.The overlay will allow the road to better handle the heavy weight of freight trucks and agricultural vehicles.The overlay will allow for smoother travel,fewer potholes, and reduce opportunities for swerving out of the way of bad road conditions. A repaved road also reduces agitation of particulate matter,which will increase driver visibility and improves air quality.The road will be striped throughout the project limits to improve safety. High visibility striping will reduce crashes by helping cars stay in their lanes at night and during bad weather. A 2005 Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) study of rural roads found that pavement edge marking can reduce crashes by 26%. According to the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data, there have been 29 crashes at McKinley Avenue and 27 crashed at Olive Avenue in the 2-year period of 01/01/2021-12/31/2023, including one fatality (see Attachment 1). Some of these accidents were caused by improper movements into intersections.Striping of the road can help drivers know where to properly stop at intersections, and better quality of road surface can give drivers more control of their vehicles and increase skid resistance.The same TxDOT study mentioned previously also found that angle collisions at intersections can be reduced 60-80%with edge line marking. 13 3. Air Quality: Explain if the project has a positive benefit on air quality and incorporate transportation control measures (TCM). Projects will be scored based on the high, medium, and low scoring criteria. (5 points) New overlay will improve air quality by improving the surface of the road.This will reduce broken sections of pavement that crumbles and create dust when driven over.This area sees traffic from many heavy freight trucks and agricultural vehicles and an overlay will be able to handle this traffic on a smoother surface, reducing the amount of particulate matter that becomes airborne. Smoother road surfaces cause less wear and tear on vehicles and reduces friction between tires and pavement, thereby lowering fuel and carbon dioxide emissions. Tire wear is a contributor to particle pollution; estimations range from 0.1 to 10%for airborne PM 10 and 3-7% for airborne PM 2.5, and better road quality helps reduce particles that are emitted. The project locations' CalEnviroScreen average score, as provided by The Census Tract, is in the 70th percentile, which means that the pollution in this tract is higher than 70%of other Census tracts in the state (see Attachment J).The Particulate Matter 2.5 level of this census tract is in the 92nd percentile. 4. Congestion Relief/System Expansion: Explain how the project relieves congestions and/or expands the current infrastructure system without negatively effecting conformity requirements. (10 points) While this project does not expand current infrastructure, a smoother roadway surface will ease driving obstacles, reduce the potential for accidents, improve vehicle trip efficiency, and thereby improve traffic flow and help reduce congestion.A well-maintained, quality road ensures vehicles will take more direct, reliable routes and not seek out-of-the-way detours that have less capacity for high traffic volumes. An overlay requires much less construction time than a complete reconstruction of the road, so traffic will only be minimally impacted for the duration of the project. 14 5a. Cost Benefit Ratio(10 points): Benefits To Be Considered: • Savings Resulting from Improved Safety • User Operational Savings • Maintenance Cost Savings Factors to Be Supplied By Application. • Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT)—Inflated At 3.5% Per Year Over 1/2 Life Of Project • Project Design Life (Years) • Project Length (L) Measured In Miles (Lane Miles) Safety Benefits: Benefit ($) _$8.73 x ADT x L x Project Design Life Operational Benefits: Benefit ($) _$0.075 x ADT x L x Project Design Life Maintenance Cost Benefit (Full Reconstruction Only): Benefit $ _ $120,000 x L Benefit/Cost Ratio=Safety+Operational+ Maintenance Benefits Project Cost Note: Spot improvement projects (i.e., signals, bridge widening, etc.) assume a project length of 0.1 mile. Cost Benefit Results(attach calculations page—attachment G) 5b. If there is supplemental information you would like scorers to be aware of in terms of your Cost Benefit analysis, please share that information here. If not, leave blank. N/A 15 6. Congestion Management Plan (CMP): Please find your project CMP information hereto complete these questions (5 points) a. This project is on the list of CMP eligible projects: YES® NOD (If"NO", skip#6b and #6c.) 1 Point b. This project is located on a street where the Peak Hour Average Speed is: (choose one) Expressways ❑ < 30 mph (2 Points) ❑ 30—40 mph (1 Point) ❑ >40 mph (0 Points) Arterials ❑ <25 mph (Arterials) (2 Points) ❑ 25—35 mph (Arterials) (1 Point) ® >35 mph (Arterials) (0 Points) Collectors ❑ <20 mph (2 Points) ❑ 20- 30 mph (1 Point) ® > 30 mph (0 Points) c. This project is located on a street with a collision rate:(choose one) ❑in the top 10% (2 Points) X❑ in the top 25%, but not the top 10%(1 Point) ❑ not in the top 25%(0 Points) 7. Subjective Evaluation: Please provide any other pertinent subjective information that you would like evaluators to consider when scoring your project: (10 points) The County has received complaints from the community, expressing their concern for these road segments. The overlay and crosswalk restriping will address safety issues for the parents and children in the nearby schools.The County and City of Fresno have jurisdiction and will work collaboratively to make the area safer. 16 8. Construction-Ready Projects: Points will be awarded to projects requesting construction funding only and within the first two years of the FTIP. Please attach all available environmental and ROW certifications or documentation. Projects requesting points in this category will go through a Caltrans screening process. (4 points) ® Project is requesting funds for construction only in the first year(2026/27)of the FTIP and PE/ROW documentation is attached and will adhere to the project delivery requirements. (4 points) ❑ Project is requesting funds for construction only in the second year(2027/28)of the FTIP and PE/ROW documentation is attached and will adhere to the project delivery requirements. (2 points) ❑ Project does not qualify for this category. 9. Expedited Project Delivery: Project is committed to the expedited project delivery schedule, programmed within the first two years of the FTIP, and its subsequent delivery requirements. No documentation is required. All phases of the project may be programmed. (6 points) ® Project meets programming requirements and will adhere to the delivery requirements. ❑ Project does not qualify for this category 10. Project in 2022 Financially Constrained RTP (POTENTIAL DEDUCTION): Projects NOT already included in the 2022 financially constrained project listing will be penalized. (-10 points) ❑ Project already included in the 2022 financially constrained RTP listing. ® Project does not appear in the 2022 financially constrained RTP listing. (-10 points) If the project is in the 2022 RTP please provide the project ID here: FRE250008- Programmed FTIP McKinley Avenue—FRE504484—RTP 2026 Olive Avenue—FRE504485—RTP 2026 Entered as new project for the 2026 RTIP in December 2024. Programmed in FTIP as new project 2025 in January 2025. 17 PART C: APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS Application Checklist and Signature Page (Required for all applications) Attachment A Financial Plan (Required for all applications) Attachment B Project Estimate (Required for all applications) Attachment C AB 1012 Resolution (Required for all applications) Attachment D RTP Documentation (Required for all applications) Attachment E Project Location Map (Required for all applications) Attachment F Cost Benefit Analysis (Required for all applications) Attachment G Preliminary Engineering and Design, Environmental,and Right-of-Way Documentation or Certification (If needed) Attachment H Photos of Existing Conditions (Strongly recommended for all applications) Attachment I Additional Attachments Attachment J Additional attachments may be included.They should be organized in a way that allows application reviewers easy identification of the information and listed below. Attachment J -Transportation Injury Mapping System Data Attachment K- Letter of Support Attachment L- CalEnviroScreen 18 Attachment A: Project Submittal Checklist and Signature Page Name of Project: Olive Avenue and McKinley Avenue Overlays Submitted by: Mohammad H.Alimi Agency/Organization: County of Fresno i Check All That Apply: ❑x Project meets STBG eligibility under federal guidelines. ® Sponsor will comply with California Environmental quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,the Americans with Disabilities Act,AB1012 (Timely Use of Funds), Buy America, and/or any other applicable regulations. ❑X Project can be obligated within the identified timelines. © Project scope will remain the same as detailed in application. ❑ If needed, PE&D, Environmental, and ROW documentation are attached. ® AB 1012 Resolution is attached. ® 10 hard copies of application are attached, and an electronic copy has been provided via email or USB flash drive. M An engineer's estimate/quote of probable costs for project is attached. M All required attachments are included. M I understand that incomplete or late submittals will be considered for scoring at the committee's discretion, as time allows, after scoring other projects. certify that the information contained in the application packet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to submit the following project proposal for scoring and possible programming.The agency will provide the required non-federal matching funds,and deliver the project as proposed within the scope and schedule specified in the application should the project be awarded funding. Signature of full-time agency staff authorized to enter into a contract for federal funding if selected. Mohammad Digitally si Mohammadd Alim!Alimi Signed: Alimi Date:2025.03.03 iosoai-oa•oo Printed Name:_Mohammad Alimi, PE, PhD, Design Engineer, Public Works and Planning Date: 3/3/25 19 Attachment B: Financial Plan Please discuss the project funding strategy,clearly indicating total cost,authorization amounts and dates for all funding sources committed or anticipated to fully fund the project and any contingency plan if anticipated funding does not materialize. The total project cost is $5,775,000 million.The project funding strategy is to request$5,112,607 million in STBG to fund the project. If only partial funding is available, the County would proceed with the Construction of the project and re-apply for Regional STBG construction funding in a future year or finish the project with SB 1 and Measure C funds. The City of Fresno will fund the local match for any areas of the project in their jurisdiction. I certify that the information contained in the Financial Plan is accurate to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to submit the following project proposal for scoring and possible programming.The agency will provide the required non-federal matching funds,and deliver the project as proposed within thescope and schedule specified in the application should the project bg9�ay�,gdg lYfunding. Mohammad Mohammad Alimi HIICTII Date:2025.03.03 Signed: 10:51:27_08'00' Printed Name: Mohammad Aiimi, PE, PhD, Design Engineer, Public Works and Planning Date: 3/3/25 20 ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF FRESNO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING PROJECT:FEDERAL OVERLAY PROJECT MCKINELY&OLIVE AVENUE CONTRACT NO.XX-XX-X LOCATION:OLIVE AVENUE ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT OF FINAL ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM PRICE TOTAL PRICE NO. QUANTITY MEASURE PAY (IN FIGURES) (IN FIGURES) 1 1 $ SUPPLEMENTAL WORK(PAYMENT ADJUSTMENT FOR PRICE INDEX FLUCTUATIONS) $50,000.00 S50,000 3 2 EA CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FUNDING SIGNS S2,000.00 S4,000 4 1 LS TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM $125.000.00 $125,000 5 2 EA PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN $2.000.00 $4,000 6 1 LS JOB SITE MANAGEMENT S10,000.00 S10,000 7 1 LS PREPARE WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN $1,500.00 $1,500 8 510 CY SHOULDER BACKING $20.00 $10,200 9 1 LS CLEARING&GRUBBING $10,000.00 $10,000 10 1 LS FINISHING ROADWAY $20.000.00 $20.000 11 11417 TON HOT MIX ASPHALT(TYPE A 3/4"GRADING) $110.00 $1.255,870 12 30 TON MINOR HOT MIX ASPHALT $120.00 $3.600 13 730 LF PLACE HOT MIX ASPHALT DIKE(TYPE E)CASE-R $15.00 $10.950 14 13 TON TACK COAT $600.00 $8,058 15 545 CY REPLACE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT $350.00 $190,750 16 730 LF REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE DIKE S5.00 S3,650 17 1325 SY COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT $30.00 $39,750 18 8 EA ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE $2,000.00 $16,000 19 6 EA ADJUST VALVE BOX FRAME AND COVER TO GRADE $1,500.00 $9,000 20 8 EA SURVEY MONUMENTS(TYPE D) $1,500.00 S12.000 21 6 EA INDUCTIVE TRAFFIC LOOPS(TYPE D&E) 53,000.00 $18.000 22 730 SF PAINT DIKE 2-COAT $5.00 $3,650 23 1 LS REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKERS $1,500.00 S1,500 24 5 EA PAVEMENT MARKER(RETROREFLECTIVE)(TYPE G) $15.00 $75 25 220 EA PAVEMENT MARKER(RETROREFLECTIVE) PE D) $15.00 $3,300 26 6365 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE EXTRUDED DETAIL 5 $3.00 $19,095 27 4965 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE EXTRUDED DETAIL 18 $3.00 $14,895 28 1500 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE EXTRUDED DETAIL 21 $3.00 $4.500 29 2614 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE EXTRUDED(DETAIL 22) $3.00 S7,842 30 670 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE EXTRUDED DETAIL 29) $3.00 $2.010 31 1030 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE EXTRUDED(DETAIL 32) $3.00 $3,090 32 85 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE EXTRUDED(DETAIL 38) $3.00 S255 33 248 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING(LIMIT LINE) $10.00 $2,480 34 737 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING(WHITE CROSS WALK) $10.00 $7,370 35 477 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING STOP AHEAD) S10.00 S4,770 36 22 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING(STOP) $10.00 $220 37 1484 SF REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING $5.00 1 $7,420 38 17229 SF IREMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE $5.00 $86,145 39 1 LS MOBILIZATION $125,000.00 S125,000 SUBTOTAL BID ITEMS 1-38) $2,095,945.00 CONTINGENCY(5%) $104,055.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $2,200,000.00 Construction Engineering(CE)(5%) $110.000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,310,000.00 $2,045.043.00 STBG $264.957.00 LOCAL ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF FRESNO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING PROJECT:FEDERAL OVERLAY PROJECT MCKINELY&OLIVE AVENUE CONTRACT NO.XX-XX-X LOCATION:MCKINLEYAVENUE ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT OF FINAL ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM PRICE TOTAL PRICE NO. QUANTITY MEASURE PAY (IN FIGURES) (IN FIGURES) 1 1 $ SUPPLEMENTAL WORK(PAYMENT ADJUSTMENT FOR PRICE INDEX FLUCTUATIONS) $50,000.00 $50,000 3 2 EA CONSTRUCTION FUNDING SIGN $2.000.00 $4,000 4 2 EA PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 52,000.00 $4,000 5 1 LS TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM 5125,000.00 $125,000 6 1 LS JOB SITE MANAGEMENT $10,000.00 $10.000 7 1 LS PREPARE WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN $1,500.00 $1,500 8 1014 CY SHOULDER BACKING $20.00 $20.280 9 1 LS FINISHING ROADWAY $20,000.00 $20,000 10 1 LS CLEARING&GRUBBING $10.000.00 $10,000 11 15768 TON HOT MIX ASPHALT(TYPE A 3/4"GRADING) $110.00 $1,734,480 12 35 TON MINOR HOT MIX ASPHALT 5120.00 $4,200 13 1760 LF PLACE HOT MIX ASPHALT DIKE(TYPE E)CASE-R $15.00 $26,400 14 19 TON TACK COAT $600.00 $11,124 15 1053 CY REPLACE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT $350.00 $368,550 16 1760 LF REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE DIKE 55.00 $8,800 17 1175 SY COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT $30.00 $35,250 18 31 EA ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE $2,000.00 $62,000 19 23 EA ADJUST VALVE BOX FRAME AND COVER TO GRADE $1,500.00 $34,500 20 18 EA SURVEY MONUMENTS(TYPE D) $1,500.00 $27,000 21 6 EA INDUCTIVE TRAFFIC LOOPS(TYPE D&E) $3,000.00 $18,000 22 1760 SF PAINT DIKE 2-COAT $5.00 $8.800 23 1 LS REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKERS $1,500.00 $1,500 24 365 EA PAVEMENT MARKER RETROREFLECTIVE)(TYPE D) $15.00 55,475 25 84 EA PAVEMENT MARKER RETROREFLECTIVE)(TYPE G) $15.00 $1,260 26 17288 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 5) $3.00 $51,864 27 1170 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 6) $3.00 $3.510 28 6570 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 18) $3.00 519,710 29 3490 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 21) $3.00 510,470 30 1665 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 22) $3.00 $4.995 31 8347 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 27B) $3.00 $25.041 32 630 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 29) $3.00 $1.890 33 405 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 32) $3.00 $1,215 34 339 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 36A) 53.00 $1,017 35 1865 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 38) 53.00 55,595 36 2364 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 39) $3.00 57,092 37 380 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 39A) $3.00 $1.140 38 867 LF THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 40) $3.00 $2,601 39 816 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING(LIMIT LINE) $10.00 $8,160 40 843 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING(YELLOW CROSS WALK) $10.00 $8,430 41 424 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING(STOP AHEAD) 510.00 $4.240 42 88 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING(STOP) $10.00 $880 43 26 SF THERMO PLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING BIKE LANE ARROW) $10.00 $280 44 636 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING(TYPE IV ARROW) $10.00 56,360 45 50 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING CrYPE I ARROW 18") $10.00 $500 46 28 SF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING PE I ARROW 10") $10.00 $280 47 2913 SF REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING $5.00 $14,565 48 45380 SF IREMOVETHERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING $5.00 $226.900 49 1 LS IMOBILIZATION $125,000.00 $125,000 SUBTOTAL BID ITEMS(1-38) $3,123,854.00 CONTINGENCY(5%) $176,146.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $31300,000.00 Construction Engineering(CE)(5%) $165,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,465,000.00 $ 3,067,564.00 STBG $ 397,436.00 MATCH ATTACHMENT D 21-0729 PLACEHOLDER RESOLUTION Resolution No.21-314 BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FRESNO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ) OF FRESNO COUNTY REGARDING PROJECT ) DELIVERY SCHEDULES FOR FEDERAL ) RESOLUTION TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SELECTION UNDER ) ASSEMBLY BILL 1012 ) WHEREAS, AB 1012 was enacted into State law, in part to provide for the "timely use" of State and Federal funding; and WHEREAS, the County of Fresno (County) is able to apply for and receive Federal and State funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Programs; and, WHEREAS, the County desires to ensure that its projects are delivered in a timely manner to preclude the Fresno Region from losing those funds for non-delivery; and WHEREAS, it is understood by the County that failure for not meeting project delivery dates for any phase of a project may jeopardize Federal or State funding to the Region; and WHEREAS, the County must demonstrate dedicated and available matching funds. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Fresno County Board of Supervisors (Board) hereby agrees to ensure that all project delivery deadlines for all project phases will be met or exceeded. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that failure to meet project delivery deadlines may be deemed as sufficient cause for the Fresno Council of Governments Policy Board to terminate an agency's project and reprogram Federal/State funds as deemed necessary. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby directs its management and engineering staffs to ensure all projects are carried out in a timely manner as per the requirements of AB 1012 in accordance herewith. 1H /// ATTACHMENT D PLACEHOLDER RESOLUTION 1 THE FOREGOING,was passed and adopted by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors of 2 the County of Fresno this 2nd day of November , 2021, to wit: 3 4 AYES: Supervisors Brandau, Magsig, Mendes, Pacheco, Quintero 5 NOES: None 6 ABSENT: None 7 ABSTAINED: None 8 9 Steve Brandau, Chairman of the Board 10 of Supervisors of the County of Fresno 11 12 ATTEST: Bernice E. Seidel 13 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Fresno, State of California 14 15 By dQ� 16 Deputy 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTACHMENT E MAIN MENU LOGOUT FCOG Al s Fresno ConaeO ^"' i of Governmeuh f!_ ` -ww VIEW PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS PROJECT UPLOAD PROJECT DOCUMENTS PROJECT ID: FRE504484 VERSION: 'I EST TOTAL COST: $2,1100,000.00 STATUS: In Progress-Programmed RANK SCORE: LAST MODIFIED BY: John Arble(1/17/2025) APPROVED BY: N/A HISTORY f+)- EDIT OBLIGATION ADMINISTRATIVE EDIT- READ-ONLY CALL FOR PROJECTS FRESNO MODELING# 26-00-RTP v INTERNAL NOTES ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES AMENDMENT NOTES PROJECT INFORMATION IMPLEMENTING AGENCY MODE-GUIDELINES [EDIT SCORE] Fresno County v Streets&Roads-Maintenance CAPACITY INC BIKE PED IN-1Nv PROJECT TITLE McKinley PROJECT DESCRIPTION-GUIDELINES McKinley Ave - Dower to Marks; AC Overlay SYSTEM ROUTE SUFFIX INTERSECTION LOCAL STREET NAME FROM TO DISTANCE(tom Local v N v McKinley Ave Dower Ave Marks Ave 6.479 PROGRAMMING INFORMATION($0) PDF DRILLDOWN REPORT !HISTORICAL REVENUES I rGRAPH REVENUESI EST TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED OPEN TO TRAFFIC DATE $2,100,000.00 2026 v rHISTORICAL COMMENTS O COMPLETE PROJECT OO NEW PROJECT JUSTIFICATION-LAST UPDATED:12/5/2024- New overlay project i�l, ATTACHMENT E CONTACT FCOG 2.07s EMAIL FRESNOTRAKHELP(&ECOINTERACTIVE.COM ATTACHMENT E MAIN MENU LOGOUT FCOG I:fRSDU Inc O1�'riOFEYIIIGEIII� ,Lv b.- "+' VIEW PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS PROJECT UPLOAD PROJECT DOCUMENTS PROJECT ID: FRE504485 VERSION: 1 EST TOTAL COST: $1,400,000.00 STATUS: In Progress-Programmed RANK SCORE: LAST MODIFIED BY: Estefany Vlllafan(1I17/2025) APPROVED BY: NIA HISTORY 1±)_ EDIT OBLIGATION ADMINISTRATIVE EDIT- READ-ONLY CALL FOR PROJECTS FRESNO MODELING ft 26-00-RTP v INTERNAL NOTES ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES AMENDMENTNOTES PROJECT INFORMATION M PLEMENTING AGENCY MODE-GUIDELINES [EDIT SCORE] Fresno Coun V1 Streets&Roads-Maintenance CAPACrrY INC BIKE FED IN-1Nv PROJECT TITLE Olive PROJECT DESCRIPTION-GUIDELINES Olive Ave - Hughes to Hayes; AC Overlay SYSTEM ROUTE SUFFIX INTERSECTION LOCAL STREET NAME FROM TO DISTANCE( lu(ol Local N v Olive Hughes Hayes 3.263 PROGRAMMING INFORMATION($0) PDF DRILLDOWN REPORT fHISTORICAL REVENUESI rGRAPH REVENUESI EST TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED OPEN TO TRAFFIC DATE $1,400,000.00 2040 v HISTORICAL COMMENTS O COMPLETE PROJECT OO NEW PROJECT JUSTIFICATION-LAST UPDATED:12/5/2024- New Project ATTACHMENT E CONTACT FCOG 2.75s EMAIL FRESNOTRAKHELP@ECOINTERACTIVE.COM 13IL .ram � 1 •f1N d i. J Ii c r� m S •• S3 f• L_ 0 S3HJ H �\ I � SNaIdW ,� � U W -+ xuj tun) z '1 ' CL wxq � � OW a- o W ff i'i 1 o Hl i C19�,'r !--- 3lH � w Z ;: �_ \ W = LU> CO z o - O t� `�� N 00 �. O O V is .\ W F- W; • _.._ ' v itN O �' C ,� :3 w Z ,.. w W 31 aVJ z / � w = �r.� a p = g v ONS31 1=1 1VH o O. co ui Q ; y y 30aN0 Z Z N �� /� O W Q �� i m LE m N S3M ¢ 2 i/ J W N 10 C IN ..aC& W W - Cto rn CL w F w _, ttF L.. W O d_ i ,- • ° LL �,f ,�ti j Iy W g o 1 1 LO LO N N W p O fA CO uj o ` z ui uj uj co J r nN v �,�_� I C/) 00 s S3n ., S3HO H SNavw �� sN} \`� i W 4 4 1.1 • U W LO \C. �_ W F• z O i J N i l C LL > ¢ HI l8 a z w F� W Q u I j " — O Ni z --- � > 3 H n w-) `� U O m , t, W O y W _.._ O w O Vl1NV O 0 '_ '�� Z W W D W 31 UV°J"0 - z w x Z ��.✓J /! Q W 0 ¢ ONS3 d n lVH ¢ W \-1': y 30ilNO Z z - \ O J Q m LL N S3M ¢ ' \� [� Z W C 0 0 - .L ca O �:�.._. i.J _.. •• 'tit N E w Irk��'ii(� I _ e Cl LO CD CD � N N MlOt:i'l Q CO CO _ No o Q r- Q W p ATTACHMENT G COST BENEFIT RATIO-MCKINLEY AVE OVERLAYS Cost Benefit Ratio(10 points): Benefits To Be Considered: Savings Resulting from Improved Safety User Operational Savings Maintenance Cost Savings Factors to Be Supplied By Application: Project Average Deily Traffic(ADT)-Inflated At 3.5%Per Year Over Yz Life Of Project o Base ADT':2200 o Projected ADT:2900 Project Design Life(Years): o 20 est.year life Project Length (L) Measured In Miles(Lane Miles) o 12 mi. (6 miles x 2 lanes) Safety Benefits: Benefit($)=$8.73 x ADT x L x Project Design Life Safety Benefits=8.73 x 2900 x 12 x 20 SB=6,076,080 Operational Benefits: Benefit($)=$0.075 x ADT x L x Project Design Life Operational Benefits=0.075 x 2900 x 12 x 20 OB =52,200 Maintenance Cost Benefit(Full Reconstruction Only): Benefit$ -$12A,000 L (This project is not a full reconstruction) Benefit/Cost Ratio=Safety+Operational+M.y*ntenaRee BeFi fits Project Cost B/C R=(6,076,080+52,200)/3,465,000 B/C R= 1.77 ATTACHMENT G COST BENEFIT RATIO—MCKINLEY AVE OVERLAYS Accident Rate: R= (100,000,000 x Number of crashes)/(365 x Years of crash data x Entering traffic volume x Length of road) Number of Crashes =29 Years of Crash Data =2 Entering Traffic Volume=2900 Length of road = 12 miles R= (100,000,000 x 29)/(365 x 2 x 2,900 x 12) R=2,900,000,000/25,404,000 R=114 crashes per 100 million VMT ATTACHMENT G COST BENEFIT RATIO—OLIVE AVE OVERLAYS Cost Benefit Ratio(10 points): Benefits To Be Considered: Savings Resulting from Improved Safety User Operational Savings Maintenance Cost Savings Factors to Be Supplied By Application: Project Average Daily Traffic(ADT)—Inflated At 3.5%Per Year Over%Life Of Project o Base ADT:2200 o Projected ADT:4075 Project Design Life (Years): o 20 est.year life Project Length (L) Measured In Miles (Lane Miles) o 8 mi. (4 miles x 2 lanes) Safety Benefits: Benefit($)_$8.73 x ADT x L x Project Design Life Safety Benefits=8.73 x 4075 x 8 x 20 SB=5,691,960 Operational Benefits: Benefit ($)=$0.075 x ADT x L x Project Design Life Operational Benefits=0.075 x 4075 x 8 x 20 OB=48,900 Maintenance Cost Benefit(Full Reconstruction Only): 13e 1-1-$-$120,000)4- (This project is not a full reconstruction) Benefit/Cost Ratio=Safety+Operational+h4a* *PRaig-•P Bep-fits Project Cost B/C R=(5,691,960+48,900)/2,310,000 B/C R=2.49 ATTACHMENT G COST BENEFIT RATIO—OLIVE AVE OVERLAYS Accident Rate: R= (100,000,000 x Number of crashes)/(365 x Years of crash data x Entering traffic volume x Length of road) Number of Crashes=27 Years of Crash Data=2 Entering Traffic Volume=4075 Length of road =8 miles R= (100,000,000 x 27)/(365 x 2 x 4,075 x 8) R=2,700,000,000/23,798,000 R= 113 crashes per 100 million VMT c*. CEQA EXEMPTION / NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION FORM (rev. 06/2022) Proiect Information Project Name (if applicable): Olive and McKinley Avenues Overlays DIST-CO-RTE: 06-FRE-County of Fresno PM/PM: N/A EA: N/A Federal-Aid Project Number: STPL-5942(328) Proiect Description The County of Fresno proposes to construct the Olive and McKinley Avenues Asphalt Concrete Overlays Project (Project). The Project is located directly west of the City of Fresno, in Fresno County. The Project proposes to place a concrete overlay, shoulder backing, subgrade repairs, and traffic striping on Olive Avenue from Hayes Avenue to Hughes Avenue (approximately 3.5 miles) and McKinley Avenue from Dower Avenue to Marks (approximately 7.5 miles), the city-maintained segments are not a part of this project. If any location is found within a floodplain, the pavement will be milled down and overlaid to match the existing roadway profile to avoid impacting the floodplain. Shoulder backing would not be placed within the floodplain. No permanent or temporary right-of-way acquisition is required for this Project. Vegetation removal is proposed. The maximum depth of excavation is anticipated to be 2 feet. Caltrans CEQA Determination (Check one) ® Not Applicable — Caltrans is not the CEQA Lead Agency ❑ Not Applicable— Caltrans has prepared an IS or EIR under CEQA Based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, the project is: ❑ Exempt by Statute. (PRC 21080[b]; 14 CCR 15260 et seq.) ❑ Categorically Exempt. Class. (PRC 21084; 14 CCR 15300 et seq.) ❑ No exceptions apply that would bar the use of a categorical exemption (PRC 21084 and 14 CCR 15300.2). See the SER Chapter 34 for exceptions. ❑ Covered by the Common Sense Exemption. This project does not fall within an exempt class, but it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR 15061[b][3].) Senior Environmental Planner or Environmental Branch Chief Print Name Signature Date Project Manager Print Name Signature Date Page 1 of 3 r* CEQA EXEMPTION / NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION FORM Caltrans NEPA Determination (Check one) ❑ Not Applicable Caltrans has determined that this project has no significant impacts on the environment as defined by NEPA, and that there are no unusual circumstances as described in 23 CFR 771.117(b). See SER Chapter 30 for unusual circumstances. As such, the project is categorically excluded from the requirements to prepare an EA or EIS under NEPA and is included under the following: ❑x 23 USC 326: Caltrans has been assigned, and hereby certifies that it has carried out the responsibility to make this determination pursuant to 23 USC 326 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated April 18, 2022, executed between FHWA and Caltrans. Caltrans has determined that the project is a Categorical Exclusion under: M 23 CFR 771.117(c): activity (c)(26) ❑ 23 CFR 771.117(d): activity (d)() ❑ Activity listed in Appendix A of the MOU between FHWA and Caltrans ❑ 23 USC 327: Based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, Caltrans has determined that the project is a Categorical Exclusion under 23 USC 327. The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC 327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated May 27, 2022, and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. Senior Environmental Planner or Environmental Branch Chief Pedram Mafi 02/20/2025 Print Name Signa uie Date Project Manager/ DLA Engineer Colleen Vidinoff G'e� 1/� 02/20/2025 Print Name Signature Date Date of Categorical Exclusion Checklist completion (if applicable): N/A Date of Environmental Commitment Record or equivalent: 2/20/2025 Briefly list environmental commitments on continuation sheet if needed (i.e., not necessary if included on an attached ECR). Reference additional information, as appropriate (e.g., additional studies and design conditions). EA: N/A Page 2 of 3 Federal-Aid Project Number: STPL-5942(328) C�. CEQA EXEMPTION / NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION FORM Continuation sheet: Environmental Commitments: Biological: • Avoid night-time construction. • Avoid removing vegetation and tree trimming during the nesting bird season (February 1 through September 30). • If work is done during the nesting season, February 1 through September 30, SSP 14-6.03A for Migratory and Non-game birds shall be followed and pre- construction survey(s) for nesting birds shall be conducted 14 days prior to construction by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist would establish environmentally sensitive areas around active nests until it is determined the young have fledged the nest. Cultural: • If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during construction, work shall be halted in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Hazardous Waste: • A lead compliance plan (LCP) developed by a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) is recommended for projects with ground disturbing activities (excavation, grading, etc.). If soils contaminated by hazardous waste are discovered during construction, proper hazardous waste handling and emergency procedures under 40 CFR § 262 and Division 4.5 of Title 22 CA Code of Regs shall be followed. Soil sampling is recommended prior to construction if surficial staining is observed, hydrocarbon/solvent odors are noticed, and to determine proper disposal for the excess material. • If yellow striping will be removed separately, use guidance of SSP 14-11.12 which provides information for proper management of hazardous waste residue. SSP 36-4 and/or 84-9.0313 can be used for work involving residue from grinding and cold planing that contains lead from paint and thermoplastic. These SSPs address the need for a LCP (please note that one LCP may address soil and paint/marking materials). Noise: • The Project would be constructed following the Caltrans Standard Specification, Section 14-8 Noise and Vibration, or equivalent to restrict excessive construction noise. Specification 14-8.02 Noise Control instructs to "control and monitor noise resulting from work activities" and to "... not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the job site from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m." EA: N/A Page 3 of 3 Federal-Aid Project Number: STPL-5942(328) Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 13-E Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Checklist Exhibit 13-E: Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Checklist STPL 5942(328) 9/1/25 Federal Project No.: Final Design (Expected Start Date) Anticipated date for Right of Way Certification? 10/01/2025 To: From: Colleen Vidinoff County of Fresno District Local Assistance Engineer: Local Public Agency(LPA): Caltrans District: District 6 Contact&Phone No.: Alexis Rutherford, (559)3534593 Address: 1352 W Olive Ave, Fresno, CA 93728 Address: 2220 Tulare Street,7th Floor, Fresno, CA 93721 Email: arutherford@fresnocountyca.gov Email: colleen.vidinoff.dot.ca.gov 1. Is the LPA qualified by Caltrans Division of Right of Way(R/W)—Local Programs? ❑ YES ❑ NO a. If yes,what is the LPA's qualification level?(1,2,or 3): 2 When does qualification approval expire? 12/11/2026 Information on qualification levels can be found in Local Assistance Procedures Manual(LAPM)Chapter 13,Section 13.2:Qualification Levels List the name(s),email(s),and phone number(s)for the LPA's R/W staff. Name Email Phone Number James Polsgrove jpolsgrove@fresnocountyca.gov 559-600-4501 Alexis Rutherford arutherford@fresnocountyca.gov 559-353-4593 Scott Shively sshively@fresnocountyca.gov 559-231-2461 Raquel Tierney rtierney@fresnocountyca.gov 559-321-3887 Michael Kifer mkifer@fresnocountyca.gov 559-761-2187 b. If no, does the LPA have a contract with a qualified R/W consultant? ❑ YES ❑ NO 0 N/A If yes, list the name(s)and contact information for the R/W consultant(s): Name Email Phone Number If no,you will need to follow procedures for procuring a qualified R/W consultant(s)and provide the name(s)and contact information to the Caltrans R/W Local Programs Coordinator as soon as hiring is completed. 2. Does the proposed project require work including surveying, staging,testing,and maintenance 0 YES 0 NO ❑ TBD on land that the project sponsor does not own or have a permanent easement on? a. If the project sponsor has an existing easement,does the easement allow the agency to construct the project in the manner proposed? Z YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD i. Is there an adequate construction duration? p YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD ii. Is there an expiration date? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD Page 1 of 3 May 2024 Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 13-E Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Checklist b. Does the project require work on other publicly owned or controlled property? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD c. Does the project require Rights of Entry(ROE)? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD 3. Does the project scope include work that is outside of the project sponsor's right of way and is on ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD private property, but not required to successfully complete the project? a. If yes,will the work solely benefit the private property owner? ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD 4. Does the project include work that is on the project sponsor's property that is being leased to ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD another party? 5. Does the scope of the project include work on or within 2.5 miles of the railroad(RR),or light rail, p YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD operating or non-operating right of way including overcrossings and/or under crossings? a. If yes, answer the following: i. Will RR involvement require an agreement with the RR to complete? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD ii. Will work near the RR require a ROE? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD iii. Will the project impact the electrical system of the RR? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD 6. Are there borrow sites or staging areas for this project? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD a. If yes, have these areas been included in the utility verification maps? ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD 7. Does the project require relocation either temporary or permanent of public utility facilities and appurtenances(e.g.,guy wires, vents, etc.)outside of the project sponsor's right of way on to ❑ YES O NO ❑ TBD private property? a. If yes,does the utility owner have an easement on the private property that allows the utility ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD owner's use of the easement in the manner proposed? 8. Are there utility cover adjustments to grade or utilities that conflict with the proposed work? 0 YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD Note: Utility cover adjustments and conflicts with utility facilities owned by the project sponsor must be addressed on the RIW Certification. a. Are there utility covers that need adjustment for facilities that are owned by the project 0 YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD sponsor? b. Can all existing iron or steel covers be re-used for cover adjustment with no new iron or steel 0 YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD required? c. Do anticipated utility relocations include betterments? ❑ YES El NO ❑ TBD 9. Will utility impacts potentially force utilities outside the existing environmental study limits(ESL)? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD 10.Are there any Environmentally Sensitive Areas(ESAs)identified where utilities are not able to 0 YES O NO ❑ TBD relocate? If yes,ensure that the ESAs are indicated on the conflict maps. 11.Has electrical engineering been consulted for any planned work? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD a. If there is planned work,does it require additional potholing or could it potentially cause utility 0 YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD conflicts? 12.Are there known high priority utilities within the project that require positive locating(potholing)? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD 13.Are there trees that may need to be removed for the utility relocation? ❑ YES M NO ❑ TBD a. Is there adequate time to accommodate the bird window and have the utilities relocated prior to construction? ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD 14.VVill the elevation of the roadway be increasing which could potentially affect minimum ❑ YES O NO ❑ TBD clearances for overhead utilities? Page 2 of 3 May 2024 Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 13-E Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Checklist 15.Is there any demolition or clearance anticipated prior to construction? ❑ YES 21 NO ❑ TBD a. By separate contract? ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD 16.Does the project require acquisition of airspace rights? ❑ YES E NO ❑ TBD 17.Does the project require personal property, residential, or business occupant(s)relocation? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD 18.Does the project adversely impact existing businesses? ❑ YES F! NO ❑ TBD 19.Is there adequate access for residents and businesses in areas under construction? 0 YES ❑ NO ❑ TBD 20.Does the local agency require access to any public or private property for environmental ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD observation or investigation, or hazardous waste or hazardous material testing? 21.Is there a possibility that the project may require right of way for environmental mitigation? ❑ YES 0 NO ❑ TBD 22.Does the LPA project impact other local agencies,federal lands,state lands, or Indian lands? ❑ YES ❑ NO 0 TBD 23.Does the project require easement vacation? ❑ YES E NO ❑ TBD 24.Does the LPA currently have a Resolution granting authority for a signatory for the Right of Way O YES ❑ NO Certification? Certify by Local Agency Staff and/or Consultant Signature If scope changes,this checklist will need to be revisited. Paige M. Drane Preparer(print) Pai a M. Drane Digitally signed by Paige M.Drane g Dale:2025.01.28 15:04:53-08'00' Preparer(signature) Date Submit completed PERW Checklist to the DLAE during preliminary environmental studies. (The PERW Checklist and PES Form may be submitted concurrently,or separately,as each is completed). Page 3 of 3 May 2024 ATTACHMENT Photos of Existing Conditions Olive Avenue and McKinley Avenue Overlays - r ,d -- l� - a ��ty'r ,�4�. y� ', .�c� ru'�v�� - v ^;"'���--F�'�-� c. .s -. -. `',.���• '--'tea 1 ,.t '. < e \y. '�r'�TYr.°d`'f 4cr1 r trJ y x d -. .r'l � , f:A �.•. _ ^.,` �r'�� 1 y b•t�� Jrr-{��.b��`,�"�w'y+�.-�x� r� 'u` �7 �`� :�4. '' _. x �4� Y 5 y�..� a. -��' -� �•r- i y'!r ,,�.} �y ..�'Y•e����3 G F s, r... H ,� �,`S �•L'�`�„� 5 � - -.-_._,s�. h, f �"`� '•�z�K--_�^,, "`.ty"• - T c 3• .y +' N 5t 4 _ .i f: } �r - ]c^vi1ki''t+C.• ;� ...R17 a.^ jO .,�.>x'''kr'.urT e v _. +Y`.h 7 . c:f9k.. 3?.�'-�'. 1 ,' �" '' � �•,'�i ��'}"�Ra �' °�'��.5,'t"" `� ..� "� -w,.c'�:�s ' 'a;•: ""6 r�h-f' r t p. 'Sp�C -.,,J1'••••, e� t ,.�'ny Ja l[+ ... ,k�x. +3 '•r "'��'`a''�,,♦♦�`��,`Y+'�4�Y[�4Fi h.. R , 4Y�g�i4 7.,�y�3•.`!q't»'+SR;{.. � •Y.• *ct�tXG a'f;�Alkx2. �� � r r � �3a ��,sl-� il'.M��;•�.},�.r�- `i t'�F h h-Z 9i -"a �i -' �� ���`��1'` 4y 1 -r L.a"4: 0.•sYYe7�H•..t 3e `!r J'�'y� 'Sr5': rY ` ,t • WI 11.4/ ; i '.ca?xy'ua``7{Li4``t'ZA`�t`t '•sr ,av .�+c' 'i _ •.�"' .as'+ `.�."' E �: �.�y-,l!;ems%�ai".zYE'n.,f._G.•.�t .s.. - ..........^4�'a•4—c.�: _ - `e` igure W McKinley Avenue at N Lead Avenue looking east toward intersection of W McKinley and N Marks Avenue Z 'cY '"` Yr .; �. t�d* u 't,�\:.C'c �t C� ^•Y# �'' y��i'r�h'c [ j 'r r - r 'i•r t�t�� .. �7�• .si n '�`�� � l°". i s- i..rf •c �,h --� ,sx bra, �..t,.j,h�l- '''1�r`,Y� ���xb"`� a¢f.,�^ �{"7! 21cy'`ra•rx %t rrr•+ i. ,7✓ •�i"', t< -7 c 4 -'s c . ,�t�,t;.�,�>Y �"Y �.�� � �"�a,� Y,.���'�,��c �.,y �..y�.Y�3� r- -�<� yA ��5 �(-1� `r _ • k...:'�°" � � - � .a}� S •x- Y :-a xi° i[�2�•"tau -t` - G-st , r {� aZ t'4 } e 4"�•f�..Y� }�k;4€ ! �, -/x rq y r+k r � t _ �i�,e L 1�'acyy� r �• .��y,�.�.*�.,.!�' j�is--y, � \ :t �' {,,,rj7�'e��`.r`�. tF - a ����nv � �}y�-s � �y � ^r��� F.�'�r"����t��1•?��i' S} -.1 4 t�`1 �t L `F S- � �, fS.�' �i� ?��S �;� �� YK-+�'f2't�r%, �s "`.'��s�'�''K�'�l�f'�` i���'W�s•"�y"-o- i{�t'l t4' *s Y A e ! i�.r�i..{y,�c � 'Z�.•vy� F'`�* �•.i.%i,t d Ft;�, f ���ji�• � �yt..� ip� '� JG;«a"�� a�ke}"..'"' r:�'"�'t' .t i, -fT X��'��^'���r..� ti+"C'`,•�1 3� ,e ;°r r. T 6• �+- ?{G• � .(�� A'c t ti.3 �• �yaa .t, � .i y �r i�r£ R'-�•�j'•. ��L'�51..�. :i....ij:�i�.-..p�.i(C!t�vL3 ���-,wL•r'�w�•.S.i�'�.:�k. �:.�;..�..,..�.:.i.. .Ci....e_�Ti'siw•i..:��2,c:«_._s.:.s:":�:y"?.';. aT �:.'.a"•''�.::. :`tee igure 2 W McKinley Avenue near N Bryan Avenue looking west ATTACHMENT I Photos of Existing Conditions Olive Avenue and McKinley Avenue Overlays t ®!cam•` �,.�,�.�� C'`_cz.. r.:^"'_ r-� .�A'�sry���'t�tit71"'•_y'�r'' .•, �C`"` - •--fit �.;�5�. a - ✓:,. +t ,t,,,y.,;y tcf .�:Y�, Y .ta':,xc£''' _.d '�i�1,-.r J' .✓`'c"»+?2r-w?s.:a-+. .d,'+t.,..s, s. - ` -..f c _'.'�M;;..• 4.� f"�.ems' »� �, .`C� r �, \Q'4'n+�•'e. _ "�. BrYTc ." ?r4l'j �i's'�' .r'' _ �f 'S„��„�,� L';Y%+« ,'�`� :`�+iu •-�"��•��it��ti+tY tf`-''�,'}f%�;`+.1:-�,Jh7 �x . �n7...... ��^"�4•.yb� M ��..� y�.. �., - `t _.F*�v.;S-�''f'S vl{n�;l� _, :! _ .�..' .lrn�-��T 'A..� I 'T�+fir_ � �•` 1. Y'Rij^r - _ f. .. �.�,< sear• -=-'�r` � � '�'.�.s; ,.��. }> ` FRI igure 3 W McKinley Avenue east of N Blythe Avenue looking east 4. r 4�u• � M. z�•� n�<, ...'F_`. `'•,"1;..-.:a':''K�•'S"tv.• _;y qr•'-' +z-,.+.'c., ?�''.'�r.` i.�.:...?l�`f'�.ae � .a '^' •,.,,;, �.• ems:+-�-�`.,�•-�,1`4 igure Intersection at W McKinley Avenue and N Dickenson Avenue looking west ATTACHMENT Photos of Existing Conditions Olive Avenue and McKinley Avenue Overlays Q ' Y .. .. 1 .� [���.L.. :f• �i•-.+ofrG�-.�.Y...�iE.: �fc+aa�v� K-T .� J Sr ,�. A-1J 'Te•� L C _ Y :T,ri t .... 'ie '•t �� i}W� 1 ° +� �A`"iiw'�,en �•Jl� � A,'., ►� � r�� _ �, r i.�.�x4 w:c'�'✓�'iE� �'•e i37 t� a'h�� �fi ,•cfs}'„FLA ` h` /t y Yr 2-4 h L t 4 yy�L� �IV -�* 'RRZ i . ya.'vF. -TT -iL;' 1. rhf+•�+tfi ""'c. �`. igure 5 W Olive Avenue at N Marks Avenue looking east Y .. { v J ��"� r ♦ { y t'a'�'���h�'A'4Kf�ti�'►�K -if � �--�•� f-t s Jl� ... �� ` -c ;� �.y.•�C"�s„r a u r ��� rr ' r .�k,t-t`lY ._ �r�k p` !'.a.,�a°�K 3�'0�ti1} ._li�... -...... - �.~�.,.r..o,. - - ..... ..'��`".. t• _mil igure W Olive Avenue looking west toward intersection with N Marks Avenue ��7+`+5�..-•F{: -�ys�r.ry-il r�wrt}'w`" ? 't14. s5.�y- - i > wr>" _�"'Cc,yYr�,�3j�j,,.�t E �L•�Jam' ��T r y$;,:�:�. �.J rat r '� ...xY'"-'��e •zJ�'���� �`��'s. v L ,Rr.� �f�,�$�I.,Z,J�. '����x.`.."�5`s[r „-1-{xl.F-.Z��..,St�,�....�3��? t� -t.��' ��' '•�,i ,.r� _ •�� fL.,a ���,m/.,Tt'-'c'2ti '� l�- 2 t'1, y,�'J r w L.. 'T'� '� . yw.y.•, �r j / r, `l29" st iw?���,ct��r A '" r- }�,.�, it+,y7 Y=j ti,h<�}✓�4t�n�{��q���''�''��k;��." y��''� +� �'�}�p � ' �, �'[� y�JS}. Y 1�i �;Y�F.�-'�'1r,�\l��a.��y"7�".�1 ,��'`�\\ • 4.1•.. ��� � �,�J}��!"f l 4;e j ��a :�c-*�7`4'f^*f�.,�;",,,,"`��"��1.0{,�+t�.��x�+ '►e ! `-'i .�i i 1',•',�'. K c�' r�'� f♦♦ � }yhJr 8a 1'1�i~4��i!y\��11}�i'fS' t!1.,�y'y,� � _ Ali , ; ..+p'91i)�;; p4wj �'�2 • • i r'j• w • • o • • • PV M x•rarl�•f • q• r 1 110 • • • • • • +ri • • • • • • C • • Q • fA • Y • • • ,wM • O O c 0 (D • • • • • • w Q • • _ No • • • Q ❑ • E Q O •• • • N • 7 C N W U • A h N lu 00 � � $ $ � � $ $ \ \ f u % ■ � � k / � \ 0 01 % 9 4 » Q q 7 \ t & f � U � � � k \ o \ t U t $ ? \ a \ � " ® ; 2 7 t % k f � f \ % � % a � o U ° c� � a O M V O O O 7 O u c .c � u d c a g v u a •. N 9 w VV -O , U O L U � a o a (D 4 m V m w W V = C (D Q (n 1 yJO O /Y N N W w U p Q 0 Q0 O cc L 0A, � V c > O ir Q V >1 G�JN m u. N O poi b o d w E d�N Z o 0 0 14 say-.ea:)}o'ON b a u � v � N Q c ® U s „ V p = a •; I-� t �o U m'' sq o N fn b -o 0 0 O . N o o o ,.. rn a 0 O o o o �o a� �r � v L o O O O O a Ln o Y Y ^, J a� Uo O 0 O 0 O N o o s Q Q � H Q ° a N v a! � s G L � V y O O O O ;.I O O O V G O +y 'Lu' 41 In E _ Z a v u o 0 0 0 0 ; . H N A O O O O O r2 O c O O O 00 O O O O O O O rn O O O O b � N T r `u w 0 :r -a u G1 u .mil c w � �- .� o iN fT m /1 1,1 fT LLI [Yl 1 ll L7 `l If, d 0 U n. n x n n u 1�Cd.1 O a / eI O / �J YLL v y x 3 u uo Q th ° L11 I E E v t0 1� a�4 4" 4- O �1 u ii. lii T lal � c O > E j. Ch Ial in 1 C n v p Ir N M al .> Al. 0 A 1 1, i i V 'r f. ° 'N L k. O Q fl k _xC7 p L V 1 fu E n. ri i • � .Sir • e 0 ,�i•• • 3 _f • •. 00 doe 0 • �i• • q S • • N.*nrk Art • • • • • • •e.Vsg1••N • iii 4 • • y i • � r Q� > Q . L 7 2 ♦• • N 8•w1•f.ly ` H'•'ar ay Z C LU • 2 C) 3 cc Q C C > Q r 0 • i • q c s c 0 a` 0 I 2 y \ \ ~ ' k � u k \ ■ _ w b b ° k § uLL \ \ \ k k $ / o 2 mini y± a) b% = a / / m iij CL - w| r /v \ � � (� @ ca / f2 ■ � / k � < > - ■ _t V » 0% Ul \ w (V Ul 2 e I \ � \ u S / � / ` ° E ~I J 'O $ \ � A ; § 5 \ > 3 Q / ( b E E E \ � \ / / U R� o o° o Q o• o o o� d d d N' N d d C a N � ° O O ° ° N O vrS � G 7 O u �L N r v v v v c a o v o c u 3 w Q1 u v 7� z S in uc o u U = 7 C N Q ► W J. .r !� � m O .1, N v Z 40 4 a o�� c W `/ iu u I ca 9`Jy, Q o u cu 0 N 's C: > CL ' Q `� o j >101 in 61 J m v CIO,tt th `O ` S, u c v 4- GU o O O L %lx. Y .z y Q w A 0 0 0 N •�ll'`1'1,10 �Jj�� 'D N 75 Z m o 4 � c N u �T N a v O 0 O O O o r :2 n b O 'r O �O N 7 C Q E lu ;o L O o O o O O O O k L � a Ln _ .� 0 a, Z � w (D O v Q U Q -C o o 0 0 0 o s LCL ~ Q = a) V V N o s A C L N (J u > o o r o 0 0 0 o u o O � y M O .O E z b V h or 4. O 0 V. O F� N q o 4p . 0 0 r 0 0 a E 1- c c M O+ o. a M a M M 0 yr uQ vo Ln ui u) Yn Ln u c N ¢ i co O o c O O O OO O O O o O D O O O o rn 1v o� 4 m O 0 O O O O �� N < � � \ Q 2 § :3 [ k % ¢ k G § _ e ■ .r- r_ � § 3 z / LL» 3 2 \ � en 7 "I Llfhm < a Q � m f ■ � + , § ® U E / 4-CD § > k o . 0 G ae 2 / 2 . 7 % c o \ \ ) u s 9 / CL / u ( .E & m ATTACHMENT K co 0 `►'� County of Fresno BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ® 185 ® SUPERVISOR BRIAN PACHECO — DISTRICT ONE February 25,2025 Robert Phipps, Executive Director Fresno Council of Governments 2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201 Fresno,CA 93721 Subject: Olive and McKinley Avenues Asphalt Concrete Overlays Dear Mr. Phipps, As the County Supervisor representing western Fresno County, I strongly support the Olive Avenue and McKinley Avenue Asphalt Concrete Overlay Projects and believe these would represent responsible use of federal funds. The proposed projects are essential to improving safety and movability for all road users traveling to and from western parts of the County. The project would apply asphalt concrete overlays on the County- maintained portions of Olive Avenue between Hayes Avenue to the west and Hughes Avenue to the east, as well as McKinley Avenue between Dower Avenue to the west and Marks Avenue to the east. These proposed improvements will make it easier and safer for families to travel to and from work, school,and medical appointments,and make it easier for delivery of agricultural and business products. Most importantly,the proposed project would address critical safety concerns that would make the roadways safer for motorists. Collectively,between the two roadways,there have been 92 crashes and 4 fatalities in the last 5 years alone. In addition to improving safety,the overlays will reduce noise,extend the life of the existing roadway,and reduce the risk of puddles and damage from standing water. Overlays also improve skid resistance,reduce traffic impacts and vehicle wear and tear. Please seriously consider the proposed Olive Avenue and McKinley Avenue Asphalt Concrete Overlays for funding. Sincerely, L k� Brian Pacheco Fresno County Supervisor, District 1 Blola - Cantua Creek - Easton - Firebaugh - Five Points - Heim - Herndon- Highway City Kerman - Mendota - Mercy Hot Springs - Rolinda • San Joaquin • Three Rocks • Tranquillity Room 300, Hall of Records / 2281 Tulare Street/ Fresno, California 93721-2198 / (S59) 600-1000 / FAX (559) 600-1609 Internet Address:www.fresno.ca.us Equal Employment Opportunity-Affirmative Action-Disabled Employer ATTACHMENT L 1 w ou.�. .. ..u... .. Z. w�.»tea ww GIEm�roSuw.n d 0 f4..It. r90 tOoiHgnee 4�w:l L � Ep waw4�an� � w'wa..v eUt9omelu �.i• �.. .. .09%� & _ _ 3 >SO d Y l0 So r o.rw ww R rDrm w» >30 aC Y 11 waawu�eo+ ,O t01'swmaca.ui Y CalEnvim5am 4.0 MIOh PolhNwn.low PepulwlI.. R �pi�py ncMu.wn ee x R �. 2 � Wa.n.wi ww � � WNu4iw AY>YYY1lw s mleap wow.,t» www•. wn...w» O < s wlleym»w» � w4lwvnM YbW>wW a 1