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].
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
EXHIBIT B
Schedule
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.
EXHIBIT D
Fee Schedule