HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 23, 2020 Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
MEETING AGENDA
Western Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Date: November 23, 2020
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the meeting will
only be conducted via video conferencing and by telephone.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Michael Vargas, Chair/Rita Rogers, City of Perris
Clint Lorimore, Vice Chair/Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale
Wes Speake/Jim Steiner, City of Corona
Brian Berkson/Chris Barajas, City of Jurupa Valley
Bill Zimmerman/Dean Deines, City of Menifee
Yxstian Gutierrez/Carla Thornton, City of Moreno Valley
Scott Vinton/Christi White, City of Murrieta
Berwin Hanna/Ted Hoffman, City of Norco
Andrew Kotyuk/Russ Utz, City of San Jacinto
Ben J. Benoit/Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I
Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District V
STAFF
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and
Outreach Programs, Intermodal Programs, Motorist
Services, New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional
Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP), Specific Transit Projects, State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Program, and Provide Policy Direction on
Transportation Programs and Projects related to
Western Riverside County and other areas as may
be prescribed by the Commission.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
1:30 p.m.
Monday, November 23, 2020
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee meeting will only be conducted via video conferencing and
by telephone. Please follow the instructions below to join the meeting remotely.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Join Zoom Meeting
https://rctc.zoom.us/j/84452497649
Meeting ID: 844 5249 7649
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,84452497649# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Meeting ID: 844 5249 7649
For members of the public wishing to submit comment in connection with the Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee Meeting please email written comments to the Clerk of
the Board at lmobley@rctc.org prior to November 22, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. and your comments will be
made part of the official record of the proceedings. Members of the public may also make public
comments through their telephone or Zoom connection when recognized by the Chair.
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed
72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available
for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, Executive Order N-
29-20, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at
(951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Committee meeting, including accessibility
and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the
meeting.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
November 23, 2020
Page 2
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss
matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the
agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be
placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Each individual speaker is limited to speak
three (3) continuous minutes or less.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a
finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to
the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an
item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the
Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – OCTOBER 26, 2020
7. CONSTRUCTION ZONE ENHANCEMENT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR THE INTERSTATE 15/STATE ROUTE 91 EXPRESS LANES
CONNECTOR PROJECT
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 20-31-028-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), for
Construction Enhancement Enforcement Programs (COZEEP) Services in support of the
construction of the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector project
(15/91 ELC) for a total amount not to exceed $1,000,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
November 23, 2020
Page 3
8. AMENDMENT 7 WITH MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL
PROJECT
Page 10
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 17-67-027-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 17-67-
027-00, with Michael Baker International (MBI) for additional scope of services
required, as part of planned construction of the Santa Ana River Trail Project (SART 2
– Phase 6) in the amount of $874,626, plus a contingency amount of $87,462, for an
additional amount of $962,088, and a total amount not to exceed $2,219,048;
2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be
required for the Project;
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize
and execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. CITY OF RIVERSIDE FUNDING REQUEST FOR THIRD STREET GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
Page 33
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve programming $18,000,000 of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds for the city of Riverside’s (City) Third Street Grade Separation project;
2) Approve Agreement No. 20-72-027-00 between the Commission and the City for the
programming of $18,000,000 of CMAQ for either the right of way or construction
phase of the Third Street Grade Separation project; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and
upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled
to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, December 28, 2020, Board Chambers, First Floor, County
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
AGENDA ITEM 6
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Monday, October 26, 2020
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to
order by Chair Michael Vargas at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom Meeting ID: 828 9514 9836. Pursuant to
Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee meeting will only be conducted via video conferencing and by
telephone.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Ben Benoit Yxstian Gutierrez
Brian Berkson Bill Zimmerman
Berwin Hanna
Jeff Hewitt
Kevin Jeffries
Clint Lorimore
Wes Speake
Michael Vargas
Scott Vinton
Russ Utz
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 28, 2020
M/S/C (Hanna/Benoit) to approve the minutes as submitted.
Abstain: Utz
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
October 26, 2020
Page 2
6. 15 EXPRESS LANES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW HEARING OFFICER SERVICES AGREEMENT
Anthony Parada, Senior Management Analyst, presented the scope of the 15 Express
Lanes administrative review hearing officer services agreement.
M/S/C (Vinton/Hanna) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-31-011-00 with David Cyprien for 15 Express
Lanes administrative review hearing officer services for a five-year term
in an amount not to exceed $100,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. REQUEST TO DECLARE REAL PROPERTY AS SURPLUS
Hector Casillas, Acting Right of Way Manager, presented the details of the request to
declare real property as surplus.
Mr. Casillas discussed why the Commission no longer required the parcels and that if
future projects in those areas were funded, the Commission still has enough property in
those areas.
Anne Mayer, Executive Director, added the Commission is trying to keep the bare
minimum of necessary property for the future and that maintenance is becoming costly.
M/S/C (Speake/Vinton) to:
1) Declare as surplus the real properties in the cities of Riverside, Perris,
Hemet, and San Jacinto, as specifically identified in this report and
attachments;
2) Authorize the Executive Director to notify public agencies pursuant to
California Government Code (Government Code) Section 54220 et.seq
the properties are available;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus properties for sale
to the public should no response be received; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR STATE
FUNDING AND SENATE BILL 1 FUNDING FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE
PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
October 26, 2020
Page 3
Michelle McCamish, Senior Management Analyst, presented the scope of the agreements
with Caltrans for state funding and SB 1 funding for the operation of the FSP program in
Riverside County.
M/S/C (Hanna/Utz) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-45-017-00 with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to provide state funding for FY 2020/21 for the
operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program
in an amount not to exceed $1,696,153;
2) Approve Agreement No. 21-45-016-00 with Caltrans to provide Senate
Bill (SB) 1 funding for FY 2020/21 for the operation of the Riverside
County FSP program in an amount not to exceed $1,412,787;
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the
Commission;
4) Adopt Resolution No. 20-015, “A Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Authorizing Certain Officials to Execute
Agreements with Caltrans for Freeway Service Patrol Program Funding ”;
and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. REGIONAL 511 IMPLEMENTATION
Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager, presented the details of the
Regional 511 implementation.
M/S/C (Speake/Benoit) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-45-022-00, between the Los Angeles County
Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (LA SAFE), San Bernardino
County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), and the Commission for
Southern California’s 511 traveler information system services for up to
a five-year term in the amount of $865,506, plus a contingency amount
of $25,000, for a total amount not to exceed $890,506;
2) Approve Agreement No. 09-45-067-08, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement
No. 09-45-067-00, with Iteris, Inc. (Iteris) for the continued provision of
operations and maintenance services for the Inland Empire 511 (IE511)
system through June 30, 2021 for an additional amount of $130,000, and
a total amount not to exceed $3,475,785;
3) Approve Agreement No. 14-41-156-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement
No. 14-41-156-00, with Media Beef, Inc. (Media Beef) for the continued
provision of programming and website/mobile application
administration services for IE511 through June 30, 2021 for an additional
amount of $35,000, and a total amount not to exceed $1,473,670;
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
October 26, 2020
Page 4
4) Approve Agreement No. 19-45-080-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 19-45-080-00, with SBCTA to extend the agreement through June 30,
2021 for reimbursement to the Commission for continued IE511
operations;
5) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the
Commission; and
6) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. AGREEMENT FOR VANPOOL VEHICLE LEASING SERVICES
Mr. Cunanan presented the scope of the agreement for vanpool vehicle leasing services.
M/S/C (Hanna/Vinton) to:
1) Award Agreement No. 21-41-021-00 to Airport Van Rental Vanpool,
doing business as AVR Vanpool (AVR), for vanpool vehicle leasing
services for a three-year term, plus one two-year option to extend the
agreement, in an amount not to exceed $875,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreement, including option years, on
behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
There were no Commissioner or Executive Director comments.
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 23, 2020
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager
THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
SUBJECT:
Construction Zone Enhancement Enforcement Program Agreement with the
California Highway Patrol for the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes
Connector Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1)Approve Agreement No. 20-31-028-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), for
Construction Enhancement Enforcement Programs (COZEEP) Services in support of the
construction of the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector project (15/91
ELC) for a total amount not to exceed $1,000,000;
2)Authorize the Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3)Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The 15/91 ELC will provide tolled express lanes connectors between the existing 91 Express
Lanes and the future 15 Express Lanes to the north of SR-91 (Figure 1: Vicinity Map).
The 15/91 ELC involves adding:
1)A single-lane tolled express lane connector from the eastbound 91 Express Lanes to
the future northbound 15 Express lanes that would extend in the median of I-15 in the
vicinity of the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange; and
2)A single-lane tolled express lane connector from the future southbound 15 Express
Lanes that would extend from the median of I-15 in the vicinity of the Hidden Valley
Parkway interchange and connect to the westbound 91 Express Lanes.
In addition, operational improvements are proposed to eastbound SR-91 consisting of
extending the single lane of the eastbound 91 Express Lanes and adding one general purpose
lane through the 15/91 interchange.
1
Agenda Item 7
DISCUSSION:
At the March 11, 2020 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 19-31-074-00 with
Myers-Rados Joint Venture (MRJV) as the design-build (DB) contractor to design and construct
the 15/91 ELC. Over the past several months MRJV has been developing the design plans and
construction sequencing. Currently, MRJV is planning to start construction activities in the
Spring of 2021. MRJV has developed a Traffic Management Plan for construction of the project
which outlines the mitigation measures to be undertaken to minimize the impact of
construction to the traveling public. One of these measures is the utilization of COZEEP
services, where the CHP is used to assist in lane closures required by the DB contractor to
perform work adjacent to traffic.
The current construction staging plans outlines four (4) stages of construction which will also
include several 55-hour weekend closures of parts of the 15/91 interchange during each of
those stages. Based on the current construction staging and closures, it is estimated that the
cost of the COZEEP services will not exceed $1,000,000. This is a pass-through cost that will be
recovered from the DB contractor.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve Agreement No. 20-31-028-00 with the CHP for
COZEEP services in support of the construction of the 15/91 ELC for a total not to exceed
amount of $1,000,000 and authorization for the Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to
legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Staff
is currently working to finalize the agreement with CHP. The COZEEP agreement is a standard
format agreement which has been used by the Commission previously (see attachment).
2
Agenda Item 7
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2020/21
FY 2021/22+ Amount: $ 100,000
$ 900,000
Source of Funds: SB 132 Funds and 91 Express Lanes Toll
Revenue Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003039 81304 00000 0000 605 31 81301
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 11/12/2020
Attachment: Sample COZEEP Agreement
3
Services are authorized to begin.
Cover Letter_0119.xft
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
State of California—Transportation Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
Business Services Section
Contract Services Unit
601 N. 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 843-3610
(800) 735-2929 (TT/TDD)
(800) 735-2922 (Voice)
October 21, 2020
Subject: Agreement Number 18R84000-0
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
TANYA FRALIN
Contracts Manager
Enclosures
Contract status.
CHP 78V, Conflict of Interest & CHP 116, Darfur Certification
Letter of Agreement. Sign and return both copies.
STD. 213, Standard Agreement with attached exhibits. Sign pages 1 and 2 of the STD. 213, Standard
Agreement in blue ink. Return both copies to the attention of Tanya Fralin.
STD. 213A, Standard Agreement Amendment. Sign the first page of the STD. 213A, sign the additional
single STD. 213A, and return both copies.
STD. 210, Short Form Contract. Sign and return both copies.
STD. 204, Payee Data Record. Complete and return.
CCC, Contractor Certification Clauses. Complete and return.
Obtain and forward the liability insurance certificate required by the terms of the Agreement.
Resolution, motion, order, or ordinance from the local governing body authorizing this Agreement.
STD. 807, Payment Bond. Complete and return one copy.
CHP 28, Voluntary Statistical Data. Complete and return.
The enclosed agreement is signed on behalf of the Department of California Highway Patrol. P
The enclosed approved agreement is for your records.
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency
Riverside, CA 92502
Letter of Agreement. Sign and return both copies.
Agreement #18R840000 has been approved for COZEEP services has been approved.
Mark Lancaster, Project Manager
X
Sent via Email to: MLancaster@RCTC.org
4
Oct 20, 2020
BK: ji
5
6
7
8
9
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 23, 2020
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: David Lewis, Capital Projects Manager
THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
SUBJECT: Amendment 7 with Michael Baker International for the Santa Ana River Trail
Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 17-67-027-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 17-67-027-
00, with Michael Baker International (MBI) for additional scope of services required, as
part of planned construction of the Santa Ana River Trail Project (SART 2 - Phase 6) in the
amount of $874,626, plus a contingency amount of $87,462, for an additional amount of
$962,088, and a total amount not to exceed $2,219,048;
2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be
required for the Project;
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The concept for the overall SART from the San Bernardino Mountains to the Pacific Ocean in
Huntington Beach has been in development for many years. Much of the trail has been built
through Orange County with short segments remaining to be completed in Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties. The last remaining segment to be completed in Riverside County is from
the Orange County line to the Hidden Valley Reserve in the cities of Corona and Riverside.
In 2007, the Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District (Park District) was successful
in obtaining Proposition 84 Grant funds for the detailed alignment and construction of the section
of trail from the Orange County line to the US Army Corps of Engineers property in the Prado
Dam basin.
In early 2015, the Park District requested the Commission to manage the delivery of the SART 1
trail project between State Route 71 and the city of Eastvale. In March 2015, the Commission
and Park District entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 15-67-059-00, which
10
Agenda Item 8
reimburses the Commission’s costs for providing project management and procurement of
construction services for the Park District SART 1 project.
Figure 1 – Santa Ana River Trail Project 2 – Phase 6 & Gap Phase
In October 2016, the Park District and Commission amended the MOU, Agreement
No. 15-67-059-01, to reimburse the Commission for its costs for delivery of the SART 2 project,
which runs adjacent to the Green River Golf Course near the city of Corona.
At the November 2017 meeting, the Commission approved an agreement with MBI for
preliminary engineering, final environmental document and design and preparation of the final
Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) package and related construction bid documents for
the construction of the SART 2 project in the amount of $1,256,960, including contingencies.
There have been six amendments to the contract to date for changes in key staff personnel,
which did not result in an increase in cost.
The parties now desire to amend Agreement 17-67-027-00 for a seventh time in order to provide
compensation for preliminary engineering, final environmental document and final design
11
Agenda Item 8
services for the SART 2 project to complete work that was not anticipated in the original scope
of work for the project.
Project Description
The proposed trail consists of a 10-foot wide, paved Class I bike path as well as a 10-foot wide,
decomposed granite equestrian and pedestrian trail for a total combined width of 20 feet. The
trail alignments to be investigated will take the trail from the Orange County line adjacent to and
through the Green River Golf Course and connect with the existing trail at Chino Hills State Park’s
boundary.
DISCUSSION:
The preliminary engineering and environmental document (PAED) phase of the project is about
50% complete, with the environmental document scheduled to be completed by November
2021. Ongoing coordination with the various project stakeholders, including Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA),
Orange County, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), Chino Hills State Park (State
Park), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, has resulted in changes to the project, and additional scope has
been identified that was not anticipated during the PAED/PS&E procurement. Below is a
summary of the changes and additional scope items.
Incorporation of additional trail section
During the development of the environmental document, it was noted that a gap existed
between various trail segments east of the project. This gap, which is approximately 1000 feet
in length, is about ½ mile east of the project, and lies within an environmentally sensitive area.
This was discussed with RCA and the Park District, and they concurred that it would be better to
include this section in SART 2 rather than another project. This change required the following
additional scope of work:
• Additional topographic field survey;
• Changes to project description, updates to environmental documentation and technical
studies;
• Additional field surveys for jurisdictional delineation and expansion of the area of
potential effect; and
• Additional trail design.
Changes to environmental document and technical studies
During project development, the changes described below required that new information and
analysis be incorporated into the technical studies and environmental document. Additional
design work to supplement the environmental analysis is also required for the changes identified
below.
12
Agenda Item 8
• SAWPA requested the realignment of Alternative 2 to avoid impacts to the SAWPA’s Brine
Line.
• State Park requested the project include mitigation to provide trail connection
improvements to the Lower Aliso Canyon Trail of Chino Hills State Park.
• Additional habitat assessment and jurisdictional delineation were conducted due to the
discovery of a protected species nesting within the project area.
Aliso Canyon Creek Crossing
During the planning phase of the project, the Aliso Canyon Creek crossing was intended to be an
“Arizona concrete crossing”. The analysis indicated this would have substantial impacts to waters
of the United States, and it was agreed to place a bridge to span the Aliso Canyon Creek to
eliminate the impacts. This change resulted in the following additional work:
• Additional geotechnical investigation and hydraulics analysis to incorporate a scour
analysis for the bridge;
• Design of a prefabricated pedestrian bridge;
• Additional coordination with SAWPA to minimize the impacts of its easement and access;
and
• 6 additional parcels requiring legal descriptions and exhibits.
Bridge over BNSF railroad tracks
During the planning phase for the project, it was anticipated that a prefabricated trail bridge
would be designed to span the BNSF railroad tracks. Coordination meetings were held with BNSF,
Orange County, and the operators of the Green River Golf Course. During these meetings, BNSF
stated it would not allow the existing private at-grade crossing to remain open if the project
placed the trail bridge over the tracks. BNSF will not approve the trail bridge unless the existing,
private at-grade crossing is closed.
A construction equipment vehicle-rated bridge is therefore required to be constructed to provide
access to the golf course maintenance facility and other facilities located north of the tracks. The
bridge would also allow the possibility of future development of the golf course property. Orange
County will contribute funding toward the cost to upgrade the bridge to support construction
equipment for the future development of the golf course.
The bridge type that complies with Orange County and BNSF requirements is a cast-in-place
concrete bridge, which is substantially different from a prefrabricated trail bridge. To comply
with these requirements, additional scope will include the following:
• Additional right-of-way mapping;
• Additional coordination meetings between Orange County and BNSF;
• Bridge Type Selection Report;
• Bridge design calculations;
• Bridge PS&E – BNSF Vehicular Bridge;
• Bridge plan check revisions, approvals, and local agency permits;
13
Agenda Item 8
• Identification and mitigation for impacts to the golf course including potential retaining
walls, relocation of golf course greens, or relocation of the driving range;
• Railroad permits and license agreement coordination; and
• Assistance in the development of Bridge Operations and Maintenance Agreement
between Park District and the County of Riverside Transportation Department.
Details of these items can be found in the attachment . The additional scope was reviewed and
approved by the Park District.
Funding
All funding for the project, including the changes proposed in this staff report are provided from
the Proposition 84 grant secured by the Park District through the State Coastal Conservancy. The
Commission-Park District MOU provides for the reimbursement of the Commission’s project
costs.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2020/21
FY 2021/22+ Amount: $200,000
$762,088
Source of Funds:
Proposition 84 Grant funds provided by the
State Coastal Conservancy and secured by
Park District
Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project
Accounting No.: 007202 81102 00000 0000 720 67 81101 $962,088
Fiscal Procedures
Approved: Date: 11/11/2020
Attachment: Amendment No. 17-67-027-07 – Scope, Fee and Schedule with Michael Baker
International
14
5 Hutton Centre, Suite 500 | Santa Ana, CA 92707
Office 949 472-3505 | Fax 949 472-8373
November 8, 2020 JN 167982
Mr. David Lewis
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
Subject: Amendment #7 – Additional Work Request for Final Environmental Document,
Preliminary Engineering, and PS&E for SART 2 Through Green River Golf Course
(Agreement, No. 17-67-027-00)
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) appreciates the opportunity to submit this amendment
request to provide additional engineering support and project coordination for the preparation and
processing of the final environmental document, preliminary engineering, and Plans, Specifications, &
Estimates (PS&E) for the Santa Ana River Trail (SART 2) through Green River Golf Course project.
Our proposed Amendment No. 7 request and Compensation documentation are attached as Exhibits “A”
and “B.” These exhibits define our efforts and the fees associated with these tasks. We look forward to
continuing to work with you to provide professional services on this project. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact Steve Huff at 949-855-3624, or SJHuff@mbakerintl.com or
contact Ray Wang at 949-330-4293, or at Ray.Wang@MBakerIntl.com.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
Ray Wang, P.E. Steve Huff, P.E.
Project Manager Vice President
H:\pdata\167982\Admin\Contract\Amendment 7\SART Phase 6 - Amendment 7 FINAL.docx
15
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 2
“Exhibit A”
Amendment No. 7
Phase 1 – Final Environmental Document and Preliminary Engineering Services
Task 1.2 – Project Meetings
Additional meetings are required with various agencies including the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority (SAWPA), Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Riverside County Parks and
Open Space District (RC Parks), Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Metropolitan Water District (MWD),
Orange County Public Works (OCPW), State Parks, and RCTC. These meetings are required to discuss
various topics related to the project including the proposed trail being over the SAWPA 42” SARI line (brine
line) and SAWPA’s maintenance access across Aliso Canyon, State Parks property impacts, BNSF bridge
and property impacts, OCPW access to the north side of the BNSF tracks at BNSF’s demand to close the
at-grade crossing, and review of right-of-way and easement rights of the various stakeholders. In addition,
delays in the project schedule due to SAWPA concerns regarding the Aliso Canyon bridge crossing, RCA
review/concurrence, and State Parks mitigation requirements, have required additional monthly PDT
meetings for the environmental phase. A total of 10 additional meetings are included in this request. The
current schedule shows the final IS/MND being finalized in September 2021, as illustrated on the revised
schedule in the attachment.
Deliverables: Additional Meeting Preparation and Attendance
Task 1.3 – Project Management and Coordination
Additional budget is requested for additional project management and coordination associated with the
additional Scope of Work included with this amendment request including revisions to the environmental
document and associated technical studies and to the preliminary geometric alternatives.
Deliverables: Additional Project Management and Coordination.
Task 1.4 – Preliminary Geometric Alternatives
Additional trail alignment alternatives related to SAWPA’s 42” brine line and its maintenance truck access
are required.
A. Trail Realignment for SAWPA Brine Line:
The trail alignment of Alternative 1 included in the original Scope of Work followed the existing
SAWPA maintenance access road, which is generally over the top of the existing SAWPA 42” brine
line. SAWPA expressed concerns with the additional fill being placed over their line and the
additional loading it would exert on the pipe and requested RCTC to shift the alignment. This
requires a revision of approximately 1,000 feet of the trail alignment to shift it 3 feet to the east.
The grading limits also require revision to accommodate this change.
B. Aliso Canyon Bridge Realignment
Subsequent to the alignment shift request described above, SAWPA also expressed concerned
with maintenance truck accessibility over the proposed bridge across Aliso Canyon. The proposed
bridge is for pedestrian/bicycle use and the design was not anticipated to support their
maintenance vehicles. Per RCTC's request, Michael Baker will evaluate shifting the trail alignment
and bridge locations at the Aliso Canyon crossing (including options for a pedestrian bridge or a
vehicular bridge). This evaluation will require establishing the bridge profile such that the soffit is
placed high enough to avoid impact to the jurisdictional boundaries of the waterway. Preliminary
16
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 3
grading and layout of the bridge wingwalls will be done to ensure adequate space is provided to
maintain access for SAWPA maintenance vehicles. Coordination with various agencies and
multiple exhibits are required to address this matter. Critical design factors related to the final
location of the bridge include not encroaching into the mapped FEMA floodplain limits or the
existing MWD easement, and hydraulic effects from the existing grade control structure
constructed by SAWPA to protect their 42” brine line. Michael Baker will strive to refine the
location of the bridge to avoid these conflicts. If these conflicts are unavoidable however, a
quantitative scour analysis, including additional geotechnical investigation and analysis, and an
encroachment permit from MWD would be required. These tasks are described under Optional
Tasks. It is still assumed that the Aliso Canyon bridge will remain as a pedestrian bridge with a
prefabricated superstructure per the original Scope of Work.
C. Lower Aliso Canyon Trail Connection
Based on a request provided by Enrique Arroyo at State Parks, improvements near the Lower Aliso
Canyon Trail are required to offset impacts to State Parks land. Michael Baker will coordinate with
State Parks to further define these preliminary improvements. This task includes the preliminary
design of this connection to gain concurrence from State Parks and to define impacts for inclusion
in the IS/MND. As noted in Enrique Arroyo’s email to Alan Ashimine of Michael Baker dated June
23, 2020, State Parks’ requests at this location include improvements to the existing gate/fence
from the slope on the east to approximately 10 feet west of the gate, removal of an existing cattle
grate, improved grades/transitions from the Lower Aliso Canyon Trail to SART with decomposed
granite, and appropriate signage.
Deliverables: Additional Preliminary Geometric alternatives, Additional exhibits for pedestrian and
vehicular bridge options
Task 1.5 – Draft and Final Environmental Document
A. Trail Realignment for SAWPA Brine Line
Revisions of the Alternative 1 trail alignment described under Task 1.4A, require associated
revisions to the IS/MND. Based on the alignment shift and updated grading limits to avoid fill and
loading over SAWPA facilities, updates to relevant graphics, tables, and impact discussions within
the Administrative Draft IS/MND are required. Revisions to the Administrative Draft IS/MND will
also be made to reflect revised technical studies that incorporate the revised Alternative 1 trail
alignment.
B. Cultural Resources Assessment – Built Environment Resources
Applied Earthworks’ (subconsultant to Michael Baker) original Scope of Work had assumed an
analysis of two built environment resources as part of the Cultural Resources Assessment (the
BNSF railroad and Green River Golf Course). However, as a result of field work conducted for the
proposed project, Applied Earthworks had to analyze three additional historic resources (a historic
camp, former/abandoned railroad grade along the Alternative 1 alignment, and two buildings
with associated refuse scatters) for consideration within the Cultural Resources Assessment. As
part of this work effort, Applied Earthworks prepared Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
523 Forms for the three resources, and archival research to evaluate the significance. The results
of the field analysis and the DPR forms were incorporated into the impact analysis.
C. Aliso Canyon Bridge Realignment
Per direction received from RC Parks, the current Administrative Draft IS/MND assumes a
prefabricated pedestrian bridge crossing that spans Aliso Canyon under Alternative 1. Based on
17
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 4
discussions with RCTC and as described in Task 1.4B, Michael Baker understands that the trail
alignment will need to shift to the to allow SAWPA to access their existing crossing at Aliso Canyon
along the current alignment of their access road. Based on the revised grading limits and the
updated bridge location, the project description in the IS/MND, exhibits, and associated analysis
will need to be revised to reflect the changes at this location. This task also includes revisions to
the Administrative Draft IS/MND to reflect revised technical studies that also incorporate the
revised bridge alignment.
D. Lower Aliso Canyon Trail Connection
As indicated in the Task 1.4C, Michael Baker will coordinate with State Parks to further define
improvements at the Lower Aliso Canyon Trail connection. Michael Baker will revise the
Administrative Draft IS/MND to reflect these requested improvements. Based on revised grading
limits and new facilities at this location, an updated IS/MND project description, exhibits, and
associated analysis to reflect changes at this location will be required.
E. Habitat Assessment & Jurisdictional Delineation
Based upon requests from CDFW during the RCA pre-application meeting on April 8, 2020,
Michael Baker regulatory specialists will conduct an additional field survey to re-confirm the limits
of State and Federal jurisdictional resources along the proposed alternative. Information provided
by the RCA and regulatory agencies during the pre-application meeting and results of the field
survey will be used to update the previously prepared Habitat Assessment and MSHCP
Consistency Analysis Report and Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report.
This task also includes updates related to modifications to grading limits associated with shifting
the trail to avoid impact to the SWPA 42” brine line, the Aliso Canyon crossing, and entry to the
Lower Aliso Trail, as noted in Tasks 1.5 A, 1.5C, and 1.5D. Updates to the Habitat Assessment and
Jurisdictional Delineation are expected to include relevant graphics, tables, and impact
discussions, as applicable.
F. Joint Project Review Application/Processing
Because the project is within designated Criteria Cells by the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), potential project effects to riparian/ riverine
resources will be subject to Joint Project Review (JPR) by the RCA. This process includes a 60-day
review period of the DBESP Report (see Task 1.6) by the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFW).
Michael Baker will prepare the JPR application to ensure the project complies with all MSHCP
conservation objectives and requirements. Once the application has been approved, the
application will be submitted to RCA. Once submitted, Michael Baker will provide technical
support to RCTC to review and respond to comments received by the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW.
This task assumes one (1) round of review/revisions with RCTC before accepted as final, and up
to two (2) rounds of review/revisions with the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW. Michael Baker will submit
a hard copy of the final JPR Application package to RCTC for submittal to the RCA.
G. Administrative Draft IS/MND – Remove Alternative 2
The IS/MND currently analyzes two build alternatives at an equal level of detail. Based on
comments on the Administrative Draft IS/MND provided by BB&K, a number of additional
studies/analyses will be required prior to the IS/MND 30-day public review period, such as the
DBESP, hydraulics analysis, and golf course impacts memorandum. These documents would need
to address the impacts of Alternative 2, in order to provide an equal level of detail. To avoid
“throw away” work and to minimize cost, this task would remove Alternative 2 from the IS/MND
18
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 5
and limit the analysis to Alternative 1. Previously approved technical studies that already address
Alternatives 1 and 2 would remain unchanged, and that changes would be limited to the IS/MND.
Key components of this task include updating various exhibits throughout the document,
modifying the project description to exclude Alternative 2, and updating impact analysis for
portions of the document where the analysis is unique to Alternative 2 is provided.
At the request of RCTC, Michael Baker has developed an estimate of costs associated with leaving
Alternative 2 in the IS/MND. Approximate costs associated with additional analysis of Alternative
2 consist of the following key tasks:
· Hydraulics analysis to analyze low water crossing for Alternative 2 at Aliso Canyon
($45,000)
· Golf course impacts analysis and coordination with Green River Golf Course staff to
address golf course impacts specific to Alternative 2 ($15,000)
· DBESP/JPR processing to account for Alternative 2 ($10,000)
As shown above, in total it is anticipated that leaving Alternative 2 in the IS/MND would incur
roughly $70,000 in additional costs, less the $7,549 that is being requested as part of this task for
the removal of Alternative 2 in the IS/MND. This cost estimate assumes that Alternatives 1 and 2
would be analyzed at an equal level of detail within the IS/MND.
Deliverables: Draft & Final IS/MND/EA, Additional Cultural Resources Assessment
Task 1.6 – Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP)
Michael Baker’s existing Scope of Work includes a task for preparation of a Habitat Mitigation Monitoring
Plan (HMMP). However, because impacts to riparian/riverine areas would occur as a result of the
proposed project within the Western Riverside County MSHCP, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent
or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report will be required in lieu of the HMMP. Michael Baker will prepare
the DBESP Report and will submit it to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) for review and
approval. The report will be prepared in accordance with the RCA’s DBESP Report template dated April
2019, 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, LBVI, 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, Santa Ana 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:
19
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 6
o Effects on Conserved Habitats;
o Effects on the riparian/riverine species listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2; and
o Effects on riparian linkages and function of the MSHCP Conservation Area.
This task assumes one (1) round of review/revisions to the draft DBESP Report before accepted as final by
RCTC, and two (2) rounds of review/revisions with the RCA and Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFW).
Additional review cycles will be considered extra work and will be subject to an additional amendment
request.
Michael Baker will utilize the $17,189 from the original contract for the HMMP for this task. Therefore,
this task will not require any additional budget as part of this amendment.
Deliverables: DBESP
Task 1.7 – Geotechnical Investigation – Scour Analysis
As indicated in Task 2.7, the final placement of the Aliso Canyon bridge requires a detailed scour analysis,
additional geotechnical investigation and analysis would be required. To evaluate the scour potential, the
geotechnical subconsultant, Diaz Yourman Associates (DYA), will collect no more than four grab samples
at the creek bottom to perform a sieve analysis. Once the scour information is available, DYA will
incorporate the long-term and short-term scour values into the foundation design based on current 2019
California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge design method.
Deliverables: Field Samples, Sieve Analyses, and Foundation Report
Phase 2 – PS&E Services
Task 2.1 – Project Meetings
Additional meetings are anticipated to be required during PS&E with various stakeholder agencies
including SAWPA, RCA, BNSF, MWD, OCPW, and State Parks, for further refining of the Aliso Canyon Bridge
and trail alignment, trail connections requested by State Parks, and coordinating the right of way and
access easement needs. Eight (8) additional meetings are included in this amendment request. The final
PS&E is anticipated to be approved in July 2022, as illustrated on the revised schedule in the attachment.
Deliverables: Additional Meeting Preparation and Attendance
Task 2.2 – Project Management and Coordination
Additional budget is requested for project management and coordination associated with the additional
Scope of Work for the PS&E included with this amendment request.
Deliverables: Additional Project Management and Coordination
Task 2.3 – Topographic Field Survey and Control
Michael Baker will perform topographic field survey to support the additional length of trail as described
in tasks 2.10A and 2.10B. The aerial topography currently being used for the project does not extend to
the gap between SART Phase 5 and SART Phase 3 described in Task 2.10A. Hence, field survey shots will
be obtained for cross sections at 25-foot intervals in lieu of acquiring additional aerial topography. Cross
sections will include shots on existing paved/graded limits of the existing path, break lines (if apparent),
fence lines, utility appurtenances, and other features as needed to define existing improvements. The
20
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 7
additional improvements described in Task 2.10B require supplemental field survey to define existing
improvements and to establish accurate join locations.
Deliverables: Additional design survey
Task 2.4 – Right-of-Way Mapping
RCTC provided 12 title reports in April 2020 to Michael Baker to analyze and develop a cadastral Land Net
Base, which will serve as the basis for design and right of way mapping effort. The cadastral land net base
will be developed from existing record maps and deeds, which will provide record property lines.
Boundary survey is explicitly excluded from this task. We will review vesting deeds and record
encumbrances itemized in the title reports. Easements of record, if plottable, will be computed and
incorporated into the land net base cad file. This cadastral land net base file will then be used to prepare
Legal descriptions and exhibits.
Initial review of these title reports indicates that 12 separate parcels will be impacted by the proposed
trail improvements (Alternative 1) as listed below. At the time of preparation of the original Scope of
Work, the true extent of the number of parcels that would be impacted, and the number of parcel
encumbrances associated with various easements, were unknown. The level of effort to develop the right
of way mapping and land net base map is significantly more than was anticipated in the original Scope of
Work. Additionally, with the extension of the trail to join the westerly limit of existing SART Phase 5 and
closing the gap between SART Phase 5 and SART Phase 3 (described in Task 2.10 A), four (4) additional
parcels are being impacted including 101-120-07, 09, 101-210-018, and 101-140-005.
1. BNSF RR – APN: 1033-171-02
2. OCFCD – APN: 101-120-012
3. OCFCD – APN: 101-130-02, 03, 29
4. OCFCD – APN: 101-130-016
5. OCFCD – APN: 1033-171-17, 20
6. OCFCD – APN: 1033-171-38
7. BNSF RR – APN: 101-130-080;101-140-
027, 32, 34, 35
8. RCFCD – APN: 101-140-005
9. SAWPA – APN: 1033-171-04
10. State of CA & OCFCD – APN: 1033-171-
15, 26, 29, 32
11. State of California – APN: 101-120-01,
02, 05, 07, 09
12. State of California – APN: 101-210-018
Deliverables: Additional Land Net Base Mapping
Task 2.5 – Legal Description and Exhibit
Based on the initial review of the title reports, five (5) legal descriptions and exhibits will be required for
permanent trail easement purposes and five (5) legal descriptions and exhibits will be required for
temporary construction easement (TCE) purposes for BNSF, OCFCD, RCFCD, SAWPA, and the State of
California. The original Scope of Work included a total of four (4) legal descriptions and exhibits. In
addition, two separate legal descriptions will be prepared in support of encroachment permitting or other
agreement purposes, one for BNSF crossing, and another one for the location where proposed trail
intersects with the MWD pipeline easement. Michael Baker will prepare a total of eight (8) additional legal
description and exhibits.
It is assumed that conveyance documents (deeds), title work, appraisal, acquisition coordination and
recording services will be the responsibility of the Client.
Deliverables: Eight (8) Additional Legal Description and Exhibits
21
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 8
Task 2.7 – Hydrology and Hydraulics Report – Scour Analysis
Due to concerns by SAWPA regarding their maintenance accessibility and through discussions with RCTC
noted above, the trail alignment at Aliso Canyon and the corresponding pedestrian bridge, will likely
require shifting the bridge to the east, as described under Task 1.4B. Depending upon how far east the
bridge needs to move, it may require a qualitative scour analysis, including additional geotechnical
investigation and analysis, due to placing the northerly abutment within the mapped FEMA floodplain
and/or due to the relative location between the 42” brine line grade control structure (constructed by
SAWPA) and the bridge. In an effort to keep the bridge out of the floodplain, it may be necessary to place
the northerly abutment within the MWD easement just north of mapped FEMA floodplain limits, thus
requiring an encroachment permit from MWD.
Because the original Scope of Work included a pedestrian bridge outside of the floodplain boundary and
the existence of the SAWPA 42” brine line grade control structure was unknown, only a qualitative
assessment of scour potential was anticipated. This task would include preparation of 100-year hydrology
for Aliso Canyon, channel hydraulics for Aliso Canyon (HEC-RAS), scour analysis for the Aliso Canyon flow
(abutment/contraction/long-term), and analysis for scour resulting from a General Design Memorandum
release from Prado Dam. Due to the offset in timing associated with the free-draining Aliso Canyon vs. the
retained event behind Prado Dam, the analysis will be performed for two separate events and
superimposed. A simultaneous model of both storms and/or scour events is excluded from this Scope of
Work. The effects of the grade control structure (i.e. plunge pool) and the hydraulics of the revised bridge
location could also potentially require an analysis for scour from both Aliso Canyon and the Santa Ana
River.
Coordination and research with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
(RCFC&WCD) and with SAWPA has concluded that there is no hydrology study available for use for Aliso
Canyon. Hydrology for Aliso Canyon is necessary to perform the scour analysis. Scour analysis would be
performed using Sieve Analysis results described in Task 1.7. The analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics,
and scour will be documented in the project’s Hydraulics, Hydrology, and Scour Basis of Design Report.
Deliverables: Aliso Canyon Hydrology and Bridge Quantitative Scour Analysis (within Hydrology and
Hydraulics Report)
Task 2.10 – Trail improvement Plans
Revisions to the trail alignment and connection points require additional design budget.
A. Extend Project Limits
The project limit included in the original Scope of Work terminated before entering the State Park
boundary at the northeast end of the project. Per RCTC direction, the trail alignment will now be
extended into the State Park boundary to join the westerly limit of existing SART Phase 5
(approximately 600 feet in length). Additionally, the project will be expanded to close the gap
between SART Phase 5 and SART Phase 3 (approximately 1,200 feet in length). Budget
Reallocation No. 3 (approved on 10/16/2019) addressed this gap closure for the preliminary
alignment and the environmental document only and noted that the PS&E component of this
additional work would be addressed in a future amendment.
B. Green River Golf Course Parking Lot Improvements
According to current direction from RCTC, the BNSF bridge will be designed for vehicular access
instead of a pedestrian bridge only as indicated in the original contract. A roadway ramp
22
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 9
connection will be required to connect the BNSF bridge down to the existing Green River Golf
Course parking lot for the golf course maintenance vehicles. This will provide the necessary access
to the golf course itself and to the maintenance yard, which is on the north side of the railroad
tracks. This will have greater impacts on the surrounding areas, such as reconfiguring the Golf
Course parking lot, maintaining the parking lot traffic flow, and modifying the driving range
operation. This task assumes that two (2) retaining walls will be required on both the parking lot
side of the ramp and the driving range side of the ramp to minimize impacts to the Golf Course
and driving range operation. The retaining walls will have a length of approximately 220’, a
maximum height of 10’, and will be a standard Caltrans wall on a spread footing. It is assumed
that Green River Golf Course will lead the effort and prepare plans for reconfiguring the parking
lot, driving range operation and golf course hole layout as necessary. Michael Baker will prepare
a conceptual layout of the parking lot reconfiguration and provide general support to Green River
Golf Course staff in reviewing and discussing various impacts to their facilities as they develop
their improvement plans to restore operations. This task will also include an effort to prepare an
overall golf course impact analysis and memorandum for Alternative 1 (preferred alternative) per
RCTC legal counsel’s directions on the CEQA document.
C. Lower Aliso Canyon Trail Connection
Upon further coordination with State Parks to define preliminary improvements during Phase 1
as described in Task 1.4C, Michael Baker will incorporate improvements at the connection to the
Lower Aliso Canyon Trail into the final engineering design, including improvements to the existing
gate/fence, removal of an existing cattle grate, new grading limits and transitions from the Lower
Aliso Canyon Trail to SART, and appropriate signage. Michael Baker anticipates three (3) round of
review comments by State Parks and will address those in the final design plans.
D. Construction A+B Bid Package
Michael Baker will prepare a single bid-ready final PS&E design package at the end of the phase
2 (PS&E design phase) for the project, including the trail improvement design, the Aliso Canyon
bridge and BNSF vehicular bridge design with work associated with the BNSF vehicular bridge and
all trail improvements southerly of the BNSF tracks designated as a separate bid component as
part of a A+B Bid package. In this single A+B bid-ready PS&E design package, Michael Baker team
will clearly indicate the limits of Construction Package A and Construction Package B.
Construction Package A would be for the trail improvement design up to the north of BNSF
crossing at approximately Station 29+00 based on the conceptual Alternative 1 alignment (North
segment). The Aliso Canyon Pedestrian bridge will be included in the Construction Package A as
well. Construction Package B would be for the rest of trail improvement plan from approximately
Station 29+00 to the beginning of the trail at the Orange County border line (South segment),
including the BNSF vehicular bridge design, as indicated on task 2.11 and 2.13 below, and all the
access ramp improvement plans near the Golf Course parking lot, as indicated on task 2.10B
above. The exact separation limit between north segment and south segment will be further
defined during the final PS&E design, but extra effort will be necessary to delineate the plan set
so the contractor would clearly understand the limit and provide the A+B bid . It is anticipated
that some type of Project Limits Map will be prepared as part of the overall plan set, as well as
one (1) new sheet for the trail plan, profile and grading necessary to tie into the existing trail at
approximately Station 29+00 and to reflect the divide line between the A+B bidding limits. For the
cost estimate of the final PS&E package, we will provide different sections for both Construction
Package A and B and combined overall cost. A single set of construction specifications will be
prepared with any unique elements that may be associated solely with Construction Package B
segregated as may be required. We anticipate that more coordination will be required with RCTC,
23
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 10
OCPW, County of San Bernardo, and other related parties to reach concurrence and to finalize a
satisfactory Construction A+B bid package.
Deliverables: Additional Project Trail Improvement Plans; Construction A+B Bid Package
Task 2.11 – Bridge Type Selection Report – BNSF Vehicular Bridge
The original Scope of Work includes a pedestrian bridge over the BNSF railroad comprised of a
prefabricated bridge superstructure with a cast-in-place concrete substructure. This structure concept
would allow pedestrian and bicyclists access across the bridge and would connect to the trail on the north
and south side of the railroad. Michael Baker’s Scope of Work of services included design of the
substructure and coordination with vendor(s) for the prefabricated superstructure.
In a coordination meeting with BNSF representative(s) on 5/7/2019, BNSF stated that they would not
approve an additional crossing of their right of way without closing the existing at-grade crossing currently
used by the Green River Golf Course, citing safety as their primary concern. This affects the stakeholders
that need access over the BNSF line, and in turn affects the type of bridge needed to cross it. Green River
Golf course utilizes the at-grade crossing for their maintenance vehicles, equivalent to typical HL93
highway trucks. In addition, OCPW needs access for heavy construction loading equivalent to a CAT 657G
Wheel Tractor-Scraper. As a result, this requires a new bridge concept and design.
As part of the Bridge Type Selection, different bridge types over the BNSF railway will be analyzed for
design efficiency and cost effectiveness. Anticipated superstructure types include precast or steel spliced
girders, or a through-girder type bridge. From those, BNSF and RCTC will select the preferred bridge option
to move forward into the Type Selection Report and development of the General Plan sheet.
The Type Selection Report will include additional data to the original scoped Report. Preliminary
calculations for the bridge superstructure, superstructure bridge layout based on the trail profile, vertical
clearance checks and calculations of superstructure loads onto the substructure for coordination with the
Geotechnical Engineer will be included. Additional cost estimates for the bridge superstructure elements
will also be calculated. The final report will be submitted to RCTC and BSNF for review and approval.
Michael Baker anticipates two (2) rounds of review comments by BNSF, RCTC and County of San
Bernardino and will address those in the final Type Selection Report.
Deliverables: Bridge Type Selection Report
Task 2.12 – Bridge Design Calculations – BNSF Vehicular Bridge
The original Scope of Work included design of the bridge substructure, supporting a prefabricated
superstructure, for two single span bridges. One bridge is proposed to cross over the BNSF right-of-way
and the other bridge is proposed to cross Aliso Creek. With the proposed vehicular bridge now required
over the BNSF right-of-way, a prefabricated bridge is no longer feasible at this location. In turn, a complete
structural analysis and independent check of the entire bridge structure including the superstructure will
be performed.
Bridge Calculations:
The calculations as part of the addition of the bridge superstructure design will utilize in-house
structural analysis and design computer programs. Seismic calculations will follow Caltrans
current seismic design criteria (and BNSF criteria for the railroad crossing). A bound set of design
calculations for the bridge design will be prepared for the additional superstructure design
24
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 11
calculations and will be combined with the substructure design in a complete set in accordance
with Caltrans and BNSF requirements. The anticipated superstructure types include precast or
steel spliced girders, or a through-girder type bridge.
Independent Design Check:
The revised bridge type requires an independent bridge design check to be performed by a
licensed civil engineer experienced in bridge design. The process will be similar to but
independent of the initial design process. The independent check includes design calculations,
review of bridge design details, review of bridge special provisions, and bridge quantity
calculations for the full bridge superstructure and substructure.
Michael Baker will submit the design plans and calculations to BNSF, RCTC as well as County of San
Bernardino for review. This BNSF vehicular bridge is within the jurisdiction of the County of San
Bernardino. It is anticipated two (2) rounds of review comments will be received from BNSF, RCTC and
County of San Bernardino. Michael Baker will address those comments in the final bridge design and
calculations.
Deliverables: Additional Calculations and Independent Design Check for Superstructure and Substructure
for a Vehicular Bridge
Task 2.13 – Bridge Plans, Specifications and Estimate – BNSF Vehicular Bridge
The bridge plans will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans Design Documents typically used for
highway bridge structures. The table below summarizes each of the plan sheets required for the BNSF
vehicular bridge and whether the plan sheets require additional design effort, or are new plan sheets, due
to inclusion of the required superstructure and larger substructure for the vehicular loading design.
BNSF Bridge Plans
No. of Sheets New or Additional work Description
1 Additional General Plan
1 Additional Index to Plans
1 New Deck Contours
1 Additional Foundation Plan
2 Additional Abutment Layout
3 Additional Abutment Details
1 Additional Typical Section
2 New Girder Layout
3 New Girder Details
1 New Stay in Place Deck Details
1 New Drainage Details
3 Additional Ret Wall Sections/ Details
2 Additional Approach Details
1 Additional Miscellaneous Details
21 Total
Additional Caltrans Standard Special Provisions (SSPs) for superstructure elements will be included.
25
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 12
Additional quantity calculations and cost estimates will be prepared for the revised vehicular bridge type,
including the superstructure.
Assumptions and Exclusions:
The following assumptions and clarifications were made for this amendment request:
1. No additional alignment revisions beyond those described herein will be required for either the
preliminary engineering or final PS&E phases.
2. Based upon previous meetings with BNSF, it is assumed that BNSF will approve the abutment in
their right of way. If the abutments cannot be placed within their right of way, a longer bridge will
be required, which will have a detrimental impact on the bridge and trail design and would require
additional budget.
3. Per review of the IS/MND, BB&K requested that the hydraulic analysis be conducted during the
environmental phase instead of the PS&E phase. It is assumed that Task 2.7 from the original
contract will be reallocated into Phase 1.
4. There are no anticipated utilities located on the bridge crossing at the BNSF location.
5. Erosion control plans are assumed to not be required. The project specifications will direct the
contractor to hydroseed all disturbed slopes and will include the required seed mix.
Task 2.16 – Plan Check Revisions / Approvals / Local Agency Permits
The placement of the bridge over Aliso Canyon will encroach into the adjacent MWD 100-foot easement,
Michael Baker would prepare and submit an application package for the encroachment permit from
MWD. This task will include two (2) draft and one (1) final application package to MWD. One copy of each
application would also be formally submitted to MWD and RCTC. It is assumed that two rounds of review
comments will be received from MWD and RCTC.
Michael Baker has briefly discussed this option with MWD however, they must review the design plans to
assess the impact to their 108” waterline within their easement. Conceptually, MWD has requested that
the abutment be placed as far away from their waterline as possible. If MWD does not allow the abutment
within their easement, the bridge length would be shortened to place the abutment into the floodplain,
thus requiring Task 1.6 and 2.7. This task will include preparing additional exhibits as necessary to
coordinate with MWD. Michael Baker will not begin the bridge design tasks until MWD has formally stated
that they will accept the abutment within their easement.
Deliverables: Encroachment Permit from MWD
Task 2.18 – Railroad Permits / License Agreement Coordination
Michael Baker will provide additional coordination with County of San Bernardino in regarding with the
future maintenance agreement for the BNSF vehicular bridge, which is located within the jurisdiction
boundary of County of San Bernardino. The additional effort includes preparing project exhibits, attending
three (3) additional meetings with County of San Bernardino, and coordination with emails and phone
calls to secure the maintenance agreement that will be prepared by the County of San Bernardino and
RCTC.
Michael Baker will reach out to the CPUC local representative to confirm the requirements to
decommission the existing at grade crossing and construct a new bridge over the BNSF tracks. Michael
Baker will inquire if CPUC GO-88B applies to our project or if a separate application will need to be filed,
26
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 13
since the existing and proposed crossings are not at the same location. Michael Baker will assist RCTC and
coordinate with BNSF to execute the easement and agreement.
Deliverables: Maintenance Agreement Coordination; CPUC and BNSF Coordination
Optional Task:
Task O.1 – Separate Construction Package A and Construction Package B into Individual Bid Packages
As described in task 2.10D, after the final Construction A+B design package has completed the bidding
process, if the bids for Part B (BNSF bridge) are not acceptable from a budget standpoint RCTC may decide
to only award the Construction Package A (north segment) for construction and will separately bid the
Construction Package B (south segment) for future construction. This optional task O.1 is to divide the
final PS&E package into two separate construction bid packages: Construction Package A (north segment)
and Construction Package B (south segment). The design effort on task O.1 will include:
Construction Package A – Trail Improvement on the north side of the railroad at approximately Sta 29+00:
· Title Sheet - Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only
· Sheet Index – Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only
· General/Construction Notes Sheet – Update to include the north segment of the trail
improvement only
· Typical Sections Sheets - Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only
· Horizontal Control sheets - Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only
· Trail Plan & Profile sheets – Update to include the one (1) new sheet completed as part of Task
2.10D for the trail plan, profile and grading necessary to tie into the existing trail at approximately
Station 29+00. Note: the maintenance truck route from the GRGC maintenance yard to the West
Access Road will be part of Construction Package B.
· Drainage sheets - Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only
· Construction Details sheets – Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only
· Signing and Striping sheets – Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only
· Bridge plan for Aliso Canyon pedestrian bridge – place all bridge plans in Construction Package A
· Renumber and re-cross reference all the sheets if required
· Specifications – Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only and the Aliso
Canyon pedestrian bridge
· Cost Estimate – Update to include the north segment of the trail improvement only and the Aliso
Canyon pedestrian bridge
Construction Package B – Trail Improvement on the south side of the railroad and BNSF Vehicular Bridge:
Since the Construction Package B will be a standalone package for separate bidding additional or revised
plan sheets will be required as follows:
· Title Sheet –Revise the established plan sheet from the original plan set to prepare ONE (1) new
sheet for Construction Package B
· Sheet Index – Revise the established plan sheet from the original plan set to prepare ONE (1) new
sheet for new Construction Package B
· General/Construction Notes sheet – Revise the established plan sheet from the original plan set
to prepare ONE (1) new sheet for Construction Package B
· Typical Sections Sheets – Revise the established plan sheet from the original plan set to prepare
to prepare ONE (1) new sheet for Construction Package B
27
David Lewis
November 8, 2020
Page 14
· Horizontal Control sheets - Revise the established plan sheet from the original plan set to prepare
ONE (1) new sheet for Construction Package B
· Trail Plan & Profile sheets – Update to include the south segment of the trail improvement only;
Revise the sheets and add one (1) new sheet for the trail plan, profile and grading necessary to
tie into the location where the trail alignment on Construction Package A terminated at
approximately Station 29+00
· Drainage sheets - Update to include the south segment of the trail improvement only
· Construction Details sheets – Update to include the south segment of the trail improvement only
· Signing and Striping sheets – Update to include the south segment of the trail improvement only
· Bridge plans for BNSF Vehicular bridge – place all bridge plans in Construction Package B
· Renumber and re-cross reference all the sheets as required
· Specifications – Recompile the new specification documents to include the south segment of the
trail improvement only and the BNSF vehicular bridge
· Cost Estimate – Update to include the south segment of the trail improvement only and the BNSF
vehicular bridge
It is assumed that separate permitting for a standalone Construction Package B will not be required as all
permits would be obtained for the entire project as part of the original scope.
Deliverables: Construction Package A; Construction Package B
Phase 3 – Bidding and Construction Support Services
Bidding and Construction Support Services were included in the original contract. During the Phase 1
Environmental Document and Preliminary Engineering Services phase, the budget for Phase 3 was
reallocated to Phase 1 for additional required effort as described in Budget Reallocation Requests #1, #3,
and #5. As a result, there is a need to re-establish a budget for the Construction Support Services.
In this amendment, RCTC agreed that Michal Baker will request the same scope and budget as described
on the original contract for Phase 3 for the Bidding and Construction Support Services. In lieu of repeating
the same scope of work, which can be referred from the original contract document, the list of sub tasks
includes:
Task 3.1 – Pre-Bid and Pre-Construction Meetings
Task 3.2 – Construction Bidding Phase Support
Task 3.3 – Bid Schedule Preparation
Task 3.4 – Addendum Preparation Assistance
Task 3.5 – Field Meetings (8)
Task 3.6 – Field Support Services
Task 3.7 – Shop Drawing Review
Task 3.8 – Plan Revision and Modifications
Task 3.9 – Record Drawings
28
Exhibit "B"$104.09 Avg Raw Rate $80.50 Avg Raw Rate $80.50 Avg Raw Rate $69.65 Avg Raw Rate $60.35 Avg Raw Rate $52.84 Avg Raw Rate $46.08 Avg Raw Rate $35.58 Avg Raw Rate $84.63 Avg Raw Rate$46.31Fringe (44.49%)$35.81Fringe (44.49%)$35.81Fringe (44.49%)$30.99Fringe (44.49%)$26.85Fringe (44.49%)$23.51Fringe (44.49%)$20.50Fringe (44.49%)$15.83Fringe (44.49%)$37.65Fringe (44.49%)$100.92OH (96.95%)$78.04OH (96.95%)$78.04OH (96.95%)$67.53OH (96.95%)$58.51OH (96.95%)$51.23OH (96.95%)$44.67OH (96.95%)$34.49OH (96.95%)$82.05OH (96.95%)$251.32 per hour $194.35 per hour $194.35 per hour $168.17 per hour $145.71 per hour $127.58 per hour $111.25 per hour $85.90 per hour $204.33 per hourTask Sub-TaskDescriptionHours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $Hours$ Hours Fee Hours Fee Hours Fee1.2Project Meetings$0 30 $5,831 0$0 $0 20 $2,914 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 50 $8,745 0$0 0$0 50 $8,745 1.3Project Management and Coordination0$0 110 $21,379 0$0 $0 0$0 00$0 0$0 0$0 110 $21,379 0$0 0$0 110 $21,379 1.4Preliminary Geometric AlternativesA. Trail Realignment for SAWPA Brine Line0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 40 $5,828 0$0 $0 0$0 0$0 40 $5,828 0$0 0$0 40 $5,828 B. Aliso Canyon Bridge Realignment 0$0 12 $2,332 0$0 $0 50 $7,285 0$0 $0 32 $2,749 0$0 94 $12,366 0$0 0$0 94 $12,366 C. Lower Aliso Canyon Trail Connection0$0 5$972 0$0 $0 30 $4,371 0$0 12 $1,335 0$0 0$0 47 $6,678 0$0 0$0 47 $6,678 1.5Draft and Final Environmental DocumentA. Trail Realignment for SAWPA Brine Line0$0 8 $1,555 0$0 $0 5$729 0$0 30 $3,338 $0 0$0 43 $5,621 0$0 0$0 43 $5,621 B. Cultural Resources Assessment - Built Environment Resources0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 24 $1,892 0$0 24 $1,892 C. Aliso Canyon Bridge Realignment 0$0 6 $1,166 0$0 $0 10 $1,457 0$0 20 $2,225 0$0 0$0 36 $4,848 0$0 0$0 36 $4,848 D. Lower Aliso Canyon Trail Connection0$0 8 $1,555 0$0 $0 12 $1,749 0$0 20 $2,225 $0 0$0 40 $5,528 0$0 0$0 40 $5,528 E. Habitat Assessment & Jurisdictional Delineation0$0 6 $1,166 0$0 $0 28 $4,080 $0 80 $8,900 $0 0$0 114 $14,146 0$0 $0 114 $14,146 F. Joint Project Review Application Processing0$0 4$777 0$0 $0 16 $2,331 $0 40 $4,450 $0 0$0 60 $7,559 0$0 0$0 60 $7,559 G. Admin Draft IS/MND - Remove Alternative 20$0 8 $1,555 0$0 $0 12 $1,749 $0 32 $3,560 $0 0$0 52 $6,863 52 $6,863 1.6DBESP (In Lieu of HMMP)0$0 $0 0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 1.7Geotechnical Investigation - Scour Analysis0$0 $0 0$0 0$0 $0 0$0 0$0 0$0 00$0 20 $3,931 20 $3,931 Sub-Total 0$0 197 $38,288 0$0 0$0 223 $32,493 0$0 234 $26,034 32 $2,749 0$0 686 $99,563 24 $1,892 20 $3,931 730 $105,386 Fee (10%)$0 $3,829 $0 $0 $3,249 $0 $2,603 $275 $0 $9,956 $9,956 Total$0 $42,117 $0 $0 $35,742 $0 $28,637 $3,024 $0 $109,520 $115,343 2.1Project Meetings0$0 16 $3,110 0$0 $0 16 $2,331 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 32 $5,441 0$0 0$0 32 $5,441 2.2Project Management and Coordination0$0 240 $46,645 0$0 $0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 240 $46,645 0$0 0$0 240 $46,645 2.3Topographic Field Survey and Control0$0 $0 0$0 4$673 12 $1,749 $0 0$0 0$0 20 $4,087 36 $6,508 0$0 0$0 36 $6,508 2.4Right-of-Way Mapping0$0 $0 0$0 16 $2,691 50 $7,285 110 $14,034 0$0 0$0 20 $4,087 196 $28,097 0$0 0$0 196 $28,097 2.5Legal Description and Exhibit0$0 0$0 0$0 16 $2,691 40 $5,828 88 $11,227 0$0 0$0 0$0 144 $19,746 00144 $19,746 2.7Hydrology and Hydraulics Report - Scour Analysis 0$0 10 $1,944 0$0 32 $5,382 80 $11,657 0$0 110 $12,238 170 $14,603 0$0 402 $45,823 0$0 0$0 402 $45,823 2.10Trail improvement Plans A. Extend Project Limits0$0 12 $2,332 0$0 0$0 30 $4,371 50 $6,379 120 $13,351 $0 0$0 212 $26,433 0$0 0$0 212 $26,433 B. Green River Golf Course Parking Lot Improvements0$0 32 $6,219 0$0 0$0 80 $11,657 120 $15,310 250 $27,814 0$0 0$0 482 $61,000 0$0 0$0 482 $61,000 C. Lower Aliso Canyon Trail Connection0$0 8 $1,555 0$0 0$0 36 $5,246 $0 100 $11,125 0$0 0$0 144 $17,926 0$0 0$0 144 $17,926 D. Construction A+B Bid Package0$0 24 $4,664 12 $2,332 0$0 40 $5,828 $0 100 $11,125 0$0 0$0 176 $23,951 0$0 0$0 176 $23,951 2.11Bridge Type Selection Report - BNSF Vehicular Bridge8 $2,011 20 $3,887 30 $5,831 $0 90 $13,114 40 $5,103 80 $8,900 268 $38,846 0$0 0$0 268 $38,846 2.12Bridge Design Calculations - BNSF Vehicular Bridge40 $10,053 40 $7,774 210 $40,814 200 $33,635 100 $14,571 140 $17,861 0$0 730 $124,708 0$0 0$0 730 $124,708 2.13Bridge Plans, Specifications and Estimate - BNSF Vehicular Bridge 10 $2,513 40 $7,774 80 $15,548 100 $16,817 0$0 110 $14,034 550 $61,190 0$0 890 $117,877 0$0 0$0 890 $117,877 2.16Plan Check Revisions / Approvals / Local Agency Permits0$0 8 $1,555 0$0 16 $2,691 30 $4,371 0$0 $0 0$0 054 $8,617 0$0 0$0 54 $8,617 2.18Railroad Permits / License Agreement Coordination0$0 6 $1,166 0$0 $0 $0 50 $6,379 $0 0$0 056 $7,545 0$0 56 $7,545 Sub-Total 58 $14,577 456 $88,625 332 $64,526 384 $64,578 604 $88,008 708 $90,328 1,310 $145,744 170 $14,603 40 $8,173 4,062 $579,162 0$0 0$0 4,062 $579,162 Fee (10%)$1,458 $8,863 $6,453 $6,458 $8,801 $9,033 $14,574 $1,460 $817 $57,916 $57,916 Total$16,034 $97,488 $70,978 $71,036 $96,809 $99,361 $160,318 $16,063 $8,990 $637,078 $637,078 O.1Separate Construction Package A and Construction Package B into Individual Bid Packages0$0 32 $6,219 4$777 $0 86 $12,531 0$0 125 $13,907 $0 0$0 247 $33,435 0$0 0$0 247 $33,435 Sub-Total 00 32 6,219 4 777 00 86 12,531 00 125 13,907 00 00 247 33,435 00 00 247 33,435Fee (10%)$0 $622 $78 $0 $1,253 $0 $1,391 $0 $0 $3,343 $3,343 Total$0 $6,841 $855 $0 $13,784 $0 $15,298 $0 $0 $36,778 $36,7783.1Pre-Bid and Pre-Construction Meetings2$503 8 $1,555 0$0 $0 8 $1,166 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 18 $3,223 0$0 18 $3,223 3.2Construction Bidding Phase Support1$251 2$389 0$0 $0 10 $1,457 $0 0$0 0$0 0$0 13 $2,097 0$0 13 $2,097 3.3Bid Schedule Preparation0$0 $0 0$0 $0 $0 8 $1,021 0$0 0$0 $0 8 $1,021 0$0 0$0 8 $1,021 3.4Addendum Preparation Assistance2$503 2$389 0$0 $0 24 $3,497 $0 0$0 0$0 $0 28 $4,388 0$0 0$0 28 $4,388 3.5Field Meetings0$0 16 $3,110 20 $3,887 $0 20 $2,914 $0 0$0 0$0 0$0 56 $9,911 056 $9,911 3.6Field Support Services0$0 8 $1,555 32 $6,219 $0 20 $2,914 80 $10,207 $0 $0 0$0 140 $20,895 0$0 25 $3,125 165 $24,020 3.7Shop Drawing Review$0 4$777 0$0 $0 50 $7,285 $0 40 $4,450 0$0 $0 94 $12,513 0$0 94 $12,513 PHASE 1 - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICESSubconsultant(Diaz Yourman Associates)PHASE 2 - PS&E SERVICESPHASE 3 - BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICESOPTIONAL TASKSAssistant Engineer / PlannerSenior Engineer /Senior Planner Technical Manager / Environmental ManagerCost Proposal (Amendment #7) - 11/08/20Riverside County Transportation CommissionSanta Ana River Trail Phase 6 (Green River Golf Course)Designer / PlannerTOTAL FEETOTAL HOURSProject Engineer / Landscape ArchitectSub-Total Michael BakerStructural EngineerSenior Principal Senior Project ManagerMichael BakerSubconsultant(Applied Earthworks)2-Person Survey Crew111/8/202029
Exhibit "B"$104.09 Avg Raw Rate $80.50 Avg Raw Rate $80.50 Avg Raw Rate $69.65 Avg Raw Rate $60.35 Avg Raw Rate $52.84 Avg Raw Rate $46.08 Avg Raw Rate $35.58 Avg Raw Rate $84.63 Avg Raw Rate$46.31Fringe (44.49%)$35.81Fringe (44.49%)$35.81Fringe (44.49%)$30.99Fringe (44.49%)$26.85Fringe (44.49%)$23.51Fringe (44.49%)$20.50Fringe (44.49%)$15.83Fringe (44.49%)$37.65Fringe (44.49%)$100.92OH (96.95%)$78.04OH (96.95%)$78.04OH (96.95%)$67.53OH (96.95%)$58.51OH (96.95%)$51.23OH (96.95%)$44.67OH (96.95%)$34.49OH (96.95%)$82.05OH (96.95%)$251.32 per hour $194.35 per hour $194.35 per hour $168.17 per hour $145.71 per hour $127.58 per hour $111.25 per hour $85.90 per hour $204.33 per hourTask Sub-TaskDescriptionHours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $ Hours $Hours$ Hours Fee Hours Fee Hours FeeSubconsultant(Diaz Yourman Associates)Assistant Engineer / PlannerSenior Engineer /Senior Planner Technical Manager / Environmental ManagerCost Proposal (Amendment #7) - 11/08/20Riverside County Transportation CommissionSanta Ana River Trail Phase 6 (Green River Golf Course)Designer / PlannerTOTAL FEETOTAL HOURSProject Engineer / Landscape ArchitectSub-Total Michael BakerStructural EngineerSenior Principal Senior Project ManagerMichael BakerSubconsultant(Applied Earthworks)2-Person Survey Crew3.8Plan Revision and Modifications0$0 1$194 4$777 $0 28 $4,080 60 $7,655 0$0 0$0 0$0 93 $12,707 093 $12,707 3.9Record Drawings0$0 4$777 $0 $0 $0 50 $6,379 $0 $0 0$0 54 $7,157 0$0 54 $7,157 Sub-Total 5 $1,257 45 $8,746 56 $10,884 0$0 160 $23,313 198 $25,261 40 $4,450 0$0 0$0 504 $73,911 0$0 25 $3,125 529 $77,036 Fee (10%)$126 $875 $1,088 $0 $2,331 $2,526 $445 $0 $0 $7,391 $7,391 Total$1,382 $9,621 $11,972 $0 $25,645 $27,787 $4,895 $0 $0 $81,302 $84,427 58 $16,034 653 $139,604 332 $70,978 384 $71,036 827 $132,551 708 $99,361 1,544 $188,955 202 $19,087 40$8,990 4,748 $827,900 24 $1,892 20 $7,056 4,792 $836,848$1,0004,792 $837,8485,039 $874,626WITH OPTIONAL TASK - O.1:SUB-TOTAL HOURS / FEESReimbursablesTOTAL HOURS / FEE (WITHOUT OPTIONAL TASK)211/8/202030
ID Task Name% CompleteDuration Start Finish1Preliminary Engineering7%295 daysMon 11/18/19Fri 1/1/212Monthly Meetings0%66 daysThu 9/17/20Thu 12/17/203Monthly Meetings 10%1 dayThu 9/17/20Thu 9/17/204Monthly Meetings 20%1 dayThu 10/15/20Thu 10/15/205Monthly Meetings 30%1 dayThu 11/19/20Thu 11/19/206Monthly Meetings 40%1 dayThu 12/17/20Thu 12/17/207Project Management and Coordination0%65 daysMon 10/5/20Fri 1/1/218Preliminary Geometric Alternatives17%270 daysMon 11/18/19Fri 11/27/209Trail Realignment for SAWPA Brine Line100%15 daysMon 11/18/19Fri 12/6/1910Aliso Canyon Bridge Realignment0%20 daysMon 10/5/20Fri 10/30/2011Agency review 0%20 daysMon 11/2/20Fri 11/27/2012Final Aliso Canyon Bridge Location Set0%0 daysFri 11/27/20Fri 11/27/2013Lower Aliso Canyon Trail Connection0%15 daysMon 10/5/20Fri 10/23/2014Finalize BNSF Bridge Location0%20 daysMon 10/5/20Fri 10/30/2015Geotechnical Investigation – Scour Analysis0%15 daysMon 10/26/20Fri 11/13/2016Scour Analysis0%20 daysMon 11/16/20Fri 12/11/2017Hydrology and Hydraulics Report0%30 daysMon 11/2/20Fri 12/11/2018Environmental Document63%676 daysThu 5/16/19Thu 12/16/2119Technical Studies78%522 daysThu 5/16/19Fri 5/14/2120Habitat Assessment/MSHCP Analysis/Burrowing Owl Survey89%432 daysThu 5/16/19Fri 1/8/2121Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys100%77 daysThu 5/16/19Fri 8/30/1922RCA Pre-Application Meeting #1100%1 dayWed 6/12/19Wed 6/12/1923USFWS CAGN Coordination Meeting100%1 dayTue 10/8/19Tue 10/8/1924Prepare Habitat Assessment/MSHCP Report100%112 daysThu 5/16/19Fri 10/18/1925Revise HA/MSHCP Report for SAWPA Alignment Shift100%12 daysMon 12/9/19Tue 12/24/1926Parks/RCTC Review and Approval100%51 daysMon 10/21/19Mon 12/30/1927Revise Habitat Assessment/MSHCP Report for Aliso Canyon and Lower Aliso Trail Modifications0%15 daysMon 11/30/20Fri 12/18/2028RCTC Review and Approval0%15 daysMon 12/21/20Fri 1/8/2129Jurisdictional Delineation82%432 daysThu 5/16/19Fri 1/8/2130Prepare Jurisdictional Delineation100%77 daysThu 5/16/19Fri 8/30/1931Revise Jurisdictional Delineation for Phase 5/Phase 3 Tie-In100%15 daysMon 10/21/19Fri 11/8/1932Revise JD for SAWPA Alignment Shift100%12 daysMon 12/9/19Tue 12/24/1933Parks/RCTC Review and Approval100%36 daysMon 11/11/19Mon 12/30/1934Revise Jurisdictional Delineation for Aliso Canyon and Lower Aliso Trail Modifications0%15 daysMon 11/30/20Fri 12/18/2035RCTC Review and Approval0%15 daysMon 12/21/20Fri 1/8/2136Cultural/Paleontological Resources Assessment100%222 daysThu 8/1/19Fri 6/5/2040Air Quality/GHG/Energy Analysis100%30 daysThu 11/7/19Wed 12/18/1941Noise Analysis100%30 daysThu 11/7/19Wed 12/18/1942CAGN Spatial Use Surveys100%139 daysTue 2/18/20Fri 8/28/2043Conduct CAGN Spatial Use Surveys100%91 daysTue 2/18/20Tue 6/23/2044Prepare CAGN Summary Memo100%23 daysWed 6/24/20Fri 7/24/2045Parks/RCTC Review and Approval100%25 daysMon 7/27/20Fri 8/28/2046MSHCP - DBESP1%288 daysWed 4/8/20Fri 5/14/2147RCA Pre-Application Meeting #2100%1 dayWed 4/8/20Wed 4/8/2048Prepare DBESP (requires revised Habitat Assessment and JD)0%55 daysMon 11/2/20Fri 1/15/2149RCTC Review and Approval0%35 daysMon 1/18/21Fri 3/5/2150RCA Review of DBESP0%20 daysMon 3/8/21Fri 4/2/2151Revise DBESP0%10 daysMon 4/5/21Fri 4/16/2152Final Review/Approval of DBESP0%20 daysMon 4/19/21Fri 5/14/2153Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum100%30 daysWed 4/1/20Tue 5/12/2054Prepare Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum100%21 daysWed 4/1/20Wed 4/29/2055RCTC Review and Approval100%9 daysThu 4/30/20Tue 5/12/2056Aliso Canyon Hydraulics Analysis0%68 daysMon 11/30/20Wed 3/3/2157Prepare Aliso Canyon Hydraulics Analysis0%38 daysMon 11/30/20Wed 1/20/2158RCTC Review and Approval0%30 daysThu 1/21/21Wed 3/3/21591st Adminstrative Draft IS/MND100%128 daysTue 8/13/19Thu 2/6/2060Prepare 1st Administrative Draft IS/MND100%107 daysTue 8/13/19Wed 1/8/2061RCTC Review100%21 daysThu 1/9/20Thu 2/6/20622nd Adminstrative Draft IS/MND42%351 daysFri 1/31/20Fri 6/4/2163Prepare 2nd Administrative Draft IS/MND45%161 daysFri 1/31/20Fri 5/21/2164RCTC Review0%10 daysMon 5/24/21Fri 6/4/21653rd Administrative Draft IS/MND0%25 daysMon 6/7/21Fri 7/9/2166Prepare 3rd Administrative Draft IS/MND0%15 daysMon 6/7/21Fri 6/25/2167RCTC Review and Approval0%10 daysMon 6/28/21Fri 7/9/2168Public Review Draft IS/MND0%36 daysMon 7/12/21Mon 8/30/2169Draft IS/MND Public Review Preparation0%15 daysMon 7/12/21Fri 7/30/2170Draft IS/MND Public Review0%31 edaysFri 7/30/21Mon 8/30/2171Final IS/MND0%78 daysTue 8/31/21Thu 12/16/21Final Aliso Canyon Bridge Location Set 11/27/2020MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJa19Qtr 2, 2019Qtr 3, 2019Qtr 4, 2019Qtr 1, 2020Qtr 2, 2020Qtr 3, 2020Qtr 4, 2020Qtr 1, 2021Qtr 2, 2021Qtr 3, 2021Qtr 4, 2021Qtr 1, 2022Qtr 2, 2022Qtr 3, 2022Qtr 4, 2022Qtr 1, 2023Qtr 2, 2023Qtr 3, 2023Qtr 4, 2023QtTaskMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryMeetingCriticalCritical SplitProgressRiverside County Transportation CommissionSanta Ana River Trail (SART) Phase 6Preliminary Engineering, Environmental, and Final PS&E SchedulePage 1Project: Santa Ana River Trail (SART 2) Through Green River Golf CourseDate: Mon 9/14/20 31
ID Task Name% CompleteDuration Start Finish72Prepare Administrative Final IS/MND0%20 daysTue 8/31/21Mon 9/27/2173RCTC Review0%15 daysTue 9/28/21Mon 10/18/2174Finalize Final IS/MND0%10 daysTue 10/19/21Mon 11/1/2175NOD Filed0%10 daysTue 11/2/21Mon 11/15/2176NOD Challenge Period0%31 edaysMon 11/15/21Thu 12/16/2177Plans Specifications & Estimates Services0%594 daysMon 11/30/20Thu 3/9/2378Initiate Final Design0%0 daysMon 1/4/21Mon 1/4/2179Monthly Meetings0%366 daysThu 1/21/21Thu 6/16/2298Project Management and Coordination0%569 daysMon 1/4/21Thu 3/9/2399Topographic Field Survey and Control0%20 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 1/29/21100Right of Way Mapping0%40 daysMon 11/30/20Fri 1/22/21101Legal Description and Exhibit0%20 daysMon 4/26/21Fri 5/21/21102Right of Way/Easement Acquisition0%394 daysMon 5/24/21Thu 11/24/22103Utility Coordination0%345 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 4/29/22104Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)0%20 daysMon 11/29/21Fri 12/24/21105Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)0%30 daysMon 1/24/22Fri 3/4/22106Trail Improvement Plans0%325 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 4/1/22107Prepare 60% Trail Plans0%185 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 9/17/21108Submit 60% Trail Plans0%0 daysFri 9/17/21Fri 9/17/21109Agency Review 0%20 daysMon 9/20/21Fri 10/15/21110Constructability Review0%20 daysMon 9/20/21Fri 10/15/21111Prepare 90% Trail Plans0%50 daysMon 10/18/21Fri 12/24/21112Submit 90% Trail Plans0%0 daysFri 12/24/21Fri 12/24/21113Agency Review0%30 daysMon 12/27/21Fri 2/4/22114Prepare 100% Trail Plans0%20 daysMon 2/7/22Fri 3/4/22115Submit 100% Trail Plans0%0 daysFri 3/4/22Fri 3/4/22116Agency Review and Approval0%20 daysMon 3/7/22Fri 4/1/22117Bridge Type Selection Report0%30 daysTue 1/5/21Mon 2/15/21118Bridge Design Calculations0%80 daysTue 2/16/21Mon 6/7/21119Bridge Plans, Specifications, and Estimates0%325 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 4/1/22120Prepare 60% Bridge Plans0%185 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 9/17/21121Submit 60% Bridge Plans0%0 daysFri 9/17/21Fri 9/17/21122Agency Review 0%20 daysMon 9/20/21Fri 10/15/21123Constructability Review0%20 daysMon 9/20/21Fri 10/15/21124Prepare 90% Bridge Plans0%50 daysMon 10/18/21Fri 12/24/21125Submit 90% Bridge Plans0%0 daysFri 12/24/21Fri 12/24/21126Agency Review0%30 daysMon 12/27/21Fri 2/4/22127Prepare 100% Bridge Plans0%20 daysMon 2/7/22Fri 3/4/22128Submit 100% Bridge Plans0%0 daysFri 3/4/22Fri 3/4/22129Agency Review and Approval0%20 daysMon 3/7/22Fri 4/1/22130Technical Specifications0%60 daysMon 12/13/21Fri 3/4/2213190% Submittal0%10 daysMon 12/13/21Fri 12/24/21132100% Submittal0%10 daysMon 2/21/22Fri 3/4/22133Quantity and Cost Estimate0%130 daysMon 9/6/21Fri 3/4/2213460% Submittal0%10 daysMon 9/6/21Fri 9/17/2113590% Submittal0%5 daysMon 12/20/21Fri 12/24/21136100% Submittal0%5 daysMon 2/28/22Fri 3/4/22137Plan Check Revisions/Approvals/Local Agency Permits0%140 daysMon 9/20/21Fri 4/1/22138MWD Encroachment Permit0%130 daysMon 9/20/21Fri 3/18/22139Regulatory Permits/Authorizations0%205 daysTue 8/31/21Mon 6/13/22140Regulatory Permit Application Preparation0%45 daysTue 8/31/21Mon 11/1/21141Prepare Regulatory Permit Applications0%20 daysTue 8/31/21Mon 9/27/21142RCTC Review of Permit Applications0%15 daysTue 9/28/21Mon 10/18/21143Submit Permit Applications to Resource Agencies0%10 daysTue 10/19/21Mon 11/1/21144Regulatory Permit Processing0%160 daysTue 11/2/21Mon 6/13/22145USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit0%160 daysTue 11/2/21Mon 6/13/22146CDFW Section 1602 SAA0%160 daysTue 11/2/21Mon 6/13/22147Regional Board Section 401 Certification0%160 daysTue 11/2/21Mon 6/13/22148Final PS&E Approved0%0 daysFri 4/29/22Fri 4/29/22149Right of Way Certification0%15 daysFri 11/25/22Thu 12/15/22150Railroad Permits/License Agreement Coordination0%390 daysMon 11/30/20Fri 5/27/22151BNSF Concurrence for the Bridge Abutment in BNSF ROW0%1 dayFri 1/29/21Fri 1/29/21152Ready To List0%60 daysFri 12/16/22Thu 3/9/23153Bidding and Construction Support Services0%444 daysThu 3/16/23Tue 11/26/24154Advertise Project (6 Weeks)0%30 daysThu 3/16/23Wed 4/26/23155Open Bids and Award Construction Contract0%30 daysWed 5/17/23Tue 6/27/23156Notice to Proceed0%0 daysTue 7/11/23Tue 7/11/23157Construction0%305 daysWed 9/27/23Tue 11/26/24158Construction Complete (14 months)0%0 daysTue 11/26/24Tue 11/26/24Initiate Final Design 1/4/2021Submit 60% Trail Plans 9/17/2021Submit 90% Trail Plans 12/24/2021Submit 100% Trail Plans 3/4/2022Submit 60% Bridge Plans 9/17/2021Submit 90% Bridge Plans 12/24/2021Submit 100% Bridge Plans 3/4/2022Final PS&E Approved 4/29/2022Notice to Proceed 7/11/2023MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJa19Qtr 2, 2019Qtr 3, 2019Qtr 4, 2019Qtr 1, 2020Qtr 2, 2020Qtr 3, 2020Qtr 4, 2020Qtr 1, 2021Qtr 2, 2021Qtr 3, 2021Qtr 4, 2021Qtr 1, 2022Qtr 2, 2022Qtr 3, 2022Qtr 4, 2022Qtr 1, 2023Qtr 2, 2023Qtr 3, 2023Qtr 4, 2023QtTaskMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryMeetingCriticalCritical SplitProgressRiverside County Transportation CommissionSanta Ana River Trail (SART) Phase 6Preliminary Engineering, Environmental, and Final PS&E SchedulePage 2Project: Santa Ana River Trail (SART 2) Through Green River Golf CourseDate: Mon 9/14/20 32
SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL PROJECT –SART 2 PHASE 6
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
November 23, 2020
David Lewis, Capital Projects Manager
1
Santa Ana River Trail 2 –Phase 6Santa Ana River Trail 2 –Phase 6
2
Santa Ana River Trail 2 –Green River Golf Course
SART
3
•RCTC has been managing this project for Riverside County
Regional Park and Open-Space District since 2017
•All costs reimbursed by the District
•One of the last gaps in the 110 mile trail from the Mountains to the
Sea
•Equestrian, bicyclist & pedestrian ADA accessible trail
Santa Ana River Trail 2 –Green River Golf Course
SART Background and Status Update
4
•November 2017 –Contract with MBI for Environmental and
Design
•50% complete with Environmental Document; expected approval
late 2021
•Complete Design –Spring 2023
•Encountered several scope changes due to coordination with
various stakeholders
CHANGES TO SCOPE
5
•Incorporation of the Gap trail section
•Changes to the environmental document and technical studies
•Changes to the Aliso Creek Crossing
•Expanded Bridge over the BNSF Railroad Tracks
•Additional $962,088 required
•Park District has concurred
QUESTIONS
6
AGENDA ITEM 9
Agenda Item 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 23, 2020
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Manager
THROUGH: Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director
SUBJECT: City of Riverside Funding Request for Third Street Grade Separation Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve programming $18,000,000 of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds for the city of Riverside’s (City) Third Street Grade Separation project;
2) Approve Agreement No. 20-72-027-00 between the Commission and the City for the
programming of $18,000,000 of CMAQ for either the right of way or construction phase
of the Third Street Grade Separation project; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION :
The Commission’s 2017 Companion Study to the 2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study
identifies three priority grade separations on critical urban freight corridors: McKinley Road
(Corona), Jurupa Road (Jurupa Valley), and Third Street (Riverside). Both the McKinley Road and
Jurupa Road grade separations received major funding from Senate Bill 132, passed in
conjunction with Senate Bill 1 in 2017. The Third Street at-grade crossing, located between Vine
Street and Park Avenue, remains a regional priority to be grade separated and needs funding to
advance to construction.
The current Third Street at-grade crossing serves 106 freight trains and 22 passenger rail trains
daily, resulting in delays in the supply chain, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic congestion, and
public safety hazards and delays. Notably, grade separating this crossing will reduce barriers for
pedestrians residing in seven disadvantaged communities that exist within a half -mile.
Approximately 230 pedestrians and bicyclists cross this at-grade crossing daily. Emergency
responders are delayed an average of 2.5 to 3.5 minutes each time they attempt to respond to
calls on the other side of the railroad tracks.
In April 2017, the Riverside City Council approved Third Street as the City’s top priority grade
separation project. Since then, the City has advanced the project through the environmental
phase using Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Zone funds with National
33
Agenda Item 9
Environmental Policy Act clearance anticipated in February 2021. The City is now ready to
proceed with final design and right of way acquisition.
DISCUSSION:
The project delivery schedule anticipates completing final design and right of way acquisition by
December 2022. Construction is anticipated to take 18 months starting July 2023 and ending in
December 2024. The total project cost is $55.5 million , and the project has a $34 million funding
gap.
In March 2020, t he City came to staff requesting financial assistance to deliver this high priority
grade separation project. While CMAQ funds are an ideal fund source for grade separation
projects as they both reduce congestion and improve air quality, federal formula funds should be
programmed judiciously. To close the project’s funding gap and avoid the need to use CMAQ
funds on the right of way phase, the City submitted an application to the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) on August 3, 2020 for Trade Corridor Enhancement Program
(TCEP) funds from Senate Bill 1. The outcome of that grant application is anticipated to be
announced on November 12, 2020.
In November 2020, the City submitted a letter (Attachment 2) to the Commission regarding its
pursuit of TCEP funding and requested the programming of CMAQ funds. If the CTC does not
grant TCEP funding to the City, staff recommends that $18 million of CMAQ funds be allocated
to the project and programmed to advance the project through the right of way phase.
Additionally, staff recommends approval of an agreement between the Commission and the City
for the programming of the CMAQ funds for either the right of way or construction phase of the
Third Street Grade Separation project.
If the CTC does grant TCEP funding to the City, staff recommends the CMAQ funds be used in the
construction phase. The City’s intent, regardless of whether the project receives TCEP funding in
the current funding cycle, is to pursue TCEP funding for construction in the next funding cycle,
anticipated to be in 2022. If the City is successful obtaining other fund sources for the
construction phase, the CMAQ funds will be reduced or eliminated commensurately.
There is no financial impact to the Commission for this item as CMAQ funds are reimbursed
directly through Caltrans.
Attachments:
1) Project Location Map
2) November 10, 2020 Letter from City of Riverside
34
ATTACHMENT 1
Third Street Grade Separation
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
35
ATTACHMENT 2
36
37
THIRD STREET GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
November 23, 2020
Jillian Guizado, Planning & Programming Manager
1
Vicinity Map
2
Grade Crossing Challenges
3
•Nearly 130 trains daily cause delays, emissions, congestion,
and safety issues
•230 pedestrian/bicyclists cross daily
•Emergency response delay of 2.5 –3.5 minutes per call
Project Benefits
4
•Improved health and quality of life for 22,300 residents in
1-mile radius
•Improved system reliability with elimination of train vs.
vehicle and pedestrian accidents
•Travel time savings and improved emergency response times
Project Funding
5
Schedule Fund Source $ Amount
Environmental Complete NEPA February 2021 TUMF $ 1.50 million
Design Complete December 2022 TUMF $ 2.50 million
Right of Way Complete December 2022 Various
-TUMF
-City
-CMAQ
$23.00 million
$ 4.25
$ 0.75
$18.00
Construction Begin July 2023
End December 2024
Various
-CPUC Section 190
-City
-BNSF
-TCEP
$28.50 million
$ 5.00
$ 3.50
$ 2.00
$18.00
$55.50 million
RCTC Grade Separation Prioritization
and Funding History
6
•2001: Support successful CPUC projects with 10% local funds
•2007: 25% set-aside of federal formula funds (CMAQ, STBG)
and Measure A Economic Development funds
•2012: Grade Separation Priority Update Study
•2017: Companion Study
Staff Recommendation
7
1)Approve programming $18,000,000 of Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (CMAQ)funds for the city of Riverside’s (City)Third
Street Grade Separation project;
2)Approve Agreement No.20-72-027-00 between the Commission
and the City for the programming of $18,000,000 of CMAQ for
either the right of way or construction phase of the Third Street
Grade Separation project;and
3)Forward to the Commission for final action.
QUESTIONS
8
From:Alexandra Rackerby
To:Alexandra Rackerby
Subject:RCTC Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee agenda
Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:55:05 PM
Attachments:Conflict of Interest Form.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf
Good afternoon Commissioners of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee:
The November WRC Programs and Projects Committee is posted on the website –
https://www.rctc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/WRC-November-Agenda.pdf
Also, attached are the Conflict of Interest memo and Conflict of Interest form.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Allie Rackerby
Records Technician
Riverside County Transportation Commission
951.787.7141 W
4080 Lemon St. 3rd Fl.| P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502
rctc.org
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board
DATE: November 18, 2020
SUBJECT: G.C. 84308 Compliance – Potential Conflict of Interest
California Government Code 84308 states a Commissioner may not participate in any discussion or
action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is
received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from a bidder or bidder’s agent.
This prohibition does not apply to the awarding of contracts that are competitively bid. The
Commission’s procurement division asks potential vendors to disclose any contributions made to
the campaigns of any Commissioner as part of their submitted bid packets. As an additional
precaution, those entities are included below in an effort to give Commissioners opportunity to
review their campaign statements for potential conflicts. Please note the entities listed in this
memo are not encompassing of all potential conflicts and are in addition to any personal conflicts
of interest such as those disclosed on Statement of Economic Interests – Form 700 or prohibited
by Government Code Section 1090. Please contact me should you have any questions.
Agenda Item No. 8 – Amendment 7 with Michael Baker International for the Santa Ana River Trail
Project
Consultant(s): Michael Baker International
Steve Huff, Vice President
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, CA 92707
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
NOVEMBER 23, 2020
Present Absent
County of Riverside, District I X
County of Riverside, District V X
City of Corona X
City of Eastvale X
City of Jurupa Valley X
City of Menifee X
City of Moreno Valley X
City of Murrieta X
City of Norco X
City of Perris X
City of San Jacinto X
City of Wildomar X