Item 35.
80237.00021\6952238.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COACHELLA,
CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE CITY OF COACHELLA SPEED HUMP POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES.
WHEREAS, City Staff regularly receive and process speed hump petitions for the installation of speed humps throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, Current speed hump petitions are subject to review and approval of both city staff and the Fire Marshal; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to provide clarity for both City staff and the community for the appropriate installation of speed humps; and
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed speed hump and traffic calming guidelines and procedures from various Riverside County Cities and State wide California Department of Transportation Guidance; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that speed humps should be limited in number by regulating approvable sped hump locations through an officially adopted policy to improve the travel time distances of emergency vehicles; and
WHEREAS, City staff seeks to address community concerns regarding speeding, traffic safety and traffic calming through various engineering means and methods; and WHEREAS, City staff has consulted with the Fire Marshal for the drafting of a City of Coachella Speed Policy, Guidelines, Procedures and Standard Drawings; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Coachella, that it approve the City of Coachella Speed Hump Policy, Guidelines, and Procedures.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 14th day of May, 2025. ___________________________________
Steven A. Hernandez
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Angela M. Zepeda
City Clerk
Item 35.
80237.00021\6952238.1
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Best Best and Krieger
City Attorney
Item 35.
80237.00021\6952238.1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF COACHELLA
)
) ss.
)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-20 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Coachella at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of May, 2025, by the following vote of Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Delia Granados
Deputy City Clerk
Item 35.
CITY OF
COACHELLA
SPEED HUMP POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
Speed humps are pavement undulations installed along a roadway for the purpose of regulating traffic speed. A speed hump is approximately 3½ to 4 inches in height with a length of at least 12 feet at the base. Speed humps properly designed and placed in appropriate locations control speed without the "jarring" effect of speed bumps.
POLICIES
1. Speed humps may only be installed upon receipt of the required petition, verification by the City Engineer that all qualifying criteria and guidelines have been satisfied, and review and comment has been received from the Fire Department. City Council shall have final approval authority over all speed humps on publicly owned and maintained streets.
2. Speed Humps shall be installed in conformance with the approved standard design in effect at the time of installation.
3. Speed humps are still considered experimental roadway features. Therefore, the City reserves the right for additions, alterations, or removals of any or all speed humps at any time. Speed humps may also be removed upon receipt of the required petitions and approval of the City Council.
4. The policies, guidelines and procedures herein shall be applicable to publicly owned and maintained streets. Private streets, HOA’s and private fire access lanes shall refer to the Riverside county Fire Marshal for guidance on traffic calming measures.
GUIDELINES
The installation of speed humps will be considered only if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The street segment on which speed humps are proposed must be at least 500 feet long and must be a local residential street defined as follows:
a. A street having 13 or more buildings fronting on one side of the street or 16 or more buildings fronting on both sides of the street within a distance of 500 feet. Buildings must be located within 75 feet of the street curb face or edge of pavement, and they must face and gain access from the street to be considered as "fronting on the street."
b. Buildings, as used above, include separate dwelling houses, churches, apartment buildings, or multiple-dwelling houses.
Item 35.
c. No more than one lane in each direction, and it should not be a transit route.
2. The legal speed limit on the street must be 25 miles per hour or less as established in accordance with State law or City Council action.
3. The street width may not exceed 40 feet.
4. The street does not have a vertical grade of 8% or greater.
5. Speed humps will be considered for logical segments of “Suburban Residential” and “Urban Residential” streets as defined by the City of Coachella General Plan. It will not be installed on isolated or very short blocks along a continuous street, on relatively short cul-de-sac streets (less than 400 feet), or in corner areas (i.e., right-angle turns on residential streets).
6. A maximum average daily traffic volume no greater than 1,999 vehicles total in both directions in a 24-hour period on an average weekday.
OTHER CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS
All requests for speed humps shall be reviewed with appropriate emergency service departments (such as Riverside County Fire). Although approval by these departments will not be considered essential, serious consideration will nevertheless be directed toward their comments. At a minimum, the emergency services department will be provided with a notification regarding any proposed speed humps.
A collision history review of the street within the past five (5) years will be incorporated in the report.
Any special circumstances for the subject residential street such as proximity to schools, parks, senior centers, trails, and paving schedule will be utilized for consideration purposes.
Roadways that do not provide adequate horizontal and vertical alignment and sight distance, as determined by the City Engineer, shall not be considered for speed humps.
PROCEDURES
Requests for and approval of speed hump installations shall conform to the following procedures:
1. All requests shall be made by formal petition (forms will be supplied by the City). The street segment for which speed humps are requested must be at least 500 feet long.
2. Each petition shall contain the signatures of residents representing the residences with addresses on the street segment. Each household shall be represented by one vote, either for or against the speed humps. A minimum of 70 percent of the requisite number of residents must vote in favor of speed hump installation for the petition to be processed further.
Item 35.
3. Completed petitions shall be delivered to: City of Coachella 53990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, California, 92236 .
4. After a petition is received, the City will:
a. Verify that each petition contains the requisite number of signatures. b. Obtain necessary traffic data including traffic volumes, traffic speeds, and accident history.
c. Determine compliance with all established criteria.
d. If all guidelines and criteria are met then the petition shall be forwarded to the Fire Marshal for review and recommendation for approval/denial.
5. The speed hump request will be presented to the City Council upon meeting all established criteria. If all established criteria are not satisfied, then the speed hump request will not advance to the City Council unless a formal appeal is submitted.
6. A spokesperson for a street submitting a written request for speed humps may appear before the City Council. The City Council, in conjunction with the City Engineer, will evaluate the request to determine its eligibility based on the criteria described above. Once the approval of the City Council and City Engineer are obtained, the spokesperson may provide additional commentary for the speed hump request to the City Council during final authorization and installation approval.
7. The request will be presented to the City Council at a noticed public meeting. After receiving commentary, the City Council will decide if the requested speed humps will be installed. If the installation is approved by the City Council and if funding is available, the City will design and install the speed humps. In addition to consideration of various other design criteria, pavement markings and warnings signs will be utilized so that speed humps will be clearly identified.
Requests for and approval of speed hump removals shall conform to the installation procedures outlined above.
Any speed hump requests are limited to one (1) review every 12 months.
APPEAL PROCEDURES
The City Council, has the sole discretion to appeal a denial from the City Engineer or Fire Marshal decision and advance the speed hump request to be added as an agenda item at a future City Council Meeting for review and consideration.
Item 35.
PETITION TO INITIATE APPLICATION FOR
RESIDENTIAL SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION
We the undersigned residents of and affected adjacent properties to the subject street, have indicated our support of or opposition to apply for the installation of speed humps on our street. By providing our signature we verify that we understand and agree to the following conditions:
1. A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the property owners or residents on the street wherethe speed humps are to be considered must sign in support of the petition.
2. Only one signature per residential property is permitted.
3. The Engineering Division will study the feasibility of the installation of the speed humps only after petitions meeting the above conditions are satisfied and received by the City.
DISADVANTAGES OF SPEED HUMPS AS A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TOOL:
Increased noise from braking and accelerating vehicles Drivers may speed up in between and after speed humps to “make-up for losttime” Residents and Emergency Vehicles will have increased travel time Increased emergency response time for fire and ambulance services Increased vehicle emissions and exhaustfumes
Misuse and Traffic Diversions leading to unsafe routes Increased wear and tear on vehicles.
Item 35.
PETITION TO INITIATE APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION CONTACT PERSON: NAME: PHONE:
PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE CHECK ONE:
SUPPORT OPPOSE
Sheet of Gathered by: Date:
Please mail completed petition to: City of Coachella 53990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, California, 92236.
Item 35.
CITY OF COACHELLA
SPEED HUMP CRITERIA CHECKLIST
STREET:
SEGMENT: ____
DATE:
Conditions outlined below must be met in accordance with the City of Coachella’s Speed Hump Policies established qualifying criteria:
PETITION REQUIREMENTS DATA
CONFORMANCE
YES NO COMMENTS
Petition contains:
➢ Signatures from a minimum of 70% of adjacent
residents indicating support for speed hump
installation (each parcel represents one vote)
QUALIFYING & TRAFFIC DATA CRITERIA
ALL 8 MUST BE MET
1. The street segment must be a local residential
street with no more than one lane in each direction
2. The legal speed limit is 25 MPH
3. Street width may not exceed 40 feet
4. Street does not have a vertical grade of 8% or
greater
5. Street is not a cul-de-sac under 400 feet in length
6. Maximum average daily traffic volume of 1,999
vehicles
7. Minimum combined 85th % speed of 37 MPH
8. Review and recommendation from Fire Marshal
received
SUMMARY – ARE ALL 8 ABOVE
CONDITIONS SATISFIED?
Other Conditions (Fire Department, Ward location):
Collision History Review:
Special Circumstances:
Item 35.
05/02/2019
Item 35.
05/02/2019
Item 35.
Item 35.
Traffic Calming Guide
A Compendium of Strategies
California Department of Transportation
30 SPEED
LIMIT
YOUR SPEED
DO NOT
ENTER
YIELD
Item 35.
Traffic Calming Guide
1 | P age
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................2 Identifying the Need for Traffic Calming ...........................................................................4 How This Guide Is Organized ..........................................................................................4 Category A. Signings and Markings .................................................................................5 Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs......................................................................................5 Speed Reduction Markings ............................................................................................8 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs.............................................................................11 Crosswalk Enhancement..............................................................................................14 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) .............................................................................18 Flashing Beacons ........................................................................................................21 Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications.............................................................24 Roundabouts................................................................................................................24 Full Closure..................................................................................................................29 Intersection Barrier.......................................................................................................33 Partial Closure/Semi-Diverter .......................................................................................36 Right-In, Right-Out .......................................................................................................39 Tee-up Intersection and Reduce Corner Radii .............................................................42 Category C. Roadway Narrowing...................................................................................45 Road Diet .....................................................................................................................45 Neckdowns/Chokers ....................................................................................................49 Curb Extension/Bulbouts..............................................................................................53 On-Street Parking ........................................................................................................56 Raised Median Island/Traffic Island..............................................................................59 Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements .......................................................................62 Speed Hump ................................................................................................................62 Speed Cushion ............................................................................................................65 Speed Table/Raised Crosswalk ...................................................................................68 Offset Speed Table ......................................................................................................72 Transverse Rumble Strips ............................................................................................75 Raised Intersection ......................................................................................................78 Category E. Physical Roadway Segment Modifications .................................................81 Lateral Shifts ................................................................................................................81 Chicanes......................................................................................................................84 Category F. Others ........................................................................................................87 Street Trees and Landscaping .....................................................................................87 In-Roadway Light .........................................................................................................91
Item 35.
Traffic Calming Guide
2 | P age
Introduction
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes all modes of travel are integral to our vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network. As Caltrans progresses towards achieving a transportation system that improves accessibility and connectivity to essential community destinations for all users, we continue to provide guidance that contributes to the livability and safety of all users of the State highway environment.
As established in Director’s Policy 36 (DP-36): Road Safety, Caltrans has a vision to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on California’s roadways by 2050 and provide safer outcomes for all communities. To support this vision, Caltrans has adopted the Safe System Approach which is an international best practice in road safety. It includes the following five elements : safe road users, safe speeds, safe roads, safe vehicles, and post-crash care. Despite State highways being planned, designed, and constructed based on geometric criteria such as design speed, the highway will not function as intended with drivers who operate at excessive speeds. The data collected from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) between 2011 to 2021 showed that 34% of single vehicle crashes related to fatalities and serious injuries were due to speeding and aggressive driving. Speed management is critical to the success of the Safe System Approach which is why “safe speeds” is one element of this Approach. As kinetic energy increases, the probability of a crash and the severity of that crash increases too. The Safe System Approach aims to reduce impact forces to levels that are tolerable for the human body to sustain. Operating speeds, roads, and vehicles should be designed and managed to reduce risk of fatalities and serious injuries when a crash occurs.
The focus of this Traffic Calming Guide is to build self-enforcing roadways that guide road users to travel at a safe speed, especially through conflict points. To this end, the Traffic Calming Guide was developed from recommendations of the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force.
Caltrans recognizes that walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail are integral to our transportation network as established in Director’s Policy 37 (DP-37) and developed guidance inclusive of this document to meet the goals stated in DP-37. Main Street, California discusses the possibilities and the types of questions that needed to be asked in order to foster a main street that helps people, communities, and the transportation system thrive. Design Information Bulletin 94 provides contextual guidance for complete street projects or facilities in Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Main Street place types. These documents, along with the Traffic Calming Guide, provide guidance to those who implement traffic calming strategies to help achieve goals set forth by communities and agencies. Page 414 Item 35.
Traffic Calming Guide
3 | P age
Traffic calming strategies should be implemented at locations along the State Highway System (SHS) where vehicle speed will have a negative impact on the non-motorized modes of travel.
The Traffic Calming Guide provides best practices, relevant standards, and resources discussed in the FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer. The traffic calming measures encompass various strategies including law enforcement, public education, as well as temporary and permanent highway features that become part of the highway infrastructure. Other important considerations should include the accommodation of emergency response services and the guidance published in Design Information Bulletin 93, Evacuation Route Design Guidance. The State Highway System should be reviewed from a holistic perspective and discussed with local agency partners and communities when working with adjacent private and public access.
Design flexibility is essential when implementing traffic calming strategies. A “one-size-fits-all” design philosophy is not Caltrans’ Departmental policy. Designers and planners need to consider land use, community context, and the associated user needs of each facility. Project decisions should be made to balance pertinent values (e.g., modal priorities, community goals and objectives, environmental resources, social impact, economic impacts, fiscal resources, etc.) alongside exercising engineering judgment and experience. The key to a successful project includes weighing and carefully considering each of these values and utilizing engineering judgment to achieve the desired traffic calming needs.
The traffic calming measures discussed in this guide can be implemented separately or be used in conjunction with other calming measures. The Speed Reduction category within this document refers to the speed that is being reduced by installing that specific measure. Additional analysis is required to capture the cumulative benefits when implementing multiple calming measures at a specific location. It is advisable to conduct spot speed surveys following the implementation of traffic calming measures. Engineering judgement should be exercised to evaluate whether the roadway warrants a lower posted speed limit.
The Traffic Calming Guide is prepared for Caltrans for use on the California State highway system and it is not a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience, or judgment. It is neither intended as, nor does it establish, a legal standard for these functions. The traffic calming strategies established and discussed herein are for the information and guidance of the officers and employees of Caltrans. Many instructions given herein are subject to amendment as conditions and experience warrant. Special situations may call for deviation from this guide. The publication of this guide shall not create, nor is it intended to be, a standard of conduct or duty toward the public.
Item 35.
Traffic Calming Guide
4 | P age
Identifying the Need for Traffic Calming
Based on engineering judgment, traffic calming strategies should be considered whenever there is a need to reduce vehicle speeds and/or traffic volumes on a roadway or roadway network. Increased consideration should be given to the following areas: 1) Along Safety Corridors or roadway segments with a high percentage of speed-related collisions, 2) In locations or facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians (refer to CA MUTCD Section 2B.13 for definition of “Safety Corridor” and “land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians” ), 3) To support transitions from high speed to low speed contexts, such as in the Transitional Area place type or when approaching a Rural Main Street. Caltrans recognizes that the implementation of traffic calming strategies may not be suitable for some project types and scope of work.
Caltrans may collaborate with local agencies and the community to identify the roadway segments of need and select the appropriate traffic calming strategies early in the project development phase.
How This Guide Is Organized
The Traffic Calming Guide consists of six categories: Signings and Markings, Physical Intersection Modifications, Roadway Narrowing, Vertical Roadway Elements, Physical Roadway Segment Modifications, and Others. Each category contains several traffic calming measures that belong to the category and information related to measures is presented in the following sub articles: Description, Placement, Performance, Maintenance Considerations, Other Considerations, References, and Sample Projects.
This guide was produced in close collaboration between Division of Safety Programs, Traffic Operations, and Design. Each individual calming measure was written by an editor, who is the subject matter expert in their respective Division. Any future updates after the initial publication will have a vertical line in the left or right-side margin with a revision date at the footer to mark the updated content to the readers.
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
5 | P a ge
Category A. Signings and Markings
Description
Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs
Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs (SFS), also known as Dynamic Speed Displays, provide drivers with a feedback display of vehicles speed, while reminding drivers of the posted speed limit. SFS can be an effective method for reducing speeds at a desired location when appropriately complemented with police enforcement.
Placement
SFS assembly with R2-1
Vehicle Speed Feedback signs can only collect and display the speed of one vehicle at a time. Vehicle Speed Feedback signs are most effective when there is only one lane of traffic in each direction with daily volumes low enough to allow for gaps in traffic. The usage can vary depending on the purpose of placement and site conditions.
Functional Classification: Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: These signs are most effective on roadways where there are gaps between vehicles.
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: CA MUTCD section 2B does not indicate maximum posted speed limits for this countermeasure.
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
6 | P a ge
Performance
Speed Reduction: The FHWA cited 7 studies that ranged from a 2 MPH to 7 MPH speed reduction. This countermeasure is most effective when paired with enforcement and can lose its effectiveness over time as drivers become desensitized to the notification when it is not accompanied by enforcement.
Volume Reduction: N/A (This was not well documented and is not generally a goal of this measure)
Impact on Emergency Response: None
Mobility Impacts: Nominal
Maintenance Considerations
• Need to consider speed accuracy to avoid underestimation of speed • Signs need to be calibrated regularly. The frequency can vary, but yearly is common
• Need to consider overall sign visibility
• Need to consider power source and need for backup power • Contact Caltrans maintenance for maintainability, roles, and responsibilities when placed on the SHS
Other Considerations
• More effective if used with other information indicators or signs to reduce speed.
Consider pairing with police enforcement
• Consider placement within School Zones
• Consider setting a maximum speed threshold over the speed limit to flash, “SLOW DOWN” instead of reporting the speed. A maximum of 10-15 MPH over the posted limit is common
• Specifications of the signs should be reviewed ahead of installation • Consider the existing and future landscape on the visibility of the sign
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
7 | P a ge
References
1. California MUTCD - Caltrans
2. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
Sample Projects
H Street in Sacramento, CA (Google Earth)
Project Description:
Vehicle Speed Feedback sign was installed along H Street in Sacramento to discourage excessive speeding through the residential neighborhood.
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
8 | P a ge
Description
Speed Reduction Markings
Speed Reduction Markings (also known as Optical Speed Bars) are transverse pavement markings placed with progressively reduced spacing on both edges of the traveled way to create the perception of increased speed. This illusion encourages drivers to slow down as they pass by the markings. Durable marking materials should be used as markings are exposed to increased wear from tires. See California MUTCD Section 3B.22 for additional details.
Placement
Speed Reduction Markings (CA MUTCD)
Speed reduction markings should be reserved for unexpected curves and should not be used on long tangent sections of roadway or in locations frequented mainly by local or familiar drivers. Speed reduction markings shall not be used in lanes that do not have a longitudinal line (center line, edge line, or lane line) on both sides of the lane.
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
9 | P a ge
Functional Classification: Collectors and Local Roads
Appropriate Daily Volume Range: Any
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: Table 3 in FHWA’s Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety 2016 contains guidelines for approach speeds from 45 MPH to 70 MPH and curve speeds from 15 MPH to 50 MPH.
Performance
Speed Reduction: 0-5 MPH reduction (FHWA)
Impact on Emergency Response: None
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Impact of salt and other road treatments on markings
• Use durable marking materials that can withstand snowplow operations • Use of depressions for markings, so that road plowing operations pass over the top without impacting the markings
OTHER
• Impact of constant traffic wear of the pavement markings Other Considerations
• Where significant eradication of existing markings is required, it is recommended that this measure is implemented within a re-paving project • CA MUTCD and latest applicable standards/other manuals should be utilized • Check if there are conflicts with other pavement delineation and markers References
1. California MUTCD (Section 3B.22) - Caltrans
2. Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety 2016 (Chapter 3) - FHWA
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
10 | P a ge
Sample Project
Folsom Blvd approaching US 50 WB on-ramp in Folsom, CA (Google Earth) Project Description:
Speed reduction markings were placed on the Folsom Blvd turn lane leading to the onramp. The pavement markings were placed in a pattern of progressively reduced spacing to give drivers the impression of increased speed, so drivers will slow down prior to entering the horizontal curve.
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
11 | P a ge
Description
In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs
In-street Pedestrian Crossing signs are placed within a roadway, either between travel lanes or in a median. The sign may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right of way at an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. In California, the R1-6 usage is limited because the sign does not enforce vehicles to stop per CVC 21950.
The In-street Pedestrian Crossing sign is used with other crosswalk visibility enhancements to indicate preferred locations for people to cross and help reinforce the driver requirement to yield the right of way to pedestrians at designated pedestrian crossing locations.
Placement
In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6) (FHWA)
Most uncontrolled pedestrian crossings with high pedestrian volumes, especially on roadway crossings with 10,000+ ADT (FHWA). See Table 1 for additional recommendation for placement.
Functional Classification: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH or less (FHWA)
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
12 | P a ge
Performance
Speed Reduction: N/A (Driver compliance, such as drivers yielding for pedestrians increased significantly)
Volume Reduction: N/A
Impact to Emergency Response: None
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Need appropriate width to avoid damaging the sign
• Consider seasonal removal of signs
OTHER
• Consider mountable design to avoid conflicts with commercial vehicles Other Considerations
• Should only be used at uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations • Consult with the District Pedestrians and Bicyclists Safety Engineer • Must meet AASHTO breakaway requirements
• Should be removable for roadway maintenance
• Background can be yellow or fluorescent optic yellow
References
1. Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements - FHWA
2. California MUTCD - Caltrans
3. In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign - PEDSAFE
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
13 | P a ge
Sample Project
Mission St and Admiral Ave in San Francisco, CA (Google Earth) Project Description:
The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign (R1-6) was installed at this intersection to remind drivers of pedestrian right of way laws.
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
14 | P a ge
Crosswalk Enhancement
Description
Poor lighting and other factors that reduce driver visibility can cause safety issues at pedestrian crosswalks. In high speed or high vehicle traffic conditions, a substantially visible roadway crossing area could prevent or reduce the amount of pedestrian-related collisions. Any number of enhancements may be combined to increase vehicle operators’ visibility of the crosswalk and pedestrian users. Enhancement options include:
• High-visibility crosswalk markings and marking patterns • In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign
• Improved lighting
• Advance Stop/Yield/Pedestrian Crossing markings and signs • Parking restrictions
• Curb Extension
• Raised Crosswalk
• Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (see CA MUTCD Chapter 4F)
Crosswalk Enhancement Example (FHWA)
Placement
At a crosswalk location, especially on multilane roadways with vehicle volumes
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
15 | P a ge
exceeding 10,000 ADT (FHWA).
Functional Classification: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: Varies per improvement. See Table 1 below. *Refer to Chapter 4 from Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations for more information using multiple countermeasures.
**It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.
Table 1: Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature (Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA) Posted Speed Limit: N/A
Performance
Speed Reduction: N/A (Driver compliance, such as drivers slowing down/stopping for pedestrians have increased significantly, but the references did not analyze the reduction of speeds across the entire corridor)
Volume Reduction: N/A Page 427
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
16 | P a ge
Impact on Emergency Response: None
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Provide sufficient lane width to avoid in-roadway signs and markings being damaged by snowplows
• Road salt and snowplows can shorten the lifespan of high-visibility crosswalk markings. Road salt can interfere with the bonding agent.
OTHER
• Marking durability
• The reflectivity of the markings will fade and lose effectiveness, so they will need to be monitored/updated regularly
• R1-6 signs may be damaged by vehicles if placed in the middle of the roadway Other Considerations
• More complex installations such as lights or pavement treatments can be costly • Inlayed thermoplastic markings can be more reflective than paint or brick • Lighting should be placed in forward locations to avoid a silhouette effect of the pedestrian
• In-street signing should be considered for roadways with posted speeds of 30 MPH or less
• Consult with the District Pedestrians and Bicyclists Safety Engineer References
1. The Relative Effectiveness of Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures at Urban Intersections – Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
2. Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements - FHWA
3. California MUTCD (Section 3B.16, 3B.18; Chapters 4E, 4F, 4L) - Caltrans
4. Proven Safety Countermeasures - FHWA
5. FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
6. Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations - FHWA
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
17 | P a ge
Sample Project
Mission Ave in San Rafael, CA (Google Earth)
Project Description:
The City of San Rafael implemented additional signage (R1-5, W11- 2, and W16-7P), advance yield pavement markings, and ladder crosswalk pavement marking to slow down vehicles at Mission Ave. These enhancements increase the likelihood that motor vehicles will notice crossing pedestrians.
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
18 | P a ge
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs)
Description
Pedestrian hybrid beacons are a pedestrian-activated overhead signal consisting of two red lenses above a single yellow lens. The lenses remain “dark” until a pedestrian pushes the call button to activate the beacon, which then initiates a yellow to red lighting sequence that directs motorists to slow and come to a stop. The pedestrian hybrid beacon accompanied with appropriate signs and pavement markings provides greater visibility for locations, where a crosswalk is not accompanied by a signal-controlled intersection.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (FHWA)
Placement
Midblock crossings, school crossings, and other uncontrolled crosswalks/bike crossings across multi-lane (3+ lanes) roadways. The location should be identified with a pedestrian and bike need. This measure should only be installed at marked crosswalks and the criteria for placement should follow marked crosswalk placement criteria. Refer to CA MUTCD Chapter 4F Page 430
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
19 | P a ge
Functional Classification: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: 9,000 ADT or more (FHWA). See Table 1 for more information on placement.
Posted Speed Limit: Varies. Refer to CA MUTCD Figure 4F-1 for posted speed limit less than or equal to 35 MPH. Refer to CA MUTCD Figure 4F-2 for posted speed limit greater than 35 MPH.
Performance
Speed Reduction: N/A (Driver compliance, drivers slowing down/stopping for pedestrians will increased significantly)
Impact on Emergency Response: Similar to other signalized crossings, where emergency response vehicles will need to slow down to verify pedestrian presence in the crossing if the beacon is activated.
Mobility Impacts: Nominal
Maintenance Considerations
• Keeping pedestrian indications red if beacons fail
• Activation method (button or sensor)
• Electrical and sign maintenance
Other Considerations
• Options such as improved lighting, advance or in-street warning signage, pavement markings, and geometric design elements can be combined to increase visibility of crosswalk. PHBs should only be installed with marked crosswalks and pedestrian countdown signals
• Community outreach should be performed if PHBs are not common within a community
• Consult with the District Pedestrians and Bicyclists Safety Engineer • Adding signs to pole mast arms will require a wind load analysis from Structures Design and Geotechnical units
• Maintaining minimum sidewalk clear width in compliance with ADA if poles and foundations are placed within sidewalk. See DIB 82
• Right of way considerations if signal poles and foundations placed outside of right of way
• Signal pole foundations can impact existing utilities • Consider the location of stop bars. Factors such as stopping sight distance to the stop bars and beacons should be verified. Consider adding transverse rumble strips in advance of stop bars Page 431
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
20 | P a ge
References
1. California MUTCD (Chapter 4F) - Caltrans
2. Design Information Bulletin 82 - Caltrans
3. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Tech Sheet - FHWA
4. Proven Safety Countermeasures - FHWA
Sample Project
State Route 168 and Edward St in Bishop, CA (Google Maps) Project Description:
This project on State Route 168 was completed in November 2020 with the goal to enhance driver awareness of pedestrians at an uncontrolled crossing. Additional calming measures were incorporated, such as pedestrian crosswalk regulatory signs, pedestrian hybrid beacon, restriping with high-visibility markings, and upgrading the crosswalk to ADA standards.
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
21 | P a ge
Flashing Beacons
Description
Flashing beacons use repeating flashing lights to warn motorists. They are used to draw motorists’ attention to a sign informing them of an upcoming change in the road conditions that could include unseen intersections, schools, curves, or applications discussed in the placement section below.
Flashing Beacons on US 50 EB to Business 80 Connector in Sacramento, CA (Google Maps)
Placement
CA MUTCD Chapter 4L lists the following typical applications:
• Signal ahead
• Stop signs
• Speed limit signs
• Other warning and regulatory signs
• Schools
• Fire stations
• Intersection control
• Freeway bus stops
• At Intersections, where a more visible warning is desired:
o Obstructions in or immediately adjacent to the roadway o Supplemental to advance warning signs
o At mid-block crosswalks
o At intersections, where a warning is appropriate
Functional Classification: Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: Appropriate for all volume ranges
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
22 | P a ge
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: Appropriate for all posted speed limits, but it is best suited to situations where the difference between the posted and advisory speed is greater than 10 MPH under the posted speed limit.
Performance
Speed Reduction: The Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) show a significant reduction in crashes, which suggests the most extreme speeds were likely reduced (FHWA).
Volume Reduction: N/A (This was not well documented and is not generally a goal of this measure)
Impact on Emergency Response: None
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Ice can reduce the visibility of the flashing beacons and damage lights OTHER
• Power source. Use of solar-power panels can eliminate the need for a power source and save energy cost
• Visibility in inclement weather
• Foliage obstructing beacons
Other Considerations
• Flashing beacons should be considered when warning signs have proven insufficient to gain driver attention
• The condition or regulation for justifying Warning Beacons should largely determine their placement. Warning Beacons should only operate during those periods or times when the condition or regulation exists • Warning beacons shall be used only to supplement a warning or regulatory sign or marker
• Automatic dimming devices should be considered for night operations • Beacon flash rate shall be between 50 and 60 times per minute • Warning (yellow) beacons should not be used to emphasize Stop, Do Not Enter, Wrong Way, and Speed Limit signs
• Speed Limit Sign Beacon shall be used only to supplement a Speed Limit Sign. • A Stop Beacon shall be used only to supplement a STOP sign, a Do NOT ENTER sign, or Wrong Way Sign.
• Beacons shall not be included in the border of a sign
Item 35.
Category A. Signings and Markings
23 | P a ge
• Edge of beacon signal housing should normally be no closer than 12” to the nearest edge of the sign
• 6” diameter lights
• Posts should be break-away and/or crash tested, otherwise will need to be shielded by guardrail, barrier or crash cushion
References
1. California MUTCD (Chapter 4L) - Caltrans
2. Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety 2016 (Chapter 4) - FHWA Sample Project
State Route 174 in Colfax, CA (Google Earth)
Project Description:
This project is located on State Route 174 in Placer County. A flashing beacon was implemented along with an advance warning sign in order to draw the attention of motorists to the upcoming curve in the roadway.
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
24 | P a ge
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
Description
Roundabouts
A roundabout is a form of circular intersection in which traffic travels counterclockwise around a central island and entering traffic must yield to the circulating traffic. They feature, among other things, a central island, a circulatory roadway, and splitter islands on each approach.
Roundabout design has certain attributes that can reduce speed, such as geometric design of approach alignment and circular roadway of a roundabout. Modern roundabouts also have fewer conflict points, especially the high angle conflict points, which results in less severe crashes when compared to stop-controlled or signal-controlled intersections. Additionally, a roundabout also separates the conflict points which eases the ability of the driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist to identify a conflict and helps prevent conflicts from becoming crashes.
Roundabouts are included among FHWA’s 28 Proven Safety Countermeasures due to their significant safety and operational benefits. Roundabouts are analyzed per Caltrans’ Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP), which evaluates the various intersection control type designs on the State Highway System (SHS) to address intersection improvement project strategies. For more information about the ISOAP process, see, ISOAP Process Information Guide.
State Route (SR) 29 Napa Roundabout
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
25 | P a ge
Placement
Roundabouts can accommodate existing site constraints, such as intersections with skewed angles or other nontypical configurations. They are inherently flexible, which can lead to successful installations within or near main streets, schools, and railroads, among others.
Caltrans’ roundabout guidance is provided in Highway Design Manual Index 405.10. See Figure 405.10A “Roundabout Geometric Elements” for nomenclature associated with roundabouts. Signs, striping and markings at roundabouts shall comply with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).
Roundabout intersections on the SHS must be developed and evaluated in accordance with the ISOAP memo. The FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer Section 3.9 contains useful information on roundabouts as a traffic calming strategy.
Functional Classifications: Minor Arterial, Collectors, and Local Roads Performance
Speed Reduction: Speed reduction is dependent on adequate advanced warning, vertical profile, driver familiarity or deflection of the travel path to slow vehicles. Speeds are approximately 40% lower in a roundabout than 350’ away from the intersection (FHWA).
Roundabouts should be designed so that the maximum entry speed for a single lane roundabout is 25 MPH and 30 MPH for a multilane roundabout. The entry speed should be verified by the fastest path performance check.
Volume Reduction: Negligible (FHWA)
Impact of Emergency Vehicle Access: Minimal – Roundabouts should be designed so that emergency vehicles can smoothly navigate through a roundabout without hitting a curb.
Mobility Impact: For any intersection alternative analysis, a transportation operational and safety analysis is needed to properly assess impacts either from the new or change in intersection control type to the project area and adjacent roadway network. Conformance to the ISOAP Memo and Process Information Guide is required for all projects that add new intersections or propose to change the existing intersection control configuration on the State Highway System.
Transportation analysis scope and methodology considerations include:
• Traffic control warrant analysis consistent with the CA MUTCD Section 4C may be needed when screening intersection alternatives. Note that there are no traffic control warrants for a roundabout
• Analysis of the project area and impacted parallel facilities • Intersection analysis and modeling should be conducted to assess potential operational deficiencies
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
26 | P a ge
• Bicycle and Pedestrian analysis should be conducted consistent with Highway Capacity Manual (Chapters 4, 15, 24, and 35 and FHWA methodologies) • Impacts to local freight and truck circulation should be considered. Truck turning templates used in the performance checks need to be validated and agreed by the District Truck Access Managers
For projects on the local road network, a transportation analysis that includes potential SHS impacts from diverted trips should be conducted through the Local Development Review (LDR) or Encroachment Permit process.
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Consider snow storage in and around the roundabout and the shared use path • Consider the difficulty in removing snow and provide mountable curbs and shared use paths widths to accommodate snow removal operations
OTHER
• Consider landscape maintenance
• Sweeping maintenance
• Striping and pavement marking maintenance
• If near a railroad, school or applied to a highly skewed intersection, additional parameters might need to be accommodated
Other Considerations
• Roundabout design is an iterative process. The geometry is governed by performance check evaluations. Refer to NCHRP 672 Chapter 6, Section 6.7 for information regarding performance checks
• The sidewalk should be designed as a shared use path, since the path will serve both pedestrians and bicyclists, who are not comfortable taking the lane to proceed through the roundabout. Although the sidewalk is considered a shared use path, it does not need to meet the design standards in Index 1003, but it should meet the design standards within Index 405.10
• A landscape buffer/strip, detectable by cane and underfoot, between the sidewalk and the back of curb for the circular roadway of the roundabout should be a minimum of 2 feet wide
• Pedestrian activated push buttons should be considered for crossing more than one lane. If one leg of a roundabout has a crossing that includes crossing more than one lane, then consider providing push buttons for all crossings of that intersection. Refer to NCHRP 834
• Chicanes may be utilized at the approaches of the roundabout to reduce speeds prior to entering the roundabout
• Consult with the District Traffic Safety Engineer, District Traffic Operation Engineer, and District ISOAP Coordinator for guidance and recommendations
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
27 | P a ge
References
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 400
2. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)
3. Design Information Bulletin 94, Complete Streets
4. Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclist and Pedestrians
5. 28 Proven Safety Countermeasures
6. Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) #13-02
7. ISOAP Process Information Guide | Caltrans
8. NCHRP 672
9. NCHRP 834
10.Oversize Overweight Vehicles – District Truck Access Manger (DTAM) / District Truck Coordinator Contract
11.Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis |The National Academies Press
12.Traffic Calming ePrimer- FHWA
13.Roundabouts for bikes and peds FHWA
14.Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety | FHWA
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
28 | P a ge
Sample Projects
Via Real extension & Ogan Rd, Carpentaria, CA (Google Maps) Project Description:
The new Ogan Road roundabout will connect to the Via Real extension and provide easier access onto northbound Highway 101 with a longer on-ramp. Additionally, improvements within the project includes, concrete splitter islands, shared use pedestrian path with buffered landscape strip, light poles for illumination, etc.
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
29 | P a ge
Description
Full Closure
Typical full closure implementation can help improve safety by reducing intersection conflict points and cut-through traffic. These applications can also be designed to accommodate safer bicycle and pedestrian movements. An analysis of the shift in vehicular trips anticipated from full closures should be conducted in order to assess whether travel demand and certain traffic movements can be accommodated within the project area roadway network. It should be noted that the full closure implementation, as a traffic calming tool, is not applicable for state routes.
Local public agencies may close local roads intersecting a state route.
Placement
Image of Full-Street Closure (PennDOT)
At an intersecting through street, rather than the interior of a neighborhood (PennDOT) Functional Classification: Local Roads
Place Type: Urban Area and Suburban Area, where there are near-by alternative routes. Only appropriate along a two-way roadway
Maximum Grade: N/A – However, adequate sight distance approaching the closure should be provided
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
30 | P a ge
Performance
Speed Reduction: Speed on the closed street will reduce to zero.
Volume Reduction: Reduction can be high but varies widely based on site specific conditions.
Impact on Emergency Response: Can Removes access – Not appropriate along a primary emergency access route or a street that provides access to a hospital/medical services.
However, a 12’ wide mountable curb (free of a barrier) can be installed if emergency vehicle access needs to be maintained (FHWA). This barrier should be clearly signed/marked for emergency use only (FHWA). Additionally, impacts to existing and potential future evacuation routes need to be considered in accordance with DIB 93. Project team should consult with Caltrans’s Traffic Management, emergency response agencies, and law enforcement agencies for their input.
Mobility Impact: A transportation analysis may be needed to properly assess impacts of the capacity reduction associated with typical full closure projects within the project area and adjacent roadway network. Transportation analysis scope and methodology considerations include:
• Travel demand modeling to assess diversion impacts to other routes due to the reduction in capacity
• Analysis of the project area and impacted parallel facilities • Intersection analysis and modeling should be conducted to assess potential operational deficiencies
• ISOAP and traffic control warrant analysis consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) may be needed if there are major changes to travel demand
• Bicycle and Pedestrian analysis should be conducted consistent with HCM (Chapters 4, 15, 24, and 35) and FHWA methodologies
• Impacts of increased ADT due to diverted trips
• Impacts to local freight and truck circulation
For projects on the local road network, a transportation analysis that includes potential SHS impacts from diverted trips should be conducted through the Local Development Review (LDR) or Encroachment Permit process.
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Provide adequate room for snowplows to turn around or navigate the road closure OTHER
• Maintain landscaping Page 442
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
31 | P a ge
Other Considerations
• Eliminating parking on the approaches to the closure will assist u-turning traffic • Diagonal diverter should have some type of barrier to physically prevent drivers from traversing it
• Drainage impacts
• Public engagement is recommended
• Impact to local businesses due to modified access
• Increase traffic to alternative parallel routes
• Impacts to existing utilities
• Impact to transit operator/user
• Advanced signing and appropriate notice need to be given for the closure • Design cut-outs to accommodate bicycle, pedestrian, and wheelchair traffic • Consider the consequences of an increase in traffic on alternative parallel routes References
1. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93
2. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
3. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition - The National Academies Press
4. Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety - FHWA
5. Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection - FHWA
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
32 | P a ge
Sample Project
City of Stockton Traffic Calming Program
Project Description:
The City of Stockton implemented this full closure to help improve safety by reducing intersection conflict points and cut-through traffic.
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
33 | P a ge
Intersection Barrier
Description
A intersection barrier can be used to limit left-turn movements through an intersection. A fixed barrier such as a curb, raised island, or planter limits vehicle movements through the intersection, forcing drivers to reduce approach speeds. Advance warning signs and markings should clearly indicate limitations to movement, particularly in low visibility areas. Gaps in the barrier (commonly 8 feet) should be included to allow pedestrians and bicycles to pass through.
Intersection/Median Barrier (DelDOT)
Placement
Best suited for installation along minor arterials or collectors at their intersection with local (side) streets.
Functional Classification: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
34 | P a ge
Appropriate Daily Volume Range: All ADTs (FHWA)
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH or less for local (side) streets (FHWA). Appropriate for speeds below 45 MPH on SHS.
Performance
Speed Reduction: Not expected to reduce speeds along side streets, since all vehicles will come to a stop in both the before and after conditions. The primary road will not see a reduction in speed.
Volume Reduction: Up to 70% on local (side) streets (PennDOT) Impact on Emergency Response: May restrict access and is not recommended for placement along emergency access routes. Project team should consult emergency response agencies along with local and state law enforcement agencies.
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Fixed object in the traveled way may impact snowplow operations • Keeping pedestrian/cyclist/emergency vehicle gaps clear of snow and debris OTHER
• If landscaped, need to consider maintenance and access • Durability of mountable curbs
• Road maintenance access and sweeping activities
Other Considerations
• Impact on drainage and utilities
• Mountable curb and/or a larger barrier opening (at least 10 feet and clearly signed for emergency vehicles only) to allow for emergency access
• Appropriate signing and pavement markings on approaches • Public Engagement is recommended
• Check if lane width reduction through use of an intersection barrier affects Design Vehicle swept path and tracking (HDM Topic 404 - Design Vehicles) • Impact on existing traffic. Restricting left-turn movement and reducing lane width may negatively impact access for trucks and other larger vehicles. Consider if alternative routes are available. May increase traffic volume on adjacent parallel streets • Extend the intersection barrier beyond the intersection, typically 15 to 25 feet, to discourage left turns from the main street
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
35 | P a ge
References
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Topic 404 - Caltrans
2. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets - ITE
Sample Project
Martin Luther King Jr Way and Addison St in Berkeley, CA (Google Earth) Project Description:
This intersection barrier provides a refuge for bicyclist and pedestrians, while allowing emergency vehicles to traverse its mountable curb. As a traffic diverter, the median restricts turning movements from Martin Luther King Jr Way, which eliminates a potential conflict point.
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
36 | P a ge
Description
Partial Closure/Semi-Diverter
Typical partial closure implementation can help improve safety by reducing intersection conflict points and cut-through traffic. These applications can also be designed to accommodate safer bicycle and pedestrian movements. An analysis of the shift in vehicular trips anticipated from partial closures should be conducted in order to assess whether travel demand as well as certain traffic movements can be accommodated within the project area roadway network.
Placement
Partial Closure/Semi-Diverter (DelDOT)
Best suited for installation along minor arterials or collectors at their intersection with a local road. Mid-block locations have a higher rate of violation (PennDOT). Extending the length of the semi-diverter can reduce violations.
Functional Classification: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: All ADTs (FHWA)
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: ≤ 25 MPH on minor leg. No maximum posted speed limit on major leg (FHWA)
Grade: <6% (DelDOT)
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
37 | P a ge
Performance
Speed Reduction: 2-5MPH (PennDOT); Not expected to reduce speeds along side streets by much, since all vehicles will come to a stop in both the before and after conditions.
Volume Reduction: Up to 35-40% on local streets (DelDOT), 40-60% on local streets (PennDOT)
Impact on Emergency Response: Not recommended for placement along emergency access routes. Additionally, impacts to existing and potential future evacuation routes need to be considered in accordance with DIB 93. Project team should consult with Caltrans’s Traffic Management, emergency response agencies and law enforcement agencies.
Mobility Impact: A transportation analysis may be needed to properly assess impacts from the throughput capacity reduction associated with typical partial closure projects within the project area and adjacent roadway network. Transportation analysis scope and methodology considerations include:
• Travel demand modeling to assess diversion impacts to other routes due to the reduction in capacity
• Analysis of the project area and impacted parallel facilities • Intersection analysis and modeling should be conducted to assess potential operational deficiencies
• ISOAP and traffic control warrant analysis consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) may be needed if there are major changes to travel demand
• Bicycle and Pedestrian analysis should be conducted consistent with HCM (Chapters 4, 15, 24, and 35) and FHWA methodologies
• Impacts of increased ADT due to diverted trips
• Impacts to local freight and truck circulation
For projects on the local road network, a transportation analysis that includes potential SHS impacts from diverted trips should be conducted through the Local Development Review (LDR) or Encroachment Permit process.
Maintenance Considerations
• Specialized equipment will be needed for snow plowing the bike cut-out • Consider maintenance and access if landscaped
• Consider surface treatment upkeep and maintenance of flex posts
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
38 | P a ge
Other Considerations
• Low-laying shrubbery are preferred to maintain sight lines if landscaped • Impacts to large design vehicle tracking and swept width lines • Consider mountable curb to allow emergency access
• Impact to drainage
• Public engagement is recommended
References
1. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
2. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 - Caltrans
3. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition - The National Academies Press
4. Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety - FHWA
5. Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection - FHWA Sample Project
29th St and G St in Sacramento, CA (Google Earth)
Project Description:
The City of Sacramento implemented partial closure calming measure to reduce conflict points and cut-through traffic. This measure has the added benefit of accommodating safer bicycle and pedestrian movements through the street by restricting traffic.
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
39 | P a ge
Right-In, Right-Out
Description
Typical right-in, right-out implementation can help improve safety by reducing intersection conflict points, cut-through traffic, and restricting movements that have a higher likelihood of more severe injury crashes. These applications can also be designed to accommodate safer bicycle and pedestrian movements. An analysis of the shift in vehicular trips anticipated from right-in, right-out projects should be conducted to assess whether travel demand and certain traffic movements can be accommodated within the project area and roadway network.
Placement
Image of Right-In, Right-Out (PennDOT)
At an intersection of a local road that intersects a collector or minor/ principal arterial in Urban Area or Suburban Area. Also recommended at intersections of local streets with major roadways that have a documented cut-through traffic issue or safety concerns with the left-turn movement.
Functional Classification: Local Roads
Appropriate Daily Volume Range: 500-7,500 ADT with >25% Non-Local Traffic (El Paso) Maximum Posted Speed Limit: Generally, 25 MPH or less on local road (DelDOT) Performance
Speed Reduction: Little to no impact on speed (PennDOT)
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
40 | P a ge
Volume Reduction: 20-60% along the local road (PennDOT) Impact on Emergency Response Access: If along a primary emergency response route, the curb should be designed to allow emergency vehicles to make left-turns to/from the minor roadway. Additionally, impacts to existing and potential future evacuation routes need to be considered in accordance with DIB 93. Project team should consult with Caltrans’s Traffic Management, emergency response agencies and law enforcement agencies.
Mobility Impact: A transportation analysis may be needed to properly assess impacts from the throughput capacity reduction associated with typical right-in, right-out projects within the project area and adjacent roadway network. Transportation analysis scope and methodology considerations include:
• Travel demand modeling to assess diversion impacts to other routes due to the reduction in capacity
• Analysis of the project area and impacted parallel facilities • Intersection analysis and modeling should be conducted to assess potential operational deficiencies
• ISOAP and traffic control warrant analysis consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) may be needed if there are major changes to travel demand
• Bicycle and Pedestrian analysis should be conducted consistent with HCM (Chapters 4, 15, 24, and 35) and FHWA methodologies.
• Impacts of increased ADT due to diverted trips
• Impacts to local freight and truck circulation
For projects on the local road network, a transportation analysis that includes potential SHS impacts from diverted trips should be conducted through the Local Development Review (LDR) or Encroachment Permit process.
Other Considerations
• Forced turn island can be designed with mountable curb to accommodate oversized vehicles. Refer to HDM Topic 404 Design Vehicles
• Force turn island can be designed as a pedestrian refuge if there is adequate roadway width
• Access for snow equipment
• May impact existing utilities
References
1. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 - Caltrans
2. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
3. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets - ITE
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
41 | P a ge
4. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition
5. Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety - FHWA
6. Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection - FHWA Sample Project
Lomo Crossing project on State Route 99 in Live Oak
Project Description:
The Lomo Crossing project on State Route 99 in Live Oak, CA is proposing intersection improvements that include restricting through and left-turning movements with right-in, rightout implementation. The project will improve safety by reducing the likelihood of severe crashes, which occur from the minor street crossing movements. An interim temporary barrier was constructed to achieve right-in, right-out benefits before full project implementation.
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
42 | P a ge
Tee-up Intersection and Reduce Corner Radii
Description
Corner radii directly impacts vehicle turning speeds and pedestrian crossing distances.
Minimizing the size of a corner radius is critical to creating compact intersections with safe turning speeds.
The prevalence of speeding vehicles at skewed intersections can have a negative effect on all users of the intersection. If the State highway alignment has an angle or curve, a reconstructed intersection with right angles will induce slower speeds to negotiate the turning movements.
This concept is especially useful at interchange ramp intersections with local roads. Common issues seen at skewed intersections are illustrated in the figure below.
Minor Leg Skewed to the Right
Placement
A right angle (90°) intersection provides the most favorable conditions for intersecting and turning traffic movements. Large deviations from right angles may decrease visibility, hamper certain turning operations, encourage high speed turns, and may reduce yielding to turning traffic. Furthermore, it will increase the size Page 454 of intersection and therefore increase crossing Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
43 | P a ge
distances for bicyclist and pedestrian. Guidance for angle of intersections is contained in the HDM Index 403.3.
The guidance within HDM Index 405.8 discusses design elements that should be accounted for when adjusting City Street Returns and Corner Radii.
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: N/A
Performance
Speed Reduction: Turning speeds should be limited to 15 MPH or less when reducing corner radii. Minimizing turning speeds is crucial to pedestrian safety, as corners are where drivers are most likely to encounter pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk (NACTO).
Volume Reduction: This is not well documented and depends on the level of discomfort experienced by turning vehicles as well as the availability of alternative routes.
Impact of Emergency Response Routes: Minimal
Mobility Impact: Varying. An assessment of the potential mobility impacts may be needed for intersections with heavy travel demand or concentrated peak hour movements. If applied to ramp termini intersections, additional improvements may be needed to reduce potential mobility impacts. Refer to ISOAP Process Information Guide for more information. Truck turning movement impacts should be considered.
Other Considerations
• Consider additional intersection lighting
• Consider existing drainage impacts and utility relocation • Consider including all modes of transportation
• Consider extending median curbs, where necessary to discourage wrong-way movements onto the mainline at interchanges
• Additional right of way acquisition maybe required
• Where right of way is constrained in an urban environment, consider evaluating other types of intersections such as roundabouts
• Design Vehicle swept path and tracking analysis should be performed when reducing corner radii
• Corner Sight Distance Analysis
Item 35.
Category B. Physical Intersection Modifications
44 | P a ge
References
1. Highway Design Manual Chapter 400
2. Design Information Bulletin 94, Complete Streets
3. Complete Intersections-Caltrans
4. Urban Street Design Guide- NACTO
Sample Project
Before (Google Earth) After (Google Earth)
Project Description:
The project is located at Main Ave and Rio Linda Blvd in Sacramento County. Improvements include, tee-up intersection improvement, new bus stop, traffic signalization, dedicated bike lanes, turn pockets, crosswalk markings, etc.
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
45 | P a ge
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
Road Diet
Description
Typical road diets include roadway treatments that reduce the number of travel lanes and/or lane widths in order to address transportation deficiencies. Road diet in general allows reclaimed space to be allocated for other uses, such as bike lanes, sidewalks, bus islands and shelters, bus lanes, landscaping, pedestrian refuge islands, turn lanes, or parking. These modifications are intended to encourage slower operating speeds and provide new or enhanced facilities for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit users by reducing vehicular capacity.
The reallocation of roadway space is intended to promote active transportation facilities as well as pedestrian and bicycle safety. A multi-modal transportation analysis is necessary to quantify mobility and safety impacts within the project area as well as adjacent roadway network.
Road Diet (FHWA)
Placement
See Table 1 for more information on placement.
Functional Classification: Principal and Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: 20,000 ADT or less or a peak hour volume below 1,000 after implementation (FHWA). Caltrans Traffic Management should be consulted for road diet projects with volume beyond 20,000 ADT.
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
46 | P a ge
Speed Limit: Most common urban speed limits (FHWA)
Performance
Speed Reduction: There is a wide range of road diet layouts that can result in various levels of speed reduction. Speed reduction is mainly due to an increase in congestion as well as driver discomfort due to narrower lane widths. Two field studies measured reductions of 1-2 MPH for the 85th percentile speed (FHWA).
Volume Reduction: Low, assuming that the road diet was applied to roadways with low demand, so that the proposed configuration can meet the capacity of the roadway. Road diet implementation can increase the use of other multi-modal facilities, which can reduce the volume of motorist. A traffic impact analysis may be needed for road diets, where the roadway cannot fully meet the demand of the new configuration.
Impact to Emergency Response: Nominal. If the project is on emergency access routes, road diets should be assessed for changes in response time and alternative emergency access routes. Impacts to existing and potential future evacuation routes will need to be considered in accordance with Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93. Project team should consult with Caltrans’s Traffic Management, emergency response agencies, and law enforcement agencies for their input.
Mobility Impact: A transportation analysis is needed to properly assess impacts from the throughput capacity reduction associated with typical road diet projects within the project area as well as adjacent roadway network. Transportation analysis scope and methodology considerations include:
• Travel demand modeling to assess diversion impacts to other routes due to the reduction in capacity
• Analysis of the project area and impacted parallel facilities • Intersection analysis and modeling should be conducted to assess potential operational deficiencies
• Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) and Highway Safety Manual (HSM) analysis may be needed if there are major physical changes or travel demand in the project area. Traffic control warrant analysis should be consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) • Bicycle and Pedestrian analysis should be conducted consistent with HCM (Chapters 4, 15, 24, and 35) and FHWA methodologies.
• Impact of ADT due to diverted trips.
• Impact to local freight and truck circulation.
For projects on the local road network, a transportation analysis that includes potential SHS impacts from diverted trips should be conducted through the Local Development Review (LDR) or Encroachment Permit process. In addition to the considerations above, the analysis should
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
47 | P a ge
include ramp queueing.
Maintenance Considerations
• Consider durability of markings and reflectivity
• Ensure traces of old markings are removed
• Recess pavement marking for locations with snow operations Other Considerations
• Provide consistency between adjacent roadway sections and provide transitions through intersections. Consider protected intersections for non-motorized users • Project context and types of roadway users within a project segment can determine if road diets are appropriate to accommodate non-motorized users. See DIB 94 for low speed facilities in Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Mainstreet • Consider future plans for bus routes, bike facilities, pedestrian facilities, etc • Signals may need to be modified with the implementation of a road diet, which can eliminate the number of lanes, turn pockets as well as providing a signal for bicycles • Most common configuration: Reducing through lanes from four to two, while providing a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL)
• Can include bicycle lanes, transit lanes, bus turnouts, on-street parking, physical safety barriers (curb extensions, raised medians, pedestrian refuge islands, etc.), sidewalk widening, and/or wider shoulders (FHWA)
• Requirements from HDM Chapter 300 and the CA MUTCD should be considered depending on project scope
• Roadway narrowing with edge lines (creating 10.5 ft wide lanes) can reduce speeds 1 to 2 MPH. Reductions up to 5 MPH have been reported. Refer to DIB 94 for lane narrowing in Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Mainstreet in low speed environment
References
1. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94
2. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 300 - Caltrans
3. California MUTCD - Caltrans
4. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
5. Road Diet Polices - FHWA
6. Proven Safety Countermeasures - FHWA
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
48 | P a ge
Sample Project
State Route 299 Willow Creek, CA (Before)
State Route 299 Willow Creek, CA (After)
Project Description:
State Route 299 in downtown Willow Creek implemented a road diet treatment to convert an existing 4-lane roadway with two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) to a 2-lane roadway with TWLTL and a dedicated bike lane on each side. Some of the roadway cross-section was also reallocated to provide landscaping and street trees. These improvements lead to both a physical and perceived narrowing of the roadway. Refer to section F.1 for the traffic calming benefits of landscaping and street trees.
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
49 | P a ge
Neckdowns/Chokers
Description
A choker is a horizontal extension of the curb at a midblock on a street resulting in a narrower roadbed section.
Other terms for choker include: neckdown, midblock narrowing, midblock yield point, pinch point, constriction, or edge island. If the choker is a marked crosswalk, it is sometimes referred to as a safe cross.
Choker Schematic (Source: Delaware Department of Transportation) Placement
Mid-block, along the shoulder on both sides of the street. The curb face of each choker should be setback a minimum of 2 feet from the class II bikeway or State Highway travel lane (HDM 303.4).
Functional Classification: Collectors and Local Roads (NOTE: Only local roads are suitable for neckdowns/chokers that reduce operations to one direction) Appropriate Daily Volume Range: DelDOT: ≤ 20,000 ADT; El Paso: 500-7,500 ADT (NOTE:
These daily traffic volumes refer to chokers that maintain two-way operations. Chokers that restrict travel to one direction at a time will require additional consideration to account for more complex operational impact.)
Speed Limit: 35 MPH or less (HDM 303.4)
Minimum Lane Width: The minimum lane width varies by ADT. For complete street contextual guidance, see DIB 94.
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
50 | P a ge
Maximum Grade: 5% (HDM 303.4)
Performance
Speed Reduction: 1-4 MPH reduction in 85th percentile speeds (FHWA); Up to 5 MPH (PennDOT)
Volume Reduction: Nominal impact (FHWA)
Impact to Emergency Response: Nominal. Determine whether your project is designated as an evacuation route. See DIB 93 for further guidance.
Mobility Impact: Nominal for vehicles. Vehicles are capable of passing each other without conflict within a choker. This narrowing is intended to discourage motorist from speeding and to reduce vehicle speeds in general. Bicycles may be impacted with the implementation of choker depending upon available shoulder/bike lane between vehicle lane and curb.
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Design choker to accommodate snow storage
• Design choker to accommodate width of snowplow
• Consider signage or other devices to alert snowplow operators OTHER
• Consider impact on drainage to gutter
• Consider maintenance and irrigation if landscaping is provided Other Considerations
• Chokers can be created by either curb extensions or roadside islands. Roadside islands are less appealing aesthetically but leave existing drainage channels open. They also make it possible to provide a bicycle bypass lane on streets without curbside parking. If motor vehicle volumes are large, chokers can be challenging to bicyclists, who may need to navigate through traffic congestion. Bicycle bypass lanes should be considered in such cases
• Consider bicyclists during the design process. The probability of vehicles and bicycles meeting at a choker is low and require no special accommodation for bicycles when streets have little bicycle traffic and/or low motor vehicle volumes. Provide sharrow markings in advance of choker to alert vehicles of the need to share the space with bicyclists where no bicycle bypass lane is provided. Consider providing a bypass lane for bicycles that are separated from the travel lanes by the curb extension on wider streets with higher volumes
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
51 | P a ge
• The length of a choker can vary depending on the location of driveways and curbside parking but should be a minimum of 20 feet long (DelDOT) • A choker may be a good location to place a midblock crosswalk and can be leveled with the roadbed or as a raised crosswalk. Chokers shorten the crossing distance as well as increasing the visibility of pedestrians, while providing protection with curbs • To comply with the International Fire Code that has been adopted by emergency services, the minimum street width between the choker islands shall be 20 feet • A midblock location near a streetlight is preferred for a choker • May require relocation of drainage features and utilities • Edge line tapers should conform to the CA MUTCD taper formulas and accommodate street sweeping equipment
• Curb extensions that create choker (narrowing) should include signs that are compliant with the CA MUTCD. Landscaping features can also enhance this calming measure by drawing motorist attention the chokers. The preference for landscaping are low‐lying, slow growing shrubs or herbaceous perennial plants to maintain adequate sight lines and to minimize maintenance costs
• See HDM Topic 303 for selection of curb type
• See CA MUTCD for painting of curb adjacent to choker
References
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 303.4(1) - Caltrans
2. California MUTCD - Caltrans
3. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
4. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94 - Caltrans
5. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 - Caltrans
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
52 | P a ge
Sample Project
Two-lane chokers in Stockton, CA
Project Description:
The City of Stockton implemented chokers on their two-lane roadway to slow vehicles within this corridor. Chokers can act as a transition between commercial and residential area. These chokers provide an added buffer for signage and planting that otherwise would restrict the existing pedestrian path.
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
53 | P a ge
Description
Curb Extension/Bulbouts
Bulbouts are a type of curb extension used for the benefit of pedestrians because it shortens the crossing distance and provides more area and visibility for pedestrians. Bulbouts have a traffic calming effect because it requires more attention from the driver, while inducing a speed reduction due to larger turning maneuvers.
Placement
Esparto Improvement project on State Route 16 in Esparto, CA Bulbouts should comply with the HDM Figures 303.4A and B, while also considering site specific conditions. Bulbouts should be placed at all corners of an intersection. When used at mid-block crossing locations, bulbouts should be used on both sides of the street. The curb face of the bulbout should be setback a minimum of 2 feet from either the traveled lane or class II bikeway. For full details of the standards, refer to HDM 303.4.
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial, Collectors, and Local Roadways Maximum Posted Speed Limit: Most appropriate for posted speeds 35 miles per hour or less. Refer to HDM 303.4
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
54 | P a ge
Minimum Lane Width: Varies based on ADT and other project site condition. For complete street contextual guidance, see DIB 94
Performance
Speed Reduction: 1 to 3 MPH reduction in 85th percentile speeds of through vehicles (FHWA). Turning speeds will be reduced more significantly Volume Reduction: Nominal, but some turning volumes might decrease depending on the level of driver discomfort as well as the availability of alternative routes Impact on Emergency Response: Nominal but turning radius of emergency vehicles should be considered if located along an emergency response route. See DIB 93 for further guidance Mobility Impact: Nominal
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Need to alert snowplow operators
• Consider snow storage
OTHER
• Consider impact to drainage and underground utilities • Consider accommodations for commercial vehicles off-tracking (e.g., truck aprons) Other Considerations
• Drainage and existing utility relocation
• Should not extend into bicycle lanes
• Consult with the District Pedestrians and Bicyclists Safety Engineer • Opportunities to provide green infrastructure
• Tracking and swept widths for Design Vehicles
• Bulbouts work well in situations where on-street parking is present. On-street parking may provide separation from errant vehicles
• Bulbouts may be designed to include protected crossings for bicycles • Coordinate with the District Truck Access Manager to ascertain the oversize/overweight vehicles accommodation and as any additional vehicle requirements • For added pedestrian visibility at mid-block crossings, consider crosswalk enhancement features discussed in “Category A, Signings and Markings”
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
55 | P a ge
References
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 303.4 - Caltrans
2. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 404.4 - Caltrans
3. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94 - Complete Streets
4. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 – Evacuation Route Design Guidance
5. FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer Section 3.16
6. NACTO Don’t Give Up at the Intersection
Sample Project
Route 16 in Yolo County, CA
Project Description:
The project is located in Yolo County on State Route 16 from Orleans Street to County Road 21A. Pedestrian improvements include crosswalks, sidewalks, curb bulbouts, upgraded curb ramps, improved lighting, green bicycle lane treatment, pavement rehabilitation, parking, etc.
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
56 | P a ge
On-Street Parking
Description
On-street parking can assist in achieving lower operating speeds by constricting driver experience with increased side friction. On-street parking may also be used as bikeway separation from the traveled lane, which enhances bicyclist comfort by providing physical separation from motor vehicles as well as providing traffic calming. On-street parking can either be parallel or angled, parallel parking provides more potential for speed reductions. Typical applications can include parking on both sides of the roadway, either side, or alternating from one side to the other for a chicane effect. On-street parking can be combined with other traffic calming measures.
Back-Angled Street Parking (SR99 in Live Oak, CA)
Placement
Appropriate at midblock location or near an intersection. Parking should be prohibited within close proximity to an intersection to allow for adequate corner sight distance. Curb extension can be implemented to allow for on-street parking, while offering a shorter crossing distance for pedestrians
Functional Classification: Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Maximum Posted Speed Limit:Appropriate for common urban speed limit. Consider providing Page 468 Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
57 | P a ge
shy distance between parked vehicles and the through lanes (FHWA) Performance
Speed Reduction: 1-5 MPH reduction, with 2-3 MPH being the most common (FHWA) Volume Reduction: Little to no impact
Impact on Emergency Response: Nominal
Mobility Impact: Analysis of impacts to the project area o r roadway n e t w o r k t h a t i s consistent with HCM (Chapters 15, 16, 18, 29, and 30) methodologies should be conducted Maintenance Considerations
• Consider impact on-street sweeping or snow plowing operations Other Considerations
• Requires local agency enforcement of no parking regulatory signage during plowing or sweeping operations
• Coordination with local agencies may be necessary to remove, change, or enforce parking
• May impact road user visibility and sight distance at driveways, alleys, and intersections • If paired with bike lane, consider bike lane buffer and/or wider bike lane to protect cyclists from car doors
• Reduces effective width of roadway if more than half of a block-face is occupied • Can be paired with curb extensions or bulb-outs to protect parking • Parallel parking preferred for speed reduction
• Consider parking demand and back-in angle street parking • Provides protective buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic • Requirements from HDM Chapter 300 should be considered depending on project scope
• ADA-compliant spaces may be necessary depending on context. Refer to DIB 82 • Consult with the District Traffic Safety Engineer and/or the District Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Engineer for the implementation of this measure References
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM) - Chapter 300
2. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
3. Traffic Calming Fact Sheet - ITE
4. Highway Safety Manual - AASHTO
5. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition - The National Academies Press
6. California MUTCD - Caltrans
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
58 | P a ge
Sample Project
Before Project
• NO PARKING allowed on both sides of the street between 9th and 10th • NO PARKING allowed on the westbound side of the street between 8th and 9th After Project
• Parallel parking spaces for 21 vehicles on the westbound side and 20 on the eastbound side provided
Project Description:
41 additional parking spaces have been provided that were previously designated as no parking areas along State Route 78 in Ramona, California. This feature was implemented in addition to road diet implementation that narrowed the roadway to reduce vehicle speeds.
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
59 | P a ge
Raised Median Island/Traffic Island
Description
Traffic Islands are typically used for channelization but could also be used for traffic calming, since it introduces a curb adjacent to vehicles and has the effect of slowing vehicles. Pedestrian refuge islands and raised median islands are commonly used together. Landscaping the raised median island contributes to community livability and environmental sustainability. The proposed landscaping should not impair sight distances.
State Route 131 in Tiburon, CA (Google Earth)
Placement
For guidance on design and delineation of traffic islands / raised medians island, see the HDM Index 405.4. Table 405.4 provides information regarding commonly used parabolic curb flares.
The California MUTCD should be referenced when considering the placement of traffic islands at signalized and unsignalized intersections. The HDM index 405.4 also provides additional information on pedestrian refuge. All traffic islands placed in the path of a pedestrian crossing must comply with DIB 82.
The guidance in the HDM Topic 904 applies if landscaping is provided within the island. The FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer Section 3.18 contains useful information on Raised Median Islands/Traffic Islands.
Functional Classification: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Maximum Posted Speed Limit: AppropriatPage 471 e for roadways under 35 MPH posted speed limit Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
60 | P a ge
Minimum Lane Width: Varies by ADT and other project specific site condition. For complete street contextual guidance, see DIB 94
Performance
Speed Reduction: 1-8 MPH Reduction of 85th percentile speed depending on the degree of lane narrowing and the volume of traffic (FHWA)
Volume Reduction: Negligible
Impact on Emergency Response: Nominal. Raised Median Islands and Traffic Islands can affect the ability to move large volumes of people and vehicles into and out of communities within designated evacuation routes. Refer to DIB 93, Evacuation Route Design Guidance.
Mobility Impact: Nominal
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Need signage to alert snowplow operators
OTHER
• If landscaped, need to consider maintenance and access • Need to consider impact on drainage and existing utilities, which may require relocation • Consider effectiveness of mountable curbs
Other Considerations
• May impede with large vehicle turning movements
• Consider impact of blocking left turns from driveways.
References
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 405.4 - Caltrans
2. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Topic 904 - Caltrans
3. Traffic Calming ePrimer (Section 3.18) - FHWA
4. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82 - Caltrans
5. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94 - Caltrans
6. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 - Caltrans
Item 35.
Category C. Roadway Narrowing
61 | P a ge
Sample Project
Live Oak Complete Streets on State Route 99 in Live Oak, CA Project Description:
The project is located along SR 99, south of Coleman Ave and extends to the north of Nevada Street within the City of Live Oak in Sutter County. Improvements within this project include, rehabilitating pavement life, upgrading drainage systems, constructing new continuous sidewalks, improving traffic signals, providing parking, upgrading curb ramps, constructing raised median island, etc.
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
62 | P a ge
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
Description
Speed Hump
A speed hump is an elongated mound in the roadway pavement surface extending across the traveled way at a right angle to the traffic flow. A speed hump is typically 12 feet in length (in the direction of travel) and 3 to 4 inches in height. The purpose of a speed hump is to discourage speeding by producing sufficient discomfort to a motorist while driving through it. A speed hump is also referred to as a road hump or undulation.
Placement
Speed Hump Schematic (DelDOT)
Mid-block, not near an intersection. Should not be placed on a sharp curve.
Functional Classification: Local Roads
Appropriate Daily Volume Range: 3,500 ADT (PennDOT). Consider only if no more than 5% of the overall traffic flow consists of long-wheelbase vehicles (ITE) Maximum Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH (ITE)
Performance
Speed Reduction: A single speed hump reduces vehicle speeds to a range of 15 to 20 MPH when crossing the hump. To keep 85th percentile operating speed between 25 MPH to 30 MPH, a series of speed humps at spacing between 260’ to 500’ is recommended (ITE)
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
63 | P a ge
Volume Reduction: 20% (DelDOT) - The reduction will depend on the impact to travel time and the availability of an alternative route.
Impact to Emergency Route Access: Typically, delay for a fire truck is in the 3 to 5 seconds range. Delay can be as much as 10 seconds for an ambulance with a patient. Consider using a speed cushion or an offset speed table to help mitigate delay. See DIB 93 for further guidance.
Mobility Impact: Moderate
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Signing to alert snowplows to avoid damage to approach ramps • Consider snowplow design when choosing approach ramp shape (straight, sinusoidal, or parabolic)
OTHER
• Visibility of warning sign
• May impact street sweeping operations
• Pavement marking upkeep due to constant traffic wear
Other Considerations
• The SPEED HUMP (W17-1) sign should be used to give warning of a vertical deflection in the roadway that is designed to limit the speed of traffic. The SPEED HUMP sign should be supplemented by an Advisory Speed plaque. See CA MUTCD Section 2C.29 for additional information on Speed Hump Sign
• If speed hump markings are used, they shall be a series of white markings placed on a speed hump to identify its location. See CA MUTCD Section 3B.25 for additional information on Speed Hump Markings
• Speed humps may present a potential obstacle to all vehicles including bicyclists, motorcyclists, and emergency vehicles
• Speed humps implementation will result in an increase in vehicle noise • Traffic may diverge from roads to adjoining parallel roads where speed humps are installed. Drivers may swerve to avoid speed humps
• Consult with regional transit, emergency services, and fire departments prior to the installation of speed humps
• May impact drainage on roadways where drainage gutter or flow of water is in the center of roadway
• Consider street lighting near speed humps
• Speed humps should not be installed in front of driveways or other significant access areas
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
64 | P a ge
References
1. California MUTCD - Caltrans
2. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 - Caltrans
3. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
4. Updated Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps - ITE Sample Project
Speed Hump in Stockton, CA
Project Description:
The City of Stockton implemented speed humps within residential area to discourage speeding.
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
65 | P a ge
Speed Cushion
Description
A speed cushion consists of two or more raised mounds placed laterally across a roadbed. The height and length of the raised mounds are comparable to the dimensions of a speed hump.
The primary difference is that a speed cushion has gaps (often referred to as "cutouts") between the raised mounds to enable a vehicle with a wide track (e.g., a large emergency vehicle, some trucks, some buses) to pass through the feature without any vertical deflection.
Another difference between a speed cushion and a speed hump is that the top of the speed cushion is usually levelled. Speed cushions can be more accommodating for users on twowheeled modes such as cyclists and motorcyclists when compared to speed humps due to the gaps provided. A speed cushion is often the preferred alternative to a speed hump on a primary emergency response route, a transit route with frequent service, or when higher truck volumes are anticipated. A speed cushion is also known as a speed lump, speed slot, and speed pillow.
Speed Cushion Schematic with Median (DelDOT)
Placement
Appropriate at midblock, not near an intersection. Should not be placed on a sharp curve.
Functional Classification: Local Roads
Appropriate Daily Volume Range: 3,500 ADT (PennDOT)
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
66 | P a ge
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH (ITE)
Performance
Speed Reduction: Single speed cushion reduces vehicle speeds to a range of 15 to 20 MPH when crossing the hump. To keep 85th percentile operating speed between 25 MPH to 30 MPH, a series of speed humps spaced between 260’ to 500’ is recommended (ITE). Average speeds are typically higher when compared to a speed hump because speed cushion allows a motorist to pass over the cushion with one wheel on the cushion and one wheel off Volume Reduction: Minimal as a single installation, but around 20% when installed in a series (PennDOT)
Impact on Emergency Vehicle Access: Negligible – Emergency vehicles can pass over the speed cushions at or near the speed limit.
Mobility Impact: Moderate
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Signing to alert snowplows to avoid damaging approach ramps • Consider snowplow design when choosing approach ramp shape (straight, sinusoidal, or parabolic)
OTHER
• Visibility of warning sign
• Pavement marking upkeep due to constant traffic wear
• Impacts to street sweeping operations
Other Consideration
• Pavement markings (e.g., striping, arrows) and signage for a speed cushion should replicate those for a speed hump. See CA MUTCD Section 2C.29 and Section 3B.25 for additional information
• Speed cushions implementation will result in an increase in vehicle noise • Traffic may diverge to adjoining parallel roads from roads where speed cushions are installed. Drivers may swerve to avoid speed cushions
• Consult with regional transit, emergency services, and fire departments prior to the installation of speed cushions
• Consider placing street lighting near speed cushions
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
67 | P a ge
• The cushion width should be wide enough to slow personal passenger vehicles and yet narrow enough to permit fire trucks and transit vehicles to pass easily without overloading the rear axles of those heavier vehicles
References
1. California MUTCD - Caltrans
2. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 - Caltrans
3. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
4. Updated Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps - ITE Sample Project
Pamplico Dr in Santa Clarita, CA (Google Maps)
Project Description:
The City of Santa Clarita implemented speed cushions to discourage speeding within residential area. Emergency vehicles with wide tracks can pass through this calming measure without any vertical deflection.
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
68 | P a ge
Speed Table/Raised Crosswalk
Description
A speed table is a vertical traffic calming device, similar to a speed hump that runs transverse to the direction of traffic. The speed table is longer than a speed hump, typically having a ramp up of approximately 6 feet followed by a 10 feet minimum flat section, then a ramp down of 6 feet for a total width of 22 feet. The roadway transition will not exceed 5% grade relative to the roadway profile. The flat section may have a marked crosswalk placed on the flat section, which provides more visibility to the crosswalk and crossing pedestrians.
Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk (DelDOT)
Placement
Recommended for single-lane one-way or two-lane two-way roadways, where a crosswalk exist or if a crosswalk is warranted. Should not be placed on a sharp curve.
Speed tables can enhance marked crosswalk visibility, while having the added benefit of reducing vehicular operating speed at the crossing location. There are two types of speed tables: flush with the curb and open at the edges.
When speed tables are constructed flush with the curb, an ADA curb ramp is not required. However, detectable warning surfaces are needed at the sidewalk curbs. Drainage flow must be considered along the gutter line.
When speed tables are constructed with open ends, the crosswalk will taper to the pavement prior to the gutter, and an ADA curb ramp must be provided. The edge taper should meet ADA design requirements and can also conform prior to the bike lane to avoid impeding bicyclist
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
69 | P a ge
operation.
Functional Classification: Collectors and Local Roads
Appropriate Daily Volume Range: 9,000 ADT or less. Refer to Table 1 for more information on placement.
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH or less
Performance
Speed Reduction: 7-8 MPH reduction in 85th percentile operating speeds (FHWA) Volume Reduction: Low, but more significant diversion can be achieved by combining this measure with other traffic calming measures.
Impact on Emergency Vehicle Access: Generally, not appropriate for a primary emergency vehicle route or on a street that provides access to a hospital or emergency medical services.
See DIB 93 for further guidance.
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Signing to alert snowplows to avoid damaging approach ramps • Consider snowplow design when choosing approach ramp shape (straight, sinusoidal, or parabolic)
OTHER
• Visibility of warning sign
• Pavement markings require upkeep due to constant traffic wear • Impacts to street sweeping operations
Other Considerations
• Pavement markings (e.g., striping, arrows) and signage for a speed table/raised crosswalk should replicate those for a speed hump. See CA MUTCD Section 2C.29 and Section 3B.25 for additional information
• Consult with the District Pedestrians and Bicyclists Safety Engineer • Speed tables may present potential obstacle to all vehicles including bicyclists and motorcyclists
• Speed tables implementation will result in an increase in vehicle noise • Speed Tables are typically 3” to 6” high
• Traffic may diverge to adjoining parallel roads from roads where speed tables are installed
• Consult with regional transit, emergency services, and fire departments prior to the Page 481 Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
70 | P a ge
installation of speed cushions
• Requires Advanced Warning Signs
• Proximity of nearest intersection
• Impact to drainage, street parking, and existing utilities • May require street lighting
• ADA compliance
• Flat top long enough (typically 10 feet) for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on top (FHWA)
References
1. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 - Caltrans
2. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82 - Caltrans
3. California MUTCD (Section 3B.18) - Caltrans
4. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
5. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets - ITE
6. Urban Street Design Guide - NACTO
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
71 | P a ge
Sample Project
66th St in Emeryville, CA (Google Maps)
Project Description:
The City of Emeryville implemented a speed table/raised crosswalk. Additional crosswalk enhancements include RRFB signing, In-street Pedestrian Crossing signs, and pavement markings at the 66th St pedestrian crossing. These calming measures were implemented to help reduce vehicle speeds, improve driver awareness of the pedestrian crossing, and encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians.
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
72 | P a ge
Description
Offset Speed Table
An offset speed table provides the calming benefits of a speed table, while allowing emergency vehicles to pass through with minimal delay. An offset speed table is a speed table split in half down the street centerline with longitudinal separation between the two halves. This geometry allows for emergency vehicles to avoid the vertical device by weaving through the two halves of the speed table. An offset speed table is typically 3 to 4 inches in height with a 6 feet ramp up section, a 10 feet flat section, followed by a 6 feet ramp down section for a total width of 22 feet. A minimum separation distance between humps of 40 feet is necessary to allow emergency vehicles to bypass the speed table.
Placement
Offset Speed Table (NACTO, ITE)
Mid-block along a corridor that is suited to a speed hump but requires minimal impact for emergency response vehicle delay. Not recommended on a sharp curve.
Functional Classification: Local Roads
Appropriate Daily Volume Range: 9,000 ADT or less
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH
Performance
Speed Reduction: 7-8 MPH reduction in 85th percentile speeds
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
73 | P a ge
Volume Reduction: Low, but more significant diversion can be achieved by combining this measure with other traffic calming measures.
Impact of Emergency Response Access: Minimal. This countermeasure is specifically designed to minimize emergency vehicle delays, while still providing the speed reduction benefits of speed humps.
Mobility Impact: Nominal
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Signing to help snowplows avoid damaging approach ramps • Consider snowplows when choosing approach ramp shape (straight, sinusoidal, or parabolic)
OTHER
• Warning sign visibility
• Pavement marking upkeep due to constant traffic wear
Other Considerations
• Driver circumnavigation can be minimized by providing small median islands leading up to each table with a double-centerline and raised pavement markers • Pavement markings (e.g., striping, arrows) and signage for an offset speed table should replicate those for a speed hump. See CA MUTCD Section 2C.29 and Section 3B.25 for additional information
• Offset speed tables may present a potential obstacle to all vehicles including bicycles and motorcycles
• Offset speed tables implementation will result in an increase in vehicle noise • Traffic may diverge to adjoining parallel roads from where offset speed tables are installed. Drivers may swerve to avoid offset speed tables • Consult with regional transit, emergency response services, and law enforcements. • Emergency vehicles swerving to avoid the offset speed table may confuse opposing traffic. Consider proper signing
• Impact to drainage and street parking
• May require street lighting
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
74 | P a ge
References
1. California MUTCD (Chapters 2C and 3B) - Caltrans
2. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets - ITE
3. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
4. Offset Speed Tables for Reduced Emergency Response Delay – NACTO, ITE Sample Project
SW 87th Ave in Beaverton, OR (Scott Batson)
Project Description:
The City of Beaverton installed offset speed tables along SW 87th Ave. Offset speed tables were chosen due to the designation of the street for emergency response. The city saw a reduction in speed along this residential neighborhood. The City of Beaverton also added raised pavement makers with inset reflectors to deter vehicles from crossing the centerline.
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
75 | P a ge
Description
Transverse Rumble Strips
Transverse rumble strips are raised or grooved patterns installed perpendicular to the direction of travel in the roadway travel lane. Typically installed on rural roadways that have low volume and with infrequent traffic control devices. Transverse rumble strips provide an audible and tactile warning downstream of a decision point. They are different from center line and edge line rumble strips, which are located off the travel lane.
Placement
Transverse Rumble Strips (MNDOT)
On the approach of an unexpected roadway condition such as a stop condition or at a location that has a significant reduction in the speed limit. Examples include intersections, toll plazas, horizontal curves, end of highway/freeway, and work zones.
Functional Classification: Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Performance
Speed Reduction: 1-2 MPH on rural highways (FHWA)
Volume Reduction: Low
Impact on Emergency Response Vehicles: None. Emergency vehicles should be able to transverse the measure at or above the speed limit.
Mobility Impact: Nominal
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
76 | P a ge
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Need signage to alert snowplow operators to avoid damaging the transverse rumble strips
• Using grooved rumble strips to avoid damage by snowplows OTHER
• Need to be replaced or repaired frequently. The raised portions wear down rapidly due to constant traffic on them, which reduces their effectiveness Other Considerations
• Noise pollution from rumble strips may impact surrounding land uses • Will impact motorcyclists and bicyclists. Consider providing a center gap • Raised or grooved options can be used for intersection approaches • Grooved are generally 0.5” deep
• Raised are no more than 0.5” tall (multiple layers of thermoplastic for desired height) • Can be used in combination of different length thermoplastics for more aggressive effect References
1. Factors Influencing Operating Speeds and Safety on Rural and Suburban Roads - FHWA
2. California MUTCD (Section 3J.02) - Caltrans
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
77 | P a ge
Sample Project
Birch Ave and John St in Princeton, NJ (Google Earth)
Project Description
Transverse rumble strips were installed in a residential neighborhood in New Jersey. This calming measure was implemented to heighten motorist awareness of the pedestrian crossings and stop-controlled intersection ahead.
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
78 | P a ge
Description
Raised Intersection
A raised intersection is a vertical traffic calming device that raises the entirety of an intersection by 3 to 4 inches. The ramp sections of the intersection are approximately 6 feet in length with no greater than a 5% slope. Alternative paving methods such as colored asphalt, concrete, or pavers can be used to mark the intersection. A raised intersection provides many of the same benefits as other vertical traffic calming devices such as reducing vehicle speeds and increasing driver awareness of pedestrians and bicycles.
Placement
Raised Intersection (NACTO)
At the intersection of two local roadways with posted speeds less than 35 MPH. Commonly implemented in commercial areas with high pedestrian volumes Functional Classification: Collectors and Local Roads
Maximum Grade: 8% or less
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
79 | P a ge
Performance
Speed Reduction: Speed should be reduced on all approaches, especially on un-controlled approaches (DelDOT)
Volume Reduction: Low
Impact on Emergency Response Access: Not recommended for use along primary emergency response routes, as it can add 4 to 6 seconds of delay.
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Signage to help snowplows avoid damaging approach ramps • Consider snowplow operations when choosing approach ramp shape (straight, sinusoidal, or parabolic)
OTHER
• Drainage impacts
• Crosswalks require tactile pavement for visually impaired pedestrians. • Visibility of warning sign
• Upkeep of pavement markings due to constant traffic wear Other Considerations
• Major impacts to drainage
• Changes to the existing drainage could impact existing utilities • Detectable warning surface and/or color contrasts must be incorporated to differentiate roadway and sidewalk
• Pattern or tactile raised pavement
References
1. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
2. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82 - Caltrans
3. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets - ITE
4. Urban Street Design Guide - NACTO
Item 35.
Category D. Vertical Roadway Elements
80 | P a ge
Sample Project
Butte St and Market Pine Alley in Redding, CA (Google Maps) Project Description:
A raised intersection was implemented at Butte St and Market Pine Alley in Redding, CA. This calming measure was implemented to improve safety and accessibility at an intersection with high volumes of vehicles and pedestrians. The raised intersection improves pedestrian visibility, slows vehicle speeds, and provides a level pathway across the intersection.
Item 35.
Category E. Physical Roadway Segments Modifications
81 | P a ge
Category E. Physical Roadway Segment
Modifications
Lateral Shifts
Description
A lateral shift is a realignment of an otherwise straight street that causes travel lanes to shift.
The primary purpose of a lateral shift is to reduce motor vehicle speed along the street. A typical lateral shift separates opposing traffic through the shift with the aid of a median island. Without the island, a motorist could cross the centerline and take the straightest path possible, thereby reducing effectiveness of the lateral shift. Additionally, a median island reduces the likelihood of a motorist veering into the path of opposing traffic. A chicane is a variation of a lateral shift except a chicane shifts alignment more than once.
Lateral Shift Schematic (DelDOT)
Placement
Along streets with a documented speeding problem, where more substantial measures (such as a chicane) are not appropriate; two-lane minor arterial.
Functional Classification: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: All volumes (FHWA)
Speed Limit: 35 MPH or less
Performance
Speed Reduction: 5 MPH (DelDOT) Page 493
Item 35.
Category E. Physical Roadway Segments Modifications
82 | P a ge
Volume Reduction: Nominal impact
Impact to Emergency Response: Minimal
Maintenance Considerations
• Design lateral shift to accommodate snowplow operations and snow storage • If the median island is landscaped, consider maintenance and irrigation Other Considerations
• Lateral Shifts should follow the guidance in CA MUTCD Section 6C.08 • Applicable only at mid-block locations, preferably near a streetlight • For locations with bicycle facilities, the preference is to separate bicycles from motor vehicle lanes
• Less effective in reducing vehicle speed when the volume of traffic is significantly higher in one direction than the other or when volumes are so low that the likelihood of a motorist encountering an opposing motorist within the lateral shift zone is low • May require removal of some on-street parking to implement lateral shift, therefore slightly reducing the accessibility of adjacent properties • Physical features can also be used as a landscaping opportunity • A lateral shift can be created by means of either curb extension or edge island. A curb extension offers better opportunity for aesthetic enhancement through landscaping. An edge island can leave an existing drainage channel open and tends to be less costly to construct
• The curb extension or edge island should have 45-degree tapers to reinforce the edge lines
• A curb extension or edge island that forms a lateral shift should have a vertical element (e.g., signs, landscaping, a reflector, or some other measure to draw attention to it) • Either a barrier or mountable curb can be used on an island that forms a lateral shift.
The use of a mountable curb is more forgiving to motorists and is acceptable where the island is expected to serve as a pedestrian refuge
• Taper should comply with the HDM for taper angle and length • Check if the lateral shifts affect the Design Vehicle swept path and tracking (HDM 404) • May require drainage relocation. Impacts to existing utilities should be avoided • Can provide a location for pedestrian crossings with a median refuge • May reduce roadway space available for bicyclists depending on design
Item 35.
Category E. Physical Roadway Segments Modifications
83 | P a ge
References
1. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 93 - Caltrans
2. California MUTCD (Section 6C.08) – Caltrans
3. Traffic Calming ePrimer - FHWA
4. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets - ITE
Sample Project
Keystone Ave in Reno, NV (Google Earth)
Project Description:
The City of Reno implemented a lateral shift within this residential neighborhood to reduce motor vehicle speeds along the street.
Item 35.
Category E. Physical Roadway Segments Modifications
84 | P a ge
Description
Chicanes
Chicanes are a series of narrowing or curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other, forming an S‐shaped, curvilinear roadway alignment. They are also referred to as deviations, serpentines, or reversing curves. The purpose of a chicane is to introduce horizontal curvature to the road, breaking up the “runway effect” of wide and straight streets.
Chicanes (DelDOT)
Placement
Best suited to mid-block locations along local road where there are balanced traffic volumes in both directions to discourage drivers from crossing the center line. Adequate distance is needed between driveways and intersections.
Functional Classification: Collectors with low volume and Local Roads Maximum Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH or lower
Minimum /Maximum Number of Lanes: One-lane one-way or two-lane two-way roadways Maximum Grade: Varies - 10% (El Paso, TX), 8% (PennDOT), 6% (DelDOT) Performance
Speed Reduction: 3-9 MPH. 5-13 MPH within the chicane
Item 35.
Category E. Physical Roadway Segments Modifications
85 | P a ge
Volume Reduction: Up to 20% (PennDOT). Traffic diversion is heavily dependent on the impact the chicane has on travel time and the availability of a nearby faster route.
Impact on Emergency Response: Minimal. When located along primary emergency response routes, the impact can be nominalized by designing the curb extensions to be mountable by emergency response vehicles.
Mobility Impacts: Nominal
Maintenance Considerations
• Design chicanes to accommodate snowplow operations
• Upkeep of reflective pavement markers if used
Other Considerations
• Check if the lateral shifts affect the Design Vehicle swept path and tracking (HDM 404) • Changes to the existing drainage and lighting could impact existing utilities • Optional reflective pavement markers
• Signage on bulbouts
• Object marker for 2-way traffic
• Driveway access maintained
References
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Topic 404 - Caltrans
2. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 303.4 - Caltrans
3. Traffic Calming ePrimer (3.4) - FHWA
4. Traffic Calming Fact Sheets – ITE
Item 35.
Category E. Physical Roadway Segments Modifications
86 | P a ge
Sample Project
NW 56th St and 2nd Ave NW in Seattle, WA (Google Earth) Project Description:
Chicanes were implemented in Seattle within a residential neighborhood to lower vehicles speeds by forcing vehicles to shift from one side of the road to the other. This calming measure was paired with appropriate signage to warn drivers of the upcoming lateral shift in lanes.
Item 35.
Category F. Others
87 | P a ge
Category F. Others
Street Trees and Landscaping
Description
Street trees and landscaping have long been shown to improve comfort and livability, but recent research indicates that they can also contribute to a reduction in the rate of crashes. This effect is often attributed to a perceived narrowing of the roadway, a sense of rhythm and human scale created by framing the street, and the perception that the driver is in a place where they are more likely to encounter pedestrians, bicyclists, and cross-traffic. Trees and landscaping can also support the shift to more space-efficient modes such as walking and biking by making those modes more comfortable.
Mature trees line State Route 16 in Esparto, CA
Placement
Street trees are ideally placed behind curbs in sidewalk buffer zones and medians of Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Main Streets where posted speeds are 35 mph or less.
In Transitional Area (between high speed rural highways and low speed town centers), landscaping may be used alone or in combination with gateway monuments to indicate drivers of a changed environment. Large trees are not appropriate within the clear recovery zone of rural conventional highways, freeways, and expressways. Provide minimum clearances, clear recovery zones, and appropriate sight distance, per the HDM.
Item 35.
Category F. Others
88 | P a ge
Functional Classification: Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads
Maximum Posted Speed Limit: Refer to HDM Table 904.5 and local codes Performance
Speed Reduction: The quantitative impact is not well documented, but one study showed an average decrease in cruising speed of about 3 MPH. At gateway treatments combining landscaping with other elements, 3-10 MPH speed reductions have been documented.
Volume Reduction: N/A. Reduced volumes are not generally a goal of this measure.
Impact on Emergency Response: Nominal
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Need to consider downed tree limbs during inclement weather • Consider impact of landscaping on snow storage spaces OTHER
• Consider maintenance access and worker safety
• Provide for plant establishment period and consult with Landscape Architecture and Maintenance regarding permanent irrigation
• Select plant material and design planting area to minimize impact of root systems on underground utilities and sidewalks
• Need to consider risk of run-off-road crashes when placing trees, particularly at intersections and conflict points
• Consider upkeep needs, climate-adapted species, and horticultural requirements of different plants
• Street trees and landscaping may be maintained via a maintenance agreement with local agencies
Other Considerations
• Consider sight distance and safety setbacks for street trees at intersections and conflict points
• Consider clear views of traffic control devices and street and pedestrian lighting requirements. See HDM Index 904.5 for information on locating trees, HDM Index 405.1 for Sight Distance, HDM Index 309.1(2) for Clear Recovery Zone, and DIB 82 for clear width for sidewalks
• Consider placement relative to on-street utility equipment to minimize potential conflicts
Item 35.
Category F. Others
89 | P a ge
• Refer to utility providers for minimum utility offsets and maximum tree height under overhead utilities
• Consider locating street trees or landscaping between motor vehicle traffic lanes and bikeways or pedestrian facilities for pedestrian and bicyclist comfort • In Transitional Area and at community gateways, consider varying landscape composition, spacing, and formality. Consider maintaining consistent landscaping throughout an urbanized area or main street corridor
• Solicit community engagement to inform landscape aesthetics and design • Consult the District Landscape Architecture and Maintenance for design development References
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 901.2 Landscape Architecture Design Standards Caltrans
2. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 904.3 Plant Selection - Caltrans
3. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 904.5 Locating Trees - Caltrans
4. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Topic 201 Sight Distance - Caltrans
5. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 309.1(2) Clear Recovery Zone (CRZ) - Caltrans
6. Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 405.1(2) Corner Sight Distance - Caltrans
7. Encroachment Permits Manual (Section 506) – Caltrans
8. Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82 – Caltrans
9. Speed Management ePrimer - FHWA
10.NCHRP Report 737 – Design Guidance for High-Speed to Low-Speed Transition Zones for Rural Highways
Item 35.
Category F. Others
90 | P a ge
Sample Project
Existing Entrance to the City of Rio Vista on EB SR 12
Proposed Design with Street Trees, Landscaping, and Gateway Monument Project Description:
State Route 12 in Rio Vista is undergoing redesign as a Complete Street. The community felt it was important to alert drivers on this busy trucking route that they are entering the City of Rio Vista. Caltrans landscape architecture developed this sketch to illustrate how landscaping could be combined with a gateway monument to visually indicate the entrance and extent of the Rural Main Street. Several complete streets elements in this view contributes to the visual narrowing of the roadway, but the verticality of the proposed street trees plays a critical role in visually defining the corridor.
Item 35.
Category F. Others
91 | P a ge
In-Roadway Light
Description
In-Roadway Lights (IRWLs) are a special type of highway traffic signal installed in the roadway surface to warn road users that they are approaching a condition on or adjacent to the roadway.
They may draw drivers’ attention to features that might not be readily apparent, so that drivers can slow down or come to a stop. IRWLs are actuated devices with flashing indications that provide real-time warning of a specific condition. See CA MUTCD Chapter 4N for additional guidance on IRWLs’ application, IRWLs at crosswalks, and maintenance considerations.
In-Roadway Lights Schematic for crosswalk at an intersection and midblock crosswalk (CA MUTCD)
Placement
Marked midblock crosswalk, marked school crosswalk, marked crosswalks on uncontrolled approaches, crosswalks / bike crossings with higher pedestrian collision rates at night, and other roadway situations involving pedestrian crossings. This measure should only be installed at marked crosswalks, so the criteria for placement should follow marked crosswalk placement criteria.
Functional Classification: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Appropriate Daily Volume Range: 5,000-30,000 ADT(MDOT)
Performance
Volume Reduction: Low
Impact on Emergency Response: None
Mobility Impacts: Nominal
Item 35.
Category F. Others
92 | P a ge
Maintenance Considerations
SNOW
• Consider durability due to moisture buildup
• Minimize conflict with snowplow operations
OTHER
• These systems can be easily damaged and difficult to repair due to in-pavement installation and proprietary nature of these systems
• Replacement of these devices may be more frequent on heavy truck routes • Lights are most effective when kept clean because they can collect debris rapidly Other Considerations
• Do not place lights in the center of bike lanes or within the traveled way of Class III bikeway • Consider using in-roadway light along with other overhead devices such as pedestrian hybrid beacons. In-roadway lights can sometimes be visible only to the first vehicle in line and not for the rest
• Consider vehicle wheel paths when locating devices
• Consider how lights can be activated (button or pedestrian sensor) References
1. California MUTCD - Caltrans
2. Traffic Calming ePrimer – FHWA
Item 35.
Category F. Others
93 | P a ge
Sample Project
Route 1 at Mountain Road in Laguna Beach, CA (Google Earth) Project Description:
This project on State Route (SR) 1 at Mountain Road in Laguna Beach includes the installation of intersection lighting, high visibility crosswalks, in-roadway warning lights, mast arm mounted pedestrian crossing sign with warning beacons, etc.
Item 35.
1 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: William B. Pattison, Jr., City Manager
Ryan Baron, City Attorney’s Office, Best Best & Krieger LLP SUBJECT: Issuance of Notice of Intent to Award / Negotiation of an Agreement for a Public-Private Partnership for Implementation of the City’s Municipal Electric Utility
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the issuance of a Notice of Intent to Award an Agreement for a Public-Private Partnership for Implementation of the City’s Municipal Electric Utility to Stronghold Power System, Inc.
2. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or designee to negotiate an Agreement for a Public-Private Partnership for Implementation of the City’s Municipal Electric Utility with Stronghold Power System, Inc.
3. Staff recommends that the City Council waive certain irregularities and discrepancies in the statements of qualifications and proposals the City received for a Public-Private Partnership for Implementation of the City’s Municipal Electric Utility.
BACKGROUND:
On July 31, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-62 establishing a municipal utility to provide electric and gas service to certain new development and under-served development areas (i.e., the “Development Area”) within the City’s municipal boundaries, and authorizing the City Manager to take all necessary steps to create and establish the municipal utility and evaluate the areas and manner for providing service as a publicly-owned utility. The Development Area includes the Economic Development Zone, which consists of the Auto-Wrecking Zone and Industrial Zone, where initial load is projected to increase rapidly due to prospective cannabis, industrial, and data center interests. The Development Area and Economic Development Zone are in the eastern portion of the City. The City has subsequently been exploring options to ensure residents and businesses in this area receive cost-effective utility services that meet federal and state standards and can accommodate anticipated future load growth.
STAFF REPORT
May 14, 2025
Item 36.
2 On June 12, 2024, the City Council received and filed a feasibility study for municipal electric service to the Development Area. The feasibility study was prepared by EES Consulting and concluded that service to the Development Area is feasible and beneficial to the City’s electric customers when growth occurs in those areas. Concurrent with receiving this study, the City Council unanimously approved the issuance of a Request for Information and a Request for Proposals for a public-private partnership for implementation of the City’s municipal electric utility within the Development Area.
On October 22, 2024, the City issued a Request for Qualifications for Public-Private Partnership Development Team for Implementation of Energy Delivery System for Municipal Electric Utility (“RFQ”) to three potential proposers. The City received statements of qualifications from the three potential proposers on December 6, 2024 and thereafter determined based on its review of the statements that all potential proposers were qualified to proceed to the next stage of the solicitation process. On January 31, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals for Public-Private Partnership Development Team for Implementation of Energy Delivery System for Municipal Electric Utility (“RFP”) and on March 3, 2025 received three proposals from the qualified proposers.
The RFQ and RFP and the City’s review of its responses to each are discussed below.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS:
The City issued the RFQ on October 22, 2024 to (1) CLP Engineering, LLC (“CLPE”), (2) Stronghold Power Systems, Inc. (“SPSI”), and (3) TerraVerde Energy (“TerraVerde”). The stated purpose of the RFQ was to solicit interest and qualifications from prospective project partners to develop, design, finance, construct and/or operate an electric generation, distribution and/or transmission system through a public-private partnership pursuant to California Government Code section 5956.5 et seq. to serve immediate and future development needs within the City’s service area. The City expressed its willingness to consider interest and qualifications from prospective counterparties that would meet all or a portion of the City’s electricity and capacity needs through wholesale power purchase agreements (“PPAs”) or energy services agreements (“ESAs”), in conjunction with, or through some combination of a generation, distribution, transmission, and ESA energy delivery system (collectively, the “energy delivery system”). Prospective providers were explicitly advised that the City was seeking a provider or team that would provide the energy delivery system through a turnkey agreement with no upfront cost to the City, and that City payments for the energy delivery system be structured through long-term payments to the provider secured by City electric revenues and a lockbox structure. Statements were due to the City by December 6, 2024.
The City received statements of interest and qualifications from all three prospective providers — CLPE, SPSI, and TerraVerde — and they were reviewed for compliance with the RFQ by the City’s review team, which team consisted of the City Manager, Best Best & Krieger LLP (“BBK”), Strategic Energy Consultants, GDS Associates (“GDS”,
Item 36.
3 formerly EES Consulting), and the City of Corona Utilities Director (collectively, the “Review Team”). In addition to ensuring compliance with RFQ requirements, the Review Team assessed each statement based on (1) the quality of the response, (2) the experience of the project team, (3) the prospective provider’s familiarity with electric service issues in the City, and (4) the financial strength of the prospective provider. The aggregated and averaged scores are reflected in Table 1 below.
Table 1 – RFQ Scoring
Evaluation Criteria TerraVerde CLPE SPSI
Quality of Response 3.6 3.6 4.4
Experience of Project Team 2.6 2.8 2.6
Familiarity with Electric Service
Issues in the City
3.4 3.6 4.6
Financial Strength of Provider 2.8 3.8 4.2
Total Score 12.4 13.8 15.8
Rating Scale 1-5
1 = Poor/Non Responsive 2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Above Average 5 = Excellent Based on its review of the three statements, and as reflected in Table 1 – RFQ Scoring above, the Review Team determined that CLPE, SPSI, and TerraVerde were each qualified and eligible to proceed to the next phase of the solicitation process.
Specifically, each firm demonstrated through its statement that it understood the electric service issues faced by the City, including relevant state and federal legal and regulatory requirements; had assembled a team with significant relevant experience; and had the potential financial resources to meet the City’s requirement for providing a proposal that involved no upfront costs to the City. Moreover, the statements were of high quality and demonstrated each firm’s strong interest in forming a long-term partnership with the City.
CLPE, SPSI, and TerraVerde were therefore all invited to participate in the RFP.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS:
The City issued the RFP to CLPE, SPSI, and TerraVerde as the only eligible prequalified proposers on January 31, 2025, with proposals due on March 3, 2025. The City received proposals from all three which were reviewed for compliance with the RFP requirements by the Review Team. The Review Team also scored each written proposal pursuant to the RFP for (1) comprehensiveness, (2) the proposer’s understanding of City goals, (3) the firm’s plan of service, (4) funding options, and (5) the level of benefit to the City. The aggregated and averaged scores of the written proposals are reflected in Table 2 below.
Item 36.
4 Table 2 – RFP Scoring for Written Proposals
Evaluation Criteria TerraVerde CLPE SPSI
Comprehensiveness of Proposal 2.8 4.0 4.5
Understands City Goals 3.0 4.3 4.3
Plan of Service 2.5 4.3 4.5
Funding Options 2.3 3.5 4.3
Level of Benefit to City 2.5 4.0 4.5
Total Score 13.1 20.1 22.1
Rating Scale 1-5
1 = Poor/Non Responsive 2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Above Average 5 = Excellent On April 23, 2025, the Review Team interviewed CLPE, SPSI, and TerraVerde via teleconference. Each prospective provider was given the opportunity to discuss its team’s qualifications and answer specific Review Team questions. The Review Team subsequently scored each interview pursuant to similar categories used for the written proposals: (1) comprehensiveness, (2) the proposer’s understanding of City goals, (3) the firm’s plan of service, (4) funding options, and (5) the level of benefit to the City. The aggregated and averaged scores of the interviews are reflected in Table 3 below.
Table 3 – RFP Scoring for Interviews
Evaluation Criteria TerraVerde CLPE SPSI
Comprehensiveness of Proposal 2.3 4.0 4.3
Understands City Goals 2.0 4.0 4.3
Plan of Service 2.0 3.8 4.5
Funding Options 2.0 3.8 4.3
Level of Benefit to City 2.3 4.0 4.5
Total Score 10.6 19.6 21.9
Rating Scale 1-5
1 = Poor/Non Responsive 2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Above Average 5 = Excellent The Review Team’s cumulative scores for each proposer, reflecting a combination of scoring of written proposals and interviews, are reflected in Table 4 below, with each proposer eligible for a total of 50 points.
Item 36.
5 Table 4 – RFP Scoring Cumulative
Evaluation Criteria TerraVerde CLPE SPSI
Comprehensiveness of Proposal 5.1 8.0 8.8
Understands City Goals 5.0 8.3 8.6
Plan of Service 4.5 8.1 9.0
Funding Options 4.3 7.3 8.6
Level of Benefit to City 4.8 8.0 9.0
Total Score 23.7 39.7 44.0
Rating Scale 1-5
1 = Poor/Non Responsive 2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Above Average 5 = Excellent RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to (1) issue a Notice of Intent to Award to SPSI and (2) commence negotiations with SPSI for an Agreement for a Public-Private Partnership for Implementation of the City’s Municipal Electric Utility.
Staff’s recommendation to move forward with SPSI is consistent with the Review Team’s scoring of the proposals reflected in Table 4 above. Specifically, of a total possible cumulative score of 50, SPSI scored 44.0, while CLPE scored 39.7, and TerraVerde scored 23.7. To be clear, these scores were calculated as follows: (a) each scorer entered a score for each prospective provider in each category of each scoring matrix (i.e., RFQ, RFP – written, RFP – interviews), (b) each scorer’s score for each category was summed and averaged to reach a final cumulative average score for each prospective provider by category, and (c) the cumulative average scores were summed by prospective provider, with SPSI ranking highest.
The Review Team identified SPSI’s proposal as the best fit for the City’s needs. Among other reasons, Staff recommends moving forward with SPSI because of SPSI’s familiarity with the energy issues plaguing the Coachella Valley more broadly and the City in particular, the feasibility of its proposed project, and the lack of upfront costs to the City. SPSI has experience in the energy sector and is uniquely positioned to help the City establish its limited municipal utility to meet growing energy demand and entice industry to the area.
NEXT STEPS:
Issue Notice of Intent to Award and commence negotiations with SPSI for an agreement for a Public-Private Partnership for Implementation of the City’s Municipal Electric Utility. The City Manager will work closely with BBK attorneys to negotiate the agreement and anticipates submitting an agreement for City Council consideration in summer 2025.
Item 36.
6 WAIVER OF MINOR IRREGULARITIES IN STATEMENTS AND PROPOSALS:
Staff recommends that the City Council exercise its right pursuant to Section 4.08.100 of the City’s Code of Ordinances to waive certain irregularities or discrepancies in the statements and proposals received. Staff does not believe that the irregularities or discrepancies identified below are substantive in nature and confirms that the items identified below in no way affected Staff’s review or scoring of the statements and proposals.
Section 10 – Submission of both the RFQ (as revised by Addendum No. 1) and RFP required the submitter to upload its statement/proposal to BBK’s Collaborate Site by 5:00 p.m. PDT on the due date.
o TerraVerde did not upload its RFQ response to the BBK Collaborate Site, but instead sent it via email. Its response, however, was timely submitted. o TerraVerde uploaded its RFP response to the BBK Collaborate Site after close of business.
Because Staff does not recommend moving forward to contract negotiations with either CLPE, or TerraVerde, Staff recommends that the City Council waive these minor irregularities and/or discrepancies.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The recommended actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
The issuance of a RFP does not constitute a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3), as it does not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Upon execution of an agreement with SPSI, SPSI will be responsible for performing all required CEQA analysis prior to the implementation of any project on behalf of the City. The City will be the lead agency under CEQA and will consider certification of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the General Fund cannot be determined at this point.
ATTACHMENTS
Request for Qualifications for Public-Private Partnership Development Team for Implementation of Energy Delivery System for Municipal Electric Utility Request for Proposals for Public-Private Partnership Development Team for Implementation of Energy Delivery System for Municipal Electric Utility
Item 36.
city,ot
COAC •
EST.7946
80237.00857\42476740.6
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR MUNICIPAL
ELECTRIC UTILITY
Issued: October 22, 2024
Qualifications Due: December 6, 2024
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
1 1. Introduction – Coachella Municipal Electric Utility On July 31, 2019, the City Council of the City of Coachella (“City”) adopted Resolution No. 2019-62 authorizing the creation of a limited municipally owned utility for the purpose of providing electrical utility services. The Coachella City Council established the municipal utility to provide electric and gas service to certain new development and under-served development (i.e., “greenfield” areas) within the City’s municipal boundaries. The City has been exploring various options to ensure that its residents and businesses receive utility services that meet the current and future needs of the community at fair and reasonable rates. The City has also been exploring options to ensure that such services are cost-effective, meet federal and state standards, provide high-quality customer service, and provide long-term reliability to meet City energy needs.
On June 12, 2024, the Coachella City Council approved unanimously the issuance of a competitive solicitation process to start the new municipal electric utility.1 The City is now launching its electric service program and issuing this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit interest and qualifications from prospective project partners to “jump start” the municipal electric utility who would develop, design, finance, construct and/or operate an electric generation, distribution and/or transmission system through a public-private partnership pursuant to California Government Code section 5956.5 et seq. that would serve immediate development needs and be scaled to serve increasing development within the City service area. In addition, the City has also examined the possibility of wheeling electricity and capacity over adjacent transmission lines owned and operated by the Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”). The City will, as part of this RFQ, consider interest and qualifications from prospective counter-parties that would sell all or a portion of the necessary electricity and capacity to the City through wholesale power purchase agreements or energy services agreements (“ESA”), in conjunction with, or through some combination of a generation, distribution, transmission, and ESA energy delivery system (collectively, the “energy delivery system.”)
The City is seeking a provider or team who will provide the energy delivery system through a turnkey agreement with no upfront cost to the City but that City payments for the energy delivery system, including any use of an ESA, be structured through long-term payments to the provider secured by City electric revenues and a lockbox structure. This RFQ is only seeking interest and qualifications from prospective providers who will then be pre-qualified to develop and submit formal proposals through a subsequent Request for Proposals (RFP) issued to the pre-qualified candidates. Submissions under this RFQ should include detailed qualifications and experience by interested providers and a commitment to participate in a future RFP and work with the City.
Submissions should not include formal proposals or cost information. 1 https://meetings.municode.com/PublishPage/index?cid=COACHELACA&ppid=d85f3721-a990-46c3-8dbbde13c6cad66c&p=0
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
2 2. Background and Project Description of Municipal Utility Formation
2.1. Coachella Development Area
The City of Coachella is located in the eastern Coachella Valley in Riverside County, California.
The City is a California municipal corporation and general law city with a population of approximately 42,554 residents. It is one of the fastest growing cities in California and contains a number of large employers along with large-scale planned development in greenfield areas of the City.
Certain developed portions of the City, along with cities and unincorporated areas within eastern Coachella Valley, are currently being provided electric service by IID, an irrigation district formed under and governed by the California Water Code. As part of its powers as an irrigation district, IID provides electric service to ratepayers within its service territory of Imperial County.
Due to historical factors, IID also provides electric service to certain areas outside of its territorial boundary, including eastern Riverside County where the City of Coachella is located.2 Substantial load growth is anticipated in the City and throughout the region. For a variety of reasons, IID has faced significant challenges to its ability to extend timely, cost-effective service to new and existing customers in the City. Due to projected economic development and associated load growth and IID challenges in serving the City, the City seeks to ensure development of an energy delivery system that supports expected economic growth over the near term and beyond.
Due to the need for Coachella Valley governance and local control over electric service and aging and unavailable electrical infrastructure to serve existing and new development, among other reasons, the eastern Coachella Valley municipalities have been examining alternatives to their current electric service with IID.3 As part of those efforts, the City has determined that its residents and businesses are best served by a City owned and operated municipal utility due to the need for local control and self-governance, improved infrastructure to serve under-utilized and future development, and competitive rates and cost effectiveness while meeting state environmental goals. The municipal utility intends to serve new customers in undeveloped or under-served areas of the City in the form of a “spot utility,” and potentially some existing customers, which service will be in the largely undeveloped northeast portion of the City, as depicted on Attachment A of this RFQ, attached hereto (the “Development Area”).
As part of the initial municipal utility service to the Development Area, the municipal utility will initially serve load in the M-W Wrecking Yard zone (also known as the “Auto Wrecking Zone”), and in the Industrial Zone. The Auto Wrecking Zone encompasses approximately 260 acres, and 2 IID also owns and operates certain transmission lines within eastern Riverside County and is the Balancing Authority for the area in which it provides retail electric service. 3 Prospective providers are encouraged to research the ongoing electric service issues in the Coachella Valley. See, e.g., Riverside County Local Area Formation Commission, Alternative Governance & Electricity Services Study – Imperial Irrigation District, available at https://lafco.org/studies/alternative-governance-structures-and-alternativeelectricity-service-provision-imperial-irrigation-district; see also Coachella Valley Energy Commission, available at https://www.iid.com/government/coachella-valley-energy-commission.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
3 is generally bound by the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Dillon Road to the west, Avenue 48 to the north, the Whitewater River to the east, and Avenue 50 to the south. The Industrial Zone encompasses approximately 670 acres and is generally bound by Avenue 52 to the north, State Highway 111 to the west, Avenue 55 to the south, and a flood control channel to the east. The Auto Wrecking Zone and Industrial Zone are collectively known as and referred to herein as the “Economic Development Zone” or “EDZ,” and are depicted on Attachment B, attached hereto.
Developed portions of the City are currently served by IID, which provides electric service outside of its territorial boundary of Imperial County. IID acquired a public utility in the 1940s that provided certain service in the Coachella Valley. IID also purports to serve the Coachella Valley through a water rights Compromise Agreement executed in 1934, between IID, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the federal government. IID provides certain retail electric service outside its territorial boundaries, is a transmission provider subject to Open Access Transmission Tariff regulations and other rules of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), and is the Balancing Authority for the region. The City does not, at this time, propose providing its municipal utility service to existing City residents and businesses served by IID, except in limited fashion where feasible, but to the undeveloped and under-served areas of the City as depicted in the City’s service territory.4
2.2. Energy Delivery System and Municipal Utility Load Estimates The City has conducted a feasibility analysis of the municipal utility. The City’s projected load estimates for the Development Area are set forth at Attachment C and the City’s Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area, dated April 2024, and accompanying Staff Report that were presented to the Coachella City Council on June 12, 2024 are set forth at Attachment D, both attached hereto. The total anticipated load in the EDZ is approximately 63 MW based on future industrial uses, with an additional 11 MW in the remaining Development Area. It is anticipated that City load in the EDZ may increase to approximately 40 to 50 MW over a short-term period of three to five years and will be a mix of commercial, industrial, and agricultural (including cannabis) loads, and that new distribution and transmission facilities, including one or more substations, will be required to serve load growth in the EDZ and throughout the larger Development Area. It is further anticipated that load growth will continue within the Development Area beyond the EDZ up to approximately 100 MW. In order to accommodate the load projections, the City is examining the electricity that will be needed from either an ESA or newly constructed generation, or both, as well as implementation of distribution and transmission facilities.
IID offers point-to-point transmission service for IID facilities. IID also sells available transmission capacity through its Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”) to other entities that need IID lines to transport energy. This type of service can be used for the transportation of capacity and energy into, out of, through or within IID’s system. The City has explored upgrades to existing IID facilities and wheeling over IID transmission. IID has publicly indicated that 4 The Coachella City Council has authorized the issuance of a valuation study for IID assets serving the City that will be conducted through a separate Request for Proposals outside of this RFQ/RFP process.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
4 there is no available capacity on its existing transmission to serve new load in the Development Area. The City’s feasibility study, however, found that there may be up to 40 MW of capacity available. Therefore, the City believes that some form of ESA as part of the energy delivery system may be necessary or possible in the short-term. Due to the uncertainty of available capacity on IID transmission, required capacity upgrades, and the ability to utilize IID’s OATT to provide electricity and capacity to the City, prospective providers that desire to use an ESA as part of the energy delivery system should fully evaluate this issue.
In addition to the potential for an ESA as part of the energy delivery system, the City envisions the construction of generation, distribution and transmission facilities to be used and/or owned by the municipal utility. A proposed new substation on or around Harrison Street will be needed to serve load in the Auto Wrecking Zone (northern most EDZ), with an anticipated load of 30 MW. Any substation at this location would be used to serve future development of retail electric service outside the Auto Wrecking Zone. The substation would be configured for two 40 mega volt amp (“MVA”) power transformers and twelve 12.5 kV feeders.
A second proposed new substation would also be located on or around Polk Street in the Industrial Zone of the EDZ serving approximately 30 MW of new commercial load and an additional retail load within the Development Area. The station would be configured for two 40 MVA power transformers and twelve 12.5 kV feeders.
It is assumed that the design of the two substations will meet an N-1 criterion (loss of any one system component and maintain electric service). The distribution feeders should also meet this N-1 criterion to the extent financially feasible.
To address challenges associated with forecasting load growth, any energy delivery system for the municipal utility must be easily scalable to timely meet demand growth in the Development Area. As the load requirements approach the limit of available transmission capacity from IID, or overall load reaches approximately 40 to 50 MW, the City anticipates obtaining a source at SCE’s 230 kV line at or near the Coachella Valley Substation. The 20-year projected load for the City is 70 MW and the expected capacity of a 92 kV transmission line would be about 150 MW.
Therefore, a 230/92 kV substation would be constructed and 92 kV lines extended to the two new substations (Harrison and Polk). The estimated distance of single pole 92 kV transmission is
7.2 miles. Approximately 3.5 miles would have a single 92 kV circuit with space for two distribution circuits on the structures. The other 3.7 miles would be double circuit 92 kV with space for two distribution circuits on the structures. A typical width for a 92 kV transmission line is 100 feet. Therefore, the loop would likely require acquisition of roughly a 50-foot strip easement. The other 50 feet will be located within the road right-of-way based on the proposed routing of the line. If at the time of construction, the load within the utility boundary is expected to exceed 150 MW, then 230 kV transmission would be warranted. CAISO approval will be required for any connection to SCE transmission.
The City further anticipates necessary distribution lines to be constructed within City limits as part of the energy delivery system in order to properly serve customer premises.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
5 2.3. Coachella Development Projections
The current population of the City is approximately 42,554; however, with current planning efforts, the City is expected to grow three-fold by 2035.5
3. Municipal Utility Objectives
The objectives of the energy delivery system include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Development of local clean, reliable energy generation. The RFQ/RFP process does not require a specific technology. The City anticipates, however, that the construction of generation facilities could consist of a combination of natural gas, solar and battery energy storage up to approximately 49 MW. Generation must meet State of California renewable energy (“Renewables Portfolio Standard” or “RPS”) and resource adequacy capacity (“RA”) requirements.
B. The City anticipates that development needs could also be met in the short-term through wheeling arrangements over IID’s transmission system in accordance with IID’s OATT and an ESA or full services agreement between the City and the proposer, or a proposal with some combination of generation, distribution, transmission and/or an ESA.
C. Turnkey development and operation of local energy delivery infrastructure, including transmission and distribution facilities, substations, and control systems.
D. The energy delivery system should be capable of expansion to serve anticipated load growth in the Development Area.
E. The energy delivery system may be independent of IID and SCE transmission systems initially, but should be capable of interconnection in the future as City electric loads grow.
F. The energy delivery system should be capable of delivering products and services at a high level of reliability, supporting commercial and industrial operations.
G. The generation component of the energy delivery system must comply with State of California RPS requirements, California and CAISO RA requirements, and regional air quality standards.
H. The energy delivery system must comply with all other federal and state regulatory requirements that apply.
5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Coachella, California, Estimate July 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/coachellacitycalifornia.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
6 I. The energy delivery system should facilitate delivery of products and services to municipal utility customers at competitive retail rates with a tariff structure and predictable pricing forecasts.
J. The energy delivery system should allow for a project participation structure, financing, and revenue model that insulates the City from financial and regulatory risk. The City does not intend to provide any financial or capital contribution to the energy delivery system project but may consider such proposals to the extent they are financially feasible (e.g., bond issuance) and project risk remains with the developer.
K. The energy delivery system should be able to deliver energy products and services sufficient to serve up to approximately 25 MW of load to the City in the next few years and be able to readily expand to timely serve additional load growth thereafter, up to approximately 50 MW.
L. The City may assist with the acquisition of necessary land or rights-of-way for any generation, distribution or transmission infrastructure through the exercise of its powers of eminent domain, which would be recoverable in the proposer’s financing.
4. Coachella Partnership Structure
The City desires that the energy services described in this RFQ be accomplished through a public-private partnership that includes the City and one or more investment and development partners or that the partner provide electricity and capacity through an ESA with long-term implementation of generation, distribution and transmission based on the City’s load in the Development Area.
A. The City would leverage its role as a publicly owned utility and would own any facilities at the end of the term of an agreement (with buyout options).
B. The City would otherwise control the municipal utility and energy delivery system.
C. The partner(s) would take the risk of financing the energy delivery system, and where applicable, meeting all federal and state regulatory requirements.
D. The partner(s) would provide the site for any facilities, where applicable.
Proposals will ultimately include the financing, design, construction, and operation of one or more generating facilities, a distribution and transmission system, and/or a combination of an ESA.
5. Content of RFQ Submissions
Submissions should address the following points and be presented largely in the outline format provided below. A submission must submit a complete and detailed statement of qualifications
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
7 regarding and interest in the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of an energy delivery system.
Submission Outline
A. Executive Summary
1. Summarize the qualifications and interest in a narrative format.
B. City’s Objectives
1. Demonstrate that the provider understands the City’s objectives and the desired energy delivery system.
C. Development Team
1. Describe the development team that would be proposed should the provider be prequalified for participation in a subsequently issued RFP; identify the consultants who would support the development team.
2. Describe the development team’s interest in this project.
3. Provide organization chart for the development team.
D. Experience
1. Describe the development team’s qualifications and experience in designing, financing, constructing, and operating generation, distribution and transmission systems, and selling electricity and capacity.
2. Describe the development team’s experience with working with publicly owned utilities and the formation and implementation of a municipal utility.
3. If the provider intends to sell electricity and/or capacity to the City through an ESA, describe the provider’s experience as an energy supplier.
4. Describe up to three examples of specific projects the team, or members of the team, have completed, including project name and address. Describe the team’s role in each project.
a. Include any experience with local projects, projects in California, projects in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council region, or in other areas of the United States
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
8 b. Include experience working with IID, SCE, CAISO and any applicable federal or state regulatory agencies
c. Include experience working in partnership with local governments and publicly owned utilities
d. Include experience in land use, regulatory, entitlement, and permitting processes, including water quality, air quality and other environmental experience and with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review e. Include experience in the financing of generation, distribution or transmission projects
5. Describe the financial strength of the company or development team. The provider must be willing to provide financial statements or other evidence of financial capability upon request of the City as part of the evaluation process should the company or development team not be a large entity or be a publically traded company.
6. Provide three references from related projects, including contact person and phone number, and brief project description.
6. Certification
A duly authorized officer or agent of the provider must sign the submission. Submissions that are unsigned will not be considered. In the case where multiple team members or firms desire to submit, a signature by a duly authorized officer or agent of each entity is required, though one entity should be designated the lead entity. The lead entity will ultimately be the contracting entity and will be responsible for subcontracting with its partners.
7. Compliance With Laws
The selected provider will be required to attest to and demonstrate as part of a future proposal for the Project that it can and will comply with the following federal and state requirements:
A. Government Claims Act. Pursuant to Government Code section 5956.8, the Project will be deemed to be public property for purposes of identification, maintenance, enforcement of laws and for purposes of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 810 et seq.).
B. Labor Code. The Project will be constructed as and deemed to be “public works” as governed by the California Labor Code and will comply with the provisions thereof (Labor Code § 1720 et seq.).
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
9 C. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). As a California municipal utility, the City will need to comply with State of California RPS requirements as governed and enforced by the California Energy Commission.
D. Resource Adequacy. As a California load serving entity, the City will be required with State of California Resource Adequacy Capacity requirements.
E. Balancing Authority Requirements. IID is the balancing authority in the eastern Coachella Valley and the City may be subject to certain regulations. In addition, energy purchased through an ESA by the proposer should also be familiar with CAISO requirements, where applicable.
F. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The transmission component of the energy delivery system will be subject to FERC or other balancing authority regulations.
G. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City will be the lead agency under CEQA for the energy delivery system project. The provider, however, will be expected to prepare all required environmental documents for the City’s review and certification.
H. Resource Agencies. The provider will comply with all applicable federal and state resource agency requirements, including, but not limited to, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Colorado River Basin Regional Water Control Board, federal and state Fish & Wildlife, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
8. Conflict of Interest
In accordance with Government Code section 5956.5, this RFQ/RFP process specifically prohibits practices that may result in unlawful activity, including, but not limited to, rebates, kickbacks, or other unlawful consideration as well as City officials and employees from participating in the selection process when those employees have a relationship with a person or business entity seeking a contract through the City’s solicitation process that would subject the City officials or employees to the prohibition of Government Code section 87100.
Any person or entity submitting interest and qualifications hereunder must attest, under penalty of perjury, that no official or employee of the City, nor any business entity in which an official of the City has an interest, has been employed or retained to solicit or aid in the procuring of any contract that may result from this RFQ/RFP process, nor that any such person will be employed in the performance of such a contract without immediate written disclosure of such fact to and consent by the City at its sole discretion.
In addition, submissions must disclose any existing financial or other interests that they may have in the Development Area. The failure to comply with this Conflict of Interest section is immediate grounds for the City rejection of a submission and termination of pre-qualifications or a future contract thereby.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
10 9. Evaluation Criteria
All submissions will be screened by the City and its selection team and a short-list of eligible, pre-qualified candidates will be chosen who will move on to the RFP phase of this process. The selection process will include an interview of top candidates. The City will select finalist teams based on the following criteria, which are not listed in order of importance:
A. Quality of response
B. Experience of project team
C. Familiarity with electric service issues in the City D. References
E. Financial strength of provider
10. Submission
Submissions must be submitted to the City at the following address no later than December 6, 2024, 5:00 p.m. Pacific Prevailing Time (PPT):
Re: Municipal Electric Utility RFQ
Gary Saleba
Municipal Utility Project Manager
City of Coachella
1515 Sixth Street
Coachella, CA 92236
Submissions received after the deadline may not be considered in the sole discretion of the City.
Two hard copies and one complete electronic version are required. Faxed submissions will not be accepted. Submissions assume the risk of the methods of dispatch or delivery chosen.
Office hours for receipt of mailed or couriered submissions are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PPT, except for federal, state or City-recognized holidays.
Electronic submissions must be submitted by email. The City will issue a subsequent addendum to this RFQ with instructions on electronic submissions. All electronic files must be submitted in editable format in order to facilitate evaluation and planning. Word, Excel, GIS and PDF formats are acceptable.
11. Administrative Issues
11.1. Availability of the RFP and Amendments
This RFQ is available on the City’s website at https://www.coachella.org/services/proposals-bids.
This RFQ and any addendums will be posted on the City’s website as well as advertised through Planet Bids. Any amendments supersede prior provisions and are effective upon posting, and each potential provider is responsible for checking these sources to learn of any amendments.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
11 11.2. Questions about the RFQ
The primary RFQ contact for the Project is Gary Saleba, Project Manager, Strategic Energy Experts. All general correspondence and any questions about this RFQ must be submitted in writing to Mr. Saleba at [email protected]. The City will not entertain any oral contacts regarding this RFQ. The last date for written questions will be on November 29, 2024 5:00 PPT. All questions will be considered to be public and released with an answer as expeditiously as possible. The identity of the person or company posing the question will not be disclosed. Providers should not contact the City Council or City staff about this RFQ. Any attempts to contact the City regarding this RFQ other than through the process described herein may be grounds for the City to reject a submission.
11.3. Informational Session
There will be an informational session for prospective providers held on November 12, 2024 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. PPT. The informational session will be conducted virtually. The City will host project questions and post responses.
12. Clarification of Proposals
Notwithstanding any other provision of this RFQ, the City reserves the right to:
A. Conduct discussions with any or all potential providers for the purpose of clarification of the RFQ;
B. Request supplemental information regarding any submission as part of the evaluation process.
C. Waive, or decline to waive, any defect in any submission; D. Cancel or amend this RFQ or issue other requests for qualifications or proposals; E. Pre-qualify a proposer or a group or proposers based on the City’s analysis and evaluation of submissions and request presentations if the City believes further information is appropriate to the decision-making process; or
F. Select no submissions at all.
14. Commencement of Work
Any submissions in response to this RFQ, and the subsequent evaluation of that response by the City, does not constitute a contract or any type of agreement between the City and any provider for the commencement of work or the performance of any obligation. Only a written contract with the City will authorize the commencement of work or obligate the City on this Project.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
12 15. Use of Subcontractors
Submissions may include use of sub-contractors or sub-consultants to fulfill any obligations in connection with the energy delivery system project. Use of sub-contractors or sub-consultants shall be subject to all applicable state and federal laws. A selected provider shall remain liable for fulfilling all its obligations on the energy delivery system project, and for any claims or damages arising from the sub-contractor’s or sub-consultant’s work.
16. Submission Costs
Providers that provide submissions in response to this RFQ or a future RFP are responsible for all expenses incurred in preparing and submitting a statement of interest and qualification or in contract negotiations with the City. Even if the City elects to reject all submissions or future proposals, the City will not be liable for any costs or damages incurred by any provider in submitting hereunder or preparing and submitting a proposal or negotiating a contract.
17. Errors and Omissions in a Submission
A provider is responsible for all errors and omissions in its submission. If it discovers an error and wishes to withdraw its submission, the provider should notify the City immediately.
18. Errors and Omissions in the RFQ
If the City becomes aware of an error or omission in the RFQ, it will post a notice on the project website and through the third party procurement site. If it discovers an error or omission after statements of interest and qualifications are submitted, it may in its discretion proceed or reissue the RFQ. Even if it elects to re-issue the RFQ, the City will not be liable for any costs or damages incurred by any entity in preparing and submitting the original statement of interest and qualifications.
19. No Waiver of RFP Provisions
The City may, but is under no obligation to, waive any provision in this RFQ at the request of a potential provider. Any such waiver shall apply to all potential providers, and no waiver shall constitute a waiver of any provision not specifically referenced therein.
20. Ownership and Confidentiality of Submissions
The City will not pay for any information requested herein, and all submissions become the property of the City. Submissions will not be returned and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The City may receive information that may be confidential as part of your response. If you believe that any portion of your submission includes proprietary or other confidential information, please clearly mark it as such and state the basis for your claim to confidential treatment. Unless otherwise required by law, the City will treat the information as confidential and will not disclose it to a third party without your permission. Information that is an integral part of the submission will likely not be considered confidential after an award of contract has been made.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
13 23. Additional Information
Please see additional information at the following Attachments.
A. Attachment A: Development Area
B. Attachment B: Economic Development Zone
C. Attachment C: City Load Estimates
D. Attachment D: Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area
Item 36.
rStd, .i?o•
••••;',4_•• •••Zi ": *-
10 lir*% •
tat
*1!
6o,ael?ella
NAP
Jr:
4 -
am-
. 4 p
Vi,µ 202!,-fr-zoa
80237.00857\42476740.6
Attachment A - 1
ATTACHMENT A
DEVELOPMENT AREA
Item 36.
.• "seirr)
• •
r," "a?.•
•"1
•
5 wr-
-111rItt !' - a
r
L
i
t
.-.' W 1) ,4 I
• '
-316;4116:1.:•,.111 ° isiagmiuminimin r
- I
✓
IA*
r▪ ensoionimiaeomirolimorlimmiolis
.6 tip
0- 41
Legend
M-W (Wrecking Yard) Boundary
: rwis 6,1,414 du
S Z3AVHO d
v. •
Source: Esn, Maxar-,Earlhslar GeqmpAirAs,.a.
oT .
r.
• •
■
@GO§ ser
80237.00857\42476740.6
Attachment B - 1
ATTACHMENT B
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE (EDZ)
Item 36.
It
Iq
at.
11. •
tv
lk
Pr
•
oat.; imparopirie Am te-Lotna--
al i ftzi 'NI
all a.: ail a' r.: a* Il l
la s - a- Runt Er as VI
L .. art rae.`- .,... Wool .ilw ir ' 1.
Legend
M W(Wecki gYa cl)B May
F'otonlial Cullivalion Expansion Eon('
4110419
Nr. Owner Own r Address
1 Pavao Paull
2 3
4 6
7 B
10 11
12 13
Coachella.indlo Real Property
Ruiz Marco A
Propcorp Inc.
Zimmer Ima Joyce
Rosso Patricia R
De tares lose _
Beltran° Reser
De leon Abel
Duran Albert
Butzlaff Robert D
Ag. Greenleaf L1C
Anthony Vineyards Inc.
P.O Box 3016, Indio CA92202
751E Claremont St. Pasadena, CA 91104
1773 Arroyo GI n., Escondido, CA 92026
84951 Avenue 48. Coachella. CA 92236
48171 Crestview Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260
24787 Morning Mist Dr. Moreno Valley, CA 92557
48050 HarrisonStreet, Coachella, CA 92236
47453 Harbour 1.11thts Ln. Indio, CA 92201
43905 Telluride St. Indio CA 92201
50217 Paseo Cadiz, Coachella, CA 92236
80192Avenida Aliso Gyn. Indio, CA 92203
100W Broadway41950, Glendale, CA 91210
P.O Box 9578 Bakersfield CA 93389
I -M
80237.00857\42476740.6
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
Attachment C - 1
ATTACHMENT C
CITY LOAD ESTIMATES
(Chart Depicted on the Following Page)
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
C - 2
Load Estimates Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Base
Residential 2,500,000 3,200,000 4,100,000 5,300,000 6,800,000 8,600,000 11,100,000 14,200,000 18,100,000 23,200,000 General Service 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,100,000 3,900,000 4,900,000 6,100,000 7,600,000 8,400,000 9,200,000 10,200,000 Large General Service 9,000,000 9,700,000 10,500,000 11,300,000 12,200,000 13,200,000 14,300,000 15,400,000 16,700,000 18,000,000 Industrial 0
37,300,00
0 131,500,00
0 170,600,00
0 170,600,00
0 170,600,00
0 290,000,00
0 290,000,00
0 290,000,00
0 290,000,00
0 Total Retail Sales, kWh
13,500,00
0 52,700,00
0 149,200,00
0 191,100,00
0 194,500,00
0 198,500,00
0 323,000,00
0 328,000,00
0 334,000,00
0 341,400,00
0 System Requirements,
MWh 13,905 54,281 153,676 196,833 200,335 204,455 332,690 337,840 344,020 351,642 System Peak Demand, MW 2 10 27 35 35 36 58 59 60 62
Low
Residential 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 2,700,000 2,900,000 General Service 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 Large General Service 4,500,000 4,600,000 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,900,000 5,000,000 5,100,000 5,200,000 5,300,000 5,400,000 Industrial 0
18,700,00
0 65,800,000 85,300,000 85,300,000 85,300,000
145,000,00
0 145,000,00
0 145,000,00
0 145,000,00
0 Total Retail Sales, kWh 6,800,000
25,700,00
0 73,000,000 92,900,000 93,100,000 93,400,000
153,400,00
0 153,700,00
0 154,200,00
0 154,500,00
0 System Requirements,
MWh 7,004 26,471 75,190 95,687 95,893 96,202 158,002 158,311 158,826 159,135 System Peak Demand, MW 1 5 13 17 17 17 28 28 28 28
High
Residential 2,500,000 3,200,000 4,100,000 5,300,000 6,800,000 8,600,000 11,100,000 14,200,000 18,100,000 23,200,000 General Service 2,000,000
16,900,00
0 18,500,000 20,400,000 22,400,000 24,700,000 27,200,000 29,900,000 32,900,000 36,100,000 Large General Service 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 Industrial 0
37,300,00
0 131,500,00
0 170,600,00
0 170,600,00
0 170,600,00
0 290,000,00
0 327,100,00
0 335,400,00
0 339,600,00
0 Total Retail Sales, kWh
14,200,00
0 67,100,00
0 163,800,00
0 206,000,00
0 209,500,00
0 213,600,00
0 338,000,00
0 380,900,00
0 396,100,00
0 408,600,00
0 System Requirements,
MWh 14,626 69,113 168,714 212,180 215,785 220,008 348,140 392,327 407,983 420,858 System Peak Demand, MW 3 12 30 37 38 39 61 69 72 74
Item 36.
80237.00857\42476740.6
Attachment D - 1
ATTACHMENT D
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC SERVICE
TO THE DEVELOPMENT AREA
(Study follows on next page)
Item 36.
;141,t.'n
1 STAFF REPORT
6/12/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dr. Gabriel Martin, City Manager
Ryan Baron, City Attorney’s Office, Best Best & Krieger, LLP SUBJECT: Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the City’s Development Area / Request for Proposals for a Public-Private Partnership for Implementation of the City’s Municipal Electric Utility STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive and file feasibility study for municipal electric service to the City’s development area.
2. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the issuance of a Request for Information and a Request for Proposals for a public-private partnership for implementation of the City’s municipal electric utility within the City development area, including the Economic Development Zone.
3. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the issuance of a Request for Proposals for a valuation study of Imperial Irrigation District assets providing electric service to the developed portion of the City.
BACKGROUND:
The Coachella Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in California. The City of Coachella is projected to grow rapidly containing a number of large employers along with large-scale master planned development in greenfield areas of the City. The eastern portion of the Coachella Valley, including the City, is currently receiving electric service from the Imperial Irrigation District, which provides this service outside its territorial boundary of Imperial County. There remains significant areas of the Coachella Valley, and the City, however, that are not served, or cannot be served, by IID due a lack of electric infrastructure or a need to significantly upgrade the existing infrastructure in the area, such as the construction of new substations. The eastern Coachella Valley is growing rapidly but development has been hindered by the inability to provide electricity to this development, thereby impacting growth, employment, and fiscal revenue. Due to the lack of infrastructure throughout the City and that the City does not have any representation or governance options in IID electric service matters, the City has been interested in local control of its electricity service and providing such service to the City’s undeveloped and under-served areas.
Item 32.
Item 36.
2 On July 31, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-62 authorizing the creation of a limited municipally owned utility for the purpose of providing electrical utility services and authorized the taking of other actions. The Coachella City Council established the municipal utility to provide electric and gas service to certain new development and under-served development (i.e., “greenfield” areas) within the City’s municipal boundaries. At that time, a service area for a municipal utility was established and the City Manager was authorized to take all necessary steps to create and establish the municipal utility and evaluate the areas and manner for providing utility service as a publicly owned utility. Since then, the City has been exploring various options to ensure that its residents and businesses receive utility services that meet the current and future needs of the community at fair and reasonable rates. The City has also been exploring options to ensure that such services are cost-effective, meet federal and state standards, provide high-quality customer service, and provide long-term reliability to meet City energy needs.
The City has also participated in regional efforts to address the lack of service and governance, including its participation on the Coachella Valley Energy Commission, an advisory body to IID.
Since the adoption of Resolution No. 2019-62, City staff has researched the legal options of implementing the municipal utility and has conducted a feasibility study to assess the financial and technical issues of establishing an electric delivery system to greenfield areas of the City also referred to as the Development Area. This Development Area includes the Economic Development Zone, which consists of the Auto-Wrecking Zone and Industrial Zone, where initial load is projected to increase rapidly due to prospective and cannabis and industrial interests. The feasibility study was prepared by EES Consulting who has prepared numerous municipalization feasibility studies throughout the nation, including a study in the 2000s for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. The study concludes that service to the economic development zone and the greenfield areas of the City is feasible and beneficial to City electric customers when growth occurs in those areas. The study uses certain data and forecasts the City’s 20-year energy needs. It also projects revenue and rate requirements and outlines where the construction of new electrical infrastructure is required, including the construction of two new substations and transmission, as well as potential wheeling of energy over IID’s existing transmission in order to serve initial municipal utility load.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The study makes the following observations:
Considerations
Access to IID Capacity Initial plan is to use capacity from IID’s 92kV transmission. If access is denied, accelerate SCE interconnection.
Load Growth Risk Break-even threshold is 55,000 MWh with annual 5% IID rate increases.
Change in Load Mix Cannabis is High Density Energy Needs 100-200 kWh/sq.ft.
Traditional Industrial/Commercial 8-50 kWh/sq.ft. Even with
Item 32.
Item 36.
3 reductions in high density load, the City could likely achieve breakeven sales threshold of 55,000 MWh.
New Municipal Utility IID can challenge new utility. Limiting to greenspace-only rather than acquisition of IID customers does not eliminate the uncertainty.
Initial Financing $67.3 M
RPS Requirements Purchase from interconnection with IID or SCE.
Customer Funded Distribution Lines Customers will need to contribute 100% for distribution facilities to serve new load.
Reliability Transmission feed radial is a weak point.
Resource Adequacy City must rely on bilateral transactions for RA subject to price risk.
The study provides the following options as Phase 2 steps the City can take with respect to implementing a municipal utility:
1. Consider moving forward with a request for proposals for power supply and/or a turnkey developer to implement the municipal utility in the Development Area.
2. Explore valuation and acquisition of IID assets that currently serve the City.
City staff recommends that the City move forward with issuing requests for proposals based on the two options. In order to begin providing service to the Development Area of the City, the City would need to consider constructing certain electric delivery system facilities and generation facilities and/or purchasing electricity through an energy services agreement and wheeling the energy over IID transmission system. Due to the bond issuance that would be needed to finance the facilities, City staff contemplates issuing a request for information for a developer to construct and own the facilities through a public-private partnership agreement that would jump-start the municipal utility. The request for information would be sent potential energy developers and suppliers nationwide requesting a statement of interest and qualifications from companies on the proposed P3 project. Eligible companies would then be pre-qualified by the City and would receive a request for proposals detailing the specific proposal and cost information. A slate of candidates would then be brought back from City Council review and direction to negotiate a contract.
City staff also recommends, in parallel, that the city conduct a valuation of IID’s infrastructure serving the city as a necessary step in acquiring IID electrical infrastructure to take over service to existing customers over the long-term. City staff would issue a request for proposals for a consultant to conduct the valuation study.
Item 32.
Item 36.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The recommended actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The issuance of a RFP does not constitute a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3), as it does not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
ALTERNATIVE(s):
1. Not approve RFP for P3 partnership and provide Staff with new direction FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for this item.
EXHIBIT(S):
A. Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area
Item 32.
Item 36.
Consulting
a GDS Associates Company
Feasibility Study for Municipal
Electric Service to the Development
Area
City of Coachella
Add Date
P R E P A R E D B Y E E S C O N S U L T I N G
April 2024
Item 32.
Item 36.
Consulting
a GDS Associates Company
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NSU LT I N G i
April 18, 2024
Mr. Gabriel Martin
City of Coachella
1515 Sixth Street
Coachella, CA 92236
RE: City of Coachella Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area Dear Mr. Martin:
We are pleased to submit to the City of Coachella (City) the Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area (Study). The Study used publicly available information to develop load power cost estimates.
The Study, which focuses on service to the economic development zones and select greenfield development. The Study finds that municipalization is beneficial to the City’s electric customers when significant growth occurs in the new development area.
Thank you for your contributions to this Study.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Mara
Executive Vice President
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NSU LT I N G ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 About Imperial Irrigation District (IID) ................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Study Framework ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Proposed Service Area ................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 20-Year Energy Needs .................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Financial Feasibility Assumptions and Results .................................................................................................... 4
1.5 City Service to Existing Areas Served by IID ......................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2 STUDY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Public Municipal Utility ................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Study Framework ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Data Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 9
2.3 System Load Forecast ................................................................................................................................................... 9 3 PUBLIC MUNICIPAL UTILITY .............................................................................................. 12
3.1 New Construction by the City ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Power Supply & Transmission ................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2.1 Power Purchases ............................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.2 Renewable Energy ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.3 Resource Adequacy ........................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.4 CAISO Charges and Misc. ................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.5 Wheeling and OATT ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.6 Summary of Power Costs ................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Distribution System O&M ........................................................................................................................................ 15
3.4 Customer Service ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
3.5 Administrative & General Expense ....................................................................................................................... 16
3.6 Public Benefits Charge .............................................................................................................................................. 16
3.7 Property Taxes and Franchise Fees ...................................................................................................................... 16
3.8 Capital Improvement Projects ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.9 Non-Operating Expenses ......................................................................................................................................... 17
3.9.1 Debt Service ....................................................................................................................................... 17
3.9.2 Bond Issuance .................................................................................................................................... 17
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NSU LT I N G iii
3.10 Annual Budget ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 4 COMPARISON OF RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS................................................ 19
4.1 Base Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.1 Load Sensitivity ................................................................................................................................. 19
4.1.2 Power Supply Cost Sensitivity ........................................................................................................... 20 5 RISKS AND CHALLENGES ................................................................................................... 21
5.1 Wheeling Over IID’s 92kV Line ............................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Load Growth ................................................................................................................................................................. 21
5.3 Bond Financing ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
5.4 Resource Adequacy Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 22 6 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 23 7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 24 8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................................................... 25 9 ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... 27
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 1
1 Scope of Work
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Coachella (City) seeks to ensure that its residents and businesses receive utility services that meet their current needs and provide for electric utility supply for the future needs of the community at fair and reasonable rates. Thus, in 2019, the City established a municipal utility to provide electric service within the City, with an initial focus on new development areas (City Resolution No. 2019-62.) The City is currently considering options for providing electric service to future customers locating in primarily undeveloped areas of the City’s Development Area (i.e., “greenfield” areas).
The current population of the City is approximately 42,600; however, with current planning efforts, the City expects the population to grow three-fold by 2035.1 Currently, citizens of the City, and businesses within the City, are provided electrical service by Imperial Irrigation District (IID), a publicly-owned utility.
1.1.1 About Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) is the sixth largest utility in California public utility providing electric and water service to areas across both the Imperial and Coachella Valleys including Riverside and San Diego Counties. The utility employs approximately 1,400 people, serves over 158,000 electric customers and controls more than 1,100 MW of energy. IID’s total service area covers 6,471 square miles. IID is governed by a 5-member board of directors. IID’s resource mix is approximately 40% renewable, 35% natural gas,
4.8% hydroelectric, 3.5% nuclear, and 16% unspecified (market purchases).2 IID owns and operates several generating resources such as several small hydroelectric facilities on the All-American Canal and the Pilot Knob plant. IID is a member of the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA). SCPPA members share several resources including the Palo Verde Station (nuclear), Parker-David Dam, Boulder Canyon, Yucca Steam Plant, 13 natural gas resources, and a battery storage system near El Centro.
IID residential retail electric rates include a fixed monthly charge, energy charge, plus an energy cost adjustment (ECA). The ECA is updated regularly to reflect changes in IID’s wholesale power costs. IID’s large power rates also include demand charges in addition to fixed customer charges and energy charges.
Finally, IID customers can elect to purchase up to 100% renewable energy from IID through an Energy Cost Adjustment Renewable Billing Factor (Green Power Program).
Not only is IID a retail service provider, but it is also an energy Balancing Authority (BA). As a BA, IID ensures that the power system and demand are balanced in real time throughout the balancing area which includes Coachella Valley. IID is also responsible for maintaining operating conditions under the 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Coachella, California. Estimate July 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/coachellacitycalifornia 2 Imperial Irrigation District 2021 Power Content Label. https://www.iid.com/energy/renewable-energy/powercontent-label
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 2
reliability standards issued by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and approved by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
1.1.2 Study Framework
The City asked EES Consulting (EES), a GDS Associates Company, to evaluate the feasibility of the City serving new electric customers located within a portion of the City’s boundaries through the municipal utility. This Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Utility Service to the Development Area (Study) considers the investment needed to serve new customers and the potential supply costs. This Study does not include acquisition of existing assets owned by IID and used to serve existing IID customers.
The Study considers the case where the City develops the necessary energy delivery infrastructure and procures energy from the market. In order to estimate feasibility of energizing the City’s utility, costs are forecasted over a 20-year study period beginning in 2025. Revenues for the potential municipal utility are calculated to be competitive with the current and forecast IID retail rates. Other operating costs are estimated from comparable electric utilities.
1.2 PROPOSED SERVICE AREA
Figure 1.1 illustrates the current municipal boundary in blue. The proposed initial municipal electric utility boundary is provided in red and shaded purple. The areas outside of the purple shading would continue to be served by IID. The Development Areas are located with the purple shading.
Item 32.
Item 36.
144,
•••••t 1141A
Ck
r o.
.03 z
1 4
tig
-oaehella
I.Pbew , eby,
. writ,
s
ta_n
• 'nen,
4 ' r
-
to,
r
1 0,134
, F
\v
111
"s•
":„-.;-;- ----
• _
--4112.4
ti
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 3
FIGURE 1.1: CITY MUNICIPAL UTILITY SERVICE AREA
1.3 20-YEAR ENERGY NEEDS
The Study developed a forecast of energy needs for the next 20 years for the municipal utility service area.
Much of the growth is expected in the Economic Development Zones (EDZ) which are in the boundaries of the City’s municipal utility. One is known as the Auto Wrecker Zone (northern most EDZ), and the second is the Industrial Zone (between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54). Figure 1.2 depicts the growth of annual energy sales and Figure 1.3 shows the forecasted electrical demand. EES added the ramp-up of energy sales between 2025 and 2030 to reflect potential near-term growth in the EDZs.
Item 32.
Item 36.
, i
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 4
FIGURE 1.2: 20-YEAR LOAD FORECAST COMPARISON
FIGURE 1.3: 20-YEAR PEAK DEMAND FORECASTS
1.4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS
An annual budget was developed for the City’s municipal utility based on the load assumptions, take-out financing, and estimated future capital improvement investments. Power supply costs assume the utility would meet all California mandates for renewable energy and resource adequacy or otherwise obtain waivers from some or all of those requirements. It is assumed that City finances the necessary infrastructure and pursues competitive offers for energy by means of wheeling through IID’s transmission system.
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 M
Wh
Low Base High
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 M
W
Low Base High
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 5
Table 1.1 summarizes the revenue requirement for the third year of operations. The load forecast for the third year has a demand component of 37.5 MW and projected energy sales of 191,158 MWh. The difference in financing is reflected in the debt service in Table 1.1 which is a snapshot of the revenue requirements needed in Year 3.
TABLE 1.1: YEAR 3 REVENUE REQUIREMENT, MILLIONS
Municipal Utility Revenue
Requirement
Power Supply & Transmission $14.64
Distribution O&M $1.47
Customer Service $0.25
A&G $0.32
Capital Improvement $0.56
Debt Service $1.89
Franchise Fee $1.59
Taxes $0.11
Public Benefits Charge $0.66
Revenue Requirement $21.49
IID rates are forecast to increase by 5% which is a conservative assumption given both recent rate history and the investments IID will need to make in infrastructure and renewable energy in support of electrification over the next 20 years. Figure 1.4 shows that once there is sufficient load growth, the municipal utility can offer lower rates compared with forecast IID rates. The figure also shows IID rates with a slower growth rate of 3% per year.
FIGURE 1.4: PROJECTED RETAIL RATES 2025-2044
$0.00
$0.10
$0.20
$0.30
$0.40
$0.50
$0.60
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Retail Rate, $/kWh
IID Projected Retail Rates (5%) IID Projected Retail Rates (3%) Public Municipal Utility
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 6
1.5 CITY SERVICE TO EXISTING AREAS SERVED BY IID
This Study evaluates options for providing electric service to the EDZ and undeveloped and underserved areas of the City (i.e., greenfield), as identified in the City’s service territory map adopted by the City Council at the time the City Municipal Utility was formed in 2019. The Municipal Utility would have risks associated with load growth and the ability to obtain financing for start-up and construction costs in conjunction with serving the EDZ and greenfield, or alternatively, the City could serve the developed areas of the City where IID provides existing service. Extending the City Municipal Utility to this area would require the City to negotiate and purchase the existing substation, distribution, and potentially transmission assets within the municipal boundaries from IID and/or pursue an eminent domain action of those assets. With these assets and associated future revenues, the City could finance expansion into the greenfield area of the City. In anticipation of acquisition being contemplated as part of the City’s potential options going forward, general estimates are provided herein as a starting point.
TABLE 1.2: ROUGH CONDEMNATION FIGURES
Cost Estimate Notes
Distribution System Value
$5,000-$10,000/electric customer
$150 Million
Plant actually valued between
original cost less depreciation and
replacement cost less depreciation.
Cost changes if substation and
transmission assets are included.
Separation Costs $30 Million Assumed 20% of system value.
Stranded Costs
Unknown Needs further study but can
include generation, transmission,
and distribution.
Total $180+ Million
This path would provide a means for borrowing and could be a long-term solution related to the uncertainty of IID’s future in the Coachella Valley.
The timetable for developing a fair market value for the IID assets is 9 months to a year, depending on the cooperation of IID to provide information that is often considered confidential regarding the physical system within the City limits and the energy consumed by homes and business within the City. If both parties negotiate to a reasonable outcome, the acquisition could be completed in 2 to 3 years. However, if there is litigation, the duration can extend for 5 or more years.
1.6 NEXT STEPS
If the City decides to pursue energizing the municipal electric utility, the following next steps could be taken:
1. The City could explore acquisition of IID assets to service the entire City of Coachella.
2. The City could move forward with a limited municipal utility such as described in this study and issue request for proposals for power supply.
All options presented herein require financing, which is a significant hurdle. A next step greenfield municipal utility would be to explore financing options such as those used by the CCAs in California. This
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 7
can be accomplished by issuing a request for proposals to determine feasibility of financing start-up and construction costs.
Also, for the greenfield municipal utility, the City needs to initiate a conversation with IID regarding access to the transmission grid for wheeling power. This could be in the form of an application to interconnect.
The initiation of this process will help to define the next steps needed if the City wishes to pursue this option.
The above next steps could be completed concurrently to further assess the viability of each path.
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 8
2 Study Framework
The City of Coachella (City) seeks to ensure that its residents and businesses receive utility services that meet their current needs and provide electric utility supply for the future needs of the community at fair and reasonable rates. Thus, in 2019, the City established a municipal utility to provide electric service within the City, with an initial focus on new development areas (City Resolution No. 2019-62). The City is currently considering options for providing electric service to new customers locating in primarily undeveloped areas of the City (i.e., “greenfield” areas). This Study evaluates two options for energizing a greenfield utility within part of the City’s boundaries:
2.1 PUBLIC MUNICIPAL UTILITY
This option calls for the City to construct new substations and the required distribution facilities, and procure power supply delivered through either wheeling via existing IID infrastructure, if available, or through new facilities that interconnect to Southern California Edison’s (SCE) transmission voltage lines located east of the City.
2.2 STUDY FRAMEWORK
The analytical construct includes the following assumptions.
1. Three scenarios for municipalization are evaluated from an economic perspective:
a. Base load forecast estimated from City’s current development queue. b. Low load forecast is half of the Base scenario representing an unfavorable economy. c. High load forecast which adds additional industrial load development.
2. As a greenfield utility, the municipal electric utility would not pay any generation or distribution asset stranding costs to IID. It is assumed that any other fees or costs imposed by the State of California will be applied. At this time, no such fees or costs have been defined or included in the Study.
3. As a greenfield utility, the City would not purchase existing IID distribution facilities.
4. Cost for the extension of distribution facilities includes transformers, meters, and services are assumed to be 100% assignable to new customers.
5. Operating costs and financing for the City’s municipal utility are estimated based on current borrowing markets and other California municipal utility budget information.
6. The City’s electric rates are based on expenses and debt service coverage requirements. Any difference between the City’s rates and IID forecast rates can be used for customer programs, rate savings, or additional development by increasing the City’s rates to match or be slightly lower than IID.
7. The illustrative forecast of IID rates are based on current approved IID rate levels with a 5% annual increase over the study period. Recent historic IID rate increases have averaged approximately 6% per year.
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 9
2.2.1 Data Limitations
This Study is conducted with varying degrees of data quality. Forecast loads are provided with a large range of potential build-out scenarios. Growth in the Study area may or may not materialize depending on a wide range of economic factors.
2.3 SYSTEM LOAD FORECAST
A forecast of electrical load was made for the area within the City’s Municipal Utility Service Area as shown in Figure 1.1 To determine future energy usage for this area, multiple sources were referenced including the City’s development queue. After year 10, moderate growth is assumed. The peak demand is calculated using a load factor of 65%. This load factor is higher than the load factor IID assumed in its 2018 IRP (50%) since expected load growth is primarily higher load factor loads (cannabis). Based on City’s development queue, cannabis loads could reach 300 MW; however, with the changes in planning environment since COVID-19, it is largely believed that cannabis operations will not materialize as indicated in the queue.
More likely, the industrial growth will be more diversified. The Study assumes general load factor data for industrial processes which may or may not include some portion attributed to cannabis operations.
There are two Economic Development Zones (EDZ) within the boundaries of the City’s municipal utility.
One is known as the Auto Wrecker Zone (northern most EDZ) and the second is the Industrial Zone (between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54). The anticipated cannabis growth operation load within the Auto Wrecking Zone is 33 MW. Meanwhile, the Industrial Zone is anticipated to serve approximately 30 MW of new commercial load retailed to the cannabis grow operations. None of the existing IID customers in the Industrial Zone are included in the Study. The Study does project an additional 11 MW of retail load within the proposed municipal boundary.
The ramp-up from not serving customers to serving customers with significant energy requirements is difficult to predict. For this Study, it is assumed to be 3 years. The infrastructure for electric service (substations and/or generating facilities) will need to be under development or possibly completed to assure new customers of the viability of the City Municipal System. It is assumed that three years will be necessary for the construction of commercial buildings plus ramp up to full operation for initial customers.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the forecast energy breakdown for the mid-point of the 20-year study.
Item 32.
Item 36.
L
■ ■
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 10
FIGURE 2.1: LOAD FORECAST COMPARISON FOR THE MID-POINT OF THE 20-YEAR STUDY Figures 2.2 and 2.3 compare the energy and peak demand forecasts over the 20-year study period.
FIGURE 2.2: 20-YEAR LOAD FORECAST COMPARISON
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
Low Base High
M
Wh
Residential General Service Large General Service Industrial 0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 M
Wh
Low Base High
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 11
FIGURE 2.3: 20-YEAR PEAK DEMAND FORECASTS
Distribution line losses of 3% were added to retail sales to develop the system load forecast. 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 M
W
Low Base High
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 12
3 Public Municipal Utility
3.1 NEW CONSTRUCTION BY THE CITY
The City would need to build new substations and interconnect them to IID’s existing 92kV transmissions in the vicinity of these substations. IID sells available transmission capacity to other entities that need IID lines to transport energy. IID offers point-to-point transmission service that uses IID’s transmission facilities. This type of service can be used for the transportation of capacity and energy into, out of, through or within IID system.3 EES has investigated the IID transmission system and believes there is capacity for at least 40 MW in this portion of IID transmission system. However, IID has not confirmed that it has sufficient capacity available. Further, IID determination of the available transmission capacity (ATC) takes into account the firm capacity set aside to serve peak native load forecast commitments.4 The fact that the City has created a greenfield municipal utility should allow access to ATC which EES believes exists in this portion of their system. The ability of the City to obtain delivery from IID is unknown and presents a risk for energizing the City utility.
A proposed new Harrison Substation would be serving the load in what is known as the Auto Wrecker Zone (northern most EDZ). The anticipated cannabis growth operation load within the Auto Wrecking Zone is 30 MW. In addition, this substation could be used to serve future development of retail electric service outside the Auto Wrecking Zone. The station would be configured for two 40 MVA power transformers and 12 (twelve) 12.5 kV feeders.
A new Polk Substation, to be located in the Industrial Zone EDZ, is anticipated to serve approximately 30 MW of new commercial load retailed to cannabis grow operations and an additional retail load within the proposed municipal boundary. The station would be configured for two 40 MVA power transformers and twelve 12.5 kV feeders.
It is assumed that the design of the substations will meet an N-1 criterion (loss of any one system component and maintain electric service). The distribution feeders should also meet this N-1 criterion to the extent financially feasible.
As the load requirements approach the limit of available transmission capacity from IID, the City would need to obtain additional capacity at the Southern California Edison (SCE) 230kV line at or near the Coachella Valley Substation. The 20-year projected load in the Study is 70 MW and the expected capacity of a 92kV transmission line would be about 150 MW. Thus, a 230/92kV substation would be constructed and 92kV lines extended to the two new distribution substations (Harrison and Polk). The estimated distance of single pole 92kV transmission is 7.2 miles. Approximately 3.5 miles would have a single 92kV circuit with space for two distribution circuits on the structures. The other 3.7 miles would be double circuit 92kV with space for two distribution circuits on the structures. A typical width for a 92kV 3 https://www.iid.com/energy/transmission-access/transmission-service 4 Available Transfer Capability Implementation Document (ATCID) dated 4/15/2022
Item 32.
Item 36.
I
• ....Vt.:
O
,--
.".••••aO4
sr
Aven0.
'.q•
• lit
••s
- 4
as
-
.
,
•4*,
8,5
3 0
0 C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 13
transmission line is 100 feet. Therefore, the loop would likely require acquisition of roughly a 50-foot strip easement. The other 50 feet will be located within the road right-of-way based on the proposed routing of the line. The cost of land acquisition is included in the transmission line construction estimate.
If at the time of construction, the load within the utility boundary is expected to exceed 150 MW, then 230kV transmission would be warranted.
Figure 3.1 depicts the location of the proposed substations and the route of the 92kV transmission.
FIGURE 3.1: NEW MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
It is estimated that the construction of the substations needed to wheel energy through IID’s 92kV transmission line would cost roughly $16M. After 5 or more years when the capacity requirements of the of the City exceeds the available transmission capacity, a 230 kV interconnection will be made along with transmission to service the Harrison Polk and disconnect service from IID. The actual timing of capital expenditure will be driven by load requirements. However, for the Study, it is assumed that a capital expenditure of another $32.7M dollars would be required in the 5th year of the Study.
3.2 POWER SUPPLY & TRANSMISSION
Power supply and transmission includes all costs for power supply and related services to the municipal utility’s distribution system. Costs for power scheduling are also included in the power supply cost estimates. The City could procure its power supply requirements using different strategies including fixed price/delivery contracts, all-inclusive power supply contracts, or a mix of generation and power purchases.
The selected strategies would be guided by the City’s objectives and ultimately approved by City Council.
Legend
Proposed Substation.
Existing 230/92kV Substation.
Proposed New 92kV transmission.
Exiting SCE 230 kV Transmission
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 14
Actual power supply contract arrangements are not specified for the purposes of this Study; however, the pricing estimates are described below.
3.2.1 Power Purchases
Costs for energy purchased to meet municipal utility load are estimated at market prices for the SP15 (South Path 15) area. Block energy purchases are valued at $80/MWh in 2025 based on current forward prices. This value decreases in the first 5 years of the Study until it reaches $65/MWh in 2030. This decrease reflects that the current market prices are historically high and are expected to reduce as supply and demand markets settle out. After 2030, prices are escalated at 3% per year. The levelized cost of market purchases is $81/MWh over the 20-year study period.
Capacity services, including resource adequacy, are estimated to cost $8.86/kW-month based on the CPUC Market Price Benchmark for 2023 and escalated at 3% annually. This figure is a weighted average for system, flex, and local resource adequacy all together. This value is included for 117.5% of the municipal utility’s capacity requirements to cover the planning margin.
3.2.2 Renewable Energy
Per California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), electric utilities must purchase a volume of renewable energy equal to at least 60% of retail sales by 2030. The requirement ramps up from 46.7% in 2025. Renewable energy purchases are split between long-term and short-term contracts for Portfolio Content Category 1 (PCC1) and Portfolio Content Category 2 (PCC2). The City may purchase Portfolio Content Category 3 (PCC3) RECs at lower cost; however, this option is not evaluated in the Study. Longterm renewable energy is priced conservatively at $42/MWh. Long-term renewable contract prices have increased since the last study due to supply chain issues and general inflation. Still, this price assumption would allow for solar plus storage or wind resources. The City must meet 60% of its renewable energy requirement from long-term contracts. Because long-term contracts are priced lower than short-term, it is assumed that the City would purchase 75% of its renewable energy requirement through long-term contracts.
The Study assumes the City would wheel long-term bundled energy via IID until the SCE intertie is completed. Once the City has constructed the intertie with SCE, the City would wheel this energy via SCE to the 230 kV line at a cost of $15-$16/MWh (described below). If the City were able to develop local renewable projects for less than $57/MWh, renewable energy costs could be reduced from the base case assumptions.
3.2.3 Resource Adequacy
Capacity services are estimated to cost $8.86/kW-month based on the CPUC Market Price Benchmark for 2023 and escalated at 3% annually. This figure is a weighted average for system, flex, and local resource adequacy all together. This value is included for 117% of the municipal utility’s capacity requirements to cover the planning margin.
3.2.4 CAISO Charges and Misc.
The utility would need to pay CAISO charges estimated at $6/MWh in 2025. Power scheduling would be needed to balance energy purchases on an hourly basis. Schedule coordinator costs of $100,000 per year are included for the first year of operation increasing by 10% per year due to projected load growth.
Item 32.
Item 36.
■ ::,IIIIIIIIiiIIIII ■ ■
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 15
3.2.5 Wheeling and OATT
When using IID’s 92kV line to deliver power, the City would pay IID’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). IID’s current long-term and short-term point-to-point tariff is $1.69/kW-month.5 This cost is escalated at 2% per year and applied to the City’s monthly peak demand. This cost is in addition to the CIASO costs.
Once the 230kV interconnection with the SCE system is complete with accompanying transmission lines, the Municipal Utility would pay SCE’s high-voltage wheeling rate. This rate is currently $14.4157/MWh.6 The high voltage rate is applied to the municipal utility’s load in addition to the CAISO costs.
3.2.6 Summary of Power Costs
Figure 3.2 summarizes the power costs estimates.
FIGURE 3.2: CITY UTILITY POWER SUPPLY COSTS
3.3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM O&M
Distribution expenses include all costs to operate and maintain the distribution system including substations. Distribution O&M costs were estimated by looking at comparable preference utilities.
Distribution O&M per customer and by customer class was taken from cost of service analyses from three comparable municipal utilities. These costs were then applied to the City’s utility. The total Distribution 5 http://www.oasis.oati.com/woa/docs/IID/IIDdocs/IID_OATT_Effective_12.01.2020.pdf 6 http://www.caiso.com/Documents/WheelingAccessRatesEffectiveJan012023R3.pdf $0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
20252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044 Long-Term Renewable Short-term Renewable Market Purchases Resource Adequacy Transmission Wheeling
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 16
O&M costs were then broken down into labor and equipment costs. Labor costs include a portion of salaries and benefits for personnel in the operations and engineering departments. Material and equipment costs include the cost of operating and maintaining fleet vehicles and other construction equipment.
3.4 CUSTOMER SERVICE
Customer service expenses include labor and expenses incurred to provide customer service such as billing, meter reading, customer information and advertising, records and collection. Customer service costs may vary by type of account based on usage profile or meter type. For example, a large industrial customer with a special contract for rates would require significantly more resources to bill compared with the average residential customer on a general rate schedule.
3.5 ADMINISTRATIVE & GENERAL EXPENSE
Administrative and General (A&G) expenses include all other labor and expenses necessary to run the electric utility. Labor includes personnel in billing/customer service, accounting, information systems, and management. Office supplies and equipment includes the cost of purchasing (in the case of consumables such as paper and toner) or depreciation (in the case of depreciable assets such as computers, printers, and furniture). Facilities O&M includes the cost of operating and maintaining office space to house new employees. Miscellaneous costs include other administrative and general expenses not included in the categories listed above such as maintenance and depreciation of additional modules for the City’s new billing/CIS system necessary for the electric utility.
3.6 PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE
In accordance with Assembly Bill 1890, IID collects a 2.85% public benefits charge from its customers. The municipal utility would also collect this charge; therefore, it is included in both the revenue requirement and retail rate revenues.
3.7 PROPERTY TAXES AND FRANCHISE FEES
California law generally allows local governments to own and operate electric utility systems free of property taxes and without the need for local franchises and associated franchise fees. Currently, there is no franchise fee payment from IID to the City; the City is not compensated for IID’s use of City assets.
However, once the municipal utility is energized, it can collect a franchise fee through retail rates and transfer funds to the City’s general fund to compensate the City for use of its facilities. Voters can approve any level of franchise fee; however, this Study assumes the fee is 8% of retail revenue
3.8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
In addition, to the capital projects needed to create the municipal electric system previously discussed in Section 3.1, the City would need to plan for routine capital projects for regular repair and replacements.
Capital improvement expenses are assumed to be equal to the annual depreciation value for current distribution assets. Capital improvement expenses begins at $0.4 million in 2025 and increases 3% annually.
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 17
3.9 NON-OPERATING EXPENSES
Non-Operating Expenses include debt service and miscellaneous revenues. These are discussed below.
3.9.1 Debt Service
It is understood that the City has challenges in obtaining bonds for this type of endeavor. However, for the sake of the financial feasibility analysis, it is assumed that bond financing can be obtained.
The bond issuance is assumed to include the following:
Construction Costs
Debt Service Reserve (1 year’s debt service)
Capitalized Interest (2 months debt service)
Start-Up Costs
O&M Reserve (3 months O&M)
Accrued Interest (1/2 month debt service)
Underwriters Fees (1% of Par on Bonds)
Bond Insurance (1.25% of Total Debt Service Payments) Cash for Working Capital
Several of these are dependent on the size of the bond issue and the basis is shown. The Operations and Maintenance Fund and Reserve are based on the O&M level. The Fund is for the first month’s O&M payments (salaries, supplies, fees) expected to be incurred in advance of receiving revenues. Bond issuers demand an O&M Reserve in case revenues are below expected levels.
The Construction costs are the costs of a new substations as described in this report. The bond would be a combination of the new substations required initially at start-up and the future 230kV interconnection with SCE and accompanying transmissions. For this Study, a single bond was assumed. However, it may be possible to separate the bonds where the initial bond covers the $13M for the new substations and all other costs described. Once load growth occurs, the City would then obtain a bond for the $57 million needed for the SCE interconnection, 230/92kV substation and 92kV transmission lines. Especially since the timing of the interconnection with SCE is dependent on the load growth and not specific time in the future.
Start-up costs are the costs of beginning utility service and may include the cost of purchasing trucks, equipment, supplies, and hiring employees. Start-up costs are estimated at $2 million.
3.9.2 Bond Issuance
Table 3.1 shows the components of the bond issue. Other than the construction cost, one of the largest components of the bond issue is the cash for working capital at $5 million. This cash is needed to pay expenses monthly where utility billing collects revenue on a 2-to-3-month lag.
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 18
TABLE 3.1: COMPONENTS OF BOND ISSUE, MILLIONS
Construction Cost $48.6
Debt Service Reserve $3.9
Capitalized Interest (2 months) $0.4
Start-Up Costs $2.0
O&M Reserve Fund (3 months) $0.7
Cash for Working Capital $5.0
Accrued Interest (1/2 month) $0.1
Underwriter’s Discount (1%) $0.5
Bond Issuance $0.6
Total Bond Issue $61.7
Acquisition interest rates are assumed to be a taxable rate of 5%. This rate is also used for the assumed return on funds invested in the debt service reserve fund.
In the case where the City utility funds the substations and transmission upgrades, the initial bond financing is $61.7 million. The proforma analysis assumes that the initial bond includes only the portion associated with the substations. Once load growth reaches 40 MW, the bond is refinanced and includes the total amount for the SCE intertie.
3.10 ANNUAL BUDGET
The resulting budget is shown for the first 5 years of the Study in Table 3.2.
TABLE 3.2: CITY MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE REQUIREMENT, MILLIONS 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Power Supply & Transmission $1.63 $5.29 $14.64 $18.15 $17.95 Distribution O&M $0.70 $0.74 $1.47 $1.54 $1.62
Customer Service $0.20 $0.21 $0.25 $0.26 $0.28
A&G $0.20 $0.21 $0.32 $0.35 $0.38
Capital Improvement $0.53 $0.55 $0.56 $0.58 $0.60
Debt Service $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 $4.43 $4.43
Franchise Fee $0.42 $0.74 $1.59 $2.10 $2.10
Taxes $0.10 $0.10 $0.11 $0.11 $0.11
Public Benefits Charge $0.06 $0.24 $0.66 $0.85 $0.86
Revenue Requirement $5.74 $9.96 $21.49 $28.37 $28.33
Item 32.
Item 36.
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
fi S0.30
cc
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 I'D Projected Retail Rates (5%) HD Projected Retail Rates (3%) —Public Municipal Utility
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 19
4 Comparison of Results and Sensitivity Analysis
4.1 BASE RESULTS
Figure 4.1 compares the forecast retail rates under two service scenarios: IID and Public Municipal Utility.
As the load grows over time, the average rate decreases for the municipal utility scenario. The City would charge rates that recover the cost of service. The cost of service by the City is expected to be much lower than service by IID, even if IID rates were to only increase 3% annually compared with 5%. In order for the City’s expenses to be lower than IID retail rates, loads need to reach 55,000 MWh prior to the SCE Intertie.
FIGURE 4.1: PROJECTED RETAIL RATES, BASE LOAD FORECAST
4.1.1 Load Sensitivity
Because the average retail rate for the municipal utility decreases as load increases, a sensitivity analysis is performed using the load scenarios described previously. Load estimates appear to have the largest impact on the viability of the municipal electric utility. The three load scenarios shown in Figure 4.2 are analyzed.
The projected rates assume a margin municipal rate to meet standard debt service coverages but the City could select a higher rate to dedicate revenue for program expansions including operating capital energy efficiency or other programs as determined by the City.
Item 32.
Item 36.
■ ■
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 20
FIGURE 4.2: LOAD SENSITIVITY, LEVELIZED CITY UTILITY EXPENSES 2025-2044
4.1.1.1 Break-Even Analysis
As part of the load sensitivity, it is informative to evaluate very low load forecasts. At a certain load threshold, there will be a break-even point with forecast IID rates. The analysis determines the break-even point equal to the load required to charge retail rates equal to IID and recover minimum operating costs.
Some years the City electric rates may exceed forecast IID rates, but on average the rates are similar.
The break-even load requirement for the greenfield utility is 30,000 MWh/year (5 MW). At this load level, the City would not need to construct the intertie with SCE and would continue to wheel through IID. If IID rates increase at 3% per year, the break-even load requirement increases to 55,000 MWh (9 MW). If peak demand exceeds 40 MW, the SCE intertie will need to be constructed.
4.1.2 Power Supply Cost Sensitivity
Power supply costs are estimated to average $81/MWh over the next 20 years (levelized cost). The sensitivity analysis evaluates lower and higher power costs and their impact on the municipal utility’s choice of power supply options.
$0.00
$0.05
$0.10
$0.15
$0.20
$0.25
$0.30
$0.35
Base Low High
Retail Rate, $/kWh
IID Projected Retail Rates (5%) Public Municipal Utility
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 21
5 Risks and Challenges
5.1 WHEELING OVER IID’S 92KV LINE
EES has investigated the IID transmission system and believes there is capacity for at least 40 MW in this portion of IID transmission system. However, IID has not confirmed that it has sufficient capacity available.
Further, IID determination of the available transmission capacity (ATC) takes into account the firm capacity set aside to serve peak native Load forecast commitments.7 The fact that the City has created a greenfield municipal utility should allow access to ATC that IID may have set aside for themselves to serve the load. If, through appropriate processes, it is determined that capacity on the IID system is not available to the City, the City would need to construct the 230kV line for interconnection with SCE at the initial start-up. This would increase initial capital needs. Ultimately, investigation of IID’s capacity as well as access to the capacity could delay the City from providing electric service to new customers.
If the capacity is available as predicted, there is a possibility that there will be challenges in obtaining interconnection with IID. In this case, the City would need to pursue FERC enforcement of IID’s OATT.
FERC Order 888 requires that any utility with capacity available, and under FERC jurisdiction, make available capacity to requested interconnections under standard tariffs. If the City needs to pursue FERC enforcement, energizing the new utility would be delayed and the costs of litigation would decrease the feasibility. Delays such as this may also have negative impacts on load growth potential.
5.2 LOAD GROWTH
Under municipalization, the City bears the full risk of load development throughout the Study period. If loads do not materialize, it will be difficult for the electric utility to cover the costs of the infrastructure investments without significantly increasing retail rates. If there are fewer customers, there is no base from which to generate income. Feasibility requires at least 30,000 MWh of annual load. The City is also incentivized for marketing to new developers, but the City may have limited resources for the marketing necessary to obtain new large customers.
In addition, historically, much of the projected load was expected to materialize from the cannabis grow industry. If alternative industrial customers replace cannabis grow footprint, the energy intensity of the loads could significantly decrease creating the risk that the minimum load is not reached. Cannabis grow operations typically use 100-200 kWh/square foot of floor space. Data centers or cryptocurrency loads are also high intensity and could create opportunities for base load customer growth. Other typical industrial uses are much lower ranging from 8-50 kWh/square foot depending on process.
5.3 BOND FINANCING
In order to begin serving customers, the City would need to finance substation and the transmission upgrades. The feasibility of obtaining the required debt financing should be evaluated in more detail. 7 Available Transfer Capability Implementation Document (ATCID) dated 4/15/2022
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 22
The financing process may look similar to the financing process community choice aggregators pursue.
Typically, the municipal utility would issue a request for proposals for start-up financing. The RFP would include background on the utility’s business plan and projected loads and retail rates. Responses would be evaluated and one or more respondents selected for further analysis. The lenders would begin their due diligence process of reviewing the financials, projections, and risk analysis. In some cases, the banks require the borrower to pay the cost of a third-party review of the financials.
Ultimately, there is the risk that qualifying banks would not respond. Additionally, interest rates could be higher than expected, or banks may require significant collateral and/or lockbox arrangements to secure the borrowed funds. Since the City utility would be borrowing to support future growth, the growth projection will be a key factor in obtaining financing. All of these uncertainties together mean that the cost of financing the needed infrastructure investment could be not only higher than what is assumed in this Study, but also could be infeasible due to the current industry growth projections.
The Study does not consider the bonding capacity of the City or market interest in this type of project.
5.4 RESOURCE ADEQUACY COSTS
The Study assumes that all capacity requirements are procured through bilateral contracts. The price for RA in this Study is based on the market price benchmarks calculated by the CPUC. RA prices have increased dramatically in the past 5-6 years. Recent market transactions for RA have exceeded $50/kW-month, or nearly 4 times the price assumed in this Study.
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 23
6 Summary
Based on the results of this Study, the following observations are made:
Considerations
Access to IID Capacity Initial plan is to use capacity from IID’s 92kV transmission. If access is denied, accelerate SCE interconnection.
Load Growth Risk Break-even threshold is 55,000 MWh with annual 5% IID rate increases.
Change in Load Mix Cannabis is High Density Energy Needs 100-200 kWh/sq.ft. Traditional Industrial/Commercial 8-50 kWh/sq.ft. Even with reductions in high density load, the City could likely achieve breakeven sales threshold of 55,000 MWh.
New Municipal Utility IID can challenge new utility. Limiting to greenspace-only rather than acquisition of IID customers does not eliminate the uncertainty.
Initial Financing $67.3 M
RPS Requirements Purchase from interconnection with IID or SCE.
Customer Funded Distribution
Lines
Customers will need to contribute 100% for distribution facilities to serve new load.
Reliability Transmission feed radial is a weak point.
Resource Adequacy City must rely on bilateral transactions for RA subject to price risk.
For next steps and options, see Section 1.6
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 24
7 References
City of Coachella. General Plan. Available at: https://www.coachella.org/services/document-central/- folder-165
California Energy Commission. Renewable Portfolio Standard Eligibility. Commission Guidebook. January 2011. www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/b2b/wholesaleelectricsuppliersolicitation/RPS/CEC-300-2010- 007-CMF[1].pdf
California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/enforcement-policy Energy Information Administration. Southern California Natural Gas Prices Accessed May 5, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/special/disruptions/socal/winter/#:~:text=The%20spot%20price%20of%20natural, hub%E2%80%94averaged%20%243.43%2FMMBtu.
Imperial Irrigation District Open Access Tariff.
http://www.oasis.oati.com/woa/docs/IID/IIDdocs/IID_OATT_Effective_12.01.2020.pdf Imperial Irrigation District website. Transmission Access. https://www.iid.com/energy/transmissionaccess/transmission-service Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (May 2020 supplement). “CACI No. 3501.” Available at:
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/3500/3501/ Southern California Edison wheeling rates.
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/WheelingAccessRatesEffectiveJan012023R3.pdf U.S. Bureau of the Census. City of Coachella, California. Estimate July 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/coachellacitycalifornia Whitman, Requardt and Associates. Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs. Bulletin No. 191. Baltimore, MD. 2022.
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 25
8 Glossary of Terms
AB: Assembly Bill
Ancillary Services: Those services necessary to support the transmission of electric power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system.
Auto Wrecker Zone: Northern most EDZ (Economic Development Zone).
Base Case: The base case is defined as the expected case involving expected power prices and electric loads.
Bundled: Receive all their services (transmission, distribution and supply) from the Investor-Owned Utility.
California Independent System Operator (CAISO): The organization responsible for managing the electricity grid and system reliability within the former service territories of the three California IOUs.
City: City of Coachella
Firming: Firm capacity is the amount of energy available for production or transmission that can be (and in many cases must be) guaranteed to be available at a given time. Firm energy refers to the actual energy guaranteed to be available. Firming refers to the financial instrument to change non-firm power to firm power.
Greenfield: Portions within the municipal utility zone that currently do not have electric service such as vacant land.
Green Power Program: IID customer can elect to purchase up to 100% renewable energy from IID through an Energy Cost Adjustment Renewable Billing Factor.
Harrison and Polk: Two new distribution substations.
Industrial Zone: One of the Economic Development zones located between Avenue 52 and Avenue 53.
Intertie: transmission line that forms part of an interconnection. kV: kilovolt, 1,000 volts, a unit of electrical potential. kW: Kilowatt, equal to 1,000 watts, is measure of electric demand. kWh: Kilowatt Hour.
Load Forecast: A forecast of expected load over some future time horizon. Short-term load forecasts are used to determine what supply sources are needed. Longer-term load forecasts are used for budgeting and long-term resource planning.
Load Factor: Ratio of actual energy consumption to maximum possible consumption based on peak electric load.
MW: Megawatt equal to 1,000 kW.
MWh: Megawatt Hours equal to 1,000 kWh.
N-1: Refers to contingency when there is a loss of any one system component to maintain electric service.
Resource Adequacy (RA): The requirement that a Load-Serving Entity own or procure sufficient generating capacity to meet its peak load plus a contingency amount (15% in California) for each month.
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): The state-based requirement to procure a certain percentage of load from RPS-certified renewable resources.
Retail Rates: Rates charged by electric distribution utility for service provided to end-use customers. Retail rates may include distribution, transmission, and power supply services.
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 26
Shaping: Function that facilitate and supports the delivery of energy generation to periods when it is needed most.
Wheeling: the transportation of electricity from within an electrical grid to an electrical load outside the grid boundaries.
Wholesale Power: Large amounts of electricity that are bought and sold by utilities and other electric companies in bulk at specific trading hubs. Quantities are measured in MWs, and a standard wholesale contract is for 25 MW for a month during heavy-load or peak hours (7 am to 10 pm, Mon-Sat), or lightload or off-peak hours (all the other hours).
Item 32.
Item 36.
C I T Y O F C O A C H E L L A
Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area prepared by E E S C O NS U LT I N G 27
9 Acronyms
A&G: Administrative and General
ARB: Air Resource Board
ATC: Available Transmission Capacity
ECA: Energy Cost Adjustment
EDZ: Economic Development Zone
ESA: Energy Service Agreement
FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
IID: Imperial Irrigation District
OATT: Open Access Transmission Tariff
O&M: Operation and Maintenance
NERC: North American Electric Reliability Corporation
PCC1: Portfolio Content Category 1
PCC2: Portfolio Content Category 2
PCC3: Portfolio Content Category 3
RA: Resource Adequacy
REC: Renewable Energy Credit
RPS: Renewable Portfolio Standard
SCE: Southern California Edison
SCF: Standard Cubic Foot is Defined as One Cubic Foot of Gas at 60 ⁰F SCPPA: Southern California Public Power Authority
SP15: South Path 15
TRECS: Tradeable RECs
WREGIS: Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System
Item 32.
Item 36.
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
TEAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY DELIVERY
SYSTEM FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY
PROJECT BULLETIN NO. 1
On October 22, 2024, the City of Coachella (“City”) issued a Request for Qualifications for a PublicPrivate Partnership Development Team for Implementation of Energy Delivery System for Municipal Electric Utility (“RFQ”). The City hereby issues this Project Bulletin No. 1 regarding the RFQ Informational Session the City held on November 19, 2024, pursuant to Paragraph 11.3 of the RFQ, as amended by Addendum No. 1 to the RFQ (“Informational Session”).
Specifically, the City hereby provides the two (2) questions it received during the Informational Session, along with the City’s responses thereto.
Question 1: Upon review of the RFQ, Section D Experience, Item 4, it describes that we need to provide up to three examples of specific projects; and then it lists five different notes that need to be included within the projects. I just wanted to confirm if each project needs to have the capabilities of each five of those experience points or if, say, maybe one has three of them, or a second one has the other two, can it just be an aggregate of all of those that make up the three of the example projects?
City Answer 1: The City is looking for your past experience in this area and suggests providing whatever relevant experience you have. For example, if you have completed a project in which you gained three of the five experience types, please provide relevant information demonstrating that you obtained those three experience types.
Question 2: I have a question about access to water and whether anything came up in the feasibility study on the supply of water to the City as it relates to the power generation side of this potential project. [City clarifying question: “Is the question about generating power through water?”] Or use of water for any and all the energy infrastructure side, primarily if addition of data centers is part of the future proofing for minimum load needs. Access to water will be a key component.
City Answer 2: The City does not foresee water availability being an issue. The City has its own water district, with water lines running throughout the City. Moreover, the City has access to a large aquifer that is constantly replenished. The City is able to and does provide water to local businesses. In regards to your follow-on question about use of the All American Canal for power generation, the City does not own the canal and this matter would need to be further explored with relevant agencies.
Item 36.
80237.00857\42912575.1
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS – ADDENDUM NO. 1
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY NOVEMBER 12, 2024
CITY OF COACHELLA
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR MUNICIPAL
ELECTRIC UTILITY
ADDENDUM NO. 1
On October 22, 2024, the City of Coachella (“City”) issued a Request for Qualifications for a Public-Private Partnership Development Team for Implementation of Energy Delivery System for Municipal Electric Utility (“RFQ”). The City hereby revises the RFQ as set forth in this Addendum No. 1. All other terms of the RFQ, except those explicitly identified below, remain in full effect.
Paragraph 11.3 Informational Session is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new Paragraph 11.3.
11.3. Informational Session
There will be an informational session for prospective providers held on November 19, 2024 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. PPT. The informational session will be conducted virtually. The City will host project questions and post responses. Participants can access the meeting using the following Zoom meeting access details:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://bbklaw.zoom.us/j/87137966825?pwd=KtAblsjL150ctqFTpv3LET5MucTX1W.1 One tap mobile
+16699006833,,87137966825#,,,,*880179# US
+16694449171,,87137966825#,,,,*880179# US
Dial-in:
1 669 900 6833 US
Meeting ID: 871 3796 6825
Passcode: 880179
Item 36.
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
TEAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY DELIVERY
SYSTEM FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY
CITY OF COACHELLA
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR MUNICIPAL
ELECTRIC UTILITY
ADDENDUM NO. 2
On October 22, 2024, the City of Coachella (“City”) issued a Request for Qualifications for a PublicPrivate Partnership Development Team for Implementation of Energy Delivery System for Municipal Electric Utility (“RFQ”). On November 12, 2024, the City issued Addendum No. 1 to the RFQ and caused the same to be posted to its website (collectively, the RFQ and all addenda, inclusive of this Addendum No. 2, may be referred to as the “P3 RFQ”). The City hereby revises the P3 RFQ as set forth in this Addendum No. 2. All other terms of the P3 RFQ, except those explicitly identified below, remain in full effect.
1. Instructions on Electronic Submissions.
For purposes of compliance with the electronic submission requirements contained in Paragraph 10 of the RFQ, please send an email to Richard Martinez at [email protected] and Timothy Lyons at [email protected] with (1) your name, (2) the firm you represent, and (3) a request for access to the Best Best & Krieger LLP (“BBK”) Collaborate site for the “City of Coachella Electric Utility RFQ” (“Collaborate site”). You will thereafter receive an email invitation to activate your account and join the Collaborate site. Once active, you must access the Collaborate Site and upload your documents by using the “Upload” feature.
2. Attachment A: Development Area
“Attachment A: Development Area" is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new “Attachment A: Development Area”.
(Addendum No. 2 continues on the following page)
Item 36.
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
TEAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY DELIVERY
SYSTEM FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY
ATTACHMENT A – DEVELOPMENT AREA
Item 36.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR MUNICIPAL
ELECTRIC UTILITY
Issued: January 31, 2025
Proposals Due: March 3, 2025
All proposals limited to eligible pre-qualified proposers that participated in Request for Qualifications, dated October 22, 2024
Item 36.
1 1. Introduction – Coachella Municipal Electric Utility On July 31, 2019, the City Council of the City of Coachella (“City”) adopted Resolution No. 2019-62 authorizing the creation of a limited municipally owned utility for the purpose of providing electrical utility services. The Coachella City Council established the municipal utility to provide electric and gas service to certain new development and under-served development (i.e., “greenfield” areas) within the City’s municipal boundaries. The City has been exploring various options to ensure that its residents and businesses receive utility services that meet the current and future needs of the community at fair and reasonable rates. The City has also been exploring options to ensure that such services are cost-effective, meet federal and state standards, provide high-quality customer service, and provide long-term reliability to meet City energy needs.
On June 12, 2024, the Coachella City Council approved unanimously the issuance of a competitive solicitation process to start the new municipal electric utility.1 On October 22, 2024, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) to solicit interest and qualifications from prospective project partners to “jump start” the municipal electric utility. Proposals were due December 6, 2024. The City reviewed and scored the three proposals pursuant to the RFQ criteria, seeking to identify qualified prospective partners, and determined that all three prospective partners satisfied the RFQ requirements and are qualified to proceed to the formal solicitation phase.
The City is now launching its electric service program and issuing this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) to identify and select a project partner to develop, design, finance, construct, and/or operate an electric generation, distribution, and/or transmission system through a public-private partnership pursuant to California Government Code section 5956.5 et seq. that would serve immediate development needs and be scaled to serve increasing development within the City service area. In addition, the City has also examined the possibility of wheeling electricity and capacity over adjacent transmission lines owned and operated by the Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”). The City will, as part of this RFP, consider proposals from prospective counter-parties that would sell all or a portion of the necessary electricity and capacity to the City through wholesale power purchase agreements or energy services agreements (“ESA”), in conjunction with, or through some combination of a generation, distribution, transmission, and ESA energy delivery system (collectively, the “energy delivery system.”) The City is seeking a provider or team who will provide the energy delivery system through a turnkey agreement with no upfront cost to the City but that City payments for the energy delivery system, including any use of an ESA, be structured through long-term payments to the provider secured by City electric revenues and a lockbox structure. Proposals under this RFP must include formal proposals and cost information.
1 https://meetings.municode.com/PublishPage/index?cid=COACHELACA&ppid=d85f3721-a990- 46c3-8dbb-de13c6cad66c&p=0.
Item 36.
2 2. Background and Project Description of Municipal Utility Formation
2.1. Coachella Development Area
The City of Coachella is located in the eastern Coachella Valley in Riverside County, California.
The City is a California municipal corporation and general law city with a population of approximately 42,554 residents. It is one of the fastest growing cities in California and contains a number of large employers along with large-scale planned development in greenfield areas of the City.
Certain developed portions of the City, along with cities and unincorporated areas within eastern Coachella Valley, are currently being provided electric service by IID, an irrigation district formed under and governed by the California Water Code. As part of its powers as an irrigation district, IID provides electric service to ratepayers within its service territory of Imperial County.
Due to historical factors, IID also provides electric service to certain areas outside of its territorial boundary, including eastern Riverside County where the City of Coachella is located.2 Substantial load growth is anticipated in the City and throughout the region. For a variety of reasons, IID has faced significant challenges to its ability to extend timely, cost-effective service to new and existing customers in the City. Due to projected economic development and associated load growth and IID challenges in serving the City, the City seeks to ensure development of an energy delivery system that supports expected economic growth over the near term and beyond.
Due to the need for Coachella Valley governance and local control over electric service and aging and unavailable electrical infrastructure to serve existing and new development, among other reasons, the eastern Coachella Valley municipalities have been examining alternatives to their current electric service with IID.3 As part of those efforts, the City has determined that its residents and businesses are best served by a City owned and operated municipal utility due to the need for local control and self-governance, improved infrastructure to serve under-utilized and future development, and competitive rates and cost effectiveness while meeting state environmental goals. The municipal utility intends to serve new customers in undeveloped or under-served areas of the City in the form of a “spot utility,” and potentially some existing customers, which service will be in the largely undeveloped northeast portion of the City, as depicted on Attachment A of this RFP, attached hereto (the “Development Area”).
As part of the initial municipal utility service to the Development Area, the municipal utility will initially serve load in the M-W Wrecking Yard zone (also known as the “Auto Wrecking Zone”),
2 IID also owns and operates certain transmission lines within eastern Riverside County and is the Balancing Authority for the area in which it provides retail electric service. 3 Prospective providers are encouraged to research the ongoing electric service issues in the Coachella Valley. See, e.g., Riverside County Local Area Formation Commission, Alternative Governance & Electricity Services Study – Imperial Irrigation District, available at: https://lafco.org/studies/alternativegovernance-structures-and-alternative-electricity-service-provision-imperial-irrigation-district; see also Coachella Valley Energy Commission, available at https://www.iid.com/government/coachella-valleyenergy-commission.
Item 36.
3 and in the Industrial Zone. The Auto Wrecking Zone encompasses approximately 260 acres, and is generally bound by the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Dillon Road to the west, Avenue 48 to the north, the Whitewater River to the east, and Avenue 50 to the south. The Industrial Zone encompasses approximately 670 acres and is generally bound by Avenue 52 to the north, State Highway 111 to the west, Avenue 55 to the south, and a flood control channel to the east. The Auto Wrecking Zone and Industrial Zone are collectively known as and referred to herein as the “Economic Development Zone” or “EDZ,” and are depicted on Attachment B, attached hereto.
Developed portions of the City are currently served by IID, which provides electric service outside of its territorial boundary of Imperial County. IID acquired a public utility in the 1940s that provided certain service in the Coachella Valley. IID also purports to serve the Coachella Valley through a water rights Compromise Agreement executed in 1934, between IID, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the federal government. IID provides certain retail electric service outside its territorial boundaries, is a transmission provider subject to Open Access Transmission Tariff regulations and other rules of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), and is the Balancing Authority for the region. The City does not, at this time, propose providing its municipal utility service to existing City residents and businesses served by IID, except in limited fashion where feasible, but to the undeveloped and under-served areas of the City as depicted in the City’s service territory.4
2.2. Energy Delivery System and Municipal Utility Load Estimates The City has conducted a feasibility analysis of the municipal utility. The City’s projected load estimates for the Development Area are set forth at Attachment C and the City’s Feasibility Study for Municipal Electric Service to the Development Area, dated April 2024, and accompanying Staff Report that were presented to the Coachella City Council on June 12, 2024 are set forth at Attachment D, both attached hereto. The total anticipated load in the EDZ is approximately 63 MW based on future industrial uses, with an additional 11 MW in the remaining Development Area. It is anticipated that City load in the EDZ may increase to approximately 40 to 50 MW over a short-term period of three to five years and will be a mix of commercial, industrial, and agricultural (including cannabis) loads, and that new distribution and transmission facilities, including one or more substations, will be required to serve load growth in the EDZ and throughout the larger Development Area. It is further anticipated that load growth will continue within the Development Area beyond the EDZ up to approximately 100 MW. In order to accommodate the load projections, the City is examining the electricity that will be needed from either an ESA or newly constructed generation, or both, as well as implementation of distribution and transmission facilities.
IID offers point-to-point transmission service for IID facilities. IID also sells available transmission capacity through its Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”) to other entities that need IID lines to transport energy. This type of service can be used for the transportation of capacity and energy into, out of, through or within IID’s system. The City has explored upgrades
4 The Coachella City Council has authorized the issuance of a valuation study for IID assets serving the City that will be conducted through a separate Request for Proposals outside of this RFP process.
Item 36.
4 to existing IID facilities and wheeling over IID transmission. IID has publicly indicated that there is no available capacity on its existing transmission to serve new load in the Development Area. The City’s feasibility study, however, found that there may be up to 40 MW of capacity available. Therefore, the City believes that some form of ESA as part of the energy delivery system may be necessary or possible in the short-term. Due to the uncertainty of available capacity on IID transmission, required capacity upgrades, and the ability to utilize IID’s OATT to provide electricity and capacity to the City, prospective providers that desire to use an ESA as part of the energy delivery system should fully evaluate this issue.
In addition to the potential for an ESA as part of the energy delivery system, the City envisions the construction of generation, distribution and transmission facilities to be used and/or owned by the municipal utility. A proposed new substation on or around Harrison Street will be needed to serve load in the Auto Wrecking Zone (northern most EDZ), with an anticipated load of 30 MW. Any substation at this location would be used to serve future development of retail electric service outside the Auto Wrecking Zone. The substation would be configured for two 40 mega volt amp (“MVA”) power transformers and twelve 12.5 kV feeders.
A second proposed new substation would also be located on or around Polk Street in the Industrial Zone of the EDZ serving approximately 30 MW of new commercial load and an additional retail load within the Development Area. The station would be configured for two 40 MVA power transformers and twelve 12.5 kV feeders.
It is assumed that the design of the two substations will meet an N-1 criterion (loss of any one system component and maintain electric service). The distribution feeders should also meet this N-1 criterion to the extent financially feasible.
To address challenges associated with forecasting load growth, any energy delivery system for the municipal utility must be easily scalable to timely meet demand growth in the Development Area. As the load requirements approach the limit of available transmission capacity from IID, or overall load reaches approximately 40 to 50 MW, the City anticipates obtaining a source at SCE’s 230 kV line at or near the Coachella Valley Substation. The 20-year projected load for the City is 70 MW and the expected capacity of a 92 kV transmission line would be about 150 MW.
Therefore, a 230/92 kV substation would be constructed and 92 kV lines extended to the two new substations (Harrison and Polk). The estimated distance of single pole 92 kV transmission is
7.2 miles. Approximately 3.5 miles would have a single 92 kV circuit with space for two distribution circuits on the structures. The other 3.7 miles would be double circuit 92 kV with space for two distribution circuits on the structures. A typical width for a 92 kV transmission line is 100 feet. Therefore, the loop would likely require acquisition of roughly a 50-foot strip easement. The other 50 feet will be located within the road right-of-way based on the proposed routing of the line. If at the time of construction, the load within the utility boundary is expected to exceed 150 MW, then 230 kV transmission would be warranted. CAISO approval will be required for any connection to SCE transmission.
The City further anticipates necessary distribution lines to be constructed within City limits as part of the energy delivery system in order to properly serve customer premises.
Item 36.
5 2.3. Coachella Development Projections
The current population of the City is approximately 42,554; however, with current planning efforts, the City is expected to grow three-fold by 2035.5
3. Municipal Utility Objectives
The objectives of the energy delivery system include, but are not limited to, the following, and should be addressed by the proposal:
A. Development of local clean, reliable energy generation. This RFP does not require a specific technology. The City anticipates, however, that the construction of generation facilities could consist of a combination of natural gas, solar and battery energy storage up to approximately 49 MW. Generation must meet State of California renewable energy (“Renewables Portfolio Standard” or “RPS”) and resource adequacy capacity (“RA”) requirements.
B. The City anticipates that development needs could also be met in the short-term through wheeling arrangements over IID’s transmission system in accordance with IID’s OATT and an ESA or full services agreement between the City and the proposer, or a proposal with some combination of generation, distribution, transmission and/or an ESA.
C. Turnkey development and operation of local energy delivery infrastructure, including transmission and distribution facilities, substations, and control systems.
D. The energy delivery system should be capable of expansion to serve anticipated load growth in the Development Area.
E. The energy delivery system should be capable of interconnection to IID and SCE transmission systems, or have a long-term proposal to do so. If a standalone energy delivery system is proposed, consideration should be given to ancillary services.
F. The energy delivery system should be capable of delivering products and services at a high level of reliability, supporting commercial and industrial operations.
G. The generation component of the energy delivery system must comply with State of California RPS requirements, California and CAISO RA requirements, and regional air quality standards.
H. The energy delivery system must comply with all other federal and state regulatory requirements that apply.
5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Coachella, California, Estimate July 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/coachellacitycalifornia.
Item 36.
6 I. The energy delivery system should facilitate delivery of products and services to municipal utility customers at competitive retail rates with a tariff structure and predictable pricing forecasts.
J. The energy delivery system should allow for a project participation structure, financing, and revenue model that insulates the City from financial and regulatory risk with no upfront cost to the City. The City does not intend to provide any financial or capital contribution to the energy delivery system project but may consider such proposals to the extent they are financially feasible (e.g., bond issuance) and project risk remains with the developer.
K. The energy delivery system should be able to deliver energy products and services sufficient to serve up to approximately 25 MW of load to the City in the next few years and be able to readily expand to timely serve additional load growth thereafter, up to approximately 50 MW.
L. City municipal utility rates in the Development Area should be comparable to or less than rates charged by IID, along with a proposed system or model for City revenue sufficient to pay for energy delivery system and provide for low rates and stabilization.
M. The City may assist with the acquisition of necessary land or rights-of-way for any generation, distribution or transmission infrastructure through the exercise of its powers of eminent domain, which would be recoverable in the proposer’s financing.
4. Coachella Partnership Structure
The City desires that the energy services described in this RFP be accomplished through a public-private partnership that includes the City and one or more investment and development partners or that the partner provide electricity and capacity through an ESA with long-term implementation of generation, distribution and transmission based on the City’s load in the Development Area.
A. The City would leverage its role as a publicly owned utility and would own any facilities at the end of the term of an agreement (with buyout options).
B. The City would otherwise control the municipal utility and energy delivery system.
C. The partner(s) would take the risk of financing the energy delivery system, and where applicable, meeting all federal and state regulatory requirements.
D. The partner(s) would provide the site for any facilities, where applicable.
Item 36.
7 Proposals will ultimately include the financing, design, construction, and operation of one or more generating facilities, a distribution and transmission system, and/or a combination of an ESA.
5. Content of RFP Proposals
Proposals should address the following points and be presented largely in the outline format provided below. A submission must include a complete and detailed proposal regarding the proposer’s interest in the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of an energy delivery system.
5.1. Submission Outline
A. Executive Summary
1. Summarize the qualifications and interest in a narrative format.
B. City’s Objectives
1. Demonstrate that the provider understands the City’s objectives and the desired energy delivery system.
C. Development Team
1. Describe the development team and identify the consultants who would support the development team.
2. Describe the development team’s interest in this project.
3. Provide an organization chart for the development team.
Provide resumes for each member of the proposed development team.
D. Experience
1. Describe the development team’s qualifications and experience in designing, financing, constructing, and operating generation, distribution and transmission systems, and selling electricity and capacity.
2. Describe the development team’s experience with working with publicly owned utilities and the formation and implementation of a municipal utility.
3. If the provider intends to sell electricity and/or capacity to the City through an ESA, describe the provider’s experience as an energy supplier.
4. Describe up to three examples of specific projects the team, or members of the team, have completed, including project name and address. Describe the team’s role in each project.
Item 36.
8 a. Include any experience with local projects, projects in California, projects in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council region, or in other areas of the United States.
b. Include experience working with IID, SCE, CAISO and any applicable federal or state regulatory agencies.
c. Include experience working in partnership with local governments and publicly owned utilities.
d. Include experience in land use, regulatory, entitlement, and permitting processes, including water quality, air quality and other environmental experience and with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review.
e. Include experience in the financing of generation, distribution or transmission projects.
5. Describe the proposed contract structure between the development team and the City, including, but not limited to, cost (e.g., fixed fee, $/kWh, $/customer, total cost), term, financing, construction and operation and maintenance.
6. Describe the proposed collection and rate model the City would use to deliver services and collect rates sufficient to pay for the energy delivery system while maintaining customer rates comparable to or lower than IID.
7. Describe the financial strength of the company or development team. The provider must be willing to provide financial statements or other evidence of financial capability upon request of the City as part of the evaluation process should the company or development team not be a large entity or be a publically traded company.
8. Provide three references from related projects, including contact person and phone number, and brief project description.
6. Certification
A duly authorized officer or agent of the provider must sign the submission. Proposals that are unsigned will not be considered. In the case where multiple team members or firms desire to submit, a signature by a duly authorized officer or agent of each entity is required, though one entity should be designated the lead entity. The lead entity will ultimately be the contracting entity and will be responsible for subcontracting with its partners.
7. Compliance With Laws
The selected provider will be required to attest to and demonstrate that it can and will comply with the following federal and state requirements: