TASK 1 MSHCP MINOR AMENDMENT NOTIFICATION
A notification letter for a proposed Minor Amendment to the MSHCP will be prepared for the City to submit to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) also known as the Wildlife Agencies . The notification letter will include a description of the Minor Amendment, the reason for the amendment, and an analysis of the environmental effects including any impacts to the conservation of Covered Species. The analysis will describe why the environmental effects: 1) are not significantly different from, and are biologically equivalent to, the terms in the MSHCP as originally adopted, 2) substantially conform to the terms in the MSHCP as originally adopted; and 3) will not significantly reduce the ability to acquire any Additional Reserve Lands.
Assumptions and Exclusions: This task assumes the City will identify and provi de the precise electronic boundaries (GIS shapefiles) of the reduced right-of-way for Los Alamos Road needed for the Minor Amendment. This task includes the preparation and submittal of the MSHCP Minor Amendment Notification and one revision of the Mino r Amendment should the Wildlife Agencies provide comments on the initial submittal. Coordination with the RCA/WAs to facilitate the MSHCP Minor Amendment is included under Task 4.
Deliverable: One draft and one final MSHCP Minor Amendment Noti fication letter submitted electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF format wil l be submitted to the City. If the Wildlife Agencies provided comments on the MSHCP Minor Amendment Notification letter, Michael Baker will provide a revised notification letter.
TASK 2 FOCUSED BURROWING OWL SURVEY AND REPORT
Suitable habitat for burrowing owl was determined t o be present on the project site during the habitat assessment conducted under the original Tas k Order. Michael Baker qualified biologists will conduct Step II (Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls) of the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2006). The two-part method is as follows:
• Step II – Part A (Focused Burrow Survey): A systematic survey for potentially suitable burrows, burrow complexes, or man-made features (e. g., debris piles) that could be used by burrowing owl as nest structures will be co nducted on foot. All potentially suitable burrow features will be mapped, including GPS coordinates. Burrows encountered will be examined for shape, scat, pellets, white-wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. The location of suitable habitat, pot ential burrows, sign, and burrowing owls observed will be recorded and mapped with a ha nd-held GPS unit. Methods to detect presence of burrowing owls include direct observation, aural detection, and signs of presence. Where feasible, the focused burrow sur vey will be combined with a site visit in Step II – Part B (below). This has been incorporated into the project’s cost. • Step II – Part B (Focused Burrowing Owl Survey): Four visits will be conducted on four separate days during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31). Surveys 230
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
will be conducted from one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise or two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset.
All surveys will be conducted during weather condit ions conducive to observing burrowing owls outside of their burrows (i.e., not during rain, hi gh winds [> 20 mph], dense fog, or temperatures exceeding 90°F). Walking transects will be spaced approximately 33 feet apart or less to ensure 100% visual coverage of all areas. The survey area will include the project site and a 500-foot buffer, as legally accessible to Michael Baker. Bin oculars will be used in areas that are inaccessible on foot, with more complete, thorough coverage within the proposed project site.
Areas providing potential habitat for burrowing owl s will be surveyed for suitable burrows, consisting of natural and man-made substrates in ar eas with low, open vegetation within the project site. All burrow features encountered will be examined for shape, scat, pellets, white-wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. The location of all suitable burrowing owl habitat, potential owl burrows, burrowing owl sign, and any owls observed will be recorded and mapped with a hand- held GPS unit. Methods to detect presence of burrow ing owls include direct observation, aural detection, and signs of presence.
Following the completion of the final survey, a let ter report will be prepared that includes a summary of the methods, conditions, and results of the surveys. Site photographs taken during the field survey and figures will be included in the report to further enhance written text and visually identify specific biological information as it rela tes to the project site. This task includes time fo r GIS analysis to support the preparation of up to two figures.
Assumptions and Exclusions: This task assumes that potentially suitable burrow habitat for burrowing owl occurs on-site, requiring completion of four site visits in accordance with protocols provided in the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instruct ions. The site visit for Step I and Step II will be conducted on the same day. If after complet ion of the first survey no burrow habitat is found, the remaining 3 surveys under Step II would not be required. This task assumes that the City will provide full access to the project site, as well as keys to locked gates and advance notice to existing property tenants of our right of entry. This task also assumes one round of review/revisions of the draft burrowing owl survey report by the City before accepted as final.
Deliverables: One draft and one final Focused Burrowing Owl Surv ey Report submitted to the City electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
TASK 3 FOCUSED SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SURVEY AND REPO RT
Based on the habitat assessment conducted under the original Task Order and feedback from the RCA/WAs that the project is not a covered activ ity, Michael Baker botanists will conduct focused botanical surveys to document the presence and location(s) of narrow endemic plant species and criteria area plant species individuals and/or populations (if present) on the project site and surrounding 100-foot buffer, as legally accessible to Michael Baker. Table 1 summarizes the extent, survey area type, focal species, and bl oom periods at the project site for the Narrow 231
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
Endemic Plant Species and Criteria Area Plant Speci es, as defined in the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
TABLE 1: Summary of Special-Status Plant Survey Area Species Survey Area Type * Focal Species Bloom period
Narrow Endemic Plant
Species
many -stemmed dudleya
Wright’s trichocoronis
April – July
May – September
Criteria Area Plant Species Davidson’s saltscale
thread-leaved brodiaea
smooth tarplant
round leaved filaree
April – October
March – June
April – September
March – May
The survey will be conducted consistent with guidel ines provided by the California Native Plant Society 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3. The survey will be floristic in nature and species will be identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status. It is anticipated that three separate field visits will be conducted, one in March, May, and late-June 2025.
Prior to conducting the survey, Michael Baker botan ists will also conduct a review of known reference sites to determine whether the target spe cies are identifiable at the time of the survey and to obtain a visual image of the target species, associated habitat, and associated natural community. Each survey area will then be assessed s ystematically on foot by walking transects that will vary between approximately 10 and 50 feet apart depending on plant density and visibility to allow for 100 percent coverage necessary to inventory plant species.
Once the final survey is complete, Michael Baker wi ll prepare a letter report using information gathered from the results of the focused plant survey. The letter report will include documentation and mapping of special-status plant species that are observed (if any). If special-status plants are discovered, Michael Baker will complete and submit to the CNDDB California Native Species Field Survey Form(s), accompanied by a copy of the relevant portion of a 7.5-minute topographic map showing the occurrence mapped. Although an impact analysis in compliance with CEQA and the Western Riverside MSHCP will not be conducted, the report will provide recommendations for avoidance and minimization to reduce potential impacts to special-status plant species if detected.
1 California Native Plant Society. 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. December 9, 1983. Revised June 2, 2001.
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. January.
3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Populations and Natural Communities. March 20, 2018. Available online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. 232
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
Assumptions and Exclusions: This task assumes three field surveys will be cond ucted (including one for the reference site) and that the City will provide full access to the project sites and surrounding vicinity (to the extent practicable ). The client will also provide keys to locked gates and advance notice to existing property tenants of Michael Baker’s right of entry. This task also assumes one round of review/revisions to the draft report before accepted as final.
Deliverables: One draft and one final Focused Special-Status Plant Survey Report submitted to the City for review electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
TASK 4 RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION
Our team anticipates up to 24 hours will be necessa ry for coordination with the RCA/WAs to review and process the MSHCP Minor Amendment reques t, Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP; Task 7), and Joint Project Review. Coordination will occur via email correspondence with the resource agencies, phone calls, and up to four (4) virtual conference calls. This task includes a brief meetin g with the City prior to any meeting with the resource agencies. It also includes four hours for GIS to prepare figures or shapefiles that may be necessary to present to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies.
Assumptions and Exclusions: As the permittee, the City will be responsible for submitting a written request to the RCA to appear on the agenda of a Wildlife Agency meeting and correspondence with the RCA.
Deliverables: Illustrative figures to present to the RCA and Wil dlife Agencies during review meetings.
TASK 5 WILDLIFE CROSSING RESEARCH AND DESIGN
The proposed project was initially presented as a l imited road paving effort that would not result in an increase to width/capacity in order to ensure public safety while streamlining the MSHCP consistency analysis. Due to recent design consider ations, project impacts are now anticipated to extend beyond the existing and maintained right- of-way into adjacent conserved lands identified in the MSHCP (Core Area). The project fo otprint now overlaps with a Core Area and must comply with the MSHCP guidelines in Section 7.5.2 (Guidelines for Construction of Wildlife Crossings) of the Plan. A Michael Baker biologist w ill work internally with project engineers to provide and define the MSHCP guidelines and conside rations that need to be incorporated into the project design, including latest scientific dat a and research available from the resource agencies and other scientific literature. The biolo gist will also help the City facilitate discussions with the RCA and Wildlife Agencies (under Task 4) t o ensure the proposed design is consistent with the MSHCP. Up to three (3) conceptual designs will be submitted to the City based on feedback from the RCA/WAs.
Assumptions and Exclusions: This task assumes attendance at up to three (3) co nceptual designs and meetings requiring up to 20-person hours for research, preparation, and assistance with project design considerations.
233
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
Deliverables: No deliverable is associated with this task.
TASK 6 ADDED-ON SUPPORT FOR THE HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND MSHCP
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The original Task Order for the proposed project in cluded the Biological Resources Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis. Based on the discussions with the resource agencies, the draft Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report will be updated with the findings of the focused studies in Task 2, 3 and 9, a revised impact analysis to MSHCP species, and incorporate the results of the coordination with the RCA/WAs on the MSHCP Minor Amendment (Task 4). In addition, as requested by th e CDFW, Michael Baker will analyze the potential habitat and impact to Crotch’s bumble bee ( Bombus crotchii ), a species that is a candidate for protection under the California Endangered Species Act and not currently analyzed in the MSHCP as a Covered Species. Results of the h abitat suitability and impact assessment will be incorporated into the report.
Assumptions and Exclusions: This task assumes the RCA and Wildlife Agencies wi ll approve the MSHCP Minor Amendment (Task 4) for Menifee Road Paving and the project will be considered an MSHCP Covered Activity.
Deliverables: One draft and one final Habitat Assessment and MSH CP Consistency Analysis submitted to the City for review electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
TASK 7 DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICALLY EQUIVALENT OR SUPERIOR
PRESERVATION REPORT
Since the proposed project now has the potential to potentially impact riparian/riverine resources, special-status plants, and/or burrowing owl, a DBESP will be required to comply with the MSHCP.
The DBESP Report will be prepared and submitted to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies for review and approval. The DBESP Report will be prepared in accordance with the RCA’s most recent DBESP template and will include the following:
• Definition of the project area
• A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not feasible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping
• Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, burrowing owl, or other MSHCP-covered resources associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects
234
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
• A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization, and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement:
o Compensatory mitigation measures developed during the pre-application meetings with the RCA, USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and USFW S will be used to offset impacts as appropriate.
• A finding demonstrating that although the propos ed project would not avoid impacts, with proposed design and compensation measures, the proposed project would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which w ould occur under an avoidance alternative without these measures, based on one or more of the following factors:
o Effects on Conserved Habitats
o Effects on the riparian/riverine species listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 o Effects on riparian Linkages and function of the M SHCP Conservation Area This task includes GIS staff time to analyze and cr eate the figures or exhibits, which will be prepared on an aerial photograph base at a scale of 1:2,400 (1 inch = 200 feet) and time for coordination with the wildlife agencies.
Assumptions and Exclusions: This report will be included in the Joint Project Review (JPR; Task 8) submittal package. Submittal of the report to the RCA will trigger the start of a 10-day (business day) review. Once the RCA concurs with those findings, they will forward the report to the Wildlife Agencies which will trigger the start of their 60-day review period. Four hours have been included in this scope for RCA and wildlife ag ency coordination that may be necessary if they provide additional comments. This task also as sumes one round of review/revisions to the draft report before submittal to the RCA/Wildlife Agencies and a second round of review/revisions to the draft report before submitting the final DBESP to the RCA/Wildlife Agencies for their review and concurrence.
Deliverables: One draft and one final Determination of Biologica l Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report submitted to the City electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
TASK 8 JOINT PROJECT REVIEW APPLICATION
The application package for a Joint Project Review (JPR) will be prepared for submittal to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies. The application will be prepared using the data from the Habitat Evaluation and MSHCP Consistency Analysis, focused surveys (Task 2 and 3), DBESP (Task 7), and GIS shapefiles.
Assumptions and Exclusions: Michael Baker will submit the JPR package to the City for review and approval. As the permittee, the City will be responsible for submitting the JPR package to the RCA. Submittal of the JPR package will trigger the start of a 14-calendar day review by the RCA.
Once the RCA concurs with the JPR, they will forward the package to the Wildlife Agencies which 235
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
will trigger the start of their 10-day review perio d. This task also assumes one round of review/revisions to the draft JPR package before su bmittal to the RCA/Wildlife Agencies and a second round of review/revisions to the draft repor t before submitting the final DBESP to the RCA/Wildlife Agencies for their review and concurrence.
Deliverable: One draft and one final JPR application will be submitted to the City.
OPTIONAL TASK 9 CROTCH’S BUMBLE BEE HABITAT EVALUAT ION
MEMORANDUM
Based on initial feedback from the CDFW, there is a potential that focused surveys will be necessary for the Crotch’s bumble bee on the projec t site. The CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species document that was issued June 6, 2023 will be used for evaluating the presence of the species. Unfortunately, there are no definitive survey methods provided though references to the California Bee Atlas and Rusty Patch Bumble Bee protocols. Therefore, close coordination with the CDFW is required to conduct these focused survey efforts. Other key considerations in clude the preferred survey windows as occurring between April and August, and that the CD FW considers Crotch’s bumble bee survey results only valid for one year following completio n. As a result, Michael Baker recommends documenting the results of a comprehensive habitat evaluation to support resource agency coordination as part of Task 4 and updates to the Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report as part of Task 6.
A Michael Baker biologist will review reliable historical and current occurrence records for Crotch’s bumble bee, including but not limited to, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the Bumble bees of North America occurrence database, and citizen science data platforms such as iNaturalist and Bumble Bee Watch. A memorandum w ill be prepared summarizing the data review and vegetation mapping of areas providing suitable foraging, nesting, and/or overwintering resources for Crotch’s bumble bee.
Assumptions and Exclusions: The results and impacts of the memorandum will be integrated directly into the Habitat Assessment report (Task 6 ). Based on CDFW Survey Considerations, Crotch’s Bumble Bee can move from site to site acro ss years, therefore a negative result in one year, does not mean the species would not be present in a subsequent year. The memorandum prepared under this task will inform the City, cons ulting team, and CDFW of the potential for the species to occur on the project site, and help the project team to determine if focused surveys will be necessary, if the species should be assumed pres ent, and potential mitigation or permitting that may be necessary.
Deliverables: One draft and one final memorandum of the Crotch’s Bumble Bee habitat assessment.
236
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
TASK 10 REGULATORY PERMITTING
Michael Baker will complete the following tasks as the project will impact mapped jurisdictional aquatic resources. This task replaces OPTIONAL TASK 3 in AWR-2.
TASK 10A RWQCB WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
Impacts to non-federal waters of the State are permitted through Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. A written request for a WDR will be submitted to the RWQCB, San Diego Region. The WDR request generally includes the following items:
- A completed application form;
- A detailed project description;
- A description of project impacts;
- A description of best management practices provided by the applicant to avoid erosion and sedimentation or discharge of materials into stormwater, both during construction and long-term project operation;
- A discussion of the approvals being obtained from other federal, state, and local agencies
- The project CEQA document;
- An alternatives analysis;
- Application fee assessed using the RWQCB schedule (to be assessed by Michael Baker and provided by the applicant).
Under the new State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, the RWQCB requires that a r equest for pre-application meeting be submitted 30 days prior to submitting the applicati on. Michael Baker will submit the request by email and facilitate the pre-application meeting, w hich is typically held online via Zoom or Microsoft Teams. Pursuant to the State Permit Strea mlining Act, the RWQCB has 30 days following receipt of the application to deem it complete or request additional information. Following a determination that the application is complete, the RWQCB has an additional 60 days to issue the permit.
Assumptions: This task includes one impact analysis of the proposed project’s development footprint (at least 30% engineering design) and one round of review/revisions on the draft application package before accepted as final. A reasonable range of alternatives will be provided to Michael Baker in order to prepare the alternatives analysis. Compensatory mitigation options will be provided to Michael Baker if deemed necessary. The application package will be finalized based upon one round of comments.
Deliverables: One draft and one final Waste Discharge Requirement application package.
Submittal to the RWQCB will be made by Michael Baker through email/RWQCB ftp site. 237
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
TASK 10B CDFW STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT
Michael Baker will prepare the SAA application for submittal to CDFW (Inland Deserts, Region 6) to request authorization to temporarily and permane ntly impact Waters of the State associated with construction of the roadway. The SAA request generally includes the following items:
- A completed application form;
- A detailed project description;
- A description of project impacts;
- A discussion of the approvals and certifications being obtained from other federal, state, and local agencies;
- The project CEQA document;
- The SAA application fee using the 2025 fee schedule (to be assessed by Michael Baker and provided by the Applicant).
CDFW is a state agency; therefore, under the state Permit Streamlining Act, when the term of the requested agreement is 5 years or less, CDFW has 30 days following receipt of the 1602 application to deem an application complete or requ est additional information. Following a determination that the application is complete, CDFW has an additional 60 days to issue the draft 1602 SAA for review/signature by the Applicant.
Assumptions: This task includes one impact analysis of the proposed project’s development footprint (at least 30% engineering design) and one round of review/revisions to the draft report before accepted as final.
Deliverables: One draft and one final 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement application package.
Compensatory mitigation options will be provided to Michael Baker if deemed necessary. The application and supporting materials will be uploaded by Michael Baker using the CDFW EPIMS online system.
TASK 10C USACE APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIO N
This task includes the preparation of an Approved J urisdictional Determination (USACE concurrence). The determination is the USACE’s form al approval, which locks in jurisdictional and/or non-jurisdictional findings for up to five ( 5) years. This is an optional task that will be required if it is determined that the project will result in impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources.
Michael Baker shall use the Streamflow Duration Flow Method (SDAM) to classify project aquatic features to support the regulatory permit processing with the USACE. SDAMs are rapid field assessment methods that use hydrological, geomorphological, and/or biological indicators, observable in a single site visit, to classify streamflow duration as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral at the reach scale.
Michael Baker shall use the current Field Form for the beta Arid West SDAM, dated December 2020. Site photographs and GPS points shall also be gathered during the site reconnaissance. 238
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
Upon completion of the field assessment, Michael Baker shall prepare a technical memorandum that identifies the stream flow duration of the given study areas. The memorandum shall include backup data from the literatures review as well as site reconnaissance.
Assumptions and Exclusions: This task assumes one ( 1) round of reviews/revisions to the draft Approved Jurisdictional Determination before accepted as final. This task assumes Michael Baker will submit the Approved Jurisdictional Determination request to the USACE via email and provide as-needed assistance to support the USACE with their determination.
Deliverables: One draft and one final Approved Juri sdictional Determination will be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
TASK 10D PERMIT TRACKING AND RESOURCE AGENCY COORDI NATION Once the application packages are submitted, the st atus of AJD and applications will be coordinated with the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through out processing to ensure that any potential issues are communicated to the City and r esolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
This critical coordination may include telephone, e mail, or written correspondence, or meetings with the agencies. This task includes one site visit with regulatory agency staff and the applicant, if requested by the agencies.
Deliverables: Digital copies of all agency correspo ndence, including emails, phone log, and meeting minutes associated with regulatory permitting consultations.
TASK 11 ADDITIONAL WORK TO EXISTING SCOPE
Original Task 5 Hydrology and Hydraulic
Michael Baker shall add hydraulic capacity of the p roposed culvert in addition to the existing culvert. The relevant tributary area to the new culvert will be investigated to see if there are any concerns. Michael Baker will discuss hydraulic con cerns, if any, related to the proposed design with the City.
Original Task 6 Vertical Alignment Design
Michael Baker shall redesign the preliminary vertical alignment to provide enough cover over the proposed culvert.
Original Task 7 Horizontal Alignment Design
Michael Baker shall use the redesigned vertical ali gnment to update the horizontal alignment.
With the addition of the culvert, the roadway will be slightly elevated. This elevation will cause the daylight line to exceed the existing requested considered right of way.
Updates to the Right of Way (ROW) and Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) Areas Exhibit will be made based on the findings.
Exclusions
239
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
Consulting services relating to any of the followin g tasks may be completed by consultant if negotiated under a separate contract for an additional fee; but are presently specifically excluded from this Agreement:
1. Any other services not specifically set forth in the above Scope of Services
240
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
Estimated Fee for Additional Work:
ITEM WORK TASK FEE
Task 1 MSHCP Minor Amendment ..................... ................................................... ....... $8,320 Task 2 Focused Burrowing Owl Survey and Report ... ................................................ $11,598 ODCs............................................. ................................................... ................... $764 Task 3 Special Status Plant Surveys and Report ... ................................................... . $12,774 ODCs............................................. ................................................... ................... $573 Task 4 Resource Agency Coordination .............. ................................................... ....... $4,980 Task 5 Wildlife Crossing Design Concepts ......... ................................................... ....... $2,902 Task 6 Additional Support for MSHCP Consistency An alysis ....................................... $4,876 Task 7 Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report ...... $10,552 Task 8 Joint Project Review Application .......... ................................................... .......... $1,845 Task 9 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey and Report (Opti onal) ......................................... $2,512 ODCs............................................. ................................................... ................... $191 Task 10a RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements ........................................................ . 10,542 Task 10b CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement ....................................................... ... $7,182 Task 10c USACE Approved JD ......................................................................... ............... $7,182 Task 10d Permit Processing and Coordination ........................................................ ....... $11,972 ODCs ....................................... ................................................... .......................... $81 Task 11 Additional Work to Existing Scope ......... ................................................... ...... $12,460 Original Task 5 – Hydrology & Hydraulic Study .... ........ $4,594 Original Task 6 – Vertical Alignment ............. ................ $5,244 Original Task 7 – Horizontal Alignment ........... .............. $2,622
TOTAL FEES ....... $111,306
** This scope of work will be completed on a time-and-materials, not-to-exceed basis and will not exceed the estimated budget unless prior consent is obtained. All work will be invoiced on a monthly basis. Should the total of the monthly billings reach eighty percent (80%) of the budget amount, Client and Michael Baker will review the status of the work to determine the need for an increase in the budget amount, and whether addition al budget authorization to complete the project is appropriate.
The fees proposed herein shall apply until 12/31/20 25. Michael Baker International reserves the right to increase those portions of the contract fee for which work must continue after 12/31/2025.
Table 2 provides a breakdown of costs per task included in the Scope of Work. 241
Baker JN 195869, AWR 03
11/12/2024
Prepared By:
Lonnie Druliner Date:
Michael Baker International Inc.
Department Manager Public Works/Transportation
Authorized By:
City of Murrieta Date:
Name
Title
242
Department
Manager
Technical
Manager Biologist I
Restoration
Ecologist
Restoration
Ecologist
Technical
Editor
Biologist
II
Technical
Manager
Regulatory
Analyst
Regulatory
Specialist
Project
Manager
Senior
Engineer
Project
Engineer
Design
Engineer
Bill Rate: $284 $200 $100 $144 $161 $116 $139 $223 $105 $168 $237 $200 $17 9 $146 1 — MSHCP Minor Amendment 2 30 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 $8,320 2 — Focused Burrowing Owl Survey and Report 2 30 36 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 $11,598 3 — Special-Status Plant Surveys and Report 2 0 0 48 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 $12,774 4 — Resource Agency Coordination 4 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 $4,980 5 — Wildlife Crossing Design Concepts 4 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 $2,902 6 — Additional Support for MSHCP Consistency Analysis 2 16 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 $4,876 7 — Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report 2 36 8 0 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 $10,552 8 — Joint Project Review Application 1 2 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 $1,845 9 — OPTIONAL: Crotch's Bumble Bee Survey and Report 1 2 0 0 2 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 $2,512 10a — OPTIONAL: RWQCB WDR 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 16 40 0 0 0 0 67 $10,542 10b — OPTIONAL: CDFW 1602 SAA 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 16 20 0 0 0 0 47 $7,182 10c — OPTIONAL: USACE Approved JD 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 16 20 0 0 0 0 47 $7,182 10d — OPTIONAL: Permit Processing and Coordination 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 16 20 32 0 0 0 0 73 $11,972 11a - Original Task 5 - Hydrology & Hydraulic Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 20 28 $4,594 11b - Original Task 6 - Vertical Alignment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 24 0 28 $5,244 11c - Original Task 7 - Horizontal Alignment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 12 0 14 $2,622 Subtotal - Hours 24 136 54 48 91 23 10 28 68 112 8 6 36 20 664 Subtotal $109,697
ODCs $1,609
Total $111,306
Total Hours Total Cost
AWR 3 - Biological Resources Services and Additional Work 243
ID Task Name Start Finish
1 Minor Amendment Mon 11/18/24 Sat 5/3/25
2 Draft Minor Amendment Mon 11/18/24 Fri 11/29/24
3 Presubmittal Check-In with Wildlife Agency Mon 12/2/24 Fri 12/13/24 4 Revise Minor Amendment Mon 12/16/24 Fri 12/20/24
5 Submit Minor Amendment Fri 12/20/24 Tue 2/18/25
6 Address Comments Wed 2/19/25 Tue 3/4/25
7 Resubmittal Minor Amendment for Final Tue 3/4/25 Sat 5/3/25 8 Focused Studies/Habitat Evaluation Sat 3/1/25 Sun 8/31/25 9 Burrowing Owl Focused Study Sat 3/1/25 Sun 8/31/25
10 Rare Plant Focused Study Tue 4/1/25 Mon 6/30/25
11 Croch's Bumble Bee Habitat Evaluation Tue 4/1/25 Sun 8/31/25 12 JPR & DBESP Mon 9/1/25 Fri 2/13/26
13 Draft JPR & DBESP Mon 9/1/25 Fri 9/12/25
14 Submit Draft JPR & DBESP to RCA Mon 9/15/25 Fri 9/26/25 15 RCA to submit to USFWS/CDFW Mon 9/29/25 Fri 11/28/25 16 Address Comments Mon 12/1/25 Fri 12/12/25
17 Resubmittal for Final to USFWS/CDFW Mon 12/15/25 Fri 2/13/26 18 19
20 21 AFTER ENVIRONMENTAL
22 Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste
Discharge Requirement (RWQCB WDR)
23 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Streambed Alteration Agreement (CDFW SAA)
24 CDFW Incidental Take Permit - Crotch’s Bumble
Bee ITP
6 to 9 Months
6 to 9 Months
9 to 12 Months
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 2025 2026
Menifee Road
Biological Critical Path
244
Menifee Road MSHCP Flow Chart
*Original scope of work
These tasks are not in
current AWR request
FOCUSED BIOLOGICAL STUDIES
Proceed with MSHCP Consistency Process (see MSHCP consistency report [Task 6], DBESP [Task 7] , and JPR [Task 8])
MAJOR AMENDMENT
(not an cipated )
BURROWING OWL FOCUSED SURVEY & REPORT (TASK 2)
Species Absent.
Preconstruc on survey will be needed.
Summarize results and document findings of consistency in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis (see Task 6 for next steps) If species present, determine if DBESP is needed (see Task 7 for next steps).
Is project in the MSHCP BUOW Survey Area? No. Document finding of no suitable habitat in MSHCP Consistency Report (Task 1*)
Yes. Are suitable burrows/burrow features
present ? (Task 2 -Part A )
Yes. Conduct BUOW focused survey (Task 2 – Part B)?
Species Present
No. Document O&M ac vity in MSHCP Consistency
Report (Task 1*); no focused studies required.
No. Addi onal focused surveys not required.
MINOR AMENDMENT (TASK 1)
Prepare and Submit Minor Amendment No fica on to USFWS/CDFW (triggers 60 -day review period)
Not Approved Approved No Response
WITHIN 60 DAYS
Concurrence Met
No Concurrence
(not an cipated)
Informal meet and confer process
Yes. Will the ac vity result in new construc on
and not O&M?
245
RARE PLANT FOCUSED SURVEY & REPORT (TASK 3)
Species Absent . N o addi onal surveys required.
Is project in the MSHCP Narrow Endemic
Survey or Criteria Area Species Survey Area?
No. Document finding of no suitable habitat in
MSHCP Consistency Report (Task 1*)
Yes. Conduct focused survey during appropriate
species blooming period
No. Document O&M ac vity in MSHCP Consistency Report
(Task 1*); no addi onal studies required.
Summarize results and document findings of consistency in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis (see Task 6 for next steps).
If species present, determine if DBESP is needed (see Task 7 for next steps).
Species Present
Yes. If avoidance is infeasible, prepare DBESP (see Task 7).
Document findings in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis (see Task 6).
Present:
• describe func ons and values of the riparian/riverine areas
• quan fy acreage of riparian/riverine areas
• provide a map of the loca on of riparian/riverine areas Determina on if riparian/riverine areas:
• provide suitable habitat for riparian birds
• cannot be avoided
Yes. Will the ac vity result in new
construc on and not O&M?
Aqua c Resources Delinea on Report
(AWR 2 JD task- Completed in February
2024)
)
RIPARIAN/RIVERINE RESOURCES
Determine if Riparian/Riverine
Resources Are Located on Site
Not Present
No. Document findings in
the MSHCP Consistency
Analysis ( see Task 6) .
246
CROTCH’S BUMBLE BEE SURVEY & REPORT ( OPTIONAL TASK 9)
Consulta on with CDFW
Poten ally Required (at a minimum):
• Incidental Take Permit (approx. 9 months to process)
• Focused Survey Prior to Construc on by a qualified biologist (April to August) • Preconstruc on Survey and Monitoring during Construc on Likely no addi onal ac on required;
Depending on how close suitable
habitat is to impact area, may need to
include Preconstruc on Surveys and
monitoring during construc on.
Conduct survey to map all suitable habitat
(w ithin 500 -D of project site )
Prepare Habitat Evalua on Memorandum
Summarize Results and Impacts Analysis in the Habitat
Assessment /MSHCP Consistency Report (Task 6)
Impacts
to Suitable Habitat
No Impacts
to Suitable Habitat
Confirm feedback from CDFW regarding
poten al for species and City’s desire to
conducted habitat evalua on
247
HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
(TASK 6)
Prepare i mpacts analysis for each resource (above)
Submit Report with the JPR Package (See JPR ApplicaBon Task 8) Develop Avoidance/Minimiza on/Mi ga on Measures
MSHCP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR EACH
(SecBon 6.1.2, SecBon 6.1. 4, SecBon 6.1.3, SecBon 6.3.2) Riparian/Riverine Resources Resource (Sec on 6.1.2) Narrow Endemic Plants Species (Sec on 6.1.3) Burrowing Owl (Sec on 6.3.2) Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Sec on 6.1.4) Incorporate MSHCP Appendix C Measures , Construc on
Guidelines in Sec on 7.5.3, and Guidelines for Construc on of Wildlife Crossings in Sec on 7.5.2 (Task 5)
Make Final Consistency DeterminaBon
Criteria Area Plant Species (Sec on 6.3.2)
248
If any one of the following are present and
avoidance is NOT feasible
1:
1 If the resource is not present or there is no LCTV, document finding in the Consistency Determina on (see Task 6).
Riparian/Riverine Resources Resource (Sec on 6.1.2)
Burrowing Owl (Sec on 6.3.2)
Narrow Endemic Plants Species (Sec on 6.1.3)
AND 3 or more pairs are present
on 35+ acre site
DeterminaBon of Biologically Equivalent or Superior
PreservaBon (TASK 7)
AND the area onsite provides long-
term conserva on value (LCTV)
Criteria Area Plant Species (Sec on 6.3.2)
AND 1-2 pairs are present
Document Equivalency Finding in the DBESP
(Task 7) DBESP
Avoid 90% of areas with LTCV
Avoidance of 90% areas with
LTCV NOT feasible
Document in MSHCP Consistency
DeterminaBon (see Task 6 above)
No fy RCA/WA; may
need to prepare a BUOW
Protec on and Reloca on
Plan
AND the area onsite provides long-
term conserva on value (LCTV)
Avoid 90% of areas with LTCV
Avoidance of 90% areas with
LTCV NOT feasible
Submit DBESP for Joint Project Review (See Task 8)
249
*
Joint Project Review (JPR) (Task 8)
City Submits JPR Package to the Western Riverside
County Regional Conserva on Authority (RCA)
Prepare JPR Package:
• JPR Applica on
• MSHCP Consistency Report (Task 4)
• DBESP Report (Task 7), if prepared
•
• Site Plan Shapefiles
• Applica on Fee
RCA determines project is in
compliance with MSHCP
RCA Review (14 calendar days)
(City may receive comments, extending reviews)
RCA submits Non -Consistency Findings to
PermiMee (City) & Wildlife Agencies
Meet & Confer within 30 days
RCA provides Consistency Findings to
City & Wildlife Agencies
RCA submits Consistency Findings to
PermiMee (City) & Wildlife Agencies (WA’s)
WA’s review JPR (10 Business days )
Note: If there is a DBESP , WA’s finding will be provided aDer 60 calendar days.
WA’s provide MSHCP Findings to PermiMee & RCA
WA’s provide City with comments
CITY COMPLETES JPR, CEQA,
& PROJECT APPROVAL City addresses comments and resubmits to WA’s
WA’s provides Consistency Findings to City & RCA
RCA determines project is NOT in
compliance with MSHCP
WA’s Concur with the RCA
250
CLINTON KEITH RD
GREENBERG PL
CLINTON KEITH RD
SHAWNA DR
LO
S ALAM
OS RD
M
ENIFEE RD
GREENBERG PL
W
HITEW
O
O
D RD
ARENDT LN
EPPLE ST
BILOXI PL
CAPRA RD
CRAW
FORD
CA
NYON RD
COURTNEY BROOK LN
Menifee Road Improvements - CIP 13030 04/04/2023
Attachment 3Vicinity Map
500 0 500250 Feet
E
LOCATION MAP
^_
G:\GISData\Departments\Engineering\ArcMapDocs_23\Vicinity.mxd 251
40810 COUNTY CENTER DR.,SUITE 200TEMECULA, CA 92591PHONE: (951) 676-8042MBAKERINTL.COM 252
CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/18/2025
Agenda Item No. 11.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David Chantarangsu, AICP, Development Services Director PREPARED BY: Carl Stiehl, City Planner
SUBJECT:
Financing for the Kensington Apartments Affordable Housing Project
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a Public Hearing under the requirements of the Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (IRS Code) as amended; and Adopt Resolution No. 25-4815 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Approving the Issuance by the California Municipal Finance Authority of Exempt Facility Bonds in an Aggregate Principal Amount Not to Exceed $40,000,000, for the purpose of Financing or Refinancing the Acquisition, Construction, Improvement, and Equipping of the Kensington Apartments Project.
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
None.
CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Plan, program and create infrastructure development.
BACKGROUND
In 2022, Pacific West Communities Inc. (Applicant) received approval for the 126-unit Kensington Apartments, which will be restricted to occupancy by low-income residents spread across five buildings (Project) located southeast of the intersection of Washington Avenue and Nighthawk Way, APN 906-780-004 (Property). The Project was approved by staff on December 30, 2022, utilizing a Director’sapproval of the Development Plan in accordance with Murrieta Municipal Code Section 16.56.025(A)(1). Following Project approval, the Applicant unsuccessfully applied for State low-income tax credits in multiple rounds through its Project financing entity, Murrieta Pacific Associates (Borrower). In August 2023, the city approved a Development Impact Fee Deferral Loan Agreement for the Project, in an amount of approximately $1.77 million, in order to make the Project more competitive to receive a state tax credit award. After additional applications to the state, in December 2024, the Project was awarded low-income tax credits.
In addition to receiving state tax credits for the Project, the Borrower applied for funding from the California CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/13/2025Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
253
3/18/2025
Agenda Item No. 11.
In addition to receiving state tax credits for the Project, the Borrower applied for funding from the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) requesting that the CMFA serve as the municipal issuer of tax-exempt bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $40,000,000 (Bonds). The Bond proceeds will be used to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of a multifamily rental housing Project within the city.
For the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Murrieta must conduct a public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”)providing the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax -exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. The public hearing notice was published 10 days prior to the hearing in the Riverside Press-Enterprise. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the Project must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project.
California Municipal Finance Authority
The CMFA was created on January 1, 2004, pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement to promote economic, cultural, and community development through the financing of economic development and charitable activities throughout California. To date, over 350 municipalities have become members of CMFA including the city. The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living in California. The CMFA’srepresentatives and its Board of Directors have considerable experience in bond financing. CMFA has assisted by issuing bonds for the Monamos Terrace Apartments and Viscar Terrace Apartments projects in the city.
Bond Financing and City Obligations
The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the city will have no financial, legal, or moral obligation, liability, or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the city or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.
There are no costs associated with membership in the CMFA, and the city will in no way become exposed to any financial liability because of its existing membership. In addition, participation by the city in the CMFA does not impact the city’sappropriations limits or debt capacity and will not constitute any type of indebtedness by the city. Outside of holding the TEFRA hearing and approving the issuance of bonds, no other participation or activity of the city or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will be required.
Project Analysis
The Project is an important low-income, affordable, multi-family residential project for the city. Whereas this part of the region in the county has seen extensive residential growth in the past twenty years, the supply of affordable housing has not grown in the same manner. Both the State of California Housing and Community Development Department and Southern California Association of Governments have noted that affordable multi-family residential developments are the type of projects currently most needed to address the state’s housing supply shortage. The city did not have any of these types of units constructed over the most recently concluded 5th Cycle Housing Element housing cycle covering 2014-2021. Hence, this Project implements the city’shousing strategy to develop low-income housing to help meet the City’s6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA covering the period of 2021-2029.
Considering the foregoing, and to support the funding of affordable housing consistent with the City’sHousing Element, staff recommends that the City Council conduct the TEFRA Hearing and adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) to authorize the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA.
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/13/2025Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
254
3/18/2025
Agenda Item No. 11.
CEQA Determination
The development of the Project was previously determined to be Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). A Categorical Exemption was posted and filed for the Project on January 3, 2023. The approval of bond funding does not alter the approved Project and the financing is not a project as defined by CEQA since the action to approve a project funding source does not result in a physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower. The city will have no financial, legal, or moral obligation, liability, or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the city or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.
The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the “Foundation”),acts as the Board of Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these issuance fees to the Foundation for the support of local charities. With respect to the City of Murrieta, it is expected that a portion of the issuance fee attributable to the City will be granted by the CMFA to the General Fund of the city. Such grant may be used for any lawful purpose of the city.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 25-4815
2. Kensington Apartments Site Plan and Elevations
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/13/2025Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
255
RESOLUTION NO. 25-4815
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA
APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL
FINANCE AUTHORITY EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS IN AN
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000,000 FOR
THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPPING
OF THE KENSINGTON APARTMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, Murrieta Pacific Associates, a California Limited Partnership (the “Borrower”) a partnership of which Pacific West Communities, Inc. (the “Developer”) or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $ 40,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the “Bonds”), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project to be located southeast of the intersection of Washington Avenue and Nighthawk Way (APN 906-780-004), Murrieta, California (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved b y the City of Murrieta (the “City”) because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following proper notice, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing resolutions are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority.
It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the 256
issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f).
Section 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.
Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.
Section 5. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents whic h they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.
Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2025.
Cindy Warren, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tiffany J. Israel, City Attorney
257
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )§
CITY OF MURRIETA )
I, Cristal McDonald, City Clerk of the City of Murrieta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-4815 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Murrieta at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of March, 2025, and was signed by the Mayor of the said City, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
258
Attachment 2 – Kensington Plans
Site Plan
259
Elevations
260
Vicinity Map
Map Not To Scale
261
CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/18/2025
Agenda Item No. 12.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Kristen Crane, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:
Update on Efforts of the Southwest Riverside County Elected Leaders Collaborative related to Regional Traffic and Transportation and Next Steps
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation, discuss, and provide direction to staff.
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
At the January 21, 2025, City Council meeting, Mayor Cindy Warren and Council Member Lori Stone were designated to represent the City in meetings of the Southwest Riverside County Elected Leaders Collaborative.
CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Plan, program and create infrastructure development.
BACKGROUND
The Southwest Riverside County Elected Leaders Collaborative is an informal gathering of a combination of local elected representatives and staff representing the cities of southwest Riverside County, including Murrieta, Temecula, Menifee, Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, and Canyon Lake. This group began meeting informally in 2022. Discussion topics have centered on items of regional concern, seeking to learn about them, such as higher education and water. For 2024, the group chose to focus on regional traffic and transportation, which has extended into 2025.
Participation has also included representatives and staff from the offices of Riverside County Supervisor Chuck Washington, State Senator Kelly Seyarto, State Assembly Member Kate Sanchez, State Assembly Member Bill Esayles, and Riverside County Legislative Affairs.
Mayor Warren and Council Member Stone have been participating on behalf of the City of Murrieta (City) and leading this effort. From the City staff team, Assistant City Manager Kristen Crane and Public Works Director Bob Moehling have regularly attended these meetings and facilitated the participation of the speakers.
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/13/2025Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
262
3/18/2025
Agenda Item No. 12.
With the 2024 theme being regional traffic and transportation, participation in the group grew to include the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). These meetings are informal, often with varying staff and elected official participation. They are informational, with no voting or decision-making authority.
With the 2024 focus on traffic and transportation in the region, each month, a guest speaker presented on some aspect of this topic to understand the dynamics, including:
· Historical context from Temecula and WRCOG on the Move I-15 Forward effort from several years ago, which resulted in initiating the projects presently under construction; · Seeking to understand commute patterns to other counties, like San Diego, and the challenges with bringing about solutions to alleviate those long commutes; · WRCOG provided a review of data related to growth and commute patterns, including updating studies completed many years ago as part of the Move I-15 Forward effort; · Last spring, RCTC presented its long-range planning document, which is called the Traffic Relief Plan; · RTA presented on the topic of public transit in the region and the dynamics of connecting to other counties;
· The Executive Director of Metrolink presented about Metrolink’srole, how that system is operated, and how plans are made for decisions on Metrolink service and system expansion; · There was a presentation on the present and future forecast of funding for transportation; and · A presentation about the State of California’s Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI), which is a framework and plan for how the State wants to approach transportation going forward, which sets forth significant changes and approaches.
Collectively, the presentations have provided a solid overview of regional traffic and transportation in Southwest Riverside County and the barriers and challenges related to funding, the process for completing projects, and jurisdictional areas.
State Senator Seyarto attended the September 2024 meeting to hear the group discuss their findings and what they had learned thus far. The Senator strongly encouraged the group to come to Sacramento to tell the story of Southwest Riverside County and the dynamics this region is experiencing and to advocate to other legislative representatives from the Inland Empire, legislative representatives from the Senate and Assembly transportation committees, the State Housing and Community Development Department, Caltrans, and the Governor’s Office.
Since that time, the group has been exploring that possibility and what that could look like. This has included collaboratively formulating the goals, approach, and points to convey during such a trip, as well as the target meetings the group would want to schedule. To assist with the coordination of the trip, staff has engaged with Cal Cities, as well as with Townsend Public Affairs, who happens to represent several of the participating cities.
June 24-25, 2025, has been set as the date for the trip, based on the consensus of the group and is the most optimal time to visit Sacramento to not conflict with other important aspects of the State legislature’s calendar.
Based on the group consensus, the key purpose of the trip is not to ask for funding for a specific project or a CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/13/2025Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
263
3/18/2025
Agenda Item No. 12.
Based on the group consensus, the key purpose of the trip is not to ask for funding for a specific project or a list of projects. Rather, the purpose is to tell the story, in a constructive, collaborative way, of what is happening in Southwest Riverside County in terms of:
· Significant housing growth, largely due to the significant changes in State law in years impacting the ability of local communities to influence housing developments; · Existing congestion, anticipated to worsen without significant traffic and transportation infrastructure solutions, coupled with a challenging environment to complete infrastructure projects; · The dynamic with various State policies conflicting with one another, such as the emphasis on building more housing, while at the same time, the challenging environment, both in process and financially, to build projects and provide the infrastructure to accommodate that growth; and · Raising awareness of this impact on Southwest Riverside County, sharing near-term and long-term needs, and doing so with a productive, constructive tone/spirit.
The purpose of this agenda report is to share with the full City Council and community an update on the Southwest Riverside County Elected Leaders Collaborative and the planned trip to Sacramento, and providing an opportunity for City Council discussion and input.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/13/2025Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
264
CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/18/2025
Agenda Item No. 13.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Bob Moehling, Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: Jeff Hitch, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Emergency Declaration for Hayes Avenue Bridge at Miller Canyon Creek
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 25-4816 to:
Declare an emergency condition for the Hayes Avenue Bridge at Miller Canyon Creek; Authorize Purchase Orders for Michael Baker International totaling $89,580.92; and Amend the Capital Improvement Plan budget to create a project for Hayes Avenue Bridge at Miller Canyon Creek and appropriate with $725,000 of Area Drainage Fees.
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
On June 20, 2023, the City Council authorized an on-call consulting services Agreement with Michael Baker Internation, Inc. for civil services (Vote: 4-0).
CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Plan, program and create infrastructure development.
BACKGROUND
On February 6, 2025, City staff encountered a pothole in the deck of the Hayes Avenue Bridge crossing Miller Canyon Creek located generally between Ivy Street and B Street. Upon this discovery, engineering staff believed the bridge could be unsafe and closed the bridge until further evaluation could be completed.
Michael Baker International (“MBI”)was contracted using the City’sexisting on-call agreement to perform a structural evaluation of the bridge. The evaluation was performed and a report was generated and provided to the City. The report concluded that the bridge is structurally deficient for fire truck access and needs to be replaced. The bridge has a 15-feet long span, is 24-feet wide, and consists of concrete abutments with wooden girders and decking covered with asphalt concrete. MBI subsequently provided the City with a proposal to provide environmental and engineering services for engineering plans and emergency CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/13/2025Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
265
3/18/2025
Agenda Item No. 13.
proposal to provide environmental and engineering services for engineering plans and emergency environmental permits necessary to replace the bridge with an alternate reinforced concrete box culvert or arch-span bridge structure.
The severed fire department access on Hayes Avenue presents an emergency condition due by extending the response time for public safety personnel and limiting secondary access to portions of the City. Additionally, the B Street bridge serves as the sole access point for City residents west of Murrieta Creek and north of Miller Canyon Creek when Kalmia Street is closed due to rain. If access to the B Street bridge were lost, no suitable secondary route would be available.
For these reasons, City staff recommend adopting a resolution declaring an emergency, allowing for emergency environmental permitting and public works contracting without using the formal bidding requirements in accordance with applicable Public Contract Code provisions. The capital improvement plan (CIP) budget must also be amended to create a project for Hayes Avenue Bridge at Miller Canyon Creek and fund with $725,000 of Area Drainage Fees.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of investigating and preparing recommendations for the repair of the bridge is approximately $15,905.92, and the estimated cost of engineering and environmental permitting work needed to commence the process to replace the Bridge is approximately $73,675, totaling $89,580.92.
Amending the Capital Improvement Plan budget to create a project for Hayes Avenue Bridge at Miller Canyon Creek will appropriate $725,000 of Area Drainage Fees.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 25-4816
2. Proposal for Emergency Bridge Investigation and Recommendations to Repair Hayes Avenue Bridge at Miller Canyon Creek
3. Proposal for Emergency Bridge Replacement for the Hayes Avenue Bridge at Miller Canyon Creek
4. On-call Agreement with Michael Baker International
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/13/2025Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
266
01375.0024/1060955.2
RESOLUTION 25-4816
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA,
CALIFORNIA DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND APPROVING THE
EXECUTION OF PURCHASE ORDERS TO INVESTIGATE AND
COMMENCE WORK TO REPLACE THE HAYES AVENUE BRIDGE AT
MILLER CANYON CREEK WITHOUT NOTICE FOR BIDS PURSUANT
TO CALIFORNIA PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTIONS 1102, 20168, AND 22050
WHEREAS, after strong winter storms, o n February 6, 2025, City of Murrieta (“City”) staff encountered a pothole in the deck of the Hayes Avenue Bridge crossing Mi ller Canyon Creek located generally between Ivy Street and B Street (“Bridge”), requiring the City to close the Bridge until further evaluation could be completed; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2025, a contractor retained by the City conducted a structural evaluation of the Bridge and determined that the Bridge is structurally deficient for fire truck access and needs to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, as additional winter storms pose further of damage to the Bridge; and WHEREAS, the inability of fire trucks to c ross the Bridge results in insufficient secondary fire access to portions of the City such that this unexpected occurrence poses a clear and imminent danger requiring immediate action to allow the City to continue providing fire truck access to all of its residents, which is an essential public service; and WHEREAS, the closure of the Bridge constitutes an “emergency” as that term is defined in Public Contract Code § 1102; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Contract Code §§ 20168 and 22050, contracts for emergency expenditures may be approved by the adoption, by a four -fifths vote, of a resolution declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, or property such that the City is autho rized to procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without g iving notice for bids to let contracts; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to use the process authorized by Public Contract Code § 22050 to immediately investigate and replace the Bridge; and WHEREAS, the cost to investigate the condition of the Bridge and prepare recommendations for the repair of the Bridge was approximately $15,905.92; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of engineering and environmental work necessary as a first step in replacing the Bridge is estimated to be approximately $73,675 at this time; and WHEREAS, this item must be reviewed every 60 days, until the emergency has ended , to ensure that the need to continue the action continues to exist. 267
01375.0024/1060955.2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The City Council finds that the facts set forth above constitute facts demonstrating that an emergency condition exists and that such emergency condition does not permit the delays which would result from a competitive solicitation for bids. The City Council further finds that the immediate replacement of the Bridge is necessary to respond to the emergency conditions.
Section 3. The City’s City Manager or h is designee is hereby directed to prepare purchase orders or contracts , subject to City Attorney approval, that will cause the needed investigation and engineering and environmental work to commence the process for replacement of the Bridge to be made for a not to exceed amount of $89,580.92. The Public Works Director shall offer this contract to a qualified contractor for its immediate acceptance and the commencement of performance thereunder.
Section 4. The City Manager shall cause a report on the status of the emergency circumstances to be agendized at a City Council meeting every sixty days until either the City Council finds that the repair work has been completed or that the emergency conditions have ceased to be present.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2025.
Cindy Warren, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tiffany J. Israel, City Attorney
268
01375.0024/1060955.2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )§
CITY OF MURRIETA )
I, Cristal McDonald, City Clerk of the City of Murrieta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-4816 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Murrieta at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of March, 2025, and was signed by the Mayor of the said City, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
269
February 11, 2025
Jeff Hitch
City Engineer
Department of Public Works/Engineering
City of Murrieta
Re: Proposal for Emergency Bridge Investigation and Recommendations for Repair Hayes Avenue
Dear Mr. Hitch:
Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) is pleased to provide a proposal to conduct a field investigation and provide recommendations for an emergency repair of the referenced Hayes Avenue Project understanding, phasing and scope of work is outlined in Exhibit A. Compensation and Payment are outlined in Exhibit B. Fee Schedule is included in Exhibit C.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 933-2552 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Todd L. Pitner, P.E., QSD, QSP
Project Manager
Michael Baker International
[email protected].
270
EXHIBIT A
Project Understanding, Phasing and Scope of Work
Project Understanding
Michael Baker International (Baker) has been requested by the City of Temecula (City) to provide emergency bridge investigation for timber bridge located along Hayes Avenue in the City of Temecula, CA.
In its current condition the bridge provides typical highway (HL 93) access over an earthen trapezoidal stormwater channel and is intended to continue to carry typical highway loads (HL 93) in the future (including fire trucks).
The bridge is constructed with a single 15-ft span. There are no as-built records for the existing bridge.
The bridge is a timber girder superstructure with wood decking, approximately 24-ft wide. The bridge is supported on a seat type concrete abutment.
The critical goal of load rating is to ensure collapse-prevention. A failure of the superstructure would be catastrophic and would be the minimum effort for the focus of the Load Rating.
The foundation support is equally important but vastly more difficult to determine. A failure of the foundation would likely lead to some settlement, followed by bridge closure and repair or replacement.
Because invasive and costly measures would be required to investigate the size and type of the existing foundations, load rating of the foundations is not currently included in the scope of work.
271
Scope of Work:
Task 1: Field Investigation (Tuesday, February 11, 2025) a. General Visual Inspection
i. Visually Assess overall bridge condition and any visible deterioration ii. Visually Check for signs of settlement, misalignment, or structural movement iii. Document vegetation growth, debris accumulation, or scour around substructure b. Superstructure:
i. Identify cracks, checks, splits, and delamination in deck planks ii. Check for rot and insect damage
iii. Examine fasteners, bolts, and nails for corrosion or loosening iv. Assess bearing conditions at girders supports for signs of crushing or shear failure c. Substructure (pending visual access)
i. Check for signs of scour or undermining around footings ii. Examine bearing areas for excessive deformation or crushing iii. Look for settlement or lateral movement in supports d. Railings
i. Visually observe guardrails and barriers for cracks or fastener failure ii. Check rail post connections for stability and deterioration e. Documentation and Reporting
i. Take photographs and video documentation of all findings ii. Record detailed measurements and sketch damage locations Task 2: Structural Observation Report - Findings / Recommendations Report will be prepared based on the finding of the field investigation with a completion date of February 21, 2025. Report to include the following:
Summary of findings/description of existing condition Photographic summary from field investigation
Schematic drawing of existing bridge with dimensions (plan view and sections) Determine feasibility of a “short-term” fix
a. Baker bridge engineers will perform a load-rating analysis of the existing bridge according to the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, to support the highway loading. The team will also review and determine if there is a need for legal load limits and coordination of any load postings (if required).
If feasible, recommendations and details of repairs to be provided (i.e., Replacement of deck cross member(s) with same or similar material and repaving the surface to match existing)
Note: If a “short-term” fix is not feasible, findings will be documented in report. City will declare an emergency, initiate environmental permits under emergency and proceed with the design and construction of a reinforced concrete box to replace the existing bridge.
Task 3: Project Management, Coordination and Meetings
Michael Baker will attend project meetings and perform coordination and contract administration associated with this project. This task shall be performed on a time and materials basis. An initial budget of twenty (20) hours has been assigned for this Task.
272
EXHIBIT B
Compensation / Payment
Michael Baker shall complete the work outlined above in accordance with the fee schedule identified below and shall invoice Client on a monthly basis based on the hours worked. Client agrees to compensate Michael Baker or such services as follows:
ITEM DESCRIPTION Time & Materials (Not to Exceed)
Task 1: Field Investigation ................................................................................... $2,978.00 Task 2: Structural Observation Report – Findings / Recommendations .............. $8,440.41 Task 3: Project Management, Coordination and Meetings ................................. $4,487.52
Total Fee $15,905.92
All tasks shall be billed hourly. The budget amount shown is for authorization purposes only. Should the total of the monthly billings reach eighty percent (80%) of the budget amount, Client and Michael Baker will review the status of the work to determine the need for an increase in the budget amount, and whether additional budget authorization to complete the project is appropriate.
273
EXHIBIT C
Fee Schedule
274
February 28, 2025
Jeff Hitch
City Engineer
Department of Public Works/Engineering
City of Murrieta
Re: Proposal for Emergency Bridge Replacement
Phase 2: Evaluation, Design, Plan Preparation and Environmental Permitting Hayes Avenue
Dear Mr. Hitch:
Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) is pleased to provide a proposal for the evaluation of alternative concepts, design, plan preparation and environmental permitting for an emergency repair of the referenced Hayes Avenue Bridge.
Project understanding and scope of work is outlined in Exhibit A. Schedule is provided in Exhibit B.
Compensation and Payment are outlined in Exhibit C. Fee Schedules are included in Exhibit D.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 933-2552 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Todd L. Pitner, P.E., QSD, QSP
Project Manager
Michael Baker International
[email protected].
275
EXHIBIT A
Project Understanding and Scope of Work
Project Understanding
Michael Baker International (Baker), as requested by the City of Murrieta (City), performed an emergency bridge investigation for the timber bridge located along Ha yes Avenue in the City of Murrie, CA on February 11, 2025 . The results of this investigation were summarized in a report titled, “ Hayes Avenue Bridge, Emergency Bridge Structural Observations and Load Rating Analysis Report ”, dated February 21, 2025. (This investigation and report are referred to, herein, as Phase 1.) The referenced report concludes the bridge is structurally inadequate for HS20-44 (40-ton truck) vehicular loading, (including fire trucks). The existing timber decking and girders are of poor condition. The replacement of the timber decking and girders were considered, however, upon completion of the repair, the existing bridge would still be structurally insufficient to accommodate HS20 -44 (40 -ton truck) vehicular loading. For this reason, Michael Baker recommends the complete demolition and replacement of the existing bridge with a Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) or alternative structure.
Phase 2 includes the evaluation of alternative concepts, design, plan preparation and permitting of the new structure.
All work is in intended to mitigate an “emergency situation”, as defined below. This scope provides the requisite tasks needed to evaluate resources and obtain regulatory permits with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This scope of work assumes the project would be categorically exempted under CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction.
Definition: An “emergency situation” is present where there is a clear, sudden, unexpected, and imminent threat to life or property demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, property or essential public services (i.e., a si tuation that could potentially result in an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property if corrective action requiring a permit is not undertaken immediately).
Scope of Work: Any work authorized by this Regional General Permit (RGP) must be the minimum necessary to alleviate the immediate emergency, unless complete reconstruction only results in very minor additional impact to aquatic resources and logistical concerns indicate such reconstruction is as expedient considering the condition of the project site and is limited to in -kind replacement or refurbishment. Moderate upgrading would be considered if the applicant wishes to use bioremediation or other environmentally sensitive solutions. The RGP may NOT be used to upgrade an existing structure to current standards when that activity would result in additional adverse effects on aquatic resources, except in very limited circumstances. Such upgrade projects shall be considered s eparate activities for which other forms of authorization will be required.
276
Scope of Work:
PHASE I: Bridge Investigation and Report (See proposal dated February 11, 2025) Task 1: Field Investigation (Tuesday, February 11, 2025) - Complete Task 2: Structural Observation Report - Findings / Recommendations - Complete Task 3: Project Management, Coordination and Meetings - Complete PHASE 2: Evaluation, Design, Plan Preparation and Environmental Permitting Task 4: Survey / Utility Coordination
a. Record Data Map Preparation
In order to include and plot the record position of the project boundary in approximate orientation with a specific coordinate system, compiled aerial topographic base data or other overlay features, Baker shall perform the following tasks:
• Baker shall perform research of the available public records via on-line services to obtain maps and other items that affect the boundary location of the property; • Baker shall prepare a preliminary record data map to be used by the field survey crew to search for a sampling of boundary monuments;
• Baker shall perform a field survey of said monuments in order to establish orientation of the record survey data in relation to the coordinate system used in the topographic mapping; • Baker shall plot the record boundary lines on the aerial base map, with the understanding of the Client that said record boundary is NOT the result of a comprehensive boundary survey and analysis, and that it’s orientation may disagree substantially from the position determined by a full boundary survey and analysis;
• The budget for this scope of work is based upon an assumption that adequate and accessible boundary monumentation exists in the immediate project vicinity to control this record data survey.
Any cost associated with the preparation and processing of a Record of Survey Map, if one becomes necessary as a legal requirement, shall be covered by Client. b. Topographic Survey
Baker shall prepare a Topographic Survey for the project site, which will be used for engineering design. This survey will include 1-foot contours. The scope covers approximately 250 linear feet (approximately 100 feet upstream and downstream of project limits. The survey shall include the following:
• Locate existing street and edge of pavement
• Locate existing bridge
• Locate existing channel and flowline
• Locate above ground utilities
• Dip any sewer manhole
• Locate any features that will affect site drainage
277
c. Utility Coordination
Michael Baker shall perform due diligence of existing utilities and obtain best available, as -built drawings, from applicable agency. Existing utilities shall be drawn into CAD and shown in the base file of the construction drawings.
Task 5: Evaluation of Alternative Concepts
Michael Baker shall evaluate alternative designs to include, but not limited to, precast reinforced concrete box, cast in place concrete box and Contech Bridge span . Each alternative design will be sized to accommodate anticipated stormwater flows and ensure compatibility with future extension, if needed, to ultimate right of way. Alternative designs will be evaluated in regards to hydraulic capacity, costs, availability, schedule and constructability.
Hayes Bridge crosses over “Line L” per the City of Murrieta Master Plan of Drainage.
Per the Master Plan of Drainage, t he design stormwater flow rate for the 100 -year storm event is 1,455 cfs. Michael Baker will coordinate with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) to verify. Note that this task does not include a hydrology analysis.’ Deliverable will include a report which summarizes a comparison of alternatives. Report will be provided to City for review for concurrence of selected alternative, prior to plan preparation. Task also includes consultation with geotechnical engineer to ensure assumed soil characteristics are sufficient.
Task 6: Plan Preparation
Michael Baker shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan at 10 scale, per standards and design criteria of City of Murrieta and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD).
Deliverables include four sheets; Title, Notes and Details, Plan and Profile and Erosion Control. Additional sheets may be necessary depending on the type of structure selected.
278
Task 7: Engineer’s Estimate of Costs
Michael Baker shall prepare a cost estimate based on the construction drawings. Quantities shall be compiled using scaled and digitized measurements from the approved improvement plans.
Task 8: Scheduling
Michael Baker shall prepare and maintain a project schedule of all tasks outlined herein. The initial version of the schedule is included in Exhibit B. Each task includes an anticipated start date, duration and end date. Critical path is defined.
The schedule will continually evaluated and updated, as necessary, when actual dates differ from assumed dates. City will be informed of any delays and/or adjustments to schedule.
Task 9: Biological Resources Assessment and Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Michael Baker will conduct a comprehensive literature and database review of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database RareFind 5, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation Project Planning Tool to determine which special-status biological resources1 have the potential to occur on or in the general vicinity of the project site. Michael Baker will also review on -site and adjoining soils using the U.S. Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle ma ps, and historic/current aerial photographs to further assess the ecological changes that have occurred within the project site.
Due to the disturbed nature and current land uses, no focused plant or wildlife surveys are anticipated to support preparation of the project’s CEQA documentation.
Following the literature review, Michael Baker qualified biologists will conduct a field survey of the project site, plus a 300 -foot buffer (the biological study area), to document baseline biological conditions and evaluate the site’s potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species identified during the literature review. Plant and wildlife species detected during the field survey will be recorded and the location of special -status biological resources will be mapped, if detected on -site. Na tural vegetation communities occurring within the project site will be classified in accordance with A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). During the site visit, potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources regulated by federal and state agencies will be identified. Data collected during the literature review and field survey will provide an overall understanding of the project setting and biological resources potentially occurring in the area.
Michael Baker will analyze the project site within the context of the MSHCP and any current City or County guidance. Based on a preliminary review of the MSHCP, the parcel occurs within an MSHCP Criteria Cell and the MSHCP -defined survey area for Burrowin g Owl. In addition, the project site must also be evaluated as it relates to the policy in Section 6.1.2 (Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources). Based
1Special-status biological resources refers to those plant and wildlife species that are Federally or State listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated a California Rare Plant Rank 1 or 2 by the California Native Plant Society; and species that are designated by the CDFW as Fully Protected, or Species of Special Concern.
279
on the observations made during the habitat assessment, if there are additional resources that could potentially occur and it is determined that additional studies are needed, an additional scope and fee for those services will be provided.
Michael Baker will then prepare a biological resources letter report that will summarize the information and results obtained during the literature review and field survey. The report will include the species (plants and wildlife) detected, vegetation comm unities and land cover types mapped, and summary of special-status biological resources that have potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the biological report will provide an analysis of potential project -related impacts . Site photographs taken during the field survey and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) figures will be included in the report to further enhance the written text and visually identify specific biological information as it relates to the project site.
Assumptions and Exclusions:
• This task assumes one field survey by two biologists will be required and that full access to the project site will be provided, including keys to locked gates and advance notice of our right of entry. • This task does not include focused, protocol-level species surveys. • This task includes one impact analysis of the proposed project’s development footprint (at least 30% engineering design) and one round of review/revisions to the draft report before accepted as final.
Deliverable:
• One draft and one final Biological Resources Letter Report submitted electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
TASK 10: CEQA Class 2 Categorical Exemption
Michael Baker assumes the project is exempt from CEQA per the Class 2 Categorical Exemption codified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced.
Accordingly, Michael Baker will prepare a Notice of Exemption (NOE) for City filing. The NOE will include a detailed project description and exhibits, along with supporting documentation that the project meets the criteria for application of the exemption and that no unusual circumstances or environmental conditions are present. Should environmental resources be identified in the course of research and field work associated with the biological and regulatory permitting tasks requiring mitigation, Michael Ba ker will immediately consult with the City to identify a path forward for CEQA compliance, along with commensurate scope and fee for the additional services.
This scope of work assumes that Michael Baker will prepare an administrative draft CEQA Categorical Exemption and NOE for review by the City. Michael Baker will address the City’s comments on the administrative draft CEQA Categorical Exemption and NOE and will submit a proofcheck draft of the CEQA Categorical Exemption and NOE for the City’s final review. Following final review by the City, we will provide the final public draft and related attachments electronically. 280
Assumptions and Exclusions:
• Assumes up to 4 hours of coordination meetings.
• The City will be the primary reviewer of the Categorical Exemption and NOE. • Michael Baker will file the NOE with the County Clerk and CEQANet on behalf of the City. This includes payment of the County’s $50 filing fee.
• The Categorical Exemption and NOE may require up to three (3) rounds of review. • Up to 3 exhibits will be included in the Categorical Exemption to support the environmental review. • It is assumed that no technical analysis, data/records searches, or technical studies will be prepared to support the Categorical Exemption besides Michael Baker’s biological and regulatory permitting studies.
Deliverable:
• Administrative Draft CEQA Categorical Exemption and NOE (submitted electronically) • Proofcheck Draft CEQA Categorical Exemption and NOE (submitted electronically) • Final CEQA Categorical Exemption and NOE (submitted electronically and posted with the Clerk of the Board and CEQANet)
TASK 11: Regulatory Permit Application Preparation, Submittal, and Processing It is anticipated that the subject project will require emergency notifications to the regulatory agencies.
Michael Baker will prepare, submit, and process emergency permit applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Sections 1600 -1617 of the Ca lifornia Fish and Game Code.
Assumptions and Exclusions:
• The City will pay any application fees.
• Michael Baker will submit the application packages to each agency on behalf of the City.
Deliverable:
• Draft and final application packages (USACE, RWQCB, CDFW)
Task 12: Project Management, Coordination and Meetings Michael Baker will attend project meetings and perform coordination and contract administration associated with this project. This task shall be performed on a time and materials basis. An initial budget of twenty (20) hours has been assigned for this Task.
281
OPTIONAL TASKS
The following tasks have been included in the event the resource agencies determine additional information is required for MSHCP compliance.
WRMSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report If MSHCP Covered Resources (e.g., riparian/riverine habitat, narrow endemic plant species, burrowing owls, etc.) occur on the project site and will be impacted by the proposed project, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report will be prepared and submitted to the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) for review and approval. The DBESP Report will be prepared in accordance with the RCA’s most recent DBESP template and will include the following:
• definition of the project area
• a written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not feasible • a written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping
• quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, burrowing owl, or other MSHCP-covered resources associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects • a written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization, and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement:
o compensatory mitigation measures developed during the pre-application meetings with the RCA, USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and USFWS will be used to offset impacts as appropriate.
• a finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, with proposed design and compensation measures, the proposed project would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which would occur under an avoidance alternative without these measures, based on one or more of the following factors:
o effects on Conserved Habitats
o effects on the riparian/riverine species listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 o effects on riparian Linkages and function of the MSHCP Conservation Area This task includes GIS staff time to analyze and create the figures or exhibits, which will be prepared on an aerial photograph base at a scale of 1:2,400 (1 inch = 200 feet) and time for coordination with the wildlife agencies.
282
Assumptions and Exclusions:
• Submittal of the report to the RCA will trigger the start of a 10-day (business) review. Once the RCA concurs with those findings, they will forward the report to the Wildlife Agencies, which will trigger the start of a 60-day review period.
• Six hours have been included in this scope for RCA and Wildlife Agency coordination that may be necessary.
• This task also assumes one round of review/revisions to the draft report before submittal to the Wildlife Agencies and a second round of review/revisions to the draft report before submitting the final DBESP to the RCA/Wildlife Agencies for their review and concurrence.
Deliverables:
• One draft and one final Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report submitted to the client electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
Joint Project Review Application
The application package for a Joint Project Review (JPR) will be prepared for submittal to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies. The application will be prepared using the data from the Habitat Evaluation and MSHCP Consistency Analysis and DBESP, and GIS shapefiles.
Assumptions and Exclusions:
• Michael Baker will submit the JPR package to the City for review and approval. • As the permittee, the City will be responsible for submitting the JPR package to the RCA. Submittal of the JPR package will trigger the start of a 14 calendar day review by the RCA. Once the RCA concurs with the JPR, they will forward the package to the Wildlife Agencies which will trigger the start of their 10-day review period.
• This task also assumes one round of review/revisions to the draft JPR package before submittal to the RCA/Wildlife Agencies and a second round of review/revisions to the draft report before submitting the final DBESP to the RCA/Wildlife Agencies for their review and concurrence.
Deliverable:
• One draft and one final JPR application will be submitted to the City.
Focused Burrowing Owl Survey and Report
If suitable habitat for burrowing owl was determined to be present on the project site during the habitat assessment, then Michael Baker qualified biologists will conduct Step II (Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls) of the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2006). The two-part method is as follows:
• Step II – Part A (Focused Burrow Survey): A systematic survey for potentially suitable burrows, burrow complexes, or man-made features (e.g., debris piles) that could be used by burrowing owl as nest structures will be conducted on foot. All potentially suitable burrow features will be mapped, incl uding GPS coordinates. Burrows encountered will be examined for shape, scat, pellets, white-wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. The location of suitable habitat, potential burrows, sign, and burrowing owls observed will be recorded and mapped with a hand-held GPS unit. Methods to detect presence of burrowing owls include direct observation, aural detection, 283
and signs of presence. Where feasible, the focused burrow survey will be combined with a site visit in Step II – Part B (below). This has been incorporated into the project’s cost. • Step II – Part B (Focused Burrowing Owl Survey): Four visits will be conducted on four separate days during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31). Surveys will be conducted from one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise or two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset.
All surveys will be conducted during weather conditions conducive to observing burrowing owls outside of their burrows (i.e., not during rain, high winds [> 20 mph], dense fog, or temperatures exceeding 90°F).
Walking transects will be spaced approximately 33 feet apart or less to ensure 100% visual coverage of all areas. The survey area will include the project site and a 500-foot buffer, as legally accessible to Michael Baker. Binoculars will be used in areas that are inaccessible on foot, with more compl ete, thorough coverage within the proposed project site.
Areas providing potential habitat for burrowing owls will be surveyed for suitable burrows, consisting of natural and man-made substrates in areas with low, open vegetation within the project site. All burrow features encountered will be examined for shape , scat, pellets, white -wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. The location of all suitable burrowing owl habitat, potential owl burrows, burrowing owl sign, and any owls observed will be recorded and mapped with a hand -held GPS unit. Methods to detect presence of burrowing owls include direct observation, aural detection, and signs of presence.
Following the completion of the final survey, a letter report will be prepared that includes a summary of the methods, conditions, and results of the surveys. Site photographs taken during the field survey and figures will be included in the report to further enhance written text and visually identify specific biological information as it relates to the project site. This task includes time for GIS analysis to support the preparation of up to two figures.
Assumptions and Exclusions:
• This task assumes that potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl occurs on -site, requiring completion of four field surveys in accordance with protocols provided in the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions.
• This task assumes that the City will provide full access to the project site, as well as keys to locked gates and advance notice to existing property tenants of our right of entry. • This task also assumes one round of review/revisions of the draft burrowing owl survey report by the City before accepted as final.
Deliverables:
• One draft and one final Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report submitted to the City electronically in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
284
EXHIBIT B
Schedule
285
EXHIBIT C
Compensation / Payment
Michael Baker shall complete the work outlined above in accordance with the fee schedule identified below and shall invoice Client on a monthly basis based on the hours worked. Client agrees to compensate Michael Baker or such services as follows:
ITEM DESCRIPTION Time & Materials (Not to Exceed)
Task 4: Survey / Utility Coordination
a. Record Data Map Preparation ................................................................. $5,644 b. Topographic Survey .................................................................................. $5,891 c. Utility Coordination ................................................................................... $2,030 Task 5: Evaluation of Alternative Concepts ............................................................. $7,009 Task 6: Plan Preparation .......................................................................................... $7,246 Task 7: Engineer’s Estimate of Costs ......................................................................... $1,015 Task 8: Scheduling ........................................................................................................ $875 Task 9: Biological Resources Assessment and
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report ....................................................... $12,516 Task 10: CEQA Class 2 Categorical Exemption Scheduling ........................................ $14,606 Task 11: Regulatory Permit Application Preparation, Submittal, and Processing .... $11,698 Task 12: Project Management, Coordination and Meetings ...................................... $5,145 Total Fee $73,675
All tasks shall be billed hourly. The budget amount shown is for authorization purposes only.
Should the total of the monthly billings reach eighty percent (80%) of the budget amount, Client and Michael Baker will review the status of the work to determine the need for an increase in the budget amount, and whether additional budget authorization to complete the project is appropriate.
286
EXHIBIT D
Fee Schedule
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304