Porterville City Council
March 17, 2026

City Council Agenda March 17, 2026

CITY OF PORTERVILLE - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY HALL, 291 N. MAIN STREET

PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 17, 2026, 5:30 PM
The City of Porterville provides access to view city council meetings electronically. Please note that this service is offered as a courtesy and may not always be accessible to the public. To ensure the opportunity to participate in public comments and scheduled public hearings, individuals must attend in person.

This meeting will be available for viewing via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@cityofporterville4149 ,
Please direct any questions to the Office of City Clerk at 559-782-7464.

Call to Order
Roll Call

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is the opportunity to address the City Council on any matter scheduled for Closed Session. Unless additional time is authorized by the Council, all commentary shall be limited to three minutes.

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:

A. Closed Session Pursuant to:

1 - Government Code Section 54956.8 – Conference with Real Property Negotiators/Property: APN: 261-130-002 and 253-160-059. Agency Negotiator: Richard Tree. Negotiating Parties: City of Porterville and State of California Department of General Services. Under Negotiation: Terms and Price.

2 - Government Code Section 54957.6 – Conference with Labor Negotiator. Agency Negotiator: Richard Tree and Yuliana Andrade. Employee Organizations: Management & Confidential Series, Porterville Safety Support Unit, Porterville City Employee Association, and Unrepresented Management Employees.
3 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Daniel Ayala Tapia. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville.

4 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Sell, Gary Lee Jr. v. City of Porterville, et al., Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU313488.

City Council Agenda March 17, 2026

5- Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Southern California Edison Company v. California State Board of Equalization, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2025-01534286-CU-MC-CXC

6 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d) (2) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant Exposure to Litigation: One (1) case in which facts are not yet known to potential plaintiff.
7 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Initiation of Litigation: Two (2) cases. 6:30 P.M. RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND REPORT ON REPORTABLE ACTION TAKEN IN

CLOSED SESSION
Pledge of Allegiance Led by Council Member Rivas
Invocation

COUNCIL COMMENTS

REPORTS
This is the time for all committee/commission/board reports; and subcommittee reports.

I. City Commission and Committee Meetings

1. Transactions and Use Tax Oversight Committee (TUTOC) - February 25, 2026

2. Parks & Leisure Services Commission - March 5, 2026

3. Library & Literacy Commission - March 10, 2026

4. Youth Commission - March 11, 2026

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is the opportunity to address the Council on any matter of interest, whether on the agenda or not. Please address all items not scheduled for public hearing at this time. Unless additional time is authorized by the Council, all commentary shall be limited to three minutes.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

CONSENT CALENDAR
All Consent Calendar Items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar. All items removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion will be heard at the end of Scheduled Matters.

1. Authorization to Purchase Mobile Radio Equipment
City Council Agenda March 17, 2026

Re: Council to consider the purchase of mobile radio equipment and vehicle chargers from Cook's Communications in an amount not to exceed $75,905.

2. Authorization to Purchase Structural Firefighting Personal Protective Equipment Re: Consideration to purchase 40 sets of structural firefighting PPE from Morning Pride in an amount not to exceed $200,318.36, utilizing the Equipment Replacement Fund.

3. Authorization to Purchase Replacement Pump and Motor for Lift Station 11 Re: Consideration to purchase a replacement pump and motor for Lift Station 11 from FloLine Technology, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $24,778.

4. Authorization to Purchase Traffic Signal Components
Re: Consideration to purchase traffic signal components from Econolite to support traffic signal maintenance and replacement of damaged equipment, in an amount not to exceed $68,845.36.

5. Authorization to Purchase Playground Surfacing for Fallen Heroes Park Re: Consideration to purchase and install playground surfacing at Fallen Heroes Park from GameTime in an amount not to exceed $172,302, utilizing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Park Improvement Funds.

6. Authorization to Replace Downtown Mural
Re: Consideration to replace the downtown hot air balloon mural with Omni Graphics for $6,029.19, utilizing Community Benefit Program funds.

7. Authorization to Repair City Well No.26
Re: Council to consider the repair of City Well No. 26 by Carver Pump Service in an amount not to exceed $42,254.

8. Approval of an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transit Budget and Acceptance of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Claim
Re: Council to consider an amendment to the FY 2025-2026 Transit Fund Budget and accept the Transportation Development Act (TDA) claim to receive State Transit Assistance (STA) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues for transit operations.

9. Authorization to Negotiate a Consultant Agreement for Nitrification/Denitrification Design Services
Re: Consideration to authorize staff to negotiate a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for nitrification/denitrification design services.

10. Authorization to Modify Previously Approved Cargo Container Quantity and Size Re: Consider a modification to a previously approved cargo container permit to allow two 8'×40' containers and three 8'×30' containers at 777 N. Sunnyside.

11. Authorization to Schedule a Public Hearing for Consideration of Revocation of Business Licenses
Re: Council to schedule a public hearing on April 7, 2026, to consider revocation of business licenses issued to massage businesses located at 188 West Olive Avenue, 1365 West Olive Avenue, and 1531 West Olive Avenue.

12. Approval of Community Civic Event Application — "Porterville Celebrates Reading" Event City Council Agenda March 17, 2026

Re: Consideration to approve the Community Civic Event application submitted by The Optimist Club of Porterville, Porterville Unified School District, and Burton School District, for the “Porterville Celebrates Reading” event on Saturday, April 11, 2026, at Veterans Park, from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM.

13. Approval of Community Civic Event Application — Kiwanis Club of Porterville "Flower Treasure Hunt" Event
Re: Consideration to approved Community Civic Event application submitted by the Kiwanis Club of Porterville for the “Flower Treasure Hunt” event at the Tule River Parkway on Saturday, April 4, 2026, from 10:00 AM to 2:00 p.m.

14. Adoption of the City of Porterville Active Transportation Plan Re: Consider the adoption of the City of Porterville Active Transportation Plan to guide future pedestrian and bicycle improvements and support eligibility for active transportation grant funding.

15. Approve Consolidation of the Community Development and Engineering & Project Management Departments
Re: Consider approval of a proposed reorganization consolidating the Community Development Department and the Engineering & Project Management Department into a single Planning and Engineering Department.

A Council Meeting Recess Will Occur at 8:30 p.m., or as Close to That Time as Possible

PUBLIC HEARINGS

16. Ramirez Residential Subdivision Project
Re: Council to hold a Public Hearing to consider the Ramirez Residential Subdivision Project, including adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, and authorization to initiate annexation proceedings.

SECOND READINGS

17. Second Reading - Ordinance 1930 - Entertainment Zones Re: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1930, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Porterville amending Chapter 15.20 of the Porterville Municipal Code relating to Entertainment Zones, which was given first reading on March 3, 2026, and has been printed.

SCHEDULED MATTERS
AB 1234 REPORTS
This is the time for all AB 1234 reports required pursuant to Government Code § 53232.3.

1. Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Committee - March 4, 2026 City Council Agenda March 17, 2026

2. Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (TEGSA) Special Meeting - March 4, 2026

3. Heritage Committee Meeting - March 9, 2026

4. Mighty 190 Meeting - March 9, 2026

5. Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (TEGSA) - March 11, 2026

6. Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) - March 16, 2026

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

OTHER MATTERS

CLOSED SESSION
Any Closed Session Items not completed prior to 6:30 p.m. will be considered at this time.

ADJOURNMENT - to the meeting of April 7, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Ralph M. Brown Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, requesting electronic participation as an accommodation, or to be able to access this agenda and documents in the agenda packet, please contact the Office of City Clerk at (559) 782-7464. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and/or provision of an appropriate alternative format of the agenda and documents in the agenda packet.

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the Agenda packet are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Office of City Clerk, 291 N. Main Street, Porterville, CA 93257, and on the City’s website at www.ci.porterville.ca.us.

Item No. 1.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Mobile Radio Equipment SOURCE: Fire
COMMENT: Reliable communications are essential for safe emergency operations. The Porterville Fire Department currently operates with a single mobile radio in each fire apparatus. While this radio provides critical connectivity during incidents, modern emergency operations require firefighters to communicate across multiple channels simultaneously to maintain situational awareness, safety, and coordinated response.

To improve operational communications and safety, staff recommends installing a second mobile radio and updated vehicle chargers in fire apparatus.

Staff obtained two quotes from qualified vendors for the purchase and installation of the mobile radio equipment. The following bids were received:

Cook's Communication - $69,004.96
Vincent Communication - $75,240.41
Cook's Communications submitted the lowest responsive bid and meets the specifications required by the Fire Department.

Staff also requested a bid from 49er Communications; however, the company did not submit a response.

Funding for this purchase is available in the department's Equipment Replacement Fund.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the purchase of mobile radio equipment and vehicle chargers from Cook's Communications in an amount not to exceed $75,905.46, inclusive of a 10%
contingency.

Item No. 1.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cook's Communication Bid

2. Vincent Communication Bid
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Bryan Cogburn, Fire Chief
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 2.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Structural Firefighting Personal Protective Equipment
SOURCE: Fire
COMMENT: The Porterville Fire Department is requesting authorization to purchase structural firefighting personal protective equipment (PPE) to replace aging gear and outfit personnel. PPE is essential for firefighter safety, providing thermal protection, durability, and mobility during emergency operations.

Structural firefighting PPE has an expected service life of approximately ten years. Over time, materials degrade due to heat exposure, repeated washing, ultraviolet exposure, and normal operational wear. Replacing aging gear ensures firefighters are equipped with PPE that meets current safety standards and maintains operational readiness.

To ensure a fair evaluation, the department solicited proposals from three manufacturers: Morning Pride, Lion, and Innotex. Each brand was wear-tested by department personnel to evaluate comfort, mobility, durability, and overall performance during operational conditions.

Cost Comparison (Per Set)
Lion — $4,350.61
Morning Pride — $4,552.69
Innotex — $5,008.52
While Lion submitted the lowest cost proposal, Morning Pride gear provides several operational and lifecycle advantages. Morning Pride turnout gear includes user-replaceable knee pads, allowing repairs to be completed inhouse rather than requiring certified repair facilities. This reduces repair costs and minimizes equipment downtime.

Morning Pride gear also offers improved delivery timelines compared to typical industry lead times.

Based on wear test results and lifecycle maintenance advantages, staff recommends purchasing 40 sets of structural firefighting PPE from Morning Item No. 2.

Pride.

Funding for this purchase is available through the department’s Equipment Replacement Fund.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the purchase of 40 sets of structural firefighting PPE from Morning Pride in an amount not to exceed $200,318.36, which includes a ten percent (10%) contingency, utilizing funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Lion Quote

2. Morning Pride Quote

3. Innotex Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Bryan Cogburn, Fire Chief
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk To: EXPIRES 3/1/2026
Attn:

E-Mail:

E-Mail:

Qty Unit Description Price Extension
PSGQ32222
1 Ea Lion CVBM-C7 7.0 oz. Black PBI Max V-Force Bi-Swing Turnout Coat per Porterville Spec. $2,184.00 $2,184.00
Size: TBD
1 Ea Lion PVFM-C7 7.0 oz. Black PBI Max V-Force Turnout Pants per Porterville Spec. $1,353.00 $1,353.00
Size: ATTACHED
1 Ea Lion SR342S 42" (Regular) EZH H-Back Quick Adjust NonStretch Suspenders w/ black Nomex tab, Black Incl Incl 1 Ea Fire Innovations 1101-0055.1 Arapaho: NFPA Harness $346.25 $346.25 *Large quantity discount available
1 Ea Fire Innovations 1108-1056 YATES Aluminum Ladder Hook $99.00 $99.00 Terms: Net 30
FOB: Freight to be added for Fire Innovations items ONLY Delivery: 75 days for turnouts / 3-4 weeks for Fire Innovations items subject to change thereafter.

Subtotal $3,982.25

9.250% $368.36
Thalia Reyes, Inside Sales S & H $0.00
[email protected] Total $4,350.61
Sales Quote
#260112TR3
February 10, 2026
12328 Lower Azusa Road * Arcadia, California 91006 * Phone 626-652-0900 * Fax 626-652-0920 Chief Matt Doney
Per your request, we are pleased to quote on the following:

[email protected]
Porterville FD
[email protected]

(877) 637-3473
Quote
Quote # QT2024898
Date 01/21/2026
QT2024898

Bill To
CITY of PORTERVILLE Fire Dept
291 N MAIN ST
PORTERVILLE CA 93257-3737
United States
Expires 02/27/2026
Sales Rep Lucero, Marc
PO # RFQ for 108 Sets for Morning Rider Turnouts
Shipping Method FedEx Ground
Customer PORTERVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT (CA)
Customer # C47390
Ship To
CITY of PORTERVILLE Fire Dept
291 N MAIN ST
PORTERVILLE CA 93257-3737
United States
Item Alt. Item # Units Description QTY Unit Price Amount HFRP Tail Coat CAPORE00007 CAPORE00007
HFRP Tail Coat
Porterville Coat Spec PBI MAx, Crosstech Black,
Synergy II
1 $2,192.42 $2,192.42
HFRP Tail Pant CAPORE00008 CAPORE00008
HFRP Tail Pant
Porterville Pant Spec with Harness, PBI MAx,
Crosstech Black, Synergy II
1 $1,622.91 $1,622.91
FIRE

INNOVATIONS
Custom FIRE INNOVATIONS
Arapaho NFPA Class II Harness
by Fire Innovations®
item no: P101-0055
1 $252.90 $252.90
FIRE

INNOVATIONS
1108-1056 1108-1056
Custom FIRE INNOVATIONS
Yates Aluminum Ladder Hook
1 $99.00 $99.00
RFQ for 108 Sets for Morning Rider Turnouts
Contact: C47390 PORTERVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT (CA) : crisalba (559) 782-7437 Subtotal $4,167.23
Shipping Cost $0.00
Tax Total $385.46
Total $4,552.69
This Quotation is subject to any applicable sales tax and shipping and handling charges that may apply. Tax and shipping charges are considered estimated and will be recalculated at the time of shipment to ensure they take into account the most current information.

All returns must be processed within 30 days of receipt and require a return authorization number and are subject to a restocking fee.

Custom orders are not returnable. Effective tax rate will be applicable at the time of invoice.

Cascade Fire Equipment
PO Box 4248
Medford OR 97501
United States
https://cascadefire.com/
(800) 654-7049
Quote
#QUO7968
03/04/2026
QUO7968
1 of 1
Bill To Ship To
Porterville Fire Department
291 N Main St
Porterville CA 93257
United States
Porterville Fire Department
40 W Cleveland Ave
Porterville CA 93257
United States
Quote Expiration Quote Name Sales Rep Shipping Method
04/03/2026 Kevin Trent UPS® Ground
Item QTY Rate Amount
101543-C
CFE PBI Black Spec Coat 1 $2,670.00 $2,670.00
101543-P
CFE PBI Black Spec Pant 1 $1,887.00 $1,887.00
Subtotal $4,557.00
Shipping Cost $30.00
Tax Total (%) $421.52
Total $5,008.52
Brush Truck Options:

Item No. 3.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Replacement Pump and Motor for Lift Station 11 SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: The City of Porterville’s Lift Station 11, located on N. Mathew Street south of W. Mulberry Avenue, recently experienced a pump and motor failure. To maintain service, City staff installed a temporary undersized pump and motor until a properly sized replacement can be procured and installed.

Lift Station 11 serves one of the highest demand areas in the City’s sewer system. Due to the operational demands at this location, it is important that the lift station operate with properly sized equipment to ensure reliability and maintain system redundancy.

Staff recommends the purchase and installation of a 20-horsepower submersible pump and motor to restore Lift Station 11 to its proper operating capacity.

Staff obtained three quotes from qualified vendors for the purchase of the replacement pump and motor. The following quotes were received:

Company Total Availability
Flo-Line Technologies $22,526 5-7 days
Hydro Power Engineering $22,780 6-8 weeks
Rockwell Engineering $36,100 10-12 weeks
Flo-Line Technologies submitted the lowest responsive quote and has the equipment available in inventory with an estimated delivery time of 5-7 days following approval. Once the equipment is received, City staff will complete the installation and return Lift Station 11 to full operational capacity. Funding for this equipment is available in the Sewer Revolving Fund.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the purchase of a replacement pump and motor for Lift Station 11 from Flo-Line Technology, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $24,779, inclusive of equipment, Item No. 3.
taxes, estimated freight, and 10% contingency.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map Lift Station #11

2. Flo-Line Technology Quote

3. Hydo Power Engineering Quote

4. Rockwell Engineering Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Robert Alvarez, Public Works Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

ENGINEERING DIVISION

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 NORTH MAIN STREET PORTERVILLE, CA. 93257
(559) 782-7462

OAK GROVE

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH MATHEW STREET
0 50 100 200
SCALE: 1"=100'

SEWER LIFT
STATION #11

WEST MONACHE AVENUE

WEST MULBERRY AVENUE NORTH WALCH WAY NORTH VERDUGO DRIVE

ATTENTION

COMPANY
EMAIL
PHONE
FAX
CELL

QUOTE NO
DATE

LEAD TIME

FREIGHT

SHIP VIA
TERMS

VALIDITY
Qty Part No Unit Price Ext'd
1 XFP150G-CB1.7 PE150/4 $18,620.00 $18,620.00
1 62665305 $914.00 $914.00
1 TAX $1,991.90 $1,991.90
1 SHIPPING $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Total $22,525.90

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
MOTOR FRAME, 49' CABLE
20HP, 230V, 3PH, 1780RPM, 1-VANE CB PLUS IMP., PE3A
SULZER/ABS XFP150G-CB1.7 PE150/4 SUBMERSIBLE
XFP150G-CB1.7 PE150/4 PUMP SN: 300329078 REPLACEMENT
6" ADAPTER BRACKET, DUAL, 2" RAIL SIZE

03.05.2026
SUITABLE FOR WET AND DRY PIT.
- INCLUDES COOLING JACKET
Description

TODD CALLAWAY

559-359-9113

KYLE POE
20260374_R3
[email protected]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUOTE THE ABOVE PRODUCTS 5 - 7 DAYS
530-887-2240 PP&ADD

BEST WAY
NET 30 O.A.C.
30 DAYS

PREPARED BY
ALL SALES ARE FINAL!
SALES TAX @ 9.25%

ESTIMATED FREIGHT
CELL
[email protected]

REFERENCE
E-MAIL
SUBJECT SULZER XFP150G PUMP
SN: 300329078
Flo-Line Technology, Inc.
11822 Kemper Rd, Auburn, CA 95603
Ph 530-887-2240, Fax 530-887-2243
www.flolinepumps.com
3/4/2026
260009
N/A
30 DAYS
Email: [email protected]
No. Unit Price Quantity Sub Total
1 $19,628.57 1 $19,628.57
2 $494.29 1 $494.29
3 $500.00 1 $500.00
4 $250.00 1 $250.00
Tax (9.25%) $1,907.61
Total: $22,780.47
Regards,
HydroPower Engineering
Please Call with any questions.

FOB: CA
Taxes and Freight not included.

Delivery: 6-8 weeks
PH: 916 952 3025
DATE
QUOTE #

CUSTOMER ID

VALID UNTIL
HydroPower QUOTE

ENGINEERING COMPANY LLC
1401 21st Street, Suite R
Sacramento, CA 95811
Email: [email protected]

CUSTOMER
City of Porterville
1333 W Grand Ave.

Porterville, CA 93257
Kyle Poe
PROJECT BACKGROUND: HPE is offering Mody Pump, 6" discharge, 20HP. Note that we need to determine the flow rate and head prior to receiving the order.

SHIP TO
TBD
Phone: 559 359 9113
Guide Rail Adapter Bracket with Installation Hardware
Seal Fail Relay
Freight
Description
Mody submersible sewage pump model: MSP3-150-4, 6"
discharge, 20HP, 3/60/230 volts, 50' cable. Equipped with cooling jacket.

Rockwell Engineering and
Equipment
2913 El Camino Real, Suite 337
Tustin CA 92782-3366
USA
714-505-9700
www.rockwellengineering.com
Phone:

Quote Number: 1702064 QUOTE Page: 1 of 2
Quote To: Date: 3/4/2026
Expires: 4/3/2026
Quote Name PORTERVILLE SE6W
Sales Person: Nick Rockwell
Inside Sales: Skip Ayres
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Est. Lead Time: 10 - 12 WEEKS
Ship Via:: Best Way
FOB: FOB Origin Full Freight Allow
City of Porterville
291 North Main Street
Porterville CA 93257
USA
Phone: 559-782-7456
Fax:

USD
Line Part Description Expected Qty Unit Price Ext. Price 1 90000006
VAUGHAN MODEL SE6W-118

SUBMERSIBLE CHOPPER PUMP
25 HP 1170 RPM 230V MOTOR
50' POWER CABLE

FREIGHT INCLUDED

1.00EA 36,100.00 36,100.00
Rockwell Engineering and
Equipment
2913 El Camino Real, Suite 337
Tustin CA 92782-3366
USA
714-505-9700
www.rockwellengineering.com
Phone:

Quote Number: 1702064 QUOTE Page: 2 of 2
Lines Total 36,100.00
Line Miscellaneous Charges 0.00
Total Taxes 0.00
Quote Miscellaneous Charges 0.00
Total Taxes % 0 %
Quote Total (Cash/Check/ACH) 36,100.00
Quote Total (Only if Paid by Credit Card) 37,273.25
Accepted By
Accepted Date
Due to potential tariff impacts and pricing volatility, all prices are subject to change without notice.

Item No. 4.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Traffic Signal Components SOURCE: Transportation
COMMENT: The City maintains 51 traffic signals on roadways within its jurisdiction. To support timely repairs and minimize service disruptions, the City maintains a limited inventory of critical traffic signal equipment. Maintaining this inventory allows the City to respond quickly to signal malfunctions or collision damage and helps avoid prolonged signal outages that could create traffic congestion or safety concerns.

Several components currently in inventory, including traffic signal controllers and cabinets, have become obsolete and are no longer available for purchase or repair. The Econolite Cobalt traffic signal controller has been identified by the manufacturer as the direct replacement for the McCain 170 controllers currently being phased out.

Because the Econolite Cobalt controller is proprietary equipment designed to integrate with the City’s existing traffic signal infrastructure, it must be purchased directly from the manufacturer or an authorized distributor.

Standardizing signal equipment also improves maintenance efficiency and helps reduce long-term replacement costs.

Staff recommends purchasing the following equipment to support traffic signal maintenance and emergency repairs:
• One (1) Econolite Cobalt traffic signal controller
• One (1) traffic detection camera
• One (1) Hybrid 332 cabinet
• Twelve (12) load switches
Econolite has provided a quote totaling $31,291.53 for the equipment, including taxes and tariffs.

After preparation of this staff report, the traffic signal cabinet located at Main Street and Orange Avenue was struck by a vehicle and destroyed.

Item No. 4.

Replacement of the damaged signal equipment will require an additional cabinet, controller, load switches, and associated components.

To accommodate the replacement of the damaged equipment, staff requests authorization to increase the estimate by an additional $31,291.53, bringing the total estimated amount to $62,583.06.

Staff recommends a total authorization amount not to exceed $68,845.36, which includes a ten percent (10%) contingency to address potential freight adjustments, tariffs, or minor equipment changes necessary to complete the replacement and support ongoing signal maintenance.

Staff will seek reimbursement through subrogation of the at-fault driver's insurance company for the additional components associated with the damaged signal equipment.

Funding for this purchase is available in the Traffic Signal Upgrade Capital Improvement Plan Budget.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the purchase of traffic signal components from Econolite in an amount not to exceed
$68,845.36, including a ten percent (10%) contingency, using funds from the Traffic Signal Upgrade Capital Improvement Plan Budget.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. 332 Hybrid Cabinet Quote and Equipment Quote rev2 1- 28-26
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Russell Isom, Director of Transportation
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Quotation
1250 N. Tustin Ave. Anaheim, Ca. 92807
econolite.com/feedback

1/28/2026
To:

Item # Part Qty Description Tariff Price per Extended
1 STCAB3889 1 332 ANOD HYBRID PORTERVILLE NO

PHASE SELECTORS, NO LS
$62.11 $17,024.80 $17,024.80
2 COBGRM2210000
0000000
1 COBALT G-SERIES RM 33X C1, JP4
POS 2-3 EOS, WITH PWR CORD,
8MB DATAKEY, NO COMM
$184.26 $5,380.80 $5,380.80
3 31095G12 12 LOAD SWITCH DUAL IND TSC
MODEL 300 OI
$0.00 $58.10 $697.20
4 AVISION 1 SENSOR, VIDEO, VISION $124.35 $5,200.00 $5,200.00 Bryan Searle
City of Porterville
Quote Name: 332 Hybrid Cabinet and Equipment
Quote
Project Reference:

Econolite Reference: Q-55162-04F9
Subtotal $28,302.80
Shipping & Handling*
Taxes** $2,618.01
Tariffs** $370.72
TOTAL $31,291.53
Quotation
1250 N. Tustin Ave. Anaheim, Ca. 92807
econolite.com/feedback

Any tariff amount shown is an estimate of the tariff fee based on information available as of today’s date.

Econolite will pass through all tariff fees in effect at the time of shipment, which may be different from the tariff amount set forth herein and on the order acknowledgment.

Unless specifically requested by the customer and noted on this quotation, the product(s) quoted herein may not comply with any BABA Act (Build America/Buy America) requirements.

Cabinet designs are considered final at time of order. Changes requested after date of order may result in additional fees and extended shipping lead times.

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited except as required by law.

Quote Valid For Days: 60
FOB: Econolite Factory
Terms: NET30
*Ship Terms: PPD
**Taxes and Tariffs Estimated (if included)
Corey Kelly
Corey Kelly, Senior Account Executive
Mobile: 714-273-4912
[email protected]
Shipping Date: To be determined at time of receipt of order Item No. 5.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Playground Surfacing for Fallen Heroes Park SOURCE: Parks and Leisure Services
COMMENT: The Parks and Leisure Services Department utilizes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Park Improvement Funds to purchase park amenities on an annual basis, as funding permits. This funding source requires that projects be located within an eligible census tract. Eligible City parks include Murry Park, Zalud Park, and Fallen Heroes Park.

Installation of new playground surfacing at Fallen Heroes Park is recommended for this year’s funding for ADA compliance purposes. The proposed project would replace existing tile surfacing that has experienced wear, separation, and movement since the park opened in 2014. Replacing the existing surface with pour-in-place surfacing will improve playground safety, provide consistent impact protection, and create a seamless, durable surface designed to withstand high levels of use. This improvement supports continued safe and reliable use of the playground while protecting the City’s long-term investment in park infrastructure.

The proposed project scope includes demolition of existing playground tiles and the supply and installation of pour-in-place surfacing for two play areas totaling approximately 6,400 square feet. Four vendors previously utilized by the City for playground equipment and surfacing purchases were contacted to provide quotes. All vendors are members of government cooperative purchasing programs, which streamline procurement and provide costeffective purchasing options for public agencies. Two vendors responded to the request for quotes and provided proposals that included the full project scope:

GameTime — $156,638.28
Ross Recreation — $227,178.50
Kompan — Non-responsive
Based on the evaluation of the proposals received, GameTime provided the lowest responsive quote that includes demolition, materials, installation, and applicable sales tax for the full scope of work. On February 17, 2026, this item Item No. 5.
came before Council. Kompan had the low quote at that time, but failed to include prevailing wage, thus, the item has returned. At its February 5, 2026 meeting, the Parks and Leisure Services Commission voted unanimously to recommend proceeding with the Fallen Heroes Park surfacing project utilizing available CDBG Park Improvement Funds.

The recommended not-to-exceed amount includes the GameTime base proposal of $156,638.28, plus a ten percent (10%) contingency to address unforeseen site conditions or minor scope adjustments that may arise during demolition and installation. Implementation of this project is contingent upon compliance with applicable CDBG program requirements, and the availability of current and future funding allocations through the CDBG Park Improvement Funds.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the purchase and installation of playground surfacing for Fallen Heroes Park from GameTime in an amount not to exceed $172,302.11, which includes a ten percent (10%) contingency, subject to the availability of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Park Improvement Funds.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Quotes
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Donnie Moore, Deputy City Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 6.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Replace Downtown Mural
SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: In April 2015, the City of Porterville installed a digitally printed graphic mural on the north side of the Subway Restaurant building on Oak Avenue as part of the Oak Avenue Improvement Project. The project was funded through a State Transportation Enhancement grant and included pedestrian corridor improvements between the Santa Fe Byway and Main Street. As part of the project, beautification elements such as the mural and installation of street trees were incorporated to enhance the downtown corridor.

The mural commemorates a local milestone when Porterville released nineteen hot air balloons from Main Street in 1981, setting a world record for the most balloons released simultaneously in a downtown area. After eleven years of exposure to the elements, the mural has faded and is in need of replacement. OMNI Graphics, the original vendor that produced and installed the mural, has provided a quote to replace the existing graphic. Utilizing the original vendor is the only option in this case, as Omni Graphics is the creator of the original work and owns the copyright of the image. Omni Graphics also produced the existing frame and will ensure compatibility with that mounting system, thus providing the most efficient and cost-effective replacement mechanism.

The quote from OMNI Graphics totals $5,481.08, which includes fabrication and installation of the replacement mural. Staff recommends a not-to-exceed project amount of $6,029.19, which includes a ten percent (10%) contingency to address minor adjustments during removal and installation. Funding for this project will be provided through the Community Benefit Program account.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize Omni Graphics to replace the downtown hot air balloon mural for $6,029.19, which includes a ten percent (10%) contingency, from the Community Benefit Program account.

Item No. 6.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Donnie Moore, Deputy City Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 7.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Repair City Well No.26
SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: City Well No. 26, located at the southwest corner of Indiana Street and West Vandalia Avenue, has experienced a failure in the perforations of the column pipe, which has reduced the well’s production capacity. In order to meet upcoming water production demands and maintain adequate system pressure, Well No. 26 must be repaired and returned to service as soon as possible.

Staff contacted three local pump companies to obtain quotes to rehabilitate the well by washing and airlifting to restore yield. These processes clean the well screen by removing debris, sediment, and bio-fouling. The scope of work includes the installation of 20 feet of additional column pipe, a new bowl assembly, and installation of the turbine motor.

The quotes are as follows:

Valley Pump & Dairy Systems $38,413
Carver Pump Service $41,215
C. J. Hammer Pump Company Unresponsive
Valley Pump & Dairy Systems submitted the lowest quote and indicated that the required repair parts are immediately available. Selecting Valley Pump & Dairy Systems will allow the City to expedite the repair and return the well to service in order to maintain water system pressure and production capacity.

Funding for this project is available in the Water Operating Fund. The total project cost is not expected to exceed $42,254, which includes all parts, labor, taxes, and a 10 percent contingency for unforeseen repairs.

RECOMMENDATION: That City Council authorize the repair of City Well No. 26 by Valley Pump & Dairy Systems in an amount not to exceed
$42,254, inclusive of parts, labor, taxes, and a 10 percent contingency.

Item No. 7.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Well 26 Location Map

2. Valley Pump & Dairy Systems Quote

3. Carver Pump Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Robert Alvarez, Public Works Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk CITY WELL #26

ENGINEERING DIVISION

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 NORTH MAIN STREET PORTERVILLE, CA. 93257
(559) 782-7462 CITY WELL 26
HIGHWAY 190 S INDIANA ST

W POPLAR AVE

W VANDALIA AVE
Customer:

Description:

Location:

Amount Each Cost
14550 14,550.00
1200 4,800.00
1600 1,600.00
650 650.00

2.8 840.00
1200 1,200.00
500 500.00
-
-
5000 5,000.00
335 1,340.00
475 5,700.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
36,180.00
2,232.95
38,412.95
Presented By:

This Quote is good for 15 Days: 3/6/26
Accepted By
Company:

Sub Total
Tax 9.25%
Total
Cody Wilson
Description

1.00 12CHC 5-STAGE BOWL ASSEMBLY

4.00 12.00
2-1/2" X 1-1/2" TUBE & SHAFT
LABOR, 3-MAN RIG INSTALL

1.00 LABOR, AIR LIFT WELL

4.00 LABOR, 2-MAN SCRUB

1.00 10" COLUMN PIPE .279"

1.00 AIR LIFT DEBRIS FROM BOTTOM OF WELL, SCRUB PERFORATIONS, BUILD NEW 12C BOWL ASSEMBLY & INSTALL W/ 20' EXTENSION, REPLACE BAD TUBE & SHAFT, REPAIR TOP WORK & SET READY TO RUN (QUOTE BASED ON REPAIRS DETERMINED FROM ANOTHER PUMP COMPANY) QUOTE

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
10" X 2' HEAD NIPPLE

1.00 MISC. PARTS (TAPE, OIL, BOLTS ETC)
300.00 1-1/4" PVC PIPE SCH.40

1.00 MACHINE SHOP MATERIAL
Estimate #
Date
Customer
Address
1-855-6CARVER

CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR'S
LICENSE - C61 D21 #547257 Telephone
AMOUNT
$ 41,215.12

CARVER PUMP SERVICE CUSTOMER
Salesman Purchaser
Jeffrey Demacabalin
Approved by Address
300ft- 1.25 pvc sch 40 pipe

DESCRIPTION
1-New 12chc 5 stg bowl
80ft- Goulds T&S 2.5 x 1.5
1- New 10in head nipple
Labor to air lift well & install above listed parts start & check Labor is based on prevailing wage
vertigo acid wash double wall casing try to open plugged perfs Acceptance of this proposal is an agreement by the customer to pay in full for all services within 30 days of the date invoiced. Carver pump will charge, and customer agrees to pay, finance charges of 2 percent per month on the unpaid balance.
4- 1.25 pvc couplings
5gal food grade pump oil
2gal food grade grease
15- 1/2in band-it clips
40ft- 1/2in s/s banding
LABOR
TOTAL

SUB TOTAL

SALES TAX
10mil tape
20ft- 10in butt column pipe
C.O.P.
3/3/2026
John 559-756-3515
CARVER

PUMP SERVICE
139 North Cain Street
Visalia, California 93292
(559) 622-0622
Item No. 8.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transit Budget and Acceptance of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Claim SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: The Transportation Development Act (TDA), enacted in 1971, provides funding to local agencies to support public transit services. TDA funding is derived from two primary sources: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is generated through a statewide one-quarter cent sales tax, and the State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund, which is derived from statewide sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels and supplemented by revenues from Senate Bill 1 (SB 1).

The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) is responsible for apportioning these funds annually to transit agencies within Tulare County.

TCAG reviews each agency’s TDA claim and, upon approval, instructs the County Auditor to distribute the funds accordingly.

In order for TCAG to approve a TDA claim, several requirements must be met, including adoption of a balanced transit budget, compliance with farebox recovery ratio requirements, submission of vehicle safety inspection reports, compliance with fiscal and performance audits, approval of the claim through a governing body resolution, submission of a draft Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP), and confirmation that available Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 and STA funds have been fully utilized prior to using LTF funds as a local match. Once transit services are fully funded, any remaining LTF balance may be allocated to eligible streets and roads projects.

For Fiscal Year 2025-2026, TCAG apportioned $730,053.76 in STA funds and $4,134,325.00 in LTF funds to the City of Porterville for transit operations.

These funds support the operation of the City’s fixed-route and demandresponse transit services.

During the review of the City’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transit Fund budget, staff identified the need for a budget amendment to ensure that the Transit Fund budget remains balanced and accurately reflects anticipated revenues and expenditures associated with transit operations. A balanced transit budget is required for TCAG to process and approve the City’s TDA claim.

Item No. 8.

Staff has reviewed the current budget and prepared a budget amendment to align projected revenues and expenditures accordingly. Approval of this amendment will ensure that the Transit Fund budget accurately reflects the funding necessary to operate the City’s transit system and will allow TCAG to process the City’s TDA claim for the fiscal year.

Upon approval of the budget amendment and resolution, the City will notify TCAG so the claim can be accepted and funds allocated for transit operations.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 Transit Fund budget and approving the Transportation Development (TDA) claim;

2. Authorize staff to submit the necessary updates to the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); and

3. Authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. FY 2025-2026 Transit Fund Budget

2. Draft Resolution_TDA
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. -2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE ADOPTING THE AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 TRANSIT BUDGET AND ACCEPTING THE

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) CLAIM SUBMITTED TO THE TULARE COUNTY

ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
WHEREAS: The City Manager, under provisions of the City Charter of the City of Porterville, has presented to the City Council for its consideration, a proposed Amended Transit Budget for the period beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026 (Attachment A); and WHEREAS: The City Council after thorough review, has determined said amended budget, as modified and corrected, is in all respects suitable and adequate for the purposes of said budget and covers the necessary expenditures of the Transit Fund of the City of Porterville for the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.

WHEREAS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66500 et seq., the Tulare County Association of Governments (“TCAG”) is the regional transportation planning agency for Tulare County; and
WHEREAS: The Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (“Transportation Development Act” or “TDA”), Public Utilities Code Section 99200 et seq., makes certain retail sales tax revenues available to eligible claimants for public transportation projects and purposes; and WHEREAS: TCAG is responsible for the allocation of TDA Funds to eligible claimants within the Tulare County region; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides State Transit Assistance (STA) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues to support public transit operations; and WHEREAS, during the review of the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transit Budget, it was determined that an amendment is necessary to ensure the Transit Fund budget is balanced and accurately reflects anticipated revenues and expenditures; and WHEREAS, the City of Porterville is an eligible claimant of TDA funds and has submitted a TDA claim to TCAG for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 transit funding; and WHEREAS, amending the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transit Budget will allow TCAG to accept and process the City’s TDA claim.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville hereby:

1. Adopt the amended Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transit Budget to ensure the Transit Fund budget is balanced and accurately reflects anticipated revenues and expenditures related to transit operations; and

2. Approve an allocation request for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 TDA funds in the amounts of $730,053.76 in State Transit Assistance (STA) and $4,134,325.00 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, subject to the TCAG 2025 TDA Claims Manual.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2026.

Greg Meister, Mayor
ATTEST:

Rich Tree, City Clerk
By:

Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Chief Deputy City Clerk

ATTACHMENT A

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ANNUAL BUDGET
2025 – 2026

AMENDED

TRANSIT FUND
The Transit Fund was established in fiscal year 1982-83 to account for the income and expenses of the Demand Response and Fixed Route transit programs which are operated by a private contractor. Prior to 1982-83, this fund was combined with the Special Gas Tax Fund.

Revenue sources include Local Transportation Fund (LTF) derived from the ¼-cent general sales tax and the State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF) derived from sales tax on diesel fuel. Other revenue sources include fare box revenues and federal and state grants.

The capital expenditures proposed for fiscal year 2025-2026 include the following:

Appropriation
Fleet Replacement $ 7,490,000
Facility Improvements 450,000
Fuel System Upgrades 365,000
New Bus Maintenance Facility 9,000,000
Transit Center Improvements – Exterior and Lobby 284,000 Transit Shelters 494,000
Transit Signage 250,000
Total $ 18,333,000

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ANNUAL BUDGET
2025 – 2026

AMENDED

TRANSIT FUND
2025-2026
2024-2025
Revised
Estimate
Original
Estimate
Revised
Estimate
Available balance, beginning of year $ 42,563 $ 3,031,684 $ 3,031,684 Add:

Revenues from:

LTF 3,620,348 4,134,325 4,134,325
STAF 925,602 812,002 730,054
Sales tax, Measure R - 170,000 170,000
Farebox 124,046 675,000 675,000
Grants 6,744,829 19,316,400 19,468,084
Other income 71,219 18,322 88,059
Reimbursements 33,999 - -
Total $ 11,520,043 $ 25,126,049 $ 25,265,522
Less:

Appropriations for:

Capital Outlay 2,071,776 17,333,000 18,333,000
Operations 6,859,146 6,932,523 6,932,522
Total $ 8,930,922 $ 24,265,523 $ 25,265,522
Available balance, end of year $ 3,031,684 $ 3,892,210 $ 3,031,684 Item No. 9.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Negotiate a Consultant Agreement for Nitrification/Denitrification Design Services
SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: At the City Council meeting of December 16, 2025, the City Council authorized staff to distribute a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for nitrification/denitrification design services.

On February 17, 2026, staff received one (1) Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) for the professional design services in response to the distributed RFQ. Staff reviewed and evaluated the firm in accordance with the City's Policy for Selecting Consultants to Provide Architectural, Engineering, and Similar Services to ensure the submittal met the requirements of the RFQ and that the firm is qualified to perform the requested services.

Although only one Statement of Qualifications was received, staff determined that the submittal met the requirements of the RFQ and that the firm is well qualified to perform the requested services.

The consultant and their respective evaluation score are as follows:

Firm Score
Carollo Engineers 89.0
Staff is pleased with the qualifications of the listed consultant and their interest in the project and recommends negotiating a contract with the topranked firm.

Staff will return to the City Council at a future meeting with a negotiated Professional Services Agreement for consideration and approval.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to negotiate a scope of services contract with Carollo Engineers for
nitrification/denitrification design services.

Item No. 9.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Consultant Selection Rating Sheet
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Daniel Cervantez, Engineering and Project Management Director Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

CONSULTANT SELECTION RATING FORM FIRM
Project Name: Nitrification/Denitrification Analysis & Design ServicesDate: 2/17/2026Project Number:

Evaluation Factor
Rating Factor Numerical
Range & Weighting Based
on Importance of Factor
Score
a. Capability to perform all or most aspects of the project. 0-10 9.3b. Recent experience in projects comparable to the proposed project. 0-10 9.3c. Firm’s reputation for professional integrity and competence. 0-5 4.3d. Key personnel’s professional background and caliber. 0-7 6.3e. Adequate qualified personnel available for assignment to the project. 0-5 4.3f. Recent experience in specialized areas of expertise associated with the project. 0-5 4.3 g. Demonstrated ability to meet schedules or deadlines. 0-10 8.7h. Demonstrated ability to complete projects without having major cost escalations or overruns. 0-7 6.3 i. Qualifications and experience of outside consultants regularly engaged by the consultant under consideration. 0-10 9.0 j. Quality of project previously undertaken. 0-10 8.3k. Familiarity with and proximity to the geographic location of the project. 0-5 5.0l. Capability of a branch office, which will do the work to perform independently of the home office, or conversely, its capability to obtain necessary support from the home office. 0-3

2.3 m. Demonstration of an understanding of the project’s potential problems and the City’s special concerns. 0-5 4.3 n. Degree of interest shown in undertaking the project. 0-3 3.0o. Evidence that consultant is an equal opportunity employer. 0-2 2.0p. Proximity of firm’s office to project. 0-3 2.0 TOTAL SCORE: Maximum Points Possible = 84 89.0
Total Ranking Value of all Evaluators: 3
Carollo
Item No. 10.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Modify Previously Approved Cargo Container Quantity and Size
SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT: The use of cargo/shipping containers in Commercial and Industrial zoning districts, when associated with an existing development for additional storage capacity, may be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator for up to three units. Requests exceeding three containers require City Council approval.

On April 15, 2025, the City approved a cargo container permit authorizing three cargo containers measuring 8 feet by 40 feet on the subject property (Building Permit No. BLDRO325-0404). Two of the approved containers were installed and remain on-site. The third approved container was never installed.

The applicant is requesting an addendum to retain the two existing 8' × 40' containers and install three additional 8' × 30' containers. If approved, the total number of cargo containers on-site would increase from three to five.

The applicant has indicated that additional containers are necessary to provide secure storage for materials, equipment, and supplies associated with ongoing business operations.

Staff reviewed the proposed placement plan and evaluated setbacks, site circulation, parking, and fire access. The proposed configuration maintains required setbacks, does not interfere with emergency access, and does not remove or impact required parking areas.

While the total number of containers would increase from three to five, the proposed containers are shorter in length and remain compatible with the site layout and surrounding commercial uses.

The subject property is located within the CG (General and Service Commercial) zoning district and has a General Plan Land Use designation of General and Service Commercial. Cargo containers are permitted subject to discretionary approval and compliance with applicable development standards Item No. 10.
under the Porterville Municipal Code.

Staff finds the proposed modification to be reasonable and consistent with the City’s approach of providing flexible storage options for commercial and industrial properties. Staff also notes that requests for additional cargo containers have become more common as businesses seek secure on-site storage. Staff will continue to evaluate the City’s cargo container regulations to ensure they remain consistent with City Council policy direction and business needs.

Environmental Review
The proposed modification has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff determined the request is consistent with the scope and intensity of the previously approved project and does not represent a substantial expansion of the original use. Appropriate CEQA findings will be made at the time of Council action.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the requested addendum to allow a total of five cargo containers, consisting of two (2) 8' × 40' containers and three (3) 8' × 30' containers.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Request w Proposed Location of Additional Containers

2. Cargo Container Location_ZA Approval
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Claudia Calderon, Community Development Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 11.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Schedule a Public Hearing for Consideration of Revocation of Business Licenses
SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: Staff requests authorization to schedule a public hearing to consider revocation of business licenses issued to the following businesses:
• Rose Massage, 188 West Olive Avenue
• Star Massage, 1365 West Olive Avenue
• Diamond Massage, 1531 West Olive Avenue
Businesses in the City of Porterville are required to obtain a business license pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Porterville Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section 15-12, “The City Council reserves the right to revoke the license granted to any person when, after notice to the licensee and upon hearing had, it shall appear the business licensed is unlawful, immoral or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, peace or general welfare, or is, or has been carried on in an illegal or immoral manner, or in such manner as to constitute a menace to the health, safety, morals, peace or general welfare of the people of the City.” On February 14, 2026, a police investigation involving Rose Massage, Star Massage, and Diamond Massage resulted in the arrests of Lenju Wu, Luo Zeqiao, and Fenglan Dong for prostitution. During the investigation, it was determined that Lenju Wu and Luo Zeqiao did not possess active certification from the California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC). Fenglan Dong currently holds an active Certified Massage Therapist certificate (#45299), which expires on September 11, 2027.

Based on the results of the investigation, staff believe the operations of Rose Massage, Star Massage, and Diamond Massage may meet the criteria for revocation of their business licenses pursuant to Section 15-12 of the Porterville Municipal Code.

If authorized, staff will prepare and post a notice of a public hearing for April 7, 2026. At that hearing, evidence and testimony from City staff, any testimony Item No. 11.
provided by the business owners, and any other relevant testimony will be presented for City Council consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Clerk to notice a public hearing for April 7, 2026, to consider the revocation of the business licenses issued for massage businesses located at 188 West Olive Avenue, 1365 West Olive Avenue, and 1531 West Olive Avenue.

ATTACHMENTS:

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Item No. 12.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of Community Civic Event Application — "Porterville Celebrates Reading" Event
SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: The Optimist Club of Porterville, Porterville Unified School District, and Burton School District are requesting approval to hold the "Porterville Celebrates Reading" event on Saturday, April 11, 2026, at Veterans Park, from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM. An outside amplifier permit has been approved from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM. The sponsor is requesting the use of Veterans Park from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM for set-up before and clean up after the event.

The request has been submitted in accordance with the Community Civic Events Ordinance No. 1326, as amended. The application has been routed to and reviewed by all required City departments. All applicable requirements and conditions are outlined in the Application and Agreement, including Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and the Outside Amplifier Permit.

This event will provide a positive, educational opportunity for children ages pre-school and up and their families while supporting literacy and community engagement.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Community Civic Event Application for the “Porterville Celebrates Reading” event on April 11, 2026, at Veterans Park, subject to the restrictions and requirements contained in the Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and the Outside Amplifier Permit.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Community Civic Event Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Outside Amplifier Permit, Map, and Certificate of Liability Insurance.

Appropriated/Funded:

Item No. 12.

Review By:

Department Director:

Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 13.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of Community Civic Event Application — Kiwanis Club of Porterville "Flower Treasure Hunt" Event
SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: The Kiwanis Club of Porterville is requesting approval to hold the "Flower Treasure Hunt" Event at the Tule River Parkway on Saturday, April 4, 2026. The event is proposed to take place from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. This is a free community event featuring a scavenger hunt for listed flowers, art projects, and information on native plants.

The request has been submitted in accordance with the Community Civic Events Ordinance No. 1326, as amended. The application has been routed to and reviewed by all required City departments. All applicable requirements and conditions are outlined in the Application and Agreement, including Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

The event provides a free educational opportunity for the community to learn about native plants and explore the Tule River Parkway.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Community Civic Event application submitted by the Kiwanis Club of Porterville for the "Flower Treasure Hunt" Event on April 4, 2026, at Tule River Parkway, subject to the restrictions and requirements contained in the Application and Agreement, Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Community Civic Event Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Map, and Certificate of Liability Insurance.

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director
Item No. 13.

Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 14.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of the City of Porterville Active Transportation Plan SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT: At its meeting on September 4, 2024, the City Council awarded a contract to GHD, Inc. to prepare a City-wide Active Transportation Plan (AT Plan) for the City of Porterville. This effort, completed in partnership with the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), helps position the City to remain competitive for future Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant cycles and other funding opportunities while guiding long-term improvements to the City’s active transportation network.

Development of the plan included several public engagement efforts, such as two (2) community workshops, outreach at community events (Veterans Day Run, Spring Festival, and National Night Out), and a project web page dedicated to the effort. The web page hosted an interactive map and community survey to solicit feedback from the public, as well as a project timeline and background information. Additionally, technical studies, including an analysis of existing conditions and a needs assessment, were conducted.

The information gathered from these activities was used to identify potential projects and their recommended prioritization.

In summary, the AT Plan includes the following components:
• Vision and Goals
• Existing Conditions
• Needs
• Community Engagement
• Recommendations
• Implementation
The draft Active Transportation Plan identifies challenges to mobility, improves connections between key destinations, and prioritizes future improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized transportation users.

Adoption of the Active Transportation Plan also satisfies eligibility Item No. 14.
requirements for several state and federal grant programs and will help position the City to compete for future funding opportunities for active transportation improvements.

As noted at the time of contract award, the development of the Active Transportation Plan was fully funded through the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG).

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution adopting the City of Porterville Active Transportation Plan.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Active Transportation Plan

2. Draft Resolution
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Claudia Calderon, Community Development Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Porterville
Active Transportation Plan
Draft Plan
March 2026
City of Porterville
Active Transportation Plan
Project Team

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
Sarah Weaver
Luisa Zavala
GHD
Melissa Estrada
Holly Murphy
Kamryn Kubose
Sarah Glick
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of the Plan....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Summary of the Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Vision and Goals.............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Local Context .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Transportation Network...........................................................................................................................................................11

2.3 Safety....................................................................................................................................................................................................16 3 Community Engagement .........................................................................................................................18

3.1 Project Website.............................................................................................................................................................................19

3.2 Phase 1: Existing Conditions & Needs............................................................................................................................20

3.3 Phase 2: Developing Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 21 4 Needs...............................................................................................................................................................22

4.1 Opportunity Areas......................................................................................................................................................................24

4.2 Gaps and Barriers ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27

4.3 Safety...................................................................................................................................................................................................30

4.4 Users ....................................................................................................................................................................................................34 5 Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................36

5.1 Bicycle Projects ............................................................................................................................................................................36

5.2 Pedestrian Projects ...................................................................................................................................................................42

5.3 Non-Infrastructure Recommendations.......................................................................................................................45 6 Implementation.......................................................................................................................................... 46

6.1 Project Prioritization................................................................................................................................................................ 46

6.2 Implementation Opportunities......................................................................................................................................... 52

6.3 Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................................................................................. 52

6.4 Funding .............................................................................................................................................................................................62 Table of Contents
ii
Table Index
Table 1 – Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage ...............................................................................................38 Table 2 – Prioritization Measures........................................................................................................................................................ 48 Table 3 – Prioritized Bikeway Projects............................................................................................................................................ 49 Table 4 – Prioritized Bicycle Crossing Projects......................................................................................................................... 49 Table 5 – Prioritized Sidewalk Projects............................................................................................................................................50 Table 6 – Prioritized Pedestrian Crossing Projects................................................................................................................... 51 Table 7 – Cost Estimates: Class I Shared-Use Paths and Class IV Bikeways .......................................................... 53 Table 8 – Cost Estimates and Additional Items: Class I and Class IV Bikeways...................................................54 Table 9 – Cost Estimates: Class II and Class III Bikeways.....................................................................................................54 Table 10 – Cost Estimates and Additional Items: Class II and Class III Bikeways ................................................56 Table 11 – Cost Estimates: Bicycle Crossings................................................................................................................................56 Table 12 – Cost Estimates and Additional Items: Sidewalks..............................................................................................59 Table 13 – Cost Estimates: Pedestrian Crossings ..................................................................................................................... 60 Figure Index
Figure 1 – Land Use......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 – Zoning …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Figure 3 – Points of Interest.....................................................................................................................................................................10 Figure 4 – Work Trips ....................................................................................................................................................................................11 Figure 5 – Roadway Network..................................................................................................................................................................12 Figure 6 – Existing Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 7 – Future Growth Areas...........................................................................................................................................................26 Figure 8 – Bicycle LTS Scores................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 9 – Pedestrian LTS Scores ........................................................................................................................................................29 Figure 10 – Bicycle Collision Hotspots.............................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 11 – Pedestrian Collision Hotspots ...................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 12 – Proposed Bicycle Projects ..............................................................................................................................................41 Figure 13 – Proposed Pedestrian Projects.................................................................................................................................... 44 Table of Contents
iii
Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Analysis
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
Appendix E: Projects
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
1 1 Introduction
Active transportation includes walking,
bicycling, or any other mode of
transportation that does not rely on an
automobile. Active transportation can
include e-scooters, e-bikes, skateboards,
rollers skates, and more.

1.1 Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of the City of Porterville
Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is to
improve and enhance active
transportation in the City, including for
pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and
abilities.

The ATP provides the framework for the
establishment of the recommended active
transportation improvements, as well as a
plan for the implementation of the
improvements.

1.2 Summary of the Plan
The ATP presents:
 Vision and Goals
 Existing Conditions
 Community Engagement
 Needs
 Recommendations
 Implementation
Recommendations were developed based
on the vision and goals, existing
conditions, needs, and community
engagement described in the following
chapters. A plan for implementing the
recommendations is described in Chapter
6 and includes project prioritization, cost
estimates, and funding opportunities.
2 1.3 Vision and Goals
“The vision for the Porterville Active Transportation Plan is to improve and enhance transportation options for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized users, fostering a safe, healthy, and sustainable community.”
The City has established five goals to achieve this vision. 1 Introduction
3 Goal 1: Develop a Complete Active
Transportation Network
Identify improvements to the existing
active transportation network, including
gap closures and preferred corridors.

OBJECTIVE 1: IMPROVE THE PEDESTRIAN

NETWORK
 Performance Measure 1
Identify and close sidewalk gaps. Prioritize
sidewalk gap closures in high-stress areas
and/or areas close to key destinations (e.g.,
commercial areas, schools, and bus stops).
 Performance Measure 2
Incorporate Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) improvements, including ADAcompliant sidewalks and curb ramps, into City Capital Improvement Projects, where
applicable.

OBJECTIVE 2: IMPROVE THE BICYCLE

NETWORK
 Performance Measure 1
Identify and close gaps in the bicycle
network. Identify bicycle facilities that may
not align with best practices and assess
alternatives and/or improvements that
enhance safety and connectivity, including
potential alternative corridors. Prioritize
bicycle facility gap closures in high-stress
areas and/or areas close to key
destinations (e.g., commercial areas,
schools, and bus stops).
 Performance Measure 2
Identify preferred corridors and preferred
bicycle facility types for the citywide
bicycle network. Along preferred corridors,
establish a contiguous bicycle network—
Class II Bike Lanes or better.

Goal 2: Develop a Connected
Active Transportation Network
Expand the existing and future active
transportation network, strategically,
conveniently, and comfortably connecting
the community to key destinations.

OBJECTIVE 1: ESTABLISH OFF-STREET CLASS

I SHARED-USE PATHS
 Performance Measure 1
Prioritize off-street Class I Shared-use
Paths, where feasible and appropriate, to
offer maximum safety benefits for
pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and
abilities.
 Performance Measure 2
Explore opportunities to implement Class I
Shared-use Paths along underutilized
rights-of-way, including along utility, canal,
river, and abandoned railroad rights-ofway. Where possible, establish such corridors as backbones upon which to
build and establish the bicycle network.
 Performance Measure 3
Explore opportunities to implement Class I
Shared-use Paths to connect
neighborhoods to existing and future
parks and recreational areas.
 Performance Measure 4
Explore opportunities to implement Class I
Shared-use Paths where roadway
challenges exist, including limited
roadway right-of-way, on bridges, and
along high-speed streets. In such
instances, a Class I Shared-use Path may
be preferred, to offer a safe facility for both
pedestrians and bicyclists.
1 Introduction
4  Performance Measure 5
Coordinate with the City departments to
incorporate and/or align applicable Class I
Shared-use Paths. Ensure consistency with
the City Park Master Plan and the City
Active Transportation Plan, as appropriate.

OBJECTIVE 2: ESTABLISH AN ON-STREET

BIKEWAY NETWORK
 Performance Measure 1
Prioritize on-street bike lanes, where
feasible and appropriate, including along
preferred corridors to key destinations
(e.g., commercial and employment areas).

Consider Class II Buffered Bike Lanes and
Class IV Protected Bikeways where
appropriate.
 Performance Measure 2
At intersections, to accommodate onstreet bike lanes, consider intersection improvements including, but not limited
to, striping, bike boxes, and green paint.
 Performance Measure 3
Increase bikeway network miles by at least
10 percent by 2030.

Goal 3: Foster a Safe Active
Transportation Environment in
Porterville
Reduce the number of pedestrian and
bicyclist collisions in Porterville.

OBJECTIVE 1: ADDRESS COLLISION

HOTSPOTS
 Performance Measure 1
Identify collision hotspots citywide,
including by severity and type. Implement
projects to reduce risks and decrease
pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
 Performance Measure 2
Decrease severe pedestrian and bicycle
collisions, working towards a goal of zero
deaths and a safe system.

OBJECTIVE 2: ADDRESS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC
STRESS
 Performance Measure 1
Identify pedestrian and bicycle level of
traffic stress (LTS) citywide. Implement
projects to improve locations, from highstress (LTS 3-4) to low-stress (LTS 1-2).

OBJECTIVE 3: ADDRESS BARRIERS
 Performance Measure 1
Identify barriers in the active
transportation network, including
railroads, highways, rivers, and canals.

Assess projects to cross these barriers, as
appropriate, in the short- or long-term.
 Performance Measure 2
Identify challenging intersections in the
active transportation network. Implement
projects that promote complete streets,
including but not limited to crosswalk
markings, high-visibility crosswalks, curb
extensions, median noses or refuge
islands, and protected intersections,
OBJECTIVE 4: TRAFFIC CALMING
 Performance Measure 1
Identify roadway corridors suitable for
traffic calming measures, including but
not limited to road diets, roundabouts,
raised elements, and reduced lane widths.

Also, consider mid-block crossings,
crosswalk enhancements, and flashing
beacons.
1 Introduction
5 Goal 4: Support Walking and
Bicycling in Porterville
Pair infrastructure projects with noninfrastructure projects, further encouraging walking and bicycling in
Porterville.

OBJECTIVE 1: INCLUDE NONINFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
 Performance Measure 1
Consider programs to support walking
and bicycling. Programs could focus on
education (e.g., sharing information about
safety and walking and bicycling benefits),
encouragement (e.g., promoting walking
and bicycling as beneficial, convenient,
and enjoyable), evaluation (e.g.,
monitoring success through counts,
surveys, and data review), and equity (e.g.,
ensuring equitable access for
disadvantaged communities).
 Performance Measure 2
Consider amenities to support walking
and bicycling. Amenities could include
bike parking, e-bike charging stations,
water fountains, benches, and shade trees.
 Performance Measure 3
Prioritize Safe Routes to School
infrastructure projects within 2 miles of
schools, to create a safer environment for
students walking or bicycling to school.

OBJECTIVE 2: INCREASE MODE SHARE
 Performance Measure 1
Increase the percentage of residents
walking and bicycling to work by 5 percent
by 2030.

Goal 5: Develop a Local Active
Transportation Network That
Supports Regional Tulare County
Association of Government
(TCAG) goals.

OBJECTIVE 1: SUPPORT TCAG

TRANSPORTATION GOALS
 Performance Measure 1
For active transportation, support the
development of “designated regional
bicycle paths adjacent to or separate from
commuter corridors, connecting cities and
communities.”
OBJECTIVE 2: SUPPORT TCAG AIR QUALITY

AND PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
 Performance Measure 1
Support air quality and public health by
providing opportunities for residents to
walk and bike to destinations, including
bus stops, work, school, commercial areas,
and parks and recreational areas.

6 2 Existing Conditions
Existing conditions refers the local
conditions that influence transportation.

The existing conditions analyzed in this
ATP include:
 Local Context: population, land use, key
destinations, and transportation
behavior
 Transportation Network: roads and
highways, railroads, public transit,
bicycle facilities, and pedestrian
facilities
 Safety: bicycle collisions and pedestrian
collisions
The existing conditions are summarized
below. For more information, see
Appendix A.

2.1 Local Context
Population
According to the American Community
Survey (ACS) 2023 5-year Estimates, which
derives data from the US Census, the
current population in the City is 62,623
people. In 2008, the City of Porterville 2030
General Plan noted a population of 45,220
people, showing 38 percent growth over
the past 19 years, or an average annual
growth of 2 percent.

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Disadvantaged communities (DACs) are
generally identified as communities with
disproportionate environmental and
socioeconomic burdens. In the state of
California, DACs are specifically targeted
2 Existing Conditions
7 for investments to improve public health,
quality of life, and economic opportunity.

A variety of tools can be used to identify
DACs, including the California
Communities Environmental Health
Screening Tool 4.0 (CalEnviroScreen 4.0).

According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, most of
Porterville is designated as a DAC, ranked
within the 80th – 90th and 90th – 100th
percentiles of all communities in California.

Land Use
Land use within the City is shown in Figure

1. Generally, the dominant land use is
single family residential, with supporting
commercial, shopping center, and
public/quasi-public land uses. Similar to
other Central Valley communities,
Porterville is surrounded by
rural/agriculture/ conservation land uses.

Zoning in the City, shown in Figure 2, is
similar to land use with the exception of
infill development in the center of the
community, including high-density
residential along Olive Avenue (e.g.,
between State Rout (SR) 65 and Plano
Street). Also, very low density residential
and industrial park land uses are present
on the urban fringe. These differences are
consistent with the City of Porterville 2030
General Plan (2008), which notes the City’s
commitment to clearly defined urban
edges, to prevent sprawl and protect
environmentally sensitive areas.

Key Destinations
Points of interest in Porterville are shown
in Figure 3. A large shopping center node,
consisting of Save Mart, Porterville Plaza,
Target, and Walmart, is located in the
vicinity of the SR 65/Henderson Avenue
intersection. Shopping centers are located
in other areas of the community as well,
including along Olive Avenue and SR 190.

Downtown Porterville hosts key points of
interest, including Porterville City Hall,
Porterville Public Library, Porterville Transit
Center, and county courts. A health care
node, including Sierra View Medical Center
(hospital), is located in the vicinity of the
Putnam Avenue/Pearson Drive
intersection.
2 Existing Conditions
8 Figure 1 – Land Use
Source: City of Porterville 2030 General Plan, 2008
I -..
.................... ,,;, ..........

I
�--':.
··� _ • ..,.._ - - .,
Legend
Conservation)
AC (Agricultural/ -
- CG (General and Service c::::J Commercial)
- CMX (Commercial
Mixed-Use)
c::::J CN (Neighborhood
Commercial)
- CR (Retail Centers)
- D-GC (General
Commercial)
- D-MX (Mixed-Use)
Paper Size ANSI A

0.32 0.64 0.96 1.28
Miles
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAO 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
-
-
-
c::::J
N
$
D-PK (Parks and Public c::::J Recreational Facilities)
D-PO
Office)
(Professional -
D-PS (Public and Semi- c::::J
DR-D
Public)
(Retail-D Street -
Corridor) c::::J
DR-N (Retail-North of c::::J Olive)
DROlive) S (Retail-South of -
<!3:M b d
ll;ghdnetlghd\US\Azure\EastUSl12645CMJ5\Maps\Workingl12645065_ExistingConditions\12645065_ExistingConditions.aprx 12645065_.XX_Zoning_portrait Print date03Dec2025-16:54
DRM-2 (Medium Density c::::J PO (Professional Office)
Residential)
- PS (Public and SemiDRM-3 (High Density Public)
Residential) ;:-� REC (Commercial
IA (Airport Industrial) � ..... -.... +� Recreation)
JG (General Industrial) c::::J RM-1 (Low Medium
Density Residential)
IP (Industrial Park)
- RM-2 (Medium Density
PD (Planned Residential)
Development)
- RM-3 (High Density
PK (Parks and Public Residential)
Recreation Facilities) c::::J RR (Rural Residential)

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ZONING
c::::J RS-1 (Very Low Density
Residential)
c::::J RS-2 (Low Density
Residential)
:,, .:·:·.'. RSR (Resort Residential)
Streets -Highways -+-- Railroad
= =· City Limits
Project No. 12645065
Revision No.

Date 12/03/2025
FIGURE 2
Data source: Crty of Porterville; County of Tulare; US Census Bureau. Created by: kkubose l W-Heode=o:A:,
L. 'I
Paper Size ANSI A
0 - - - 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 5,500
US Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAO 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
i"}I
I
..
<!3:M b d
ll;ghdnetlghd\US\Azure\EastUS\12645())5\Maps\Workingl12645065_ExistingConditions\12645065_ExistingCond itions.aprx -12645065_.XX_POI Printdate05May2025-10:55
Legend
0 Church
G Law
Enforcement
G Museum
0 Shopping
Center
� Library
Fire Station
Transit Center
Health Center
Airport
Government

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

POINTS OF INTEREST
Streets - Highways
-+- Railroad
=- .:-, City Limits
CJ Parks
CJ Schools
Water Bodies
- ..
- ..
..

Project No. 12645065
Revision No.

Date 5/05/2025
FIGURE 3
Data source: City of Porterville; County of Tulare; US Census Bureau; ESRI. Created by: kkubose 2 Existing Conditions
11 Transportation Behavior
Transportation behavior data was sourced
from the American Community Survey
(ACS) 2023 5-year Estimates and
supplemented by Replica 2023 estimates.

Replica uses Location Based Services (LBS)
in addition to census data and traffic count
information to provide data about mode,
trip purpose, and where people start and
finish their trips.

For work trips alone, Figure 4 shows that
95 percent of Porterville residents drive or
carpool with low rates of walking and
bicycling1
.

Figure 4 – Work Trips
For all trips, including but not limited to
recreational trips, running errands, trips to
school, a higher percentage of residents
walk (9 percent)2
.

Short trips (less than 2 miles) represent
opportunities to encourage mode shift
from driving to active modes of
1 ACS Data 2025 5-year estimates
transportation. The most common trip
purpose for short trips includes shopping,
work, and going out to eat.

2.2 Transportation
Network
Roads and Highways
The City roadway network is shown in
Figure 5. Street types include highways,
arterials, collectors, and local streets.

Highways include SR 65 and SR 190, with
portions designated as freeways. Arterials
make up a large portion for the street
network, with major arterials (e.g.,
Henderson Avenue/SR 65 and Olive
Avenue/SR 65) providing access to regional
freeways/highways and minor arterials
providing mobility through the City. Across
the roadway network, the percentage of
different roadway classifications is as
follows:
 17.9 percent of roadways are arterials
 5.9 percent of roadways are collectors
 76.1 percent of roadways are local
The roadway network is based on a
traditional grid pattern, with slight
modifications of suburban curvilinear and
cul-de-sac streets in the western portion of
the City. The roadway network includes
several Tule River overcrossings (bridges),
one SR 65 overcrossing (bridge) (i.e.,
Westfield Avenue/SR 65), several SR 65
undercrossings, and one SR 190
undercrossing (i.e., Main Street/SR 190).
2 Replica Spring 2024 estimates for a
typical Thursday

78.3%

17.1%

0.3% 0.1% 1.3% 0.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
N Main St
N Westwood St
S Plano St
W Olive Ave
W North Grand Ave
Pioneer Ave
W Henderson Ave
S Jaye St
W Scranton Ave
Avenue 128
Legend
Highway
Arterial
Collector
Local
City Limits
Parks
Schools
Railroad
Water Bodies
FIGURE 5
Date 5/07/2025
Revision No. -
Project No. 12645065

ROADWAY NETWORK

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 5,500
US Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Azure\EastUS\12645065\Maps\Working\12645065_ExistingConditions\12645065_ExistingConditions.aprx - 12645065_XX_RoadwayNetwork Data source: City of Porterville; County of Tulare; US Census Bureau; ESRI. Created by: hmurphy Print date: 07 May 2025 - 11:27
2 Existing Conditions
13 The City roadway network carries a
substantial number of trucks moving
goods. The City has designated truck
routes, ensuring design standards for such
trucks with heavier loads and larger
turning radii. The truck routes are as
follows:
 SR 65
 SR 190
 Olive Avenue, from Westwood Street to
E Street
 E Street, from Olive Avenue to Orange
Avenue
 Orange Avenue, from E Street to Main
Street
 Main Street, from Orange Avenue to SR
190
 Henderson Avenue, from SR 65 to east
of Plano Street
 Plano Street, from Henderson Avenue
to SR 190
 North Grand Avenue, from SR 65 to
Main Street
 Main Street, from northern City limits
to Henderson Avenue
 Near Porterville Municipal Airport:

Portions of Newcomb Street and Ave
128
Railroads
Porterville was historically connected to
Fresno and Bakersfield via two railroad
lines—Southern Pacific (east of Main
3 As of July 2025, Routes 4 and 6 were halted, with the future of these routes unknown. Excluding Routes 4
and 6, there are four bus routes.

Street) and Union Pacific (west of Main
Street)—which primarily transported
lumber and agricultural produce and
goods.

Both railroad rights-of-way were
abandoned and purchased by the City. A
portion of the former Southern Pacific
railroad right-of-way has been converted
to the Santa Fe Byway. Likewise, a portion
of the former Union Pacific railroad rightof-way has been converted to the Butterfield Stage Corridor (under
construction).

Public Transit
Porterville Transit provides fixed route bus
service and Dial-A-COLT paratransit service
in the City, with weekday service from 7
am to 7 pm and Saturday service from 8
am to 5 pm. Porterville Transit fixed route
bus service consists of four to six bus
routes.
3 Connections to Tulare County Regional
Transit Agency (TCRTA) commuter bus
service are provided at the Porterville
Transit Center. TCRTA commuter bus
service consists of four bus routes, with
limited, mostly peak-hour service.

Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities are shown in
Figure 6.

In the City, existing bicycle facilities
include shared-use paths (Class I), bike
lanes (Class II), and bicycle routes (Class III).
2 Existing Conditions
14 Morton Avenue is the only street that
provides east-west bicycle connectivity
across the City, including across (under) SR

65. Morton Avenue bicycle facilities are a
combination of on-street bicycle lanes and
bicycle routes.

The City has shared-use paths that provide
transportation and recreational value to
the community. The Santa Fe Byway (from
Henderson Avenue on the north to Walnut
Avenue on the south) is located within the
former Southern Pacific railroad right-ofway and is approximately 1.3 miles in length. The Tule River Parkway (from the
northeastern quadrant of SR 65/SR 190 to
Main Street) is located along the Tule River
and is approximately 2.0 miles in length.

Additionally, the Butterfield Stage Corridor
and the Tule River Parkway (Phase 3) are
under construction. These shared-use
paths provide comfortable walking and
bicycling facilities that are completely
separated from the street.

Additionally, bicycle parking is provided
throughout the City. Along the Santa Fe
Byway, in addition to bicycle parking,
bicycle repair stations are available.

Pedestrian Facilities
Generally, sidewalks are well developed in
the City; however, there are some locations
where sidewalk gaps can be found, mostly
undeveloped locations, industrial locations,
and older commercial locations where
paved parking abuts the roadway. Most
developed arterial streets, especially those
developed in recent years, feature
sidewalk coverage with few gaps,
accessible curb ramps, and marked
crosswalks at major intersections.

Residential and commercial areas
throughout the City feature sidewalk
widths generally 4 to 5 feet along local
streets and up to 10 feet along arterial
streets. Sidewalks generally exist at and
around schools. In older neighborhoods,
sidewalk gaps are more prevalent near
schools.

Older neighborhoods and undeveloped
areas lack sidewalks, whereas new
developments have up to 7-feet-wide
sidewalks.

In Downtown Porterville, sidewalk
coverage is good, with relatively few
sidewalk gaps existing at undeveloped
lots, industrial centers, and adjacent to the
former Union Pacific railroad right-of-way.

While Main Street (from Morton Avenue to
Olive Avenue) has sidewalk widths
between 10- to 12-feet-wide, adjacent
neighborhoods have sidewalk widths
between 4- and 5-feet-wide. An unpaved
path extends Locust Street, from E Street
to S Hockett Street, and connects
residential neighborhoods with Main
Street.
- "f I
1-t-- -+ - ---.----��,,._�����W•Scrantonf,ve
.. I
I
r -
L. 'I
Paper Size ANSI A
i"}I
I
..
\
- - - 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 5,500
US Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
<!3:M b d Grid: NAO 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet \lghdnetlghd\US\Azure\EastUSI 12645())5\Maps\Workingl 12645065_ExistingConditions\ 12645065_ExistingConditions.aprx 12645065 xx_ExistingBikePedFacilities
Print date 11 Jun2025-1704
-;

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Legend
--
--
--+-
I - I
c=J
L
..

Shared Use Path (Class I)
Shared Use Path (Class I)
(Under Construction)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Bicycle Route (Class III)
Streets
Highways
Railroad
City Limits
Parks
Schools
Water Bodies
- - - - ..
..
, ...
..

Project No. 12645065
Revision No.

Date 6/11/2025
Existing Bicycle Facilities FIGURE 6
Data source: Tulare County Association of Governments; City of Porterville; County of Tulare; US Census Bureau; ESRI. Created by: kkubose 2 Existing Conditions
16 2.3 Safety
Collision data from the most recent 10-year
period (January 1, 2014, to December 31,
2023) was analyzed to evaluate safety for
bicyclists and pedestrians within the City.

Collision data for the City was sourced
from the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System (SWITRS) and from UC Berkely’s
Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS).

Over the 10-year period, there were 5,155
total collisions, 411 of which involved
pedestrians or bicyclists. For more
information, see Appendix A.

Bicycle Collisions
Within the 10-year period, there were 206
bicyclist-related collisions. Approximately
56 percent these collisions occurred on the
following roadways:
 Olive Avenue – 43 collisions
 Henderson Avenue – 37 collisions
 Morton Avenue – 17 collisions
 Newcomb Street – 9 collisions
 Main Street – 9 collisions

COLLISION CHARACTERISTICS
 Of the recorded collisions, broadside
collisions or “T-bone” collisions were
most common (126 collisions), the
majority of which resulted in “Visible
Injury” (approximately 60 collisions).
 The most common cause of bicyclistinvolved collisions was “Wrong Side of Road” (bicyclist violation), followed by
“Automobile Right-of-Way” and
“Improper Turning” (motorist
violations).
 Approximately 64 percent of bicycle
collisions occurred at an intersection.
 Most collisions occurred during the day
between the hours of 12 PM and 6 PM.
 Over half of bicycle collisions involved
bicyclists under the age of 19.
 Approximately 16 percent of all
collisions resulted in fatal or severe
injuries.

Pedestrian Collisions
Within the 10-year period, there were 205
pedestrian-related collisions.

Approximately 52 percent of these
collisions occurred on the following
roadways:
 Olive Avenue –24 collisions
 Henderson Avenue – 21 collisions
 Main Street – 16 collisions
 Morton Avenue – 15 collisions
 Prospect Street - 11 collisions
 Plano Street – 10 collisions
 Putnam Avenue – 9 collisions
2 Existing Conditions
17 COLLISION CHARACTERISTICS
 The most common causes pedestrianinvolved collisions were pedestrian right-of-way violations (motorists
violating the pedestrian right-of-way)
and pedestrian violations (pedestrian
disobeying traffic laws.
 Approximately 71 percent of pedestrian
collisions occurred at an intersection
 About 57 percent of collisions occurred
during daylighting while 43 percent of
collisions occur during night, dawn or
dusk. Most collisions occurred between
6 PM and 12 AM.
 Approximately 37 percent of
pedestrian collisions involved
pedestrians under 19 years of age.
 About 26 percent of collisions resulted
in fatal or sever injuries.
18 3 Community Engagement
The community engagement process
occurred throughout the development of
the ATP, beginning in November of 2024
and concluding in November 2025.

Feedback gathered from the community
during this process informed the City’s
understanding of existing transportation
conditions, priorities, and development of
the infrastructure and programmatic
recommendations.

Community engagement included a
variety of events and tools, including:
 Project website, including online
engagement tools (e.g., an interactive
map and the survey (electronic
format))
 In-person events, including three popups at community events and two workshops at Porterville City Hall
 A survey (hardcopy and electronic
formats)
Community engagement was conducted
in two phases:
 Phase 1 focused on presenting existing
conditions and gathering community
input on needs.
 Phase 2 focused on gathering
community input on
recommendations prior to the
development of the draft plan.

The community engagement process is
summarized below. For a summary of
community feedback and more details
about the process, see Appendix B.
3 Community Engagement
19 3.1 Project Website
Throughout the planning process, a project website was used to host information about the ATP, including documents, online engagement tools, and upcoming events. Community members could sign up for ATP updates through the project website as well.

Over the course of the ATP’s development, the project website was visited 774 times by 379 community members.
3 Community Engagement
20 3.2 Phase 1: Existing
Conditions & Needs
The purpose of the first phase of
engagement was to introduce the
community to the project, begin building
a stakeholder list, and gather preliminary
feedback about what types of active
transportation improvements community
members would like to see included in the
Plan.

The first phase of engagement included
the following components:
 Three in-person events: two pop-ups
and one workshop
 A survey in both hardcopy and online
form
 An interactive mapping tool
Interactive materials at the first three
events included boards with pedestrian
and bicycle improvements community
members could prioritize, as well as maps
of Porterville used to discuss locationspecific improvements Pop-up 1
The first pop-up event was held on
November 11, 2024, during the annual
Porterville Veteran’s Day Run. About 50
community members participated in the
event.

Pop-up 2
The second pop-up event was held on
April 5, 2025, at the annual Spring Festival
from 10am to 3pm. Approximately a dozen
people participated in the event.

Workshop 1
The first workshop was held on May 21,
2025, at City Hall from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. The
workshop included a presentation,
introducing the project to the community
as well as reviewing the existing active
transportation conditions in Porterville,
followed by a roundtable discussion. The
workshop was attended by five
community members.

Survey
Two surveys were developed to gather
input about transportation behavior and
priorities in Porterville, including a short
hard copy survey provided at in-person
engagement events, as well as a longer
survey hosted on the ATP website. Surveys
were available from fall 2025 to spring
2025. A total of 65 residents took the
survey, including 28 hard copy surveys and
37 online surveys.

The survey included questions on the
following topics:
 Key destinations
 Means of transportation and comfort
level
 Student travel to school
 What residents love about walking and
bicycling in Porterville
 Potential improvements
Interactive Map
An interactive map was developed for the
ATP to gather location specific comments
on the project website. Users were
prompted to provide comments about
what they loved, wished, and wondered
3 Community Engagement
21 about Porterville’s active transportation
network.

The interactive map was opened for
comment beginning January 2025 and
was closed July 2025. The map received 13
comments

3.3 Phase 2: Developing
Recommendations
The purpose of the second phase of
engagement was to collect feedback on
the proposed improvements to the
Porterville active transportation network.

Phase two include a third pop-up event
and a second workshop.

Pop-up 3
The third pop-up event was held on
August 5th, 2025, at National Night Out
hosted by the City. The pop-up was held
on Main Street from 6 pm – 9 pm. The popup included preliminary pedestrian and bicycle recommendations, with the aim to
prioritize improvements and identify
additional projects. Thirty-eight comments
were received during the event.

Workshop 2
The second workshop was held on
Monday, November 3rd, 2025, at City Hall
from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm. The purpose of
the workshop was to present the full draft
pedestrian and bicycle network to the
community and collect feedback about
project prioritization. The workshop was an
open house format and included large
maps of the citywide networks, examples
of improvements, and prioritization
metrics. One community member
attended the workshop.

Pop-up 2
Workshop 1
Pop-up 3
22 4 Needs
Based on data from the existing conditions analysis and community engagement, a needs assessment was conducted to identify priority areas for active transportation improvements.

The needs assessment aims to answer the following questions:

OPPORTUNITY AREAS
What are the current community
destinations?
What are the future growth areas?

GAPS AND BARRIERS
Which streets and intersections are highstress barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel?
SAFETY
Which streets and intersections have a
history of pedestrian and bicycle
collisions?
What are the key risks to pedestrians and
bicyclists?
USERS
Who is using or will use active
transportation facilities in the City?
For these users, what improvements are
desired or needed?
4 Needs
23 4 Needs
24 4.1 Opportunity Areas
Opportunity areas that may benefit from
active transportation improvements
include community destinations and
future growth areas.

Community Destinations
The community identified east-west
routes to improve bicycle connectivity,
including Henderson Avenue, Morton
Avenue, and Olive Avenue. These routes
connect to key community destinations,
including:
 Porterville High School
 Monache High School
 Target on Henderson Avenue
 Veterans Park
The community also identified north-south
routes to improve bicycle connectivity,
including Westwood Street, Mathew
Street, and Newcomb Street.

The community expressed support for
existing shared-use paths, highlighting the
following improvements:
 Extend Tule River Parkway to the west
 Provide greater connectivity to the
Santa Fe Byway
 Provide more amenities, such as
lighting and patrol
Future Growth Areas
The existing conditions analysis discussed
City zoning, as well as other local and
regional plans. For the complete existing
conditions analysis, see Appendix A.

City zoning categorized as future growth
areas include commercial, high-density
residential, and mixed-use zoning. Mostly,
these zoning categories are planned in the
center of the City, along Olive Avenue and
in Downtown Porterville (e.g., D Street and
Main Street).
 Olive Avenue is a major arterial
roadway and a designated truck route,
adjacent to key community
destinations (e.g., parks and schools).

To accommodate future growth and
meet plan goals, bicycle facilities on or
near Olive Avenue should be
considered.
 Downtown Porterville includes
pedestrian-oriented streets and is
adjacent to existing shared-use paths.

Improving pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity to Main Street and
downtown may encourage foot traffic
and support economic development
along the commercial corridor.
4 Needs
25 Local and regional plans that may
promote future growth are summarized
below.
 The City of Porterville South of Tule
River District Master Plan (2024)
discusses a potential future growth
area with opportunities for mixed-use
development. The area is south of Tule
River, west of SR 65, north of SR 190,
and east of Westwood Street. However,
any future development would require
changes to the City general plan and
zoning. The master planning process
for the City is currently underway. For
any future development, active
transportation facilities, including
connections to the Tule River Parkway
Class I Shared-use Path (existing or
future), should be considered.
 The TCAG Cross Valley Corridor Plan
(2018) proposes a light rail transit (LRT)
station in Downtown Porterville, which
could stimulate revitalization and
economic development surrounding
the LRT station. However, the LRT
alignment is proposed within the
former Union Pacific railroad right-ofway, where the Butterfield Stage Corridor Class I Shared-use Path is
currently under construction. Any
future development (LRT or otherwise)
would require coordination with the
City and should consider active
transportation facilities.
 The City of Porterville Parks Master
Plan (2024) allocates resources for park
improvements, including pedestrian
and bicycle improvements, as well as
optional pedestrian connections to offsite destinations. Although not specifically related to future
development (i.e., development
beyond parks), the pedestrian
connections to off-site destinations
should be considered, where
appropriate.
._ ..... ___ _
l
r -
L. 'I
Data Disclaimer
This map contains overlapping polygons.

Paper Size ANSI A
1,100 2,200 - - 3,300 4,400 5,500
US Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAO 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
\lghdnetlghd\US\Azure\EastUSI 12645())5\Maps\Workingl 12645065_ExistingConditions\ 12645065_ExistingConditions.aprx 12645065 022_Opportunity_Land_Use
Print date 27 Jun2025-1607
I
\ I
'- - , I
- ' l.0-- -----1
-
t�
�J_I
I
Legend
- Commercial
- High Density
Residential
- Mixed Use
Parks
� Schools
<!3:M

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
b d

FUTURE GROWTH AREAS
•
L
- - - - ..
..
..

Streets - Highways
-+- Railroad
:- := I City Limits
Project No. 12645065
Revision No.

Date 6/27/2025
FIGURE 7
Oatasource: Createdby:kkubose
4 Needs
27 4.2 Gaps and Barriers
Gaps and Barriers are areas or streets that
limit pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.

This includes:
 Highways and freeways where
pedestrians and bicycles are not
permitted
 Higher stress roads that are
challenging to cross or feel less safe to
walk or ride on
 Parts of the City with limited
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Gaps are barriers are identified through
the level of traffic stress analysis. Areas and
streets identified as barriers should be
considered for active transportation
improvements to improve connectivity
and safety.

Level of Traffic Stress
LTS is the perceived sense of danger
associated with walking or bicycling in or
adjacent to vehicular traffic. Studies have
shown that traffic stress is one of the
biggest deterrents to walking and
bicycling. The lower the LTS score, the less
stressful a road or area is for bicyclists and
pedestrians, and the more likely it is to
appeal to a broader segment of the
population.

The following section provides a summary
of LTS methodology and findings. See
Appendix A and Appendix C for more
information.

BICYCLE LTS
Bicycle LTS results are shown in Figure 8.

Of the arterial and collector routes
analyzed, the majority scored LTS 4. These
roads typically have high speeds, high
vehicle capacity and higher traffic
volumes. There a few dedicated bicycle
lanes in Porterville, and bicyclists are
expected to share the roadway with
drivers under stressful roadway conditions.

Barrier to low stress travel include:

Intersections along these arterial and
collector routes are also high stress for
bicyclists. In many cases, bicyclists may
have to cross four or more lanes of traffic.

Vehicles speeds are over 35 miles per hour
and/or high estimated traffic volumes
increase level of stress further for bicyclists
trying to cross. Signalized intersections are
assumed to be low stress, but at
uncontrolled intersections, these roadway
conditions create a stressful environment
for most bicyclists.

Local streets were excluded from the
analysis but were assumed to score LTS 1.

Although local streets generally are low
stress for bicyclists of all ages and abilities,
local streets are surrounded by other highstress roadways on which most adults do not feel comfortable riding a bicycle.

PEDESTRIAN LTS
Pedestrian LTS results are shown in Figure

9. Most of Porterville is low stress for
pedestrians at LTS 1 (53 percent). This
includes developed areas of the
community, such as residential and
neighborhood commercial areas, and the
central business district (Downtown
Porterville). Higher stress areas for
pedestrians include areas on the edge of
town that are dedicated to industrial or
agricultural uses. In these areas, there are
typically no pedestrian facilities, and
drivers do not expect pedestrians.

Legend
Crossing LTS
LTS 1 (low stress)
LTS 2 (low stress)
LTS 3 (high stress)
LTS 4 (high stress)
Segment LTS
Bikes not permitted
LTS 1 (low stress)
LTS 2 (low stress)
LTS 3 (high stress)
LTS 4 (high stress)
Not scored
City Limits
FIGURE 8
Date 5/06/2025
Revision No. -
Project No. 12645065

SEGMENT LEVEL OF

TRAFFIC STRESS

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983 o
0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800
US Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: Google Maps Sat: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SACalifornia Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System; City of Porterville; County of Tulare; US Census Bureau; ESRI. Created by: zporteous N:\US\Azure\EastUS\12645065\Maps\Working\12645065_LTS_Analysis\12645065_LTS_Analysis.aprx - 12645065_001_BicycleLTS Print date: 06 May 2025 - 15:10
Legend
Pedestrian LTS - GPLU
LTS 1 - Urban/suburban residential, central
business districts, neighborhood commercial,
parks and other public facilities, governmental
buildings/plazas, offices/office parks
LTS 2 - Low density development, rural
subdivisions, unincorporated communities, strip
commercial, mixed employment
LTS 3 - Light industrial, big box/auto-oriented
commercial
LTS 4 - Heavy industrial, intermodal facilities
City Limits
FIGURE 9
Date 5/02/2025
Revision No. -
CITY OF PORTERVILLE Project No. 12645065
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN o PEDESTRIAN LTS Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800
US Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: Google Maps Sat: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SACalifornia Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System; City of Porterville; County of Tulare; US Census Bureau; ESRI. Created by: zporteous N:\US\Azure\EastUS\12645065\Maps\Working\12645065_LTS_Analysis\12645065_LTS_Analysis.aprx - 12645065_002_PedLTS Print date: 02 May 2025 - 11:18
4 Needs
30 4.3 Safety
For bicyclist and pedestrian safety, needs
were determined based on the collision
analysis. For more details, see Chapter 2.

Collision Findings
For bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved
collisions, key findings included the
following:
 A majority of collisions occurred at
intersections
 Almost half of collisions involved
victims 18 years of age and under
 Bicyclists collisions were commonly
causes by bicyclists riding on the
wrong side of the road, or drivers
turning improperly and violating
bicyclist right-of-way
 Pedestrian collisions were commonly
caused by both pedestrian and
automobile violations when
pedestrians were crossing the street
 Collision were frequent on Olive
Avenue, Henderson Avenue, Morton
Avenue and Main Street
Collision Victim Age
Almost half of pedestrians and bicyclists
involved in collisions were under the age of

19. Providing safe infrastructure for these
users near destinations they walk and
bicycle is key.

Collision Causes

BICYCLE COLLISIONS
For bicyclists-involved collisions, common
causes included bicycling on the wrong
side of the road, automobile right-of-way
violations, and turning violations.

To address bicycling on the wrong side of
the road, adequate bicycle facilities and
education programs should be considered.

Bicyclists may be riding on the wrong side
of the road because it feels safer to see
oncoming traffic; however, this behavior
can be more dangerous. New and/or
improved bicycle facilities may help
encourage riding on the correct side of the
road, as well as education addressing
proper bicyclist behavior as new bicycle
facilities are implemented.

To address turning and automobile rightof-way violations, improvements to encourage yielding to bicyclists should be
considered. This could include conflict
markings, turn lane reconfigurations, and
physical barriers that separate bicycles
from vehicle traffic.

PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
For pedestrian-involved collisions,
common causes included pedestrian
violations and pedestrian right-of-way
violations (motorist violations).

Pedestrian violations often occur when
pedestrian cross midblock where no
crossing is present. Typically, this behavior
occurs where crossing opportunities are
infrequent. As such, safer and more
frequent crossings should be considered.

To address pedestrian right-of-way
violations (motorist violations),
improvements to encourage yielding to
pedestrians should be considered, as well
as safety measures to slow driver speeds
and improve visibility.
4 Needs
31 Collision Hotspots
The following section provides a summary
of collision hotspots, or areas with a history
of frequent collisions involving pedestrians
and bicyclists. These hotspots will be used
to identify safety improvement projects.

Collision hotspots for bicycle and
pedestrian collisions are shown in Figure
10 and Figure 11.

OLIVE AVENUE
Olive Avenue experienced the highest
number of pedestrian and bicyclist
collisions. These collisions were most
frequent east of SR 65, specifically at
Porterville High School and at Main Street.

Porterville High School, Olive Street
Elementary School, and Downtown
Porterville are all key destinations along
Olive Street. Improving safety along this
corridor should be considered to improve
downtown access and safe travel to
nearby schools.

HENDERSON AVENUE
Henderson Avenue had the second most
bicyclist collisions, concentrated between
Newcomb Street and Indiana Street,
including the SR 65 underpass. Pedestrian
collision on Henderson Avenue peaked in
the same area, specifically near Prospect
Street.

Key destinations along this route include
Monache High School, Veterans Park,
Target, and fast-food restaurants. As noted
during community engagement, these
locations are frequented by many
residents. Improving safety along this
corridor should be considered to improve
safe access to these destinations.

MORTON AVENUE
Morton Avenue had the third most
bicyclist collisions and fourth most
pedestrian collisions. Bicycle collisions
were most frequent at Newcomb Avenue,
Prospect Street, and Indiana Street.

Pedestrian collision hotspots along Morton
Avenue at Main Street, North E Street, Villa
Street, and Westwood Street.

Improvements at these locations would
improve safety along Morton Avenue and
facilitate connections to destinations such
as Veteran’s Park, several elementary and
middle schools, and Downtown Porterville.

Currently, Morton Avenue has the longest
and most contiguous in-street bicycle
facility and is commonly used by residents.

Improvements to Morton will help improve
bicyclist safety.

MAIN STREET
As noted in Figure 11 Main Street had the
third most pedestrian collisions, with the
highest concentration at Olive Avenue and
Putnam Avenue/Mill Avenue. Main Street
runs through downtown and attracts
pedestrian and bicycle activity.

Improvements to Main Street could
increase safety, encourage walking and
bicycling, and enhance Downtown
Porterville.

N Main St
N Westwood St
S Plano St
W Olive Ave
W North Grand Ave
Pioneer Ave
W Henderson Ave
S Jaye St
W Scranton Ave
Avenue 128
Legend
Collision Heat
Map
Dense
Sparse
Streets
Highways
Railroad
City Limits
Parks
Schools
Water
Bodies
FIGURE 10
Date 5/08/2025
Revision No. -
Project No. 12645065

BICYCLE COLLISIONS
BY DENSITY (2014-2023)

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983 o
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 5,500
US Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System; City of Porterville; County of Tulare; US Census Bureau; ESRI. Created by:
zporteous
N:\US\Azure\EastUS\12645065\Maps\Working\12645065_ExistingConditions\12645065_ExistingConditions.aprx - 12645065_018_BikeCollision_DensityHeatMap Print date: 08 May 2025 - 13:37
N Main St
N Westwood St
S Plano St
W Olive Ave
W North Grand Ave
Pioneer Ave
W Henderson Ave
S Jaye St
W Scranton Ave
Avenue 128
Legend
Collisions Heat
Map
Dense
Sparse
Streets
Highways
Railroad
City Limits
Parks
Schools
Water
Bodies
FIGURE 11
Date 5/08/2025
Revision No. -
Project No. 12645065

PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
BY DENSITY (2014-2023)

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983 o
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 5,500
US Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System; City of Porterville; County of Tulare; US Census Bureau; ESRI. Created by:
zporteous
N:\US\Azure\EastUS\12645065\Maps\Working\12645065_ExistingConditions\12645065_ExistingConditions.aprx - 12645065_019_PedCollision_DensityHeatMap Print date: 08 May 2025 - 13:36
4 Needs
34 4.4 Users
Based on community input, active
transportation user types were identified.

These user types, as well as improvement
types to accommodate all ages and
abilities, are summarized below.

User Types

RECREATIONAL USERS
Recreational users are people who walk,
run, bike, and use other non-motorized
modes of transportation for recreational
purposes. For users in this group, the
primary mode of transportation is “drive a
car.”
This group noted their desire for a
connected active transportation network
(e.g., to parks and trails) and the expansion
of off-street Class I Shared-use Paths. A
common theme for this group was group
events, including youth social rides, adult
social rides, family rides, and docent
walking and nature tours.

Recreational users noted their use of both
on- and off-street active transportation
facilities, with varied levels of confidence
and comfort on different active
transportation facilities. Some users felt
confident and comfortable traveling
within both on- and off-street active
transportation facilities (e.g., bicycling with
traffic on in an on-street bike lane) while
other users (e.g., seniors and families) only
felt confident and comfortable traveling
within off-street shared-use paths. For the
less confident and comfortable users,
safety was a primary concern (e.g., safer
crossings at intersections and
unsafe/speeding drivers).

EVERYDAY USERS
Everyday users are people who walk, bike,
and use other non-motorized modes of
transportation for a variety of purposes,
including for shopping and work trips.

Everyday users also include students who
walk and bicycle to and from school and
near by destinations. Pedestrians and
bicyclists under the age of 19 made up a
large portion of collision victims, so
improving safety for these users is key.

In the survey (beyond parks and trails),
respondents said that they loved walking
or bicycling to shopping centers and
Downtown Porterville or wished they
would to their destinations.

At events and via the survey, users in this
group noted a need for a complete active
transportation network (i.e., sidewalks),
including around schools, as well as a safe
active transportation environment (e.g.
safer crossings at intersections and safer
drivers).

Improvement Types
The following improvement types were
supported by the community.

BICYCLE
The community supported a variety of
bicycle network improvements, including:
 Class II Bicycle Lanes and green
painted bicycle lanes, especially for key
routes to school
 Class IV Protected Bikeways on higher
stress roads
 Class I Shared-use Paths both for
recreation and commuting
4 Needs
35 PEDSTRIAN
The community said that they loved the
existing shared-use paths in Porterville,
including the Tule River Parkway and the
Santa Fe Byway. Residents said they
hoped for the City to implement more offstreet paths.

The community identified sidewalk needs,
including near Westfield Elementary
School and recently annexed portions of
the City west of SR 65.

CROSSINGS
In the survey, respondents said one of their
top concerns regarding walking and
bicycling to school was “unsafe
intersections or crossings.” When asked
what improvements would encourage
them to walk or bike, the number one
improvement identified by survey takers
was “safer crossings at signalized
intersections,” followed by “safer crossings
at midblock locations.

The community also voiced interest in
RRFBs and HAWKS to improve crossing
safety.

TRAFFIC CALMING
The community noted speeding as a
primary concern. Community members
noted many streets felt unsafe because of
high vehicle speeds. Community members
supported traffic calming improvements
to slow drivers.

In the survey, respondents said that one of
their top concerns regarding walking or
bicycling (e.g., allowing their children to
walk or bike to school) were
“unsafe/speeding drivers.”

AMENITIES AND PROGRAMS
Recreational users advocated for
amenities that would support walking and
bicycling along shared-use paths,
including water fountains, benches, and
lighting.

Community members also advocated for
programs that would improve safety.

Some community members felt unsafe
walking along the shared-use paths and
advocated for police on bikes. Other
community members discussed risky
crossing behavior at high schools and felt
that student-oriented educational
programs would help.

36 5 Recommendations
This chapter present the ATP
recommendations. The ATP includes two
types of recommended improvements:
 Infrastructure improvements are the
physical changes that build a
connected, comfortable, and safe
bicycle and pedestrian network.

Infrastructure improvements include
site-specific bicycle and pedestrian
projects.
 Non-infrastructure improvements are
the programs or policies that aim to
encourage active transportation and
support safety along the bicycle and
pedestrian network.

A toolkit of the improvements is provided
in Appendix D. It aims to support the sitespecific infrastructure recommendations detailed in this chapter.

The toolkit expands upon a variety of
infrastructure improvement strategies and
their appropriate uses and includes the list
of recommended non-infrastructure
improvements.

5.1 Bicycle Projects
The recommended bicycle projects
include bikeways along the bicycle
network and bicycle crossings at
intersections. The bicycle projects are
shown in Figure 12 and listed in Appendix
E. Renderings of several projects can be
found in Appendix G.

Bikeways
The bicycle network was developed with a
focus on plan Goal 2 (Develop a
Connected Active Transportation
5 Recommendations
37 Network), including the establishment of
off-street Class I Shared-use Paths and onstreet bikeways. The connected bicycle network will comfortably connect the
community to key destinations.

Development of the bicycle network
focused on the existing recreational
shared-use paths that are already popular
routes for the community, including the
Santa Fe Byway and the Tule River
Parkway, as well as under construction
recreation shared-use paths, Butterfield
Stage Corridor and Tule River Parkway
(Phase 3).

With the existing and under construction
recreational shared-use paths as the
backbone of the bicycle network,
additional bikeway projects were identified
to connect the backbone to key
destinations, including through on-street
bikeways. On-street bikeways include
Class II Bicycle Lanes, Class IV Protected
Bikeways, and Class III Bicycle Boulevards.

With this hybrid approach, bicycle
commuters will be able to use both onand off-street bikeways as part of their commute to work, and recreators will be
able to use on-street bikeways to connect
to the trails and parks that they already
love and use. Off-street Class I paths offer
the lowest stress option for bicyclists who
are interested in bicycling but concerned
with traffic. Class IV Protected Bikeways
offer a similar benefit, as they separate
bicyclists from vehicle traffic by a physical
buffer. The combination of protected
bikeways and off-street paths provides a
bicycle network suitable for bicyclists with
varying experience and comfort levels.

Class I Shared-use Path. City of Porterville; Porterville CA
Class II Bicycle Lane. GHD; Sacramento, CA
Class III Bicycle Route. GHD; Sacramento, CA
Class IV Protected Bikeway. GHD; Sacramento, CA
5 Recommendations
38 As listed in Appendix E, there are 48
bikeway projects, including nine regional
bikeway projects. Regional bikeway
projects are projects that are fully or
partially outside of the City limits and must
be implemented by other public agencies.

Table 1 provides the total existing and
proposed bicycle network mileage. The 48
bikeway projects would add 57 miles to
the bicycle network, the majority of which
would be Class I paths (24 miles) and Class
II Bicycle Lanes (21 miles).

Table 1 – Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network Mileage Facility Type Existing
Miles
Proposed
Miles
Total Miles Proposed
Projects
Shared-use Path (Class I) 8 24 32 12
Bicycle Lane + Buffered Bicycle
Lane (Class II) 5 21 26 18
Bicycle Route + Bicycle Boulevard
(Class III) 3 6 9 13
Protected Bikeway (Class IV) 0 6 6 5
Total 16 57 73 48
5 Recommendations
39 Bicycle Crossings
Bicycle crossing projects were largely
developed to address intersections with a
history of bicycle collisions or high LTS.

As listed in Appendix E, there are 39
bicycle crossing projects. As shown in
Figure 12, most bicycle crossing projects
are along Henderson Avenue, Morton
Avenue, and Olive Avenue.

The following types of bicycle crossings are
recommended throughout the bicycle
network. See Appendix D for more details.

PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Most bicycle crossing projects (26 projects)
are intersection pavement markings,
including bike boxes or two-stage turn
queue boxes, mixing zones, conflict
markings. Mixing Zones and conflict
markings provide designated space for
bicyclists to navigate alongside vehicle
traffic through an intersection. Bike boxes
and two-stage queue boxes offer space for
bicyclists to wait in front of traffic at
signalized intersections or crossings,
reducing right-hook collisions and overall
level of stress.

CROSSING SIGNALS
Nine (9) projects are rectangular rapid
flashing beacons (RRFBs). RRFBs are
human activated flashing lights that alert
drivers to crossing pedestrians or bicyclists.

Bicycle mixing zone. Virginia Gov; Arlington, VAMixing Zone.

Bicycle box. GHD; Sacramento, CA.

Existing crossing along the Santa Fe Byway
Proposed crossing at Olive Avenue and Butterfield
Stage Corridor
5 Recommendations
40 PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS
Four (4) of the bicycle crossing projects are protected intersections. Protected intersections lower traffic stress by allowing bicyclists to cross one leg of traffic at a time with pedestrians, rather mixing with traffic to access the left turn pocket. They do this by providing a painted or physically protected space at each corner of the intersection for bicyclists to wait for the light.

Protected intersections are also recommended where two-way bikeways transition to oneway bikeways The conceptual rendering below illustrates a protected intersection at Westwood Street and Morton Avenue. This protected intersection would provide a transition between a protected bikeway (Class IV) on Westwood Avenue and a buffered bicycle lane (Class II) on Morton Avenue.

Rendering of the proposed protected intersection at Westwood Street and Morton Avenue.

5 Recommendations
42 5.2 Pedestrian Projects
The recommended pedestrian projects
include sidewalks (i.e., school sidewalk
gaps) and pedestrian crossings at
intersections.

The pedestrian projects are shown in
Figure 13 and listed in Appendix E. The
pedestrian projects are summarized
below.

Sidewalks
The sidewalk gap projects were developed
consistent with plan Goal 1 (Develop a
Complete Active Transportation Network),
which includes identifying and closing
sidewalk gaps close to key destinations,
including schools.

For each school, sidewalk gaps along the
school frontage and local streets
immediately adjacent to the school, as well
as arterial and collector streets within 0.25-
mile of the school (i.e., not separated by
barriers, such as highways and
waterbodies), were identified.

There are 231 school sidewalk gap projects.,
shown in Figure 13. A density of school
sidewalk gaps surround or are adjacent to
the following schools:
 West Putnam Elementary School
(Putnam Avenue)
 Summit Charter Collegiate High School
(Thurman Avenue), Summit Charter
Intermediate Academy Middle School
(Thurman Avenue), Burton Elementary
School (Morton Avenue), and Jim
Maples Academy Middle School
(Westwood Street)
 Burton Middle School (Elderwood
Street) and William R. Buckley
Elementary School (Westfield Avenue)
 Sequioa Middle School (Prospect
Street) and Westfield Elementary
School (Pioneer Avenue)
 Pioneer Middle School, Porterville
College, and Vandalia Elementary
School (College Avenue).

Downtown Porterville, which is within

0.25-miles of several schools, has a very
limited number of school sidewalk gaps.
5 Recommendations
43 Pedestrian Crossings
To identify pedestrian crossing projects,
areas with a history of collisions (i.e.,
collision hotspots), school proximity, and
community support were evaluated.

As listed in Appendix E, there are 27
pedestrian crossing projects
recommended. As shown in Figure 13, the
pedestrian crossing projects are spread
throughout the City, with a density of
projects in Downtown Porterville.

PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNAL TIMING
Most projects (19 projects) are at signalized
intersection and include high-visibility
crosswalks, with 13 projects including
leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs). LPIs
give pedestrians the opportunity to enter
the crosswalk at an intersection 3-7
seconds before vehicles are given a green
indication, encouraging yielding.

MODIFIED TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Four (4) projects include modified traffic
operations (e.g., controlled left turns and
right turns only), to enhance pedestrian
safety. These intersections include:
 Olive Avenue and D Street
 Olive Avenue and Hockett Street
 Putnam Avenue and Jaye Street
 Newcomb Street and Tomah Avenue
Additional types of pedestrian crossing
improvements are detailed in Appendix D.

High Visibility Crosswalk. GHD; San Diego, CA.

LPI. SFMTA; San Francisco, CA.

W ::J
G""' A,e
1 ���
�
�
��-.�,
Ii--�
� ,.<5''1> __,_ ...... _._,,�
W Henderson-Ave-----""P'!�"'-= =_.__n:',___.__-'-
tn
-c:,
0 0 ·-... -----�
z
t--- -+ - --+--���-_,-.---W·ScrantonAve
Data Disclaimer
This map contains overlapping pedestrian crossing points.

Paper Size ANSI A
0 - - - 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 5,500
US Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAO 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
<!3:M b d
ll;ghdnetlghd\US\Azure\EastUSI 12645()55\Maps\Workingl 12645065_ExistingConditions\ 12645065_ExistingConditions.aprx - 12645065_.XX_Sidewalk_ Gaps Print date 150ct2025-10:50
]
0 o ----+­
Vl

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Legend
0 --+-
c::::J
c=J
c=J

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
Pedestrian Crossings
School Sidewalk Gaps
Streets
Highways
Railroad
City Limits
Parks
Schools
Water Bodies
Project No. 12645065
Revision No.

Date 10/15/2025
FIGURE 13
Data source City of Porterville, County of Tulare, US Census, ESRI. Created by: kkubose 5 Recommendations
45 5.3 Non-Infrastructure
Recommendations
Non-infrastructure improvements are
varied and can include safety and
education programs (e.g., walk audit and
bike and walk to school days), vocational
and technical trainings (e.g., crossing
guard and bicycle repair programs),
partnerships (e.g., school contests), and
evaluation (e.g., demonstration projects
and count evaluation program).

As listed in Appendix D, there are 21 noninfrastructure improvements available to the City, to implement as desired. Of these,
there are three (3) non-infrastructure
recommendations, which were identified
and supported by the community.

The three (3) non-infrastructure
recommendations include:
 Bicycle Patrol Program
 Lighting Program
 Education Campaign
Bicycle Patrol Program
The bicycle patrol program, also referred to
as cops on bikes, encourages law
enforcement officers to ride bicycles while
on patrol. This program is geared to
improving officers’ duties as it calls on law
enforcement to pay close attention to their
surroundings, allows them to interact with
their community, and enhances officers’
mobility.

Lighting Program
Lighting illuminates walkways to increase
comfort for people walking and improves
visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists for
drivers. Lighting programs encourage
community members to host “night
walks” where the public walk their town at
night to identify lighting needs.

Education Campaign
An education campaign uses print and
uses print and digital media, radio, and
television to educate the community
about safe driving, bicycling, and walking
behavior. The campaign could be used to
target behaviors that are particularly
prevalent in the City. During public
outreach, the community highlighted the
need for education for bicyclists and
pedestrians (e.g., at intersections) to
promote roadway safety.
46 6 Implementation
This chapter presents the ATP
implementation plan and includes project
prioritization, implementation
opportunities, cost estimates, and funding
opportunities.

6.1 Project Prioritization
All projects were established based on the
vision and goals, existing conditions,
needs, and community input. However,
with limited resources, not all projects can
be implemented at the same time. Project
prioritization helps the City allocate limited
funds to projects that have the most
benefit to the community.

Project prioritization was based on a series
of prioritization measures which are typical
grant criteria, modified to fit the context of
the City. Other considerations, such as
available funding, may subsequently
modify prioritization.

Prioritization measures are outlined in
Table 2. For each prioritization measure, if
the measure was met, the full points listed
were allocated. Considering all eight
prioritization measures, each project can
score up to 25 points total.

Project prioritization is provided in
Appendix F and summarized below.
6 Implementation
47 Bicycle Projects
Of the 48 bikeway projects, five projects,
shown in Table 3, were prioritized.
 Henderson Avenue bike lane (Bikeway
#s 10 and 9)
 Olive Avenue protected bikeway
(Bikeway #26)
 Westwood Street protected bikeway
(Bikeway # 44)
 Indiana Street bike lane (Bikeway # 11)
These projects are part of a loop of onstreet bikeways that connect major destinations. These projects all score
points for safety, improving safe routes to
schools, connectivity to activity generators,
and transit mobility.

The improvements on Olive Avenue and
Westwood Street specifically will lower
bicycle stress, while the Henderson
Avenue bicycle lane will close a gap
between the Butterfield Stage Corridor to
the Santa Fe Byway.

Of the 39 bicycle crossing projects, five
projects were prioritized. All five of the top
projects scored 16 points and are located
on Olive Avenue, as shown in, Table 4. The
Olive Avenue bikeway projects received
community support throughout the
planning process and is the second
highest prioritized bikeway project. The
crossing projects support safer crossings
at Summit Charter Academy, Olive Street
Elementary School, and Porterville High
School. The projects are also all located
within 500 feet of a location with a severe
collision.

Pedestrian Projects
Of the 231 sidewalk (i.e., school sidewalk
gap) projects, 14 projects are prioritized.

Three projects scored the full 25 points
(Sidewalk #s 35-37) and 11 projects scored
23 points, as shown in Table 5.

All of the prioritized projects met seven out
of the eight measures. The top three
projects received community support,
differentiating them from the other
prioritized projects. Both Olive Avenue and
Prospect Street were consistently focused
on throughout community input
Of the 27 pedestrian crossing projects,
nine were prioritized. As shown in Table 6,
of the top projects, two projects scored 18
points (Crossing #s 1 and 9). Four of the
projects are located on Olive Avenue and
the top two are located on Bellview
Avenue and Morton Avenue.

All nine of the proposed crossing projects
scored the same on seven of the
measures. The top two projects received
points for the community input measure,
with Morton Avenue and Bellview Avenue
being directly identified by the
community.

Of the recommended prioritized crossings,
four of the projects focus on high visibility
crosswalks. LPIs and pedestrian median
islands are also projects identified
throughout the priority crossings.
6 Implementation
48 Table 2 – Prioritization Measures
Prioritization Measure Points
DAC
Projects located in a disadvantaged community (DAC), as defined by the Healthy Places Index (i.e., census track in the 25th percentile or less)
5 Safety Projects located within 500 feet of a location with a fatal or severe injury bicycle or pedestrian collision 5
Gap Closure Projects that close a gap between existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities 4
Safe Routes to
School (SRTS) Projects located within 0.25 miles of a school 4 Low Stress
Network
Bikeway projects that reduce the bike level of traffic stress (LTS) score to LTS 1 or 2, and sidewalk projects 3
Community Input Projects that address a challenge or include an improvement identified by the community during public engagement 2
Activity Generator
Projects located within 0.50-mile of an activity generator such as parks, civic facilities (library, community center, City Hall), grocery stores, or medical services
1 Transit Mobility Projects located within 0.25-mile of transit stops 1 Total 25
6 Implementation
49 Table 3 – Prioritized Bikeway Projects
Table 4 – Prioritized Bicycle Crossing Projects
Bikeway
#
Road Start End Project Total
Points
10 Henderson
Avenue
Indiana Street Plano Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) 22
26 Olive Avenue Westwood
Street
Plano Street Protected Bikeway
(Class IV)
21 44 Westwood Street Northern City
Limits
Olive
Avenue
Protected Bikeway
(Class IV)
19 11 Indiana Street Westfield
Avenue
North of
Olive
Avenue
Buffered Bicycle Lane
(Class II)
18 9 Henderson
Avenue
Newcomb
Street
Indiana
Street
Buffered Bicycle Lane
(Class II)
18 Bike
Crossing
#
Primary Road Cross
Road
Project Total
Points
22 Olive Avenue Mathew
Street
Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing
Zones, Conflict markings
16 29 Olive Avenue E Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
16 30 Olive Avenue Butterfield
Stage
Corridor
RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 16
31 Olive Avenue D Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
16 34 Olive Avenue Santa Fe
Byway
RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 16
6 Implementation
50 Table 5 – Prioritized Sidewalk Projects
Sidewalk
#
Road Start End Project Total
Points
35 Olive Avenue 130 ft w/o
Highway 65
Highway 65 School Sidewalk Gap 25
36 Prospect Street Morton Ave 398 ft s/o
Morton Ave
School Sidewalk Gap 25
37 Prospect Street 435 ft s/o
Morton Ave
605 ft s/o
Morton Ave
School Sidewalk Gap 25
24 Westfield Avenue Beverly St Prospect St School Sidewalk Gap 23 27 Henderson
Avenue
340 ft e/o G St 691 ft e/o
G St
School Sidewalk Gap 23
29 Morton Avenue 144 ft w/o
Johnson Pl
212 ft w/o
Johnson Pl
School Sidewalk Gap 23
58 Villa Street 270 ft n/o
Morton Ave
188 ft n/o
Morton Ave
School Sidewalk Gap 23
59 Villa Street 128 ft s/o
Morton Ave
357 ft s/o
Morton Ave
School Sidewalk Gap 23
69 Plano Street Locust Ave Date Ave School Sidewalk Gap 23 80 Date Avenue Plano St Park St School Sidewalk Gap 23
96 Putnam Avenue Newcomb St 300 ft e/o
Newcomb St
School Sidewalk Gap 23
97 Putnam Avenue 300 ft e/o
Newcomb St
90 ft e/o
Lotas St
School Sidewalk Gap 23
147 Villa Street 250 ft s/o
Olive Ave
380 ft s/o
Olive Ave
School Sidewalk Gap 23
154 Belleview Avenue 200 ft e/o E St 300ft e/o
E St
School Sidewalk Gap 23
190 Newcomb Street 630 ft n/o
Morton Ave
Morton Ave School Sidewalk Gap 23
6 Implementation
51 Table 6 – Prioritized Pedestrian Crossing Projects
Ped
Crossing
#
Primary Road Cross Road Project Total
Points
1 Bellview Avenue E Street Signage 18
9 Morton Avenue El Granito Street/
E Street
High visibility crosswalk, curb
extensions, pedestrian median
island, RRFB
18 3 Plano Street Date Avenue High visibility crosswalks, LPI 16 5 Henderson
Avenue
Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 16
11 Olive Avenue Howland Street/
Carmelita Street
Curb extensions, pedestrian
median island
16 14 Olive Avenue F Street RRFB (overhead arm), signage, pedestrian median island
16 15 Olive Avenue D Street Controlled left turns (each leg) 16 16 Olive Avenue Hockett Street Right turn only 16
24 W Grand Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 16 6 Implementation
52 6.2 Implementation
Opportunities
The City should consider concurrent
roadway projects that may provide
opportunities to implement the ATP
projects. Beyond project prioritization,
there may be opportunities to implement
lower-cost and lower-complexity projects
in the interim.

Resurfacing and Reconstruction
Resurfacing and reconstruction can be
vehicles for implementing projects that
only require striping. These projects may
include, but are not limited to, Class II
Bicycle Lanes, Class III Bicycle Routes and
Bicycle Boulevards, high visibility
crosswalks, and narrowing travel lanes.

Even if these projects are not on the
prioritized projects, they may be lower
cost and easily implemented alongside
current restriping and repaving efforts.

Reconstruction
Reconstruction projects, or projects that
address issues at a greater roadway depth
than resurfacing, are another way to
implement active transportation projects.

This may include projects that require
roadway reconfiguration and traffic
calming, such as curb extensions, Raised
crosswalks, protected bikeways, and more.

6.3 Cost Estimates
Planning-level construction cost estimates
are provided in Table 7 to Table 12.

These cost estimates do not include
design, environmental work, right-of-way
acquisition, permits, or other preconstruction activities. They do not consider project- or location-specific
factors that may significantly affect costs,
such as retaining structures, major
drainage or utility work, moving roadway
centerlines, etc. Actual project costs may
differ from these cost estimates.

Additional items considered for all cost
estimates include:
 Construction Staking and Layout 5%
 Construction Contingency 20%
 Traffic Control 5%
 Erosion and Sediment Control 2%
 Project Contingency 32%
If a project includes infrastructure
involving earthwork, grading, or concrete
improvements, the following items were
considered as well:
 Minor Drainage 10%
 Minor Utility Work 10%
 Project Contingency 52%
Bicycle Projects

BIKEWAYS
Bikeways were grouped by type. Class II
and III were grouped together (signage
and striping only) and were assigned the
partial contingency of 32%. Class I and IV
were grouped together (due to the
infrastructure requirements) and were
assigned the full contingency of 52%.
6 Implementation
53 Table 7 – Cost Estimates: Class I Shared-Use Paths and Class IV Bikeways ID Road Start End Class
Type
Cost
Estimate
1 Avenue 128 Friant Kern Canal Butterfield Stage
Corridor
I $19,260,987
2 Brian
Street
Westwood Street Lombardi Street I $717,559
3 Butterfield
Stage
Corridor
College Avenue City Limit (Gibbons
Avenue)
I $1,924,480
5 Conner
Street
Morton Avenue Olive Avenue I $1,778,411
7 Friant Kern
Canal
Avenue 178 Avenue 128 I $24,897,72
6 15 Jaye Street Putnam Avenue Orange Avenue IV $803,474 16 Kessing
Street
Morton Avenue Putnam Avenue IV $368,054
23 Morton
Avenue
Newcomb Street Prospect Street IV $1,742,035
25 Newcomb
Street
Henderson Avenue Morton Avenue IV $1,750,805
26 Olive
Avenue
Westwood Street Plano Street IV $9,827,478
29 Palm
Street
Grand Avenue Morton Avenue IV $351,934
35 Scranton
Avenue
West Street Westwood Street I $1,795,207
36 Tule River
Parkway
SR 65 Westwood Street I $7,102,844
37 Tule River
Parkway
Westwood Street Friant Kern Canal I $5,134,122
44 Westwood
Street
Northern City Limits Olive Avenue IV $2,504,425
47 West
Street
Scranton Avenue Avenue 128 I $3,535,650
48 Butterfield
Stage
Corridor
W. North Grand Ave Strathmore (Avenue
196)
I $12,541,500
Note: These estimates do not include design, environmental work, right of way acquisition, permits, or other preconstruction activities. They do not consider project or location specific factors that may significantly affect costs such as retaining structures, major drainage or utility work, moving roadway centerlines, etc. Actual project costs may differ from the planning estimates provided. These projects were assigned a 52% project contingency depending on the nature of the work.
6 Implementation
54 Table 8 – Cost Estimates and Additional Items: Class I and Class IV Bikeways Item Quantity Unit Price Total
Class 1 & 4 (see Table 7) $96,036,692
Subtotal $96,036,692
Minor Drainage 10% $9,603,669
Minor Utility Work 10% $9,603,669
Construction Staking and Layout 5% $4,801,835
Contingency 20% $19,207,338
Traffic Control 5% $4,801,835
Erosion and Sediment Control 2% $1,920,734
Total $145,975,772
Note: These estimates do not include design, environmental work, right of way acquisition, permits, or other preconstruction activities. They do not consider project or location specific factors that may significantly affect costs such as retaining structures, major drainage or utility work, moving roadway centerlines, etc. Actual project costs may differ from the planning estimates provided. These projects were assigned a 32% or 52% project contingency depending on the nature of the work.

Table 9 – Cost Estimates: Class II and Class III Bikeways ID Road Start End Class
Type
Cost
Estimate
4 Castle
Avenue
Lombardi Street Newcomb Street III $39,352
6 Elderwood
Street
Westfield Avenue Porter Creek
Avenue
III $16,633
8 Henderson
Avenue
Westwood Street Newcomb Street II $292,351
9 Henderson
Avenue
Newcomb Street Indiana Street II $291,294
10 Henderson
Avenue
Indiana Street Plano Street II $429,404
11 Indiana
Street
Westfield Avenue North of Olive
Avenue
II $414,344
12 Indiana
Street
North of Olive Avenue Devon Avenue II $45,363
13 Indiana
Street
Devon Avenue Tule River Parkway III $14,850
14 Jaye Street Henderson Avenue Grand Avenue III $13,641 17 Lombardi
Street
Castle Avenue Brian Street III $6,164
18 Lowery
Street
Morton Avenue Putnam Avenue III $13,573
6 Implementation
55 ID Road Start End Class
Type
Cost
Estimate
19 Mathew
Street
Castle Avenue Henderson Ave III $52,975
20 Mathew
Street
Della Avenue Clare Avenue II $41,151
21 Morton
Avenue
Westwood Street Plano Street II $1,013,387
22 Morton
Avenue
Plano Street Conner St II $371,364
24 Newcomb
Street
W North Grand
Avenue
Tule River Parkway II $867,620
27 Orange
Street
Jaye Street E Street III $18,034
28 Orange
Street
E Street Butterfield Stage
Corridor
II $16,900
30 Plano
Street
Reid Avenue Morton Avenue II $470,815
31 Porter
Creek
Avenue
Elderwood Street Westwood Street III $13,715
32 Prospect
Street
W North Grand
Avenue
Pioneer Avenue II $143,220
33 Putnam
Avenue
Conner Street Tulsa Street III $39,550
34 Reid
Avenue
Plano Street Butterfield Stage
Corridor
II $60,506
38 W Grand
Avenue
Indiana Street Jaye Street II $141,223
39 W North
Grand
Avenue
Friant Kern Canal West of Newcomb
Street
II $212,976
40 W North
Grand
Avenue
West of Newcomb
Street
Butterfield Stage
Corridor
II $250,780
41 Walnut
Avenue
Butterfield Stage
Corridor
Santa Fe Byway III $18,789
42 Westfield
Ave
Indiana Street Butterfield Stage
Corridor
III $22,550
43 Westfield
Avenue
Elderwood Street Mathew Street III $39,831
45 Westwood
Street
Olive Avenue Tule River Parkway II $115,919
46 Westwood
Street
Tule River Parkway City Limit (Scranton
Avenue)
II $433,012
6 Implementation
56 Note: These estimates do not include design, environmental work, right of way acquisition, permits, or other preconstruction activities. They do not consider project or location specific factors that may significantly affect costs such as retaining structures, major drainage or utility work, moving roadway centerlines, etc. Actual project costs may differ from the planning estimates provided. These projects were assigned a 32% project contingency depending on the nature of the work.

Table 10 – Cost Estimates and Additional Items: Class II and Class III Bikeways Item Quantity Unit Price Total
Class 2 & 3 (see Table 9) $5,921,287
Subtotal $5,921,287
Construction Staking and Layout 5% $296,064
Contingency 20% $1,184,257
Traffic Control 5% $296,064
Erosion and Sediment Control 2% $118,426
Total $7,816,099
Note: These estimates do not include design, environmental work, right of way acquisition, permits, or other preconstruction activities. They do not consider project or location specific factors that may significantly affect costs such as retaining structures, major drainage or utility work, moving roadway centerlines, etc. Actual project costs may differ from the planning estimates provided. These projects were assigned a 32% or 52% project contingency depending on the nature of the work.

BICYCLE CROSSINGS
Table 11 – Cost Estimates: Bicycle Crossings
ID Primary Road Cross Road Project Cost
Estimate
1 Westwood
Street
Henderson
Avenue
Protected intersection $1,334,500
2 Henderson
Avenue
Mathew Street RRFB $68,904
3 Henderson
Avenue
Newcomb
Street
Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes,
Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings
$215,424
4 Henderson
Avenue
Prospect
Street
Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
5 Henderson
Avenue
SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing
Zones, Conflict
$430,848
6 Henderson
Avenue
Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes,
Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings
$215,424
7 Henderson
Avenue
Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
8 Henderson
Avenue
Butterfield
Stage Corridor
RRFB or Pedestrian Median
Island
$203,756
6 Implementation
57 ID Primary Road Cross Road Project Cost
Estimate
9 Henderson
Avenue
Santa Fe
Byway
Pedestrian Median Island $203,756
10 Butterfield
Stage Corridor
Locust Street
(w/o
Butterfield
Stage
Corridor)
Trail Crossing $553,622
11 Westwood
Street
Morton
Avenue
Protected intersection $1,334,500
12 Morton Avenue Newcomb
Street
Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes,
Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings
$215,424
13 Morton Avenue Prospect
Street
Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
14 Morton Avenue Porter Road Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
15 Morton Avenue Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings
$215,424
16 Morton Avenue Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
$215,424
17 Morton Avenue Palm
Street/Kessing
Street
RRFB (Overhead Arm) $274,098
18 Morton Avenue Butterfield
Stage Corridor
RRFB or Pedestrian Median
Island
$176,946
19 Morton Avenue Santa Fe By
Way
RRFB or Pedestrian Median
Island
$176,946
20 Morton Avenue Plano Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings
$215,424
21 Westwood
Street
Olive Avenue Protected intersection $1,334,500
22 Olive Avenue Mathew Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings
$215,424
23 Olive Avenue Newcomb
Street
Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes,
Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings
$215,424
24 Olive Avenue SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing
Zones, Conflict
$215,424
25 Olive Avenue Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings,
$215,424
6 Implementation
58 ID Primary Road Cross Road Project Cost
Estimate
26 Olive Avenue Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
27 Olive Avenue Jaye Street Protected intersection $1,334,500 28 Olive Avenue G Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
29 Olive Avenue E Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes,
Mixing Zones, Conflict
markings
$215,424
30 Olive Avenue Butterfield
Stage Corridor
RRFB or Pedestrian Median
Island
$176,946
31 Olive Avenue D Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
32 Olive Avenue Main Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
33 Olive Avenue 2nd Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones,
Conflict markings
$215,424
34 Olive Avenue Santa Fe By
Way
RRFB or Pedestrian Median
Island
$176,946
35 Tule River
Parkway
Westwood
Street
RRFB or Pedestrian Median
Island
$176,946
36 Palm Street W Grand
Avenue
Green/White Paint, Mixing
Zones, Conflict
$215,424
37 Friant Kern
Canal
W North
Grand Avenue
Trail Crossing $1,140,000
38 W North Grand
Avenue
SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing
Zones, Conflict, Signage
$430,848
39 W North Grand
Avenue
Butterfield
Stage Corridor
RRFB or Pedestrian Median
Island
$176,946
Note: These estimates do not include design, environmental work, right of way acquisition, permits, or other preconstruction activities. They do not consider project or location specific factors that may significantly affect costs such as retaining structures, major drainage or utility work, moving roadway centerlines, etc. Actual project costs may differ from the planning estimates provided. These projects were assigned a 32% or 52% project contingency depending on the nature of the work.
6 Implementation
59 Pedestrian Projects

SIDEWALKS
Table 12 – Cost Estimates and Additional Items: Sidewalks Item Quantity Unit Price Total
Sidewalks (Linear Foot) 144,659 $380 $54,970,316
Subtotal $54,970,316
Minor Drainage 10% $5,497,032
Minor Utility Work 10% $5,497,032
Construction Staking and Layout 5% $2,748,516
Contingency 20% $10,994,063
Traffic Control 5% $2,748,516
Erosion and Sediment Control 2% $1,099,406
Total $83,554,881
Note: These estimates do not include design, environmental work, right of way acquisition, permits, or other preconstruction activities. They do not consider project or location specific factors that may significantly affect costs such as retaining structures, major drainage or utility work, moving roadway centerlines, etc. Actual project costs may differ from the planning estimates provided. These projects were assigned a 52% project contingency depending on the nature of the work. Price per Linear Foot assumes construction of curb, gutter, and 6-foot-wide sidewalk, including sawcut and all base materials.
6 Implementation
60 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Table 13 – Cost Estimates: Pedestrian Crossings
ID Primary Road Cross Road Project Cost
Estimate
1 Bellview Avenue E Street Signage $9,900
2 Bellview Avenue Main Street High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions,
pedestrian median
island, RRFB
$228,690
3 Plano Street Date Avenue High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$60,060
4 Henderson
Avenue
Newcomb Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$54,912
5 Henderson
Avenue
Prospect Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$67,267
6 Henderson
Avenue
SR 65 High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$53,196
7 Morton Avenue Westwood Street High visibility
crosswalks, add
crosswalk to south leg
LPI
$35,904
8 Morton Avenue Villa Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$42,900
9 Morton Avenue El Granito Street/E
Street
High visibility crosswalk,
curb extensions, ped
median island, RRFB
$409,526
10 Newcomb Street Mulberry Avenue High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, ped
median island, RRFB
$409,724
11 Olive Avenue Howland
Street/CarmelitaStreet
Curb extensions,
pedestrian median
island
$188,252
12 Olive Avenue Main Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$51,480
13 Olive Avenue 2nd Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$19,734
14 Olive Avenue F Street RRFB (overhead arm),
signage, pedestrian
median island
$190,076
15 Olive Avenue D Street Controlled left turns
(each leg)
$5,000
16 Olive Avenue Hockett Street Right turn only $26,664
17 Orange Avenue Jaye Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$39,468
6 Implementation
61 ID Primary Road Cross Road Project Cost
Estimate
18 Pioneer Avenue Prospect Street High visibility
crosswalks, add
crosswalk on north leg,
curb extensions
$441,830
19 Putnam Avenue Jaye Street Controlled left turns
(one leg)
$5,000
20 Putnam Avenue Newcomb Street Signal $400,000
21 Putnam Avenue Indiana Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$44,616
22 Putnam Avenue D Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$36,036
23 Putnam Avenue Main Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$116,181
24 W Grand
Avenue
Prospect Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$43,586
25 Westfield
Avenue
Mathew Street High visibility
crosswalks, curb
extensions
$510,933
26 Westfield
Avenue
Prospect Street High visibility
crosswalks, LPI
$41,699
27 Newcomb Street Tomah Ave Right in, right out (all
legs)
$60,192
Note(s):
* LPI is listed above; however, costs are not incorporated above. LPI, including signal timing, is estimated at $100,000.
* These estimate do not include design, environmental work, right of way acquisition, permits, or other preconstruction activities. They do not consider project or location specific factors that may significantly affect costs such as retaining structures, major drainage or utility work, moving roadway centerlines, etc. Actual project costs may differ from the planning estimates provided. These projects were assigned a 32% or 52% project contingency depending on the nature of the work.
6 Implementation
62 6.4 Funding
There are a variety of funding sources and
opportunities available to transportation.

Some are limited to new construction,
while others are aimed towards
maintenance of existing facilities. Many
projects are funded through multiple
sources and not one single source.

Local and Regional Sources

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM(RTIP)
The Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP) is a programming
document that includes a list of
transportation projects in the Tulare
County region proposed for funding. The
RTIP is updated every two years and
includes five years of programming.

The primary purpose of the RTIP is to help
implement the Tulare County region’s
adopted long range Regional
Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which
guides the region’s long term
transportation investments. The RTP/SCS
is developed through an extensive public
participation process and reflects the
unique mobility, sustainability, and air
quality needs of the Tulare County region.

The projects contained within the RTIP will
help enhance the transportation
environment for current and future
generations; maximize mobility and
accessibility; increase safety and security;
preserve the efficiency of the existing
transportation system, support economic
vitality; maximize cost effectiveness; and
improve the quality of life for residents.

MEASURE R
Measure R is a half-cent sales tax approved
by Tulare County voters on November 7,
2006, to fund transportation projects for a
duration of 30 years. The measure aims to
improve roads, bike paths, and
interchanges.

State Funding Sources

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
The Active Transportation Program was
created by Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) to encourage
increased use of active modes of
transportation, such as walking and biking.

The Active Transportation Program
consolidated various transportation
programs into a single program and was
originally funded at about $123 million a
year from a combination of state and
federal funds. SB 1 directs an additional
$100 million annually to the Active
Transportation Program (see SB 1 – Road
Repair and Accountability Act, below).

Application cycles occur approximately
every two years, typically in late spring or
summer. Applications for Cycle 8 of the
Active Transportation Program open in
March 2026 and are due in June.

The goals of the Active Transportation
Program include, but are not limited to,
increasing the proportion of trips
accomplished by walking and biking,
increasing the safety and mobility of nonmotorized users, advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse
gas (GHG) reduction goals, enhancing
public health, and providing a broad
spectrum of projects to benefit many
types of users including disadvantaged
communities. The Active Transportation
6 Implementation
63 Program funds five project types,
including:
 Infrastructure projects
 Plans
 Non-infrastructure (NI) projects
(educations and encouragement
programs)
 Infrastructure and NI combination
projects (capital projects with an
educational component)
 Quick-build projects (temporary capital
projects with low to moderate costs
that last one to five years.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE

COMMUNTIES (AHSC) PROGRAM
Funding from the AHCS program is
administered by the California
Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). AHCS fund projects
that seek to integrate low-cardon
transportation and affordable housing.

CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
(OTS) GRANTS.

Every year, OTS provides funding to
programmatic efforts that aim to prevent
roadway fatalities and serious injuries.

Eligible project types include programs
that seek to promote safety and
enforcement.

OTS administers grants annually. Call for
projects is typically in December and
applications close January 31.

CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS RECREATIONAL

TAILS PROGRAM
The California Department of Parks and
Recreation (CDRP) and the Caltrans Active
Transportation Program administer
funding every two years for developing
and maintaining recreational trails and
trails related facilities.

Eligible projects include acquisition of
easements and fee simple title to property
for recreational trail or trail corridors,
development and rehabilitation of trails,
trailside and trailhead facilities, and
construction of new trails. Funding is
allocated every two years.

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
GRANTS
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants are available annually to
communities for planning, study, and
design work to identify and evaluate
projects, including conducting outreach or
improving pilot projects. Eligible projects
aim to support the State’s GHG reduction
targets. Communities are typically
required to provide an 11.47 percent local
match, with staff time or in-kind donations
eligible to be used towards the match.

Of the total funds allocated to the
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant
program, a majority of funds are reserved
for Sustainable Community grants for local
and regional agencies to implement
regional transportation plans (RTPs),
Sustainable Community Strategies (SCSs)
or other projects that support statewide
emissions goals. A smaller portion of funds
is allocated towards Strategies Partnership
Grants to fund projects that address
statewide, interregional, or regional
6 Implementation
64 transportation deficiencies on the State
highway system in partnership with
Caltrans.

SENATE BILL 1: LOCAL PARTNERSHIP

PROGRAM
SB 1 created the Local Partnership
Program (LPP), which is a state funding
program run by the California
Transportation Commission. It provides
formulaic funding and competitive
funding opportunities to local and regional
agencies that have passed taxes, tolls, or
feeds dedicated solely to transportation
improvements. LPP funds can be used for
a wide variety of transportation purposes
including roadway rehabilitation and
construction, transit capital and
infrastructure, bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, and green infrastructure.

The Program has a two-year funding cycle.

Federal Funding Sources

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
(HSIP)
Every two years, Caltrans allocates HSIP
funds for projects that aim to reduce
roadway fatalities and serious injuries. A
wide variety of projects are eligible for
HSIP funding, including any work on a
public road publicly owned pedestrian or
bicycle path. Projects may not require the
acquisition of significant right of way (not
more than 10% of construction costs).

HSIP funding is administered every two
years and the next anticipated call for
project swill be in 2027 for Cycle 13 of
funding.

SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A)
GRANTS
The SS4A funding program was
established following passage of BIL in
2021, with the first competitive application
cycle commencing in 2022. Funding will
be available through 2026.

Local government agencies may directly
apply to the program, with funding being
provided in three categories: Action Plans,
Supplemental Planning, and
Implementation Grants. Applications for all
three categories must be focused on
implementing complete streets which will
ultimately reduce serious injuries and
fatalities for roadway users. Action Plan
grants fund development of a qualifying
Plan to support complete streets and
reduction of roadway fatalities/serious
injuries. Supplemental Planning activities
include follow-up efforts to further the
existing Action Plans. Implementation
Grants, which implement activities from
existing action plans, including
constructing roadway safety treatments,
including systemic safety fixes,
constructing complete streets facilities
such as walking and bicycling facilities,
and non-infrastructure program activities
to support the infrastructure investments.
6 Implementation
65 CARBON REDUCTION PROGRAM (CRP)
The CRP, established by the BIL, provides
federal funding for projects designed to
reduce transportation emissions from onroad highway sources. CRP funds may be used for transportation alternative projects
including, but not limited to, the
construction, planning, and design of onroad and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
nonmotorized forms of transportation.

CRP funding is available on an annual
basis between 2022 and 2026 and is
apportioned to states, MPOs, and local
agencies based on population using the
2020 U.S. Census. State CRP funds are
awarded through the State Highway
Operations and Protection Program
(SHOPP). Eligible projects should be
identified by the State with support from
MPOs, RTPAs, tribal nations and tolling
authorities. Local CRP funds are
distributed by MPOs through a
competitive application process. In Tulare
County, local funds are distributed by
TCAG.
1 Appendix A
Existing Conditions
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
i
Table of Contents

1.1 Local Context .....................................................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Transportation Behavior ...........................................................................................................................................................6

1.3 Transportation Network........................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Level of Traffic Stress .................................................................................................................................................................13

1.5 Safety.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table Index
Table 1 – Pedestrian LTS Criteria...........................................................................................................................................................18 Appendix A: Existing Conditions
ii
Figure Index
Figure 1 – Land Use..........................................................................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 – Zoning ...........................................................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 – Points of Interest...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4 – SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities.........................................................................................................................6 Figure 5 – Work Trips in Porterville.......................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 6 – Drove Alone by Trip Purpose Trips in Porterville.................................................................................................7 Figure 7 – Roadway Network....................................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 8 – Existing Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................12 Figure 9 – Types of Bicyclists...................................................................................................................................................................14 Figure 10 – Bicycle LTS.................................................................................................................................................................................16 Figure 11 – Pedestrian LTS ........................................................................................................................................................................20 Figure 12 – Total Collisions (2014-2023)............................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 13 – Bicyclist Collisions by Collision Type and Severity......................................................................................... 22 Figure 14 – Bicyclist Collisions by Most Common PCF Violation Categories ........................................................23 Figure 15 – Bicycle Collisions by Intersection/Segment and Severity ........................................................................24 Figure 16 – Bicycle Collisions by Illumination Level................................................................................................................24 Figure 17 – Bicycle Collisions, All..........................................................................................................................................................26 Figure 18 – Bicycle Collisions, Fatal and Severe.........................................................................................................................27 Figure 19 – Bicyclist Collisions, Age of Victims ...........................................................................................................................28 Figure 20 – Pedestrian Collisions by Collision Type and Severity..................................................................................29 Figure 21 – Pedestrian Collisions by Most Common PCF Violation Categories...................................................29 Figure 22 – Pedestrian Collisions by Intersection/Segment and Severity................................................................31 Figure 23 – Pedestrian Collisions by Illumination Level ....................................................................................................... 31 Figure 24 – Pedestrian Collisions, All................................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 25 – Pedestrian Collisions, Fatal and Severe ...............................................................................................................34 Figure 26 – Pedestrian Collisions, Age of Victims .................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix A: Existing Conditions
1 Appendix A: Existing Conditions
This chapter presents existing conditions in
Porterville, including the existing local
context, transportation behavior,
transportation network, level of traffic stress,
and safety.

The analysis of existing conditions is the first
step to developing a safe, connected active
transportation network. Based on existing
conditions and public input, active
transportation network needs and project
recommendations will be developed.

1.1 Local Context
Land Use
Land use in the City is shown in Figure 1. Generally, the dominant land use is single family residential, with supporting commercial, shopping center, and public/quasi-public land uses.

Similar to other Central Valley communities, the City is surrounded by rural/agriculture/conservation land uses.

Zoning in the City is shown in Figure 2. Compared to land use, zoning is similar, with the exception of infill development in the center of the community, including high-density residential along Olive Avenue (e.g., between SR 65 and Plano Street). Also, very low density residential and industrial park land uses on the urban fringe. These differences are consistent with the City of Porterville 2030 General Plan (2008), which notes the City’s commitment to clearly defined urban edges, to prevent sprawl and protect environmentally sensitive areas.

Key Destinations
Points of interest in the City are shown in Figure 3. A large shopping center node, consisting of Save Mart, Porterville Plaza, Target, and Walmart, is located in the vicinity of the SR 65/Henderson Avenue intersection. Shopping centers are located in other areas of the community as well, including along Olive Avenue and SR 190. Downtown Porterville also hosts key points of interest, including Porterville City Hall, Porterville Public Library, Porterville Transit Center, and county courts. A health care node, including Sierra View Medical Center (hospital), is located in the vicinity of the Putnam Avenue/Pearson Drive intersection.

Source: GHD, 2025
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
2 Figure 1 – Land Use
Source: City of Porterville 2030 General Plan, 2008
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
3 Figure 2 – Zoning

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
4 Figure 3 – Points of Interest

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
5 Demographics

POPULATION
According to the American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 5-year Estimates, which derives data from the US Census, the current population in the City is 62,623 people.

The City of Porterville 2030 General Plan (2008) notes a City population of 45,220 people.

Compared to ACS data, the City population has grown 38 percent over the past 19 years, or an average annual growth of 2 percent.

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Disadvantaged communities (DACs) in California, often representing California’s most burdened communities, are specifically targeted for investments to improve public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity. Such investments include Senate Bill (SB) 535 (2012), which established minimum funding levels to DACs and gave the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) the responsibility of identifying DACs. Although various criteria can be used to identify DACs, CalEPA identifies DACs using the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool 4.0 (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). CalEPA uses four categories to identify DACs1
:
 Census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0  Census tracts lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 due to data gaps, but receiving the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 cumulative pollution burden scores
 Census tracts identified in the 2017 DAC designation as disadvantaged, regardless of their scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0
 Lands under the control of federally recognized Tribes As shown in Figure 4, according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, a majority of the City is designated as a DAC, ranked within the 80th – 90th and 90th – 100th percentiles of DACS. The northwestern portion of the community is not disadvantaged and ranks within the 50th – 60th and the 60 – 70th percentiles.
1 California Environmental Protection Agency. Final Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to SB 535 (May 2022). https://calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/ Appendix A: Existing Conditions
6 Figure 4 – SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: CalEnviorScreen 4.0 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map, 2025

1.2 Transportation Behavior
Work Trips
Travel behavior information was sourced from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 5-year Estimates. ACS data is limited to work trips for employees aged 16-years and above.

ACS data for work trips in Porterville is shown in Figure 5. According to ACS data, most trips (95 percent) are by auto (i.e., 78 percent drove alone and 17 percent carpooled), with other modes accounting for 1 percent or less each.

Figure 5 – Work Trips in Porterville
Source: ACS data, 2025 5-year Estimates

78.3%

17.1%

0.3%

0.1%

1.3%

0.5%
Drove alone
Carpooled
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)
Bicycle
Walked
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
7 All Trips
To supplement ACS data, which is limited to work trips, Replica data was used for all trips.

Replica uses location-based services, in addition to US Census data and traffic count information, to provide data about mode, trip purpose, and origin/destination information.

Replica uniquely reports chained trips, meaning that trips with multiple parts are reported as separate trips. For example, if someone drives to work but walks to lunch, Replica counts this as two trips.

According to Replica data, for all trips in Porterville, the majority (88 percent) are by auto (i.e., 65 percent drove alone and 23 percent carpooled), 9 percent are by walking, and 2 percent are by freight, with other modes accounting for less than 1 percent each.

Replica data for drove alone trips is shown in Figure 6. As shown, beyond home trips (38 percent), shopping, working, and eating trips are popular, at 18 percent, 16 percent, and 11 percent, respectively. Replica data also notes these trips as being the most common short trips (i.e., less than 2 miles), indicating opportunity to shift these trips from auto to other modes.

Figure 6 – Drove Alone by Trip Purpose Trips in Porterville Source: Replica data, Spring 2024

1.5%

2.4%

2.7%

2.9%

7.1%

10.8%

16.2%

18.0%

38.4%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Other
Recreation
School
Errands
Social
Eat
Work
Shop
Home
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
8 1.3 Transportation Network
Roads and Highways
The City roadway network is shown in Figure 7. Street types include highways, arterials, collectors, and local streets. Highways include SR 65 and SR 190, with portions designated as freeways. Arterials are the prevailing street type, with major arterials (e.g., Henderson Avenue/SR 65 and Olive Avenue/ SR 65) providing access to regional freeways/highways and minor arterials providing mobility through the City. Across the roadway network, the percentage of different roadway classifications is as follows:
 17.9 percent of roadways are arterials
 5.9 percent of roadways are collectors
 76.1 percent of roadways are local
The roadway network is based on a traditional grid pattern, with slight modifications of suburban curvilinear and cul-de-sac streets in the western portion of the City. The roadway network includes several Tule River overcrossings (bridges), one SR 65 overcrossing (bridge) (i.e., Westfield Avenue/SR 65), several SR 65 undercrossings, and one SR 190 undercrossing (i.e., Main Street/SR 190).

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
9 Figure 7 – Roadway Network

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
10 The City roadway network carries a substantial number of trucks moving goods. The City has a designated truck route, ensuring design standards for such trucks with heavier loads and larger turning radii. The truck routes are as follows:
 SR 65
 SR 190
 Olive Avenue, from Westwood Street to E Street
 E Street, from Olive Avenue to Orange Avenue
 Orange Avenue, from E Street to Main Street
 Main Street, from Orange Avenue to SR 190
 Henderson Avenue, from SR 65 to east of Plano Street
 Plano Street, from Henderson Avenue to SR 190
 North Grand Avenue, from SR 65 to Main Street
 Main Street, from northern City limits to Henderson Avenue  Near Porterville Municipal Airport: Portions of Newcomb Street and Ave 128 Railroads
Porterville was historically connected to Fresno and Bakersfield via two railroad lines— Southern Pacific (east of Main Street) and Union Pacific (west of Main Street)—which primarily transported lumber and agricultural produce and goods. Both railroad rights-ofway were abandoned and purchased by the City. The former Southern Pacific railroad rightof-way has been partially converted to the Santa Fe Byway Trail. The former Union Pacific railroad right-of-way is planned to be converted to the Butterfield Trail (currently under construction).

Public Transit
Porterville Transit provides fixed route bus service and Dial-A-COLT paratransit service in the City, with weekday service from 7 am to 7 pm and Saturday service from 8 am to 5 pm.

Porterville Transit fixed route bus service consists of four to six bus routes. (As of July 2025, Routes 4 and 6 were halted, with the future of these routes currently unknown. Excluding Routes 4 and 6, four bus routes remain.) Connections to Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA) commuter bus service is provided at the Porterville Transit Center. TCRTA commuter bus service consists of four bus routes, with limited, mostly peak-hour service.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
11 Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities are shown in Figure 8. In the City, existing bicycle facilities include shared use paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class II), and bicycle routes (Class III).

Morton Road is the only street that provides east-west bicycle facility connectivity across the City, including across (under) SR 65. On Morton Road, bicycle facilities include bike lanes and bicycle routes.

The City has two shared use paths that provide transportation and recreational value to the community. The Santa Fe Byway Trail (from Henderson Avenue on the north to Walnut Avenue on the south) is located within the former Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way and is approximately 1.3 miles in length. The Tule River Parkway Trail (from the northeastern quadrant of SR 65/SR 190 to Main Street) is located along the Tule River and is approximately

2.0 miles in length. Both shared use paths provide high walking and bicycling comfort, in that they are completely separated from streets.

Additionally, bicycle support facilities (e.g., bicycle parking) are provided throughout the City.

Along the Santa Fe Byway trail, in addition to bicycle parking, bicycle repair stations are provided.

Pedestrian Facilities
Generally, sidewalks are well developed in the City; however, there are some locations where sidewalk gaps can be found, mostly undeveloped locations, industrial locations, and older commercial locations where paved parking abuts the roadway. Most developed arterial streets, especially those developed in recent years, feature sidewalk coverage with few gaps, accessible curb ramps, and marked crosswalks at major intersections.

Residential and commercial areas throughout the City feature sidewalk widths generally 4 to 5 feet along local streets and up to 10 feet along arterial streets. Sidewalks exist at and around schools, but gaps exist just outside of the schools, sometimes directly across the street in older neighborhoods.

Older neighborhoods and undeveloped areas lack sidewalks, whereas new developments have up to 7-feet-wide sidewalks.

In Downtown Porterville, sidewalk coverage is good, with relatively few sidewalk gaps existing at undeveloped lots, industrial centers, and adjacent to the former Union Pacific railroad right-of-way. While Main Street (from Morton Avenue to Olive Avenue) has sidewalk widths between 10- to 12-feet-wide, adjacent neighborhoods have sidewalk widths between 4- and 5-feet-wide. An unpaved path extends Locust Street, from E Street to S Hockett Street, and connects residential neighborhoods with Main Street.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
12 Figure 8 – Existing Bicycle Facilities

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
13 1.4 Level of Traffic Stress
This section provides information about the level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis and results for the pedestrian and bicycle networks in the City.

LTS is the perceived sense of danger associated with walking or bicycling in or adjacent to vehicular traffic. Studies have shown that traffic stress is one of the biggest deterrents to walking and bicycling. The less stressful the experience (the lower the LTS score), the more likely it is to appeal to a broader segment of the population.

Pedestrian and bicycle networks will attract a large portion of the community if they are designed to reduce traffic stress and connect to key destinations.

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are considered low stress if they have few interactions with vehicular traffic (such as slow, low-traffic neighborhood streets) or if greater separation is provided between people walking or bicycling and vehicular traffic.

LTS 1 indicates a street with low stress and high comfort for bicyclists/pedestrians, while LTS 4 reflects a street with high stress and low comfort for bicyclists/pedestrians.

LTS scores will be used to develop project recommendations to create lower stress networks for people of different ages, abilities, and comfort walking and bicycling in the City.

The following sections briefly describe the methodology used to perform the LTS analysis. For more details about LTS methodology, see Appendix C.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

METHODOLOGY
The bicycle LTS concept was first developed by Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon in 2012.2 Furth
further refined the bicycle LTS criteria for road segments several times, most recently in 2022.3
In 2022, Furth noted roads with one lane per direction and a prevailing speed of 0 to

23.5 miles per hour as LTS 1. As such, this bicycle LTS analysis focuses on roads with more than one lane per direction, which represent main throughfares in the City. Additionally, portions of highways where Caltrans has prohibited bicyclists have been excluded from the bicycle LTS analysis.

For the bicycle LTS analysis, road segments and intersection crossings were scored from LTS 1 to LTS 4, based on a variety of roadway infrastructure characteristics, including, but not limited to:
• Posted and prevailing speeds
• Number of vehicle lanes
2 Mekuria et al. 2012
3 See https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northeastern.edu/dist/e/618/files/2014/05/LTS-Tables-v2.2.pdf Appendix A: Existing Conditions
14 • Roadway functional classification
• Bicycle facility classification
• Separation between bicycle facility and vehicles
• Presence of parking alongside bike lanes
• Width of bike and parking lanes
• Intersection control (e.g., stop signs and traffic signals) • Presence and width of median refuge
The bicycle LTS analysis evaluated arterials, collectors, and portions of highways.

TYPES OF BICYCLISTS
Figure 9 describes each LTS score by bicycle user type or category. Research conducted by the Portland Bureau of Transportation indicates that most people in the United States would bike if dedicated bicycle facilities were provided. Based on their skill level and confidence, most people self-identify as one of the four “types of bicyclists” shown in Figure 9 below.4 Only a small percentage of Americans are willing to ride if no facilities are provided—the socalled “Strong and Fearless” bicyclists.

To better meet the needs of the “Interested but Concerned” bicyclists, it is recommended that communities work to decrease stress and improve comfort on their bikeway network.

LTS 1 and 2 roads are typically appealing to these bicyclists.

Figure 9 – Types of Bicyclists
4 Dill, J., & McNeil, N. (2013). Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better understanding of bicycling behavior and potential. Transportation Research Record, 2387(1), 129-138.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
15 RESULTS
For the bicycle LTS analysis, segment and crossing LTS scores are shown in Figure 10.

As noted, the bicycle LTS analysis evaluated arterials and collectors only, as local streets, which comprise 76 percent of the City roadway network, were assumed to score LTS 1 and be low stress for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Also, portions of SR 65 and SR 190 where bicycling is prohibited (e.g., between SR 190 and Henderson and between South Prospect Street and South Indiana Street, respectively) were excluded from the analysis. For a map of the City roadway network, please refer to Figure 7.

Segments
For the analysis, segments were defined as the portion of the roadway from one intersection to either the next intersection or the end of the roadway (if no next intersection was present).

Shared use paths (Class I) were considered segments.

For the analysis, segment LTS scores are as follows.
 1.8 percent scored LTS 1
 8.4 percent scored LTS 2
 29 percent scored LTS 3
 61 percent scored LTS 4
Segments that scored LTS 4 are high stress for bicyclists. This includes most arterials and collectors in the City. LTS 4 segments typically have high prevailing speeds and high average daily traffic (ADT) (or estimated ADT based on functional classification where traffic counts were not available). In the City, many arterials have two travel lanes in each direction, which impacts LTS as bicyclists are expected to share the roadway with drivers, with or without dedicated bicycle facilities and often alongside high vehicle speeds. In the City, there are few existing bicycle facilities.

Segments that scored LTS 3 may have lower prevailing speeds, lower ADT (or estimated ADT based on functional classification), or fewer lanes per direction than segments that scored LTS 4; however, stressful conditions for bicyclists may still exist.

As noted, local streets were excluded from the analysis but were assumed to score LTS 1.

Although local streets generally are low stress for bicyclists of all ages and abilities, local streets are surrounded by other high-stress roadways on which most adults do not feel comfortable riding a bicycle.

Crossings
For the analysis, crossings included signalized and un-signalized intersections (along arterials, collectors, and portions of highways only).

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
16 Figure 10 – Bicycle LTS

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
17 Crossing LTS is assessed based on the prevailing speed (or posted speed limit where prevailing speed is not available), ADT (or estimated ADT based on functional class where traffic counts are not present) and the total number of through and turn lanes a bicyclist must cross at an intersection. The presence of a median refuge may reduce LTS by allowing bicyclists to cross one direction of traffic at a time.

For the analysis, crossing LTS scores are as follows:
 21 percent scored LTS 1
 7 percent scored LTS 2
 16 percent scored LTS 3
 56 percent scored LTS 4
Crossings that scored LTS 4 are considered high stress for bicyclists. This represents the majority (56 percent) of the crossings. At LTS 4 crossings, bicyclists may have to cross four or more lanes of traffic. The level of bicycle stress at these intersections increases with prevailing speeds of over 35 miles per hour and/or high estimated ADT or are categorized as arterials.

At crossings that scored LTS 3, bicyclists may have to cross fewer lanes, prevailing speeds may be lower, and/or the road along which the crossings are located has a lower estimated ADT. Crossing on arterial roadways may score LTS 3, but estimated ADT must be lower.

Locations with traffic signals are generally assumed to be low stress and are assigned an LTS score of 1. However, some signalized intersections may feature characteristics that could increase traffic stress, such as more than six lanes a bicyclist must cross at an intersection. At these locations, it can be difficult for a bicyclist to cross the intersection within the green time allotted by the signal coordination.

Similarly to segment LTS, local roads make up a majority of the roadway network and provide less stressful crossing conditions for bicyclists. However, this local road network is surrounded by high stress crossings that most adults would not feel comfortable using.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
18 Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress

METHODOLOGY
The pedestrian LTS analysis used an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Analysis Procedures Manual pedestrian LTS criterion that focuses on general land use. The manual notes that general land use can create an overall positive effect on walkability and use of pedestrian facilities if destinations are frequent and convenient. Also, higher pedestrian use leads to driving behaviors that anticipate and/or accommodate pedestrians (e.g., drivers are more likely to yield to pedestrians). Conversely, land use can create a dampening effect to the point that it would not matter how well the pedestrian facilities are laid out or constructed; the desire to walk on a segment is diminished if the facility goes through a perceived unattractive/unsecure/noisy/too-busy area. The following table is Exhibit 14-30 from the manual.

Table 1 – Pedestrian LTS Criteria
Exhibit 14-30 Pedestrian LTS Based on General Land Use
Overall Land Use Pedestrian LTS
Residential, central business districts, neighborhood commercial, parks and other public facilities, governmental buildings/plazas, offices/office LTS 1
Low density development, rural subdivisions, unincorporated communities, strip commercial, mixed employment
LTS 2
Light industrial, big box/auto-oriented commercial LTS 3 Heavy industrial, intermodal facilities, freeway interchanges LTS 4 For the analysis, land use from the City of Porterville 2030 General Plan (2008) was grouped into the Exhibit 14-30 overall land use categories.

RESULTS
For the pedestrian LTS analysis, LTS scores are shown in Figure 11.

The majority of land use in the City is low stress for pedestrians at LTS 1 (53 percent). This includes developed areas of the community, such as residential and neighborhood commercial areas, and the central business district (Downtown Porterville).

LTS 2 areas could be low stress for pedestrians as well. However, LTS 2 includes low-density development and rural subdivision areas, which could lack sidewalks, leading to lower levels of pedestrian comfort and use. Also, the desire to walk could be diminished due to less dense origins and destinations.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
19 LTS 3 and LTS 4 areas are more stressful for pedestrians and include industrial areas that are mostly located on the urban fringe.

For the analysis, LTS scores are as follows:
 53 percent scored LTS 1
 43 percent scored LTS 2
 1 percent scored LTS 3
 3 percent scored LTS 4
The majority of land use in the City is low stress for pedestrians at LTS 1 (53 percent). This includes developed areas of the community, such as residential and neighborhood commercial areas, and the central business district (Downtown Porterville).

LTS 2 areas could be low stress for pedestrians as well. However, LTS 2 includes low-density development and rural subdivision areas, which could lack sidewalks, leading to lower levels of pedestrian comfort and use. Also, the desire to walk could be diminished due to less dense origins and destinations.

LTS 3 and LTS 4 areas are more stressful for pedestrians and include industrial areas that are mostly located on the urban fringe.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
20 Figure 11 – Pedestrian LTS

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
21 1.5 Safety
Collision data from the most recent 10-year period (January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2023) was analyzed to evaluate safety for bicyclists and pedestrians within the City of Porterville.

Collision data for the City was sourced from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and from UC Berkely’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Findings related to bicycling and walking collisions are discussed in this section.

Collision Overview
As shown in Figure 12, within the 10-year period, there were 5,155 total collisions, with an average of approximately 516 collisions each year.

Of the total collisions, 42 collisions resulted in fatalities, 114 resulted in severe injuries, 977 collisions resulted in visible injuries, 1,388 collisions resulted in complaints of pain, and 2,634 collisions resulted in property damage only (PDO).

Of the total collisions, 9,217 victims were involved.

Of the total collisions, 4 percent involved bicyclists and 4 percent involved pedestrians.

Of the total collisions, approximately 14 percent were highway related and approximately 2 percent were highway ramp related. Bicyclist- and pedestrian-related collisions that involved highways account for less than 1 percent of the total collisions.

Bicyclist-Related Collisions
Within the 10-year period, there were 206 bicyclist-related collisions. For bicyclist-related collisions, the following section describes historically common locations, collision severity, common causes, and additional findings.

COLLISION TYPES
For the bicyclist-related collisions, Figure 13 presents the collision type and severity. By far, the highest collision type was “Broadside” (126 collisions), the majority of which had a severity of “Visible Injury” (approximately 60 collisions).

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS
For bicyclist-related collisions, Figure 14 presents the most common (top ten) primary collision factor (PCF) violation categories. The highest PCF violation category was “Wrong Side of Road” (bicyclist violation), followed by “Automobile Right-of-Way” and “Improper Turning” (motorist violations).

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
22 Figure 12 – Total Collisions (2014-2023)
Figure 13 – Bicyclist Collisions by Collision Type and Severity 13 18 14
126
3 20
11 1
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
PDO Complaint of Pain Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal 244 225 226
270 295 280
211
295 315
273
143
123 153
151
154 154
113
103
139
155
61 73
85 113 81 92
98 133
140
101
8 5
14 9 10 13
5 13
21 16
4 5
5 6 3 2
4 5
8 0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
PDO Complaint of Pain Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal Appendix A: Existing Conditions
23 Figure 14 – Bicyclist Collisions by Most Common PCF Violation Categories

COLLISION HOTSPOTS
Approximately 56 percent of intersection/segment collisions involving bicyclists occurred on the following roadways:
 Olive Avenue – 43 collisions
 Henderson Avenue – 37 collisions
 Morton Avenue – 17 collisions
 Newcomb Street – 9 collisions
 Main Street – 9 collisions

INTERSECTION AND SEGMENT COLLISIONS
Of the 206 bicycle-related collisions, 131 collisions occurred at intersections and 75 collisions occurred along segments. Figure 15 presents a comparison of intersection and segment collisions by severity.
7 4
12 2
67 32
39 4
24 7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 PDO Complaint of Pain Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal Appendix A: Existing Conditions
24 LIGHTING
Figure 16 provides a breakdown of the lighting conditions. Of the 206 bicycle-related collisions, most occurred with some level of illumination, including daylight (78 percent).

Additionally, the majority of bicycle collisions occurred between 12 PM and 6 PM (57 percent), followed by 6 PM to 12 AM (21 precent), 6 AM to 12 PM (20 percent), and 12 AM to 6 AM (2 percent).

Figure 15 – Bicycle Collisions by Intersection/Segment and Severity Figure 16 – Bicycle Collisions by Illumination Level

2 6
75 35
13 1 4
37 26
7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Intersection Segment
Daylight
78%
Dusk - Dawn
5%
Dark With
Street Lights
15%
Dark - No
Street Lights
2%
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
25 COLLISION SEVERITY
Of the 206 bicycle-related collisions, 3 collisions resulted in fatalities (about 7 percent of all fatal collisions), 10 collisions resulted in severe injuries (about 9 percent of all severe collisions), 112 collisions resulted in visible injuries (about 11 percent of all visible injury collisions), 61 collisions resulted in complaints of pain (about 4 percent of all collisions resulting in complaints of injury), and 20 collisions resulted in PDO (about 1 percent of all PDO collisions).

All bicycle collisions are mapped in Figure 17 and fatal and severe injury (FSI) bicycle collisions are mapped in Figure 18.

FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS
The 3 fatal collisions occurred at the Olive Avenue/Westwood Street intersection, the SR 65/Pioneer Avenue intersection, and the Olive Avenue/A Street intersection.

The 10 severe injury collisions are spread throughout the City, with higher concentrations along E Henderson Avenue (east-west street). Of the 10 severe injury collisions, 6 collisions occurred at an intersection.

Fatal Collisions
For the fatal collision at the Olive Avenue/Westwood Street intersection, which was a hit and run, the cause was a signal and sign violation by a driver.

For the other 2 fatal collisions, the cause was bicycling on the wrong side of the road.

Severy Injury Collisions
For 6 of the severe injury collisions, the cause was bicycling on the wrong side of the road.

For 3 of the severe injury collisions, the cause was being under the influence of alcohol, automobile right-of-way, and traffic signals and signs. For 1 of the severe injury collisions, the cause was unknown.

Among the severe injury collisions, the most common collision types were “Broadside” and “Head-On” collisions.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
26 Figure 17 – Bicycle Collisions, All
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
27 Figure 18 – Bicycle Collisions, Fatal and Severe
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
28 AGE
Of the bicycle collisions where age of victim was reported, most victims were under the age of 19 years (55 percent).

Figure 19 – Bicyclist Collisions, Age of Victims

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
One collision was reported as both bicyclist- and pedestrian-related. The collision involved only a pedestrian and a bicyclist in which the bicyclist was found at fault, and the collision was caused by the bicyclist bicycling on the wrong side of the road.

Pedestrian-Related Collisions
Within the 10-year period, there were 205 pedestrian-related collisions. For pedestrian-related collisions, the following section describes historically common locations, collision severity, common causes, and additional findings.

COLLISION TYPES
For the pedestrian-related collisions, Figure 20 presents the collision type and severity. The highest collision type was “Vehicle/Pedestrian” (177 collisions), likely due to limited options for collision reporting.

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS
For the pedestrian-related collisions, Figure 21 presents the most common (top ten) PCF violation categories. The highest PCF violation category was “Pedestrian Right-of-Way” (motorist violation), followed by “Pedestrian Violation” (pedestrian violation). 114
55%
94 45%
Bicycle Victims' Age
18 and Under 19 and Over
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
29 Figure 20 – Pedestrian Collisions by Collision Type and Severity Figure 21 – Pedestrian Collisions by Most Common PCF Violation Categories 6 9 3 6 1
177
2 1
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
PDO Complaint of Pain Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal 4 8 4 7 4
101
54 4 5 4
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
PDO Complaint of Pain Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal Appendix A: Existing Conditions
30 COLLISION HOTSPOTS
Approximately 52 percent of intersection/segment collisions involving pedestrians occurred on the following roadways:
 Olive Avenue –24 collisions
 Henderson Avenue – 21 collisions
 Main Street – 16 collisions
 Morton Avenue – 15 collisions
 Prospect Street - 11 collisions
 Plano Street – 10 collisions
 Putnam Avenue – 9 collisions

INTERSECTION AND SEGMENT COLLISIONS
Of the 205 pedestrian-related collisions, 145 collisions occurred at intersections and 60 collisions occurred along segments. Figure 22 presents a comparison of intersection and segment collisions by severity.

LIGHTING
Figure 23 provides a breakdown of the lighting conditions. Of the 205 pedestrian-related collisions, most occurred with some level of illumination, including “Daylight” (57 percent) and “Dark With Street Lights” (30 percent).

Additionally, pedestrian collisions occurred between 6 PM and 12 AM (38 percent), 12 PM to 6 PM (35 percent), and 6 AM to 12 PM (24 percent). Three (3) percent of collisions occurred between 12 AM and 6 PM.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions
31 Figure 22 – Pedestrian Collisions by Intersection/Segment and Severity Figure 23 – Pedestrian Collisions by Illumination Level 10 10
74 44
7 4
10 30
11 5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Intersection Segment
Daylight
57%
Dusk - Dawn
2%
Dark with
Street Lights
30%
Dark - No
Street Lights
10%
Dark - Street
Lights Not
Functioning
1%
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
32 COLLISION SEVERITY
Of the 205 pedestrian-related collisions, 14 collisions resulted in fatalities (about 33 percent of all fatal collisions), 20 collisions resulted in severe injuries (about 18 percent of all severe collisions), 104 collisions resulted in visible injuries (about 11 percent of all visible injury collisions), 55 collisions resulted in complaints of pain (about 4 percent of all collisions resulting in complaints of pain), and 12 collisions resulted in PDO (less than 1 percent of all PDO collisions).

All pedestrian collisions are mapped in Figure 24 and FSI pedestrian collisions are mapped in Figure 25.

FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS
Of the 14 fatal collisions, 10 collisions occurred at the following intersections:
 Olive Avenue & Carmelita Street
 Delta Street & Aurora Avenue
 Plano Street & Date Avenue
 Locust Avenue & Hockett Street
 Plano Street & Chase Avenue
 West Orange Avenue & D Street
 SR 190 & Jaye Street
 Villa Street & Morton Avenue
 Newcomb Street & Putnam Avenue
 Grand Avenue & Prospect Street
Two fatal collisions occurred along Henderson Avenue, one fatal collision occurred along SR 65, and two fatal collisions occurred along SR 190. Collisions resulting in fatalities and severe injuries are shown to be spread out through the City, with a higher concentration of severe injuries reported within Downtown Porterville. Seventy-one (71) percent of fatal collisions and fifty (50) percent of severe injury collisions occurred at an intersection.

For the 14 fatal collisions, causes included “Pedestrian Violation” (43 percent) and “Pedestrian Right-of-Way” (29 percent). Two fatal collisions were reported as hit-and-runs and one fatal collision was a broadside collision.

For the severe injury collisions, causes included “Pedestrian Violation” (40 percent) and “Pedestrian Right-of-Way” (30 percent). Four severe injury collisions were hit-and-runs, two severe injury collisions were head-on collisions, and one severe injury collision was reported as “other.”
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
33 Figure 24 – Pedestrian Collisions, All
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
34 Figure 25 – Pedestrian Collisions, Fatal and Severe
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
35 AGE
Of the pedestrian collisions where age of victim was reported, most victims were over the age of 19 years (63 percent).

Figure 26 – Pedestrian Collisions, Age of Victims

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
The dataset identified one pedestrian related collision that resulted in a severe injury which occurred along Henderson Avenue near a utility pole. The injured pedestrian was reported to be under the influence of drugs. The location of the collision could not be concluded and was therefore excluded from Figure 24 and Figure 25 and identified herein. 79 37%
135
63%
Pedestrian Victims' Age
18 and Under 19 and Over
2 Appendix B
Community Engagement
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
i
Table Of Contents

1.1 In-Person Engagement..........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................16

1.3 Online Engagement ..............................................................................................................................................23

1.4 Notifying the Community..................................................................................................................................25 Figure Index
Figure 1 – Information Board............................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Board............................................................................... 3 Figure 3 – Potential Bicycle Improvements Board .............................................................................................9 Figure 4 – Potential Intersection Improvements Board...............................................................................10 Figure 5 – Proposed Bicycle Network Map..............................................................................................................12 Figure 6 – Bikeway Classes Board..................................................................................................................................13 Figure 7 – Proposed Pedestrian Projects Map.....................................................................................................14 Figure 8 –Priorities Board.....................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 9 – Means of Transportation by Frequency.............................................................................................17 Figure 10 – Destinations that Residents Walk and Bike to..........................................................................18 Figure 11 – Destinations Residents WISH They Could Walk or Bicycle to .........................................18 Figure 12 – Means of Transportation and Comfort ............................................................................................19 Figure 13 – Factors Influencing Comfort..................................................................................................................20 Figure 14 – Factors Influencing Comfort ...................................................................................................................21 Figure 15 – Improvement Preferences .......................................................................................................................22 Attachments
Attachment A: Community Engagement Feedback
Attachment B: Public Input Survey
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
1 Appendix B: Community
Engagement Summary
A variety of community engagement
opportunities were hosted throughout the
development of the ATP, including inperson events and virtual engagement tools. Engagement opportunities included:
 In-person events, including three popups at existing community events and two formal workshops at city hall
 A survey in both hardcopy and online
form
 Online engagement, including an ATP
website with an interactive mapping
tool and an online version of the survey
The community engagement process
began in November of 2024 and
continued through Fall 2025. The first
phase of engagement focused on
gathering preliminary information about
community needs and preferences. The
intention of the second engagement
phase was to gather input about specific
improvement recommendations prior to
the development of the draft plan.

1.1 In-Person
Engagement
A total of five in-person engagement
events were held during the development
of the ATP, including:
 Pop-up 1: November 11, 2024
 Pop-up 2: April 5, 2025
 Workshop 1: May 21, 2025
 Pop-up 3: August 5th, 2025
 Workshop 2: November 3rd, 2025
For a list of comments collected during inperson engagement see Attachment 1.

Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
2 Pop-up 1
The first pop-up event was held on
November 11, 2024, during the annual
Portville Veteran’s Day Run. The purpose of
the event was to introduce the community
to the Plan, begin building a stakeholder
list, and gather preliminary feedback
about what types of active transportation
improvements community members
would like to see in Porterville.

Two 24” x 36” boards were developed to
engage pop-up participants, including:
 An Information Board that included a
description of the Plan, a timeline, and
existing transportation facilities in
Porterville
 A Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Board with potential active
transportation improvements.

Participants were prompted to place
sticker dots on the improvements they
liked best
Both information and project boards were
also printed as 8.5” x 11” handouts in both
English and Spanish for participants to
take home.

About 50 community members
participated in the event.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT

EXERCISE
Using the pedestrian and bicycle facilities
board, community prioritised safe
bicycling infrastructure and crossing
improvements. Participants showed the
most support for Class IV protected
bikeways (29 dots), Class I multi-use paths
(24 dots), and rectangular rapid flashing
beacons, or RRFBs (17 dots). Community
members also highlighted Class II bicycle
lanes, high visibility crosswalks, and curb
extensions.

COMMENTS
In addition to the dot exercise, community
members provide comments about the
existing transportation network.

Comments included:
 Improved flashing beacons on Olive
Street
 RRFB on Morton Street
 School congestion and cars blocking
the street on Henderson Avenue and
Westwood Street
 Speeding on Henderson Avenue (up to
60 miles per hour)
 Interest in bicycling to work
 Improving transit accessibility and
extending operation hours
 Support for the Tule Bikeway and the
Sante Fe Trail
 Lack of shoulder for runners using
Louis Hill
 Lack of lighting by Shell station
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
3 Figure 1 – Information Board
Figure 2 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Board
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
4 Pop-up 2
The second pop-up event was held on
April 5, 2025, at the annual Spring Festival
from 10am to 3pm. The purpose of the
pop-up event was to continue gathering
preliminary feedback, and to promote the
website and survey. Approximately a
dozen people participated in the event.

In addition to the information board and
pedestrian and bicycle projects board
presented at the first pop-up, a map of
Porterville was available to allow
community members to make location
specific comments.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT

EXERCISE
An additional 45 dots were placed on the
pedestrian and bicycle improvement
board. The graph on the right shows input
from both pop-ups. Community members
prioritized Class I Multi-use paths and
Class IV Protected Bikeways most,
followed by RRFBs, Class II bicycle lanes,
high visibility crosswalks, and safe routes
to school.

MAP EXERCISE
On the map of Porterville, the community
highlighted the Tule River Parkway and
Main Street for improvements.

11 7
12 19
7 22
19 19
14 30
17 30
8 0 20 40
Sidewalk
Curb Ramp
Curb Extension
High Visibility Crosswalk
Raised Crosswalk
RRFB
Safe Routes to School
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class II Buffered Bicycle
Lane
Class IV Protected
Bikeway
Unspecified
Class I Multi-use Path
Wayfinding
Number of Dots
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
5 Workshop 1
The first workshop was held on May 21,
2025, at City Hall from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. The
purpose of the workshop was to continue
gathering preliminary feedback about
walking and bicycling in Porterville, and to
discuss potential improvements
throughout the city.

The workshop included a presentation of
existing conditions findings and
community input to date. Afterwards,
attendees used citywide maps to identify
improvement locations.

English and Spanish surveys were also
available, and online engagement
opportunities were promoted during the
presentation and discussion.

Five community members attended the
event, including representatives from
Crew 180, a local youth bicycling group,
and the Tule River Parkway Association.

Key topics discussed included:
 Active transportation culture in
Porterville
 East-west bicycle connections
 North-south bicycle connections
 Improvement to the Tule River
Parkway

ACTIVE TRASNPORTATION CULTURE IN

PORTERVILLE
Attendees identified two groups engaged
with active transportation in Porterville,
including:
 Recreational users who drive a car as
their primary mode of transportation,
but prioritize active transportation for
recreational purposes
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
6  Everyday users who walk, bike, and use
other non-motorized modes as their
primary mode of transportation
Attendees spoke to an interest in bicycling
and recreation in Porterville. Several
attendees discussed using both on-street
and off-street facilities, and riding in the
road where facilities are not present.

Community members also discussed
negative experiences with drivers when
using on-street facilities.

Many Porterville residents participate in
large social rides led by Crew 180.

EAST-WEST BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
The community identified Henderson
Avenue and Olive Avenue as preferred
corridors for on-street facilities. Henderson
Avenue connects to key destinations, such
as Target, and is already used by students
and residents. Olive Avenue is also a key
route as it connects to Porterville High
School. Community members said that
Morton Avenue was not as direct a
connection as Henderson Avenue and
Olive Avenue and also mentioned that the
existing bicycle lanes are too narrow. West
Westfield Avenue and West Grand Avenue
were also identified as bicycling routes.

Though already used by bicyclists,
community members identified safety as a
concern on Henderson Avenue and Olive
Avenue. Some attendees felt that
protected bicycle lanes would make them
feel safer. Others felt that colored painted
bike lanes would encourage bicyclists to
ride in the lane rather than in the vehicle
travel lane and bring driver attention to
the presence of bicyclists.

NORTH-SOUTH BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
Attendees identified several north-south
streets to connect residents through the
city and to the Tule River Bikeway.

Identified streets included:
 Westwood St
 Mattew Street
 Newcomb Street
 Connections to Santa Fe By Way
Community members voice support for a
bicycle facility on Newcomb Street, noting
the available right-of-way and connection
to veteran’s park and the Tule River.

Westwood Street was also mentioned, as it
would create a loop for riders traveling
from Henderson Avenue to Olive Avenue.

TULE RIVER PARKWAY, SANTA FE BYWAY AND

OTHER SHARED-USE PATH CONNECTIONS
Community members voiced strong
support for extending the Tule River
Parkway west of SR 65. Attendees also
noted the need for pedestrian and bicycle
support facilities along the parkway,
including lighting, bathrooms, shade,
seating, bike racks, and water fountains.

One community member also voiced
interest in promoting existing pathways,
identifying wayfinding signage, online
maps and information, and community
events as potential solutions.

Community members said they love the
Santa Fe Byway but noted that there was a
lack of connectivity to the path. There was
strong support for the construction of the
Butterfield Trail Project, and an interest in
a shared-use path connection between
the Santa Fe Byway and the Tule River
Parkway.

Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
7 Pop-up 3
The third pop-up event was held on
August 5th, 2025, at National Night Out.

The pop-up was held on Main Street from
6 pm – 9 pm. The purpose of the pop-up
event was to introduce potential
improvements to the community,
including recommended additions to the
bicycle network and crossing
enhancements. Thirty-eight comments
were received during the event.

Two activities were developed to gather
location specific comments on potential
improvement projects:
 A Potential Bicycle Improvements
Board shown in Figure 3
 A Potential Intersection
Improvements Board shown in Figure

4. The Potential Bicycle Improvements board
had a map of potential bicycle routes and
a variety of bicycle facility options.

Participants were encouraged to indicate
their top two priority streets for bicycle
improvements, and which facility types
they would like to see.

The Potential Intersection Improvements
board had photo examples of potential
bicycle and pedestrian crossing
improvements and a map with potential
improvement locations. Participants were
encouraged to identify additional locations
for improvements, and which types of
crossing improvements they would like to
see.

NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Community members made 17 comments
related to the active transportation
network, which highlighted the lack of
sidewalks, poor maintenance of bicycle
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
8 facilities, and safer connections to school.

The community prioritized Morton Avenue
for bicycle improvements and preferred
physically separated facilities over Class II
Bicycle Lanes. There was also strong
support for adding bicycle facilities on
Henderson Avenue. Indiana Street and
Westwood Street were also noted by
community members with interest in
Class IV Bicycle Lanes. Olive Avenue
identified by the community for Class II or
Class IV Bicycle Infrastructure.

The community identified locations that
need sidewalk improvements, including
near Westfield Elementary School, and
recently annexed portions of the City west
of SR 65.

The community identified a variety of
facilities to support the active
transportation network as well, including
lighting, bus stop amenities, and signage.

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
On the map provided, community
members identified specific intersections
for crossing improvements with sticky
dots. Note takers were present to record
additional comments on sticky notes.

Of the 21 comments received, many
focused on safety The community
highlighted unsafe crossing behavior at
both Porterville High School and Monache
High School, where students often cross
midblock to school and near by
destinations. Community members
identified intersections along Henderson
Avenue, specifically identifying speeding
and pedestrian crossings to Monache High
School. One comment stated that
students cross mid-block from the school
to Veterans Park. Community members
also highlighted Morton Avenue, in which
pop-up attendees expressed needs for
pedestrian improvements.

Community members also highlighted
barriers to accesses the Tule River
parkway, including lacking ADA
infrastructure and a history of accidents
along routes to the trail.

Community members voiced interest in
RRFBs, HAWKS, slowing vehicle speeds
and educational trainings to address
unsafe crossing behavior. Other
intersection improvements included
median islands for pedestrians, and
conflict markings, protected intersections,
bicycle boxes, and bicycle detection for
bicyclists.

Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
9 Figure 3 – Potential Bicycle Improvements Board
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
10 Figure 4 – Potential Intersection Improvements Board Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
11 Workshop 2
The second workshop was held on
Monday, November 3rd, 2025, at City Hall
from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm. The purpose of
the workshop was to present the full draft
pedestrian and bicycle network to the
community and collect feedback about
project prioritization. The workshop was an
open house format and included the
following materials, shown in Figure 5
through Figure 8.
 A Proposed Bicycle Projects Map
where participants were asked to
select their top four favorite projects
 A Bikeway Classes Board with cross
sections and examples
 A Proposed Pedestrian Projects Map
where participants were asked to
select their top four favorite projects
 A Priorities Board where participants
were asked to select their top three
prioritization metrics.

Two community members attended the
workshop, including a representative from
Crew 180. Attendees were supportive of
the proposed networks. One attendee
noted that the Morton Avenue bicycle
improvements would greatly improve
commuting to Target. They also
highlighted that the trails around the city
would increase recreational opportunities
in Porterville. One attendee said that many
Porterville residents travel to neighboring
towns to ride their bikes, so improved
bicycle facilities within the City would be
beneficial to residents.

Below are the projects prioritized by
workshop attendees:

BICYCLE PROJECT PRIORITIES:
 Henderson Avenue
 Morton Avenue (specifically along
Veteran’s Park)
 Olive Avenue
 Tule River Parkway
 Friant Kern Canal Trail
 Santa Fe Byway crossing at Morton
Avenue

PEDESTRIAN PROJECT PRIORITIES
 Putnam Avenue sidewalk gaps
between H Street and F Street
 Sidewalk gaps at West Putnam
Elementary School
 Villa Street sidewalk gap south of
Mulberry Avenue
 Crossing at Westfield Elementary
School

TOP PROJECT PRIORITIZATION METRICS
 Gap Closure
 Activity Generator
 LTS
 Safety
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
12 Figure 5 – Proposed Bicycle Network Map
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
13 Figure 6 – Bikeway Classes Board
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
14 Figure 7 – Proposed Pedestrian Projects Map
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
15 Figure 8 –Priorities Board
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
16 1.2 Survey
The following section provides a summary of survey results of both English and Spanish surveys: see Attachment B.

Two surveys were developed to gather input about transportation behavior and priorities in Porterville, including a short hard copy survey provided at in-person engagement events, as well as a longer survey hosted on the ATP website. A total of 65 residents took the survey, including 28 hard copy surveys and 37 online surveys.

Means of Transportation
A majority of survey respondents said their primary mode of transportation was driving, though a significant number of people said they walked.

Figure 9 shows results from the long survey regarding mode share and frequency. A majority of survey respondents said they drove daily or multiple times a day and many residents responded that they walked at least a few times per week. Some residents reported bicycling, rolling (scooter, skates, skateboard, etc.) and taking public transportation, though most said they did not use these modes of transportation.

Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
17 Figure 9 – Means of Transportation by Frequency
What do you love about walking and bicycling in Porterville? Residents were asked to describe in four words what they loved about walking and bicycling in Porterville. Many survey respondents mentioned nature and trees, recreational spaces, being outside, exercising, existing bicycle lanes and small-town character. Other people mentioned potential areas for improvement, including filling sidewalk gaps and maintaining transit services.

Key Destinations
When asked what types of destinations they walk and bicycle to, most residents said parks and trails, followed by shopping and restaurants, shown in Figure 10. Community members also noted walking or bicycling to work, school, and to the bus. Survey respondents highlighted the following destinations, routes, and street they love walking and bicycling to/along:
 Parks and recreational facilities, including Murray Park, Veterans Park, Barlett Park, Santa Fe Byway Trail, Tule River, Tower Hill, Porterville Cemetery, and Porterville Sports Complex 20 1
1 2
9 8
4 1
2 5
13 3
4 1
2 8
7 2
7 2
4 20
28 34
24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Drive a Car
Walk
Bike
Roll (scooter, skates,
skateboard, etc.)
Use a wheelchair
Take public transit
Multiple
times per
day
Daily
A few days
per week
Weekly
A few
times per
month
Never
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
18  Shopping and commercial destinations, including downtown, Main Street, Target and Walmart shopping centers
 Key routes that connect residents to their destinations, including Newcomb Street, Henderson Ave, Date Avenue, Orange Street, Jaye Street, and Putnam Avenue Figure 10 – Destinations that Residents Walk and Bike to When asked which destinations they wish they could walk and bicycle to, residents also said parks and/or trails, followed by shopping and restaurants, shown in Figure 11. Community members also said they wished to be able to walk or bicycle to school.

Figure 11 – Destinations Residents WISH They Could Walk or Bicycle to 14 11
9 37
15 24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Work
School
Bus Stop
Parks and/or Trails
Restaurants
Shopping
14 20
4 41
24 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Work
School
Bus Stop
Parks and/or Trails
Restaurants
Shopping
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
19 Means of Transportation and Comfort
Residents were asked how comfortable they felt walking or bicycling in both surveys. Overall, many people said they felt very or somewhat comfortable walking or bicycling, but others had some level of discomfort. Figure 12 provides responses from the long survey regarding comfort level for walking, bicycling and other modes.

Figure 12 – Means of Transportation and Comfort
25 13
8 3
7 7
16 4
1 2
2 4
7 2
4 3
2 1
1 1
3 1
14 30
12 22
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Drive a car
Walk
Bike
Roll (scooter, skates,
skateboard, etc.)
Use a wheelchair
Take public transit Very
Comfortable
Somewhat
Comfortable
Somewhat
Uncomfortable
Very
Uncomfortable
I do not do this
in Porterville
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
20 Residents were also asked what factors, if any, impacted their comfort level using various modes of transportation. Unsafe and speeding drivers had the biggest impact on comfort for walking, bicycling, and rolling, followed by distances to destinations and uncomfortable or inaccessible sidewalks/bicycle lanes. In the hardcopy survey, nine respondents said they felt that unsafe intersections or crossing had an impact on walking and bicycling.

Figure 13 provides responses from the long survey, where residents were asked about walking and bicycling separately, as well as other modes. For those taking transit, inadequate transit, distances to destination, and unsafe/speeding drivers had the largest impact. For those using a wheelchair, inaccessible sidewalks or bicycle lanes and weather conditions had the largest impact.

Figure 13 – Factors Influencing Comfort
11 9
9 4
4 3
2 2
5 5
5 2
6 7
4 6
2 8
4 3
3 6
1 1
1 7
1 2
4 5
3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Walk
Bike
Roll (scooter, skates,
skateboard, etc.)
Use a wheelchair
Take public transit
Unsafe/speeding drivers Unsafe intersections/crossings
Gaps in the sidewalks or bike lanes Sidewalks or bike lanes are uncomfortable or inaccessible Distance to my destinations Inadequate public transit
Weather Conditions
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
21 Students and Active Transportation
Survey respondents were asked, if they have children in their care, what factors impact their decision to allow them to walk or bicycle to school and/or their experience doing so. Unsafe or speeding drivers impacted comfort level for students traveling to school the most, followed by uncomfortable or inaccessible sidewalks/bicycle lanes. Unsafe intersections and crossing also had an impact on all modes, specially on walking. Responses from the long survey are shown below in Figure 14.

Figure 14 – Factors Influencing Comfort
11 6
6 4
5 5
1 2
3 1
1 3
4 6
5 4
1 3
3 4
2 2
1 3
4 2
1 2
3 0 5 10 15 20 25
Walk
Bike
Roll (scooter,
skates, skateboard,
etc.)
Use a wheelchair
Take public transit
Unsafe/speeding drivers Unsafe intersections/crossings
Gaps in the sidewalks or bike lanes Sidewalks or bike lanes are uncomfortable or inaccessible School is too far away Inadequate public transit
Weather Conditions
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
22 Improvements
Residents were asked what types of facilities would encourage them to walk or bicycle in Porterville. Pictures were provided of each improvement type. The most popular improvements, shown in Figure 15, were safer crossings, followed by sidewalks and shareduse paths.

Figure 15 – Improvement Preferences
33 12
44 36
33 22
10 26
25 29
24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Sidewalk
Ada accessible curb ramps
Safer crossings at signalized intersections
Safer crossings at midblock locations
Shared Use Path
Bike Lanes
Bike Boulevards
Protected/separated bike lanes
Support facilities
Traffic calming
Non-infrastructure programs
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
23 1.3 Online Engagement
Website
A website was developed to share
information about the Plan, host online
engagement tools, and provide updates
regarding Plan progress and up coming
events. The website was created in English
with Spanish translation available.

Information included on the website
covered background and goals of the ATP,
recent active transportation successes in
the City of Porterville, a timeline updated
as the Plan progressed, examples of
potential active transportation
improvements, and Plan documents as
they were developed.

Online engagement opportunities
included an interactive map, as well as a
survey available in English and Spanish.

Community members were also able to
contact the planning team or add their
email to be notified of plan updates.

The website saw 681 total visits by 334
unique users. Image of the website’s “Get Involved” section featuring the online engagement opportunities
Image of the events section and plan timeline
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
24 Interactive Map
An interactive map was developed for the
ATP to gather location specific comments
on the project website. Users were
prompted to provide comments about
what they loved, wished, and wondered
about Porterville’s active transportation
network. The following descriptions were
provided on the interactive map welcome
page:
 I love: How do you like getting around
town? What public spaces do you
enjoy spending time in? What are your
favorite streets or trails, and why?
 I wish: What would you wish to change
about getting around in our
community? What are the changes
you wish to see on our streets or trails?
 I wonder: How do you imagine
transportation expanding in our
community? What walking and
bicycling solutions do you wonder
about?
The interactive map was opened for
comment beginning January 2025 and
was closed July 2025. The map received 13
comments.

Most of the interactive map comments
related to pedestrian safety and
pedestrian pathways. The community
identified locations where crosswalks with
safety enhancements should be placed,
primarily near schools. The community
also identified improvements to the Tule
River Parkway and the bicycle network.

Screenshot of the interactive mapping tool.

Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
25 1.4 Notifying the
Community
A contact list was developed throughout
the community engagement process to
share updates about the Plan. Emails were
collected during in-person events and on
the website. Community members who
signed up received emails about
upcoming events and online engagement
opportunities throughout the planning
process.

Social media and newsletters were also
used to notify the community. The City
used Facebook, Instagram and the City of
Porterville Community E-Newsletter to
promote the website, survey, interactive
map, and in-person engagement events.

Social media post directing community members to
the website.

Social median post directing community members
to the survey
Attachment 1
Community Engagement
Feedback
Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
1 Attachment 1:Community Engagement Feedback
Table 1 – In-Person Engagement
Event Date Community Comments
Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 No street lighting by Shell station Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 Before O-Reilly's -- existing flashing beacons/flashing crosswalk isn’t as bright as it should be Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 Hendersen/Westwood - have a sign that says, "don't block intersection". Gets congested during school time Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 Would like to see an RRFB on Morton Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 People drive 60 mph on Hendersen, starting at Rockwell Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 Mulberry/Newcomb
Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 If it were most accessible, I'd bike to work Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 I wish the buses had a ramp for wheelchairs in the back rather than the front Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 I wish the buses ran later, until 8 or 9 pm Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 I love the Tule Bikeway
Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 I love the Sante Fe Trail
Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 Runners love running on Louis Hill, but the shoulder isn't wide enough Pop-up 1 11/11/2024 On Hwy 90 near the Starbucks, bicyclist almost hit pedestrian Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 City is doing a good job with fixing curb ramps Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
2 Event Date Community Comments
Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Need more of these crosswalks along West Olive side and for traffic lights Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 RRFB helpful for mid-block crossings
Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Class IV- too much work-will take part of the street Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 to bike in groups- (2) Class II- even better- (1) Class II-better than nothing-(0) Class I- use if there (still need #1&2) Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 As Mother- feel better w/ buffered bike lane Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Garden by Westwood- High Vis Good- people blow through traffic lights- Ped hit here Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 No sidewalks to Summit HS
Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Lights along Tule River improved safety- I am a runner Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Security, fences, protection from homeless on Police bike path would help & underneath overlook Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Bike crashes. Don’t let kids bike anymore- By Grocery out at Olive Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 at Aldi -RRFB is needed, crosswalk doesn’t work - SR 190/Jaye St Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Pedestrian Education for Intersections- Peds go through/weave around cars Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Cars don’t stop @ RRFBs at Tule River Parkway- add raised intersection? Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Olive/SFB- hard for cars to see peds- crash here? Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Morton/SF Byway-: in-street RRFB lights=not working Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Where class is connected, put picnic tables/BBQ. Families can go on weekends Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
3 Event Date Community Comments
Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 When Class I planned well, can all things wouldn’t all (wildlife, mountains) --under of 190 needed Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Sidewalk part wills near college needed Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 I skateboard around town
Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 need trees downtown- Main St.

Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 near Granite Hills/ Morton- maybe bulb-outs? Hard for motors to see HS kids Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 Voyle School- needs pavement. SRTS here would be great- Students walk through cemetery now.

Pop-up 2 4/5/2025 More trees + Skateparks (addition to park was nice) Huge Skate community Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Continuing the Tule River Parkway west would be great Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Bike theft is an issue. Bad bicyclists ruin it for all.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 I prefer Olive Avenue. Class IV would be great to have a safe space to ride.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Bike lane is too narrow. Currently, kids love to ride side by side, not single file.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Kids ride down Henderson to Target - some do not use the bike lane.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Henderson is wide + where destination is. This is a socially desirable route.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Amenities (bike pumps, workouts areas, bike routes) sprinkled about on recreational facilities.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Bicyclists get honked at and flipped off often.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Santa Fe By Way is awesome - I want it to be a complete loop Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
4 Event Date Community Comments
Workshop 1 5/21/2025
Morton is the safest, but it’s a sharrow so kids ride through the street. Creating a green painted bike lane will make it clear where bicyclists are supposed to ride and alert drivers to the presence of bicyclists. Pavement markings + police enforcement are needed to make sure bicyclists ride in the right place.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Right now, I don't feel safe on Henderson Avenue, but I would feel a lot safer using a Class IV.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Santa Fe By Way does not connect to the tule river parkway - I want that connection to be a shared-use path Workshop 1 5/21/2025 I want to be able to connect to destinations like community centers, friends' houses, by bike, using the Tule River Parkway Workshop 1 5/21/2025
Senior users on the recreational trails would love places to stop on the bikeway, including bathrooms and benches. Lighting, toilets, water fountains, bike racks, shade trees and seating are all needed. Not having toilets on the trail makes it challenging for families to take their children to enjoy the parkway.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Lighting on existing Tule River Parkway is needed. Parks + seating along the shared-use path would be nice.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 I want to see the Tule River parkway extended to Westwood Street and to the east Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Lots of residents in the west part of the city. Newcomb would be an excellent way to connect them to the tule river parkway.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025
Matthew and Westwood as bicycle connections to the Tule River Parkway for residents on the west side of the city. Want a bike lane, but this street might not be wide enough for a buffer.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Westfield is the best connectivity to the parkway, even if parking must be eliminated Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Green Paint - or any color - would help make it clear where the bicycle lanes are.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Neighborhood streets are wide and could be used for bike lanes.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Too many stop signs
Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Loop Butterfield to connect SUPs would be great.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 West Grand could be a good neighborhood bicycle connection from SR 65 to Zalud Park. Connects to future Butterfield trail and Zalud Park.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 North Street is the safest
Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
5 Event Date Community Comments
Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Would love to see the Butterfield trail, that would be the perfect connection Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Educate the community about existing bike trails - online maps or maps on the trails, bike rodeos and community rides, wayfinding signage Workshop 1 5/21/2025 W North Grand bicycle connection
Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Want to see Henderson and Olive as bicycle connections Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Bikeway on Newcomb would be huge
Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Tule River undercrossing at SR 65 would be great, but this will be difficult and costly.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Existing bike lanes are so narrow.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Rec loop south of tule river just east of SR 65 Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Lighting needed on Tule River Parkway Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Construct northern parkway (currently an informal path) Workshop 1 5/21/2025 No lighting or benches on Tule River Parkway - would like to see some. Lighting is present east of abandoned rail.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 I'd like to be able to get from north of Westfield to Tule River Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Community center at Henderson and Santa Fe By Way Workshop 1 5/21/2025 Shared-use path around Newcomb, Morton, and prospect (around the block connecting to Veteran’s Park and skate park.

Workshop 1 5/21/2025 I want to change the culture - both for bicyclists to obey the law and for drivers to respect the presence of bicyclists.

Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Westwood is better than Newcomb - more scenic + less driveways + more schools Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
6 Event Date Community Comments
Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Medians along Olive + Westwood. Remove in long-term? Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 More safety along shared-use paths. Like TRP (tule river parkway) Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Tule River Parkway to regional shared-use path (along canal) would be great. I used to ride TRP to my girlfriend's house when I lived here Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 (Shared-use path) From Murray Park to Pioneer School along Plano St. (Bike and/or Ped) Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Along shared-use paths, safety programs are needed. On Santa Fe Byway, I won't go south of Olive Ave. Lighting needed Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Quads are speeding through Butterfield right now. Way to slow down? Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Path "punch throughs" to Butterfields to connect the residential neighborhoods Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 I would like to bike or walk along Henderson to the new sports complex. Bike lanes on Henderson would be great Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 I would like to see sidewalks in Indiana + Morton. No bike lane or sidewalk to ride on Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Education to deter risky bicycle behavior Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Encourage people to ride on the right side of the road, maybe with signage Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Lombardi school Ave needs major improvements.

Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Westfield + Lombardi specifically protection green paint + protection for kids Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Groups of children ride on Henderson and Olive, need bike lanes so they aren't riding in the street Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Bicycle infrastructure near the school in Henderson/Westwood Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Concerned about long-term maintenance. Would prefer rumble strips or concrete along bicycle lanes Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
7 Event Date Community Comments
Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Westfield + Westwood - more lanes = more traffic, but there's only a crosswalk here Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 High vis crosswalk needed (at Morton Ave and N Beverly St) Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Mid-block crossing needed at Morton Ave and Prospect St) as people illegally crossing here Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Olive Ave is not pedestrian friendly due to SR65 on/off ramps Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 RRFB here (at Jaye and Orange); students cross everywhere right now, education to teach them how to cross Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 cars don’t obey peds in crosswalk - RRFB - No cross guard Pop-up 3 8/11/2025
At SR 190 and Jaye Street, there is only 1 ped crossing, people illegally cross. Need more crossings. No ADA ramps. People have to go onto oncoming traffic, including to the bus stop.

Sidewalk gaps here. A lot of accidents (all types) happen here.

Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 RRFB's on Olive are working; HAWKS needed to better control traffic Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 EB Olive narrows into Downtown, which feels unsafe as a bicyclist Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Along Henderson, more ped/bike crossings are needed. There are already a lot of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing.

Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Some people don’t stop for me along Santa Fe Byway. I would like speed bumps or something to slow people down.

Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Union Ave behind Porterville High School has no sidewalks Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Lighting needed on Porter Road and across the bridge Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Only one crosswalk at Pioneer + Prospect, would like to see a second crosswalk. Would make it better for my child walking to school Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 People speed (Indiana/Henderson) Slow them down Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Sidewalks in " Old Porterville" (north-west) are non-existent. Would like an elevated sidewalk like the rest of the city Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
8 Event Date Community Comments
Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Laurelwood subdivision traffic congestion. Kids cross street to go to multiple schools. Improvements for kids needed.

Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 I would like to see better signage, benches, and shade for bus stops. Crossing lights at bus stops.

Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Bicycle detection at signalized intersections would help + protected intersections if they fit Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Lighting so I could see pedestrians when I drive on Henderson/Main Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 RRFB/HAWK on Morton between Intersections Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 Newcomb Street is narrow on Newcomb from Morton to Henderson Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 People (kids) cross illegally here (Henderson at High School). RRFB here would be great Pop-up 3 8/11/2025 I feel fine riding on Henderson Ave since the road is wide, but I feel less safe where the road narrows Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
9 Table 2 – Pop-Up 1 Project Exercise
Improvement Type Pop-Up 1: Active Transportation Improvement Votes Pop-Up 2: Active Transportation Improvement Votes Total Active Transportation Improvement Votes Sidewalk 8 3 11
Curb Ramp 4 3 7
Curb Extension 10 2 12
High Visibility Crosswalk 13 6 19
Raised Crosswalk 5 2 7
RRFB 17 5 22
Safe Routes to School 12 7 19
Class II Bicycle Lane 16 3 19
Class II Buffered Bicycle
Lane 11 3 14
Class IV Protected Bikeway 29 1 30
Unspecified 17 0 17
Class I Multi-use Path 24 6 30
Wayfinding 5 3 8
Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
10 Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
11 Table 3 – Pop-Up 3 Project Exercise
Crossing Improvement Comments Primary Street Secondary Street High vis crosswalk needed w Morton Ave N Beverly St.

Mid-block crossing needed (people illegally crossing to-from river) w Morton Ave N Prospect St.

RRFB here; students cross everywhere right now, including between- education to teach them how to cross S Jaye St W Orange Ave Not ped friendly due to SR65 on/off ramps SR65 W Olive Ave RRFB's working; HAWKS needed to better control traffic Olive Ave Lots of traffic. Traffic Makes school AT unsafe N Westwood St W Lusia Ave 1 ped crossing only; people illegally cross. Need more crossings. No ADA ramps. People have to go onto oncoming traffic, including bus stops. Sidewalk gap; a lot of accidents (all types) SR 190 Jaye St People (kids) cross illegally here. RRFB here would be great W Henderson Ave East End of High School (Lindale Pl) people speed. Slow them down S Indiana St W Henderson Ave EB Olive narrows into Downtown. Feel unsafe W Olive Ave S E St. lights needed- too dark S Main St E Gibbons Ave
More safety along SUPs like TRP Tule River Parkway S Jaye St Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
12 Attachment 1: Community Engagement Feedback
13 Table 4 – Interactive Map Comments
Created on Type Interactive Map Comments
Location/Primary
Street Secondary Street Up Votes Down Votes
2/19/2025 I Wish
The streets around granite hills would benefit from cross walks. There are way too many kids crossing and cars do not respect nor stop for them. Olive/ Holcomb has one and it’s great! Granite Hills High
School 2 0
2/19/2025 I Wonder
There is a path through the grape field that leads to Putnam I wonder if that could be made safer for kids to travel through. I’m sure it’s all private property but just a thought I’ve had for a while.

Granite Hills High
School Putnam Avenue 0 0
2/19/2025 I Wish
Please add a flashing button sign here; I'm not sure why other locations got this added, but not in front of a school on a bustling street. Morton Avenue N Roche Street 4 0
2/28/2025 I Wish Install a crosswalk at Plano St and Oak St; many people cross at this location to go to the park. Plano Street Oak Avenue 4 0 2/28/2025 I Wish I think it's time for a stoplight to be installed at this location. Henderson Avenue Plano Street 1 0 2/28/2025 I Wish Please add a flashing button sign here since this street is busy, and kids are crossing here. Morton Avenue Granito Street 4 0 6/6/2025 I Wish Flashing stop sign is need people are always running these 4 ways stops Bellview Avenue East Street 0 0 6/29/2025 I Wish Flashing stop sign should be added, kids are always crossing here Jaye Street Maple Avenue 1 0 7/2/2025 I Love
I love the Tule River Parkway. River corridor access, ped and bike path and the Tule River Parkway Native Plant Gardens Tule River Parkway 0 0
7/2/2025 I Wish
The Tule River Parkway needs to be extended from 65 to Westwood. This bike and ped path would directly serve the associated housing area and extend the connectivity of the city trail system Tule River Parkway 0 0 7/2/2025 I Wonder
A plan for bike lane development needs to be conducted which will guide consistent development and provide a framework for future plans and grant submissions. A network of connected streets with bike lanes and public lands such as parks should be designed to create a grid for bike travel. West Porterville 0 0 7/2/2025 I Love
A small percentage of residents know about our walking trail options. The City needs to actively advertise all city trails so that the public who want to take a walk can expand their known choices. Most only know about Veteran's park. General 1 0
7/19/2025 I Wish On this new walking trail please add night lights Santa Fe Byway 0 0 Community Engagement Feedback
14 4
Attachment 2
Public Input Survey
Attachment 2: Public Input Survey
Public Input Survey - Long
The Power of Commitment
12645065 1

1. How do you get around Porterville? How often do you use different modes of transportation? Select all that apply.

Multiple times per
day
Daily Few days per
week
Weekly A few times per
month
Never
Drive a car
Walk
Bike
Roll (scooter, skates,
skateboard, etc.)
Use a wheelchair
Take public transit

2. Where do you currently walk or bike to? Select all that apply. a. Work
b. School
c. Bus stop
d. Parks and/or trails
e. Restaurants
f. Shopping
12645065 2

3. Provide four descriptive words that capture what you love about walking or bicycling in Porterville? [Text]

4. Are there places that you love to walk or bike to in Porterville? If so, tell us what places, routes, or streets:
[Text]

5. How comfortable do you feel using the following modes of transportation? Mark for all modes of transportation.

Very Comfortable Somewhat
Comfortable
Somewhat
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable I do not do this in
Porterville
Drive a car
Walk
Bike
Roll (scooter, skates,
skateboard, etc.)
Use a wheelchair
Take public transit
12645065 3

6. Do any of the following factors impact how comfortable you feel using the following modes of transportation? Mark all factors that apply.

Unsafe/speedin
g drivers
Gaps in the
sidewalks or bike
lanes
Sidewalks or bike
lanes are
uncomfortable or
inaccessible
Unsafe
intersections or
crossings
Distance to
my
destinations
Inadequate
public transit
Weather
conditions
Other
Walk
Bike
Roll (scooter,
skates,
skateboard,
etc.)
Use a
wheelchair
Take public
transit
12645065 4

7. Do you have children in your household that walk, bicycle, roll, or take transit to school? If so, are you concerned about any of the following factors? If you have children in your care, but they do not walk, bike, roll, or take transit, what factors prevent them from doing so? Mark all factors that apply.

Unsafe/speedin
g drivers
Gaps in the
sidewalks or bike
lanes
Sidewalks or bike lanes
are uncomfortable or
inaccessible
Unsafe
intersections
or crossings
School is too
far away
Inadequate
public transit
Weather
conditions
Other
Walk
Bike
Roll (scooter,
skates,,
skateboard,
etc.)
Use a
wheelchair
Take public
transit
12645065 5

8. What improvements might encourage you to walk or bike in Porterville? Mark all improvements that you’d like to see.

Sidewalks ADA compliant curb ramps Safer crossings at signalized intersections Safer crossings at midblock locations Bike Lanes (Class II) Bike Boulevards (Class III) Protected/separated Bike Lanes (Class IV) Shared Use Path (Class I) 12645065 6
Facilities that support walking and
bicycling, such as bike parking and
shade/water filling stations
Traffic calming to slow driver speeds, such
as raised elements, reduced lanes, bulb
outs, and roundabouts
Programs that support walking and bicycling,
such as the Safe Routes to School Education
Program

9. Where would you like to walk or bike to (but currently do not)? Select all that apply. If there are specific destinations, please tell us below. a. Work
b. School
c. Bus stop
d. Parks and/or trails
e. Restaurants
f. Shopping
g. Specific destination(s): ________________________
12645065 7
Optional Supplemental Questions
The following questions are optional but help us understand additional demographic information and who is responding to the survey.

1. What is your age?
• 0 - 18 years old
• 18 - 30 years old
• 30 - 45 years old
• 45 – 64 years old
• 65 or more years old
• Prefer not to answer

2. What gender do you identify?
• Woman
• Man
• Non-binary
• Other:______________
• Prefer not to answer

3. What is your race/ethnicity (select all that apply)? • Asian
• Black/African-American
• Latino or Hispanic
• Native American
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
• White
• Other:___________
• Prefer not to answer

4. Are there members in your household that are over 65 years old or that have a disability that impacts their ability to walk or bike? • Yes
• No
• Prefer not to answer
Public Input Survey – Long (Spanish)
The Power of Commitment
12645065 1

1. ¿Cómo se mueve por la ciudad de Porterville? ¿Con qué frecuencia utiliza diferentes modos de transporte? Seleccione todas las opciones que correspondan.

Varias veces al
día
A diario Unos días a la
semana
Semanalmente Unas pocas veces
al mes
Nunca
Conducir un coche
Caminar
Andar en bicicleta
Rodar (moto patín,
patines, patineta)
Usar una silla de ruedas
Tomar el transporte
público

2. ¿Hacia a dónde camina o anda en bicicleta actualmente? Seleccione todas las opciones que correspondan. a. Trabajo
b. Escuela
c. Parada de autobús
d. Parques y/o senderos
e. Restaurantes
f. Hacer Compras
g. ninguna de las anteriores
12645065 2

3. Proporcione cuatro palabras descriptivas que capturen lo que le encanta de caminar o andar en bicicleta en Porterville. [Text]

4. ¿Hay lugares a los que le encanta caminar o andar en bicicleta en Porterville? Si es así, cuéntanos qué lugares, rutas o calles:
[Text]

5. ¿Qué tan cómodo se siente usando los siguientes modos de transporte? Seleccione una respuesta para cada tipo de transporte.

Muy cómodo Algo cómodo Algo incómodo Muy incómodo No hago esto en Porterville
Conducir un coche
Caminar
Andar en bicicleta
Rodar (moto patín, patines,
patineta)
Usar una silla de ruedas
Tomar el transporte público
12645065 3

6. ¿Cual de los siguientes factores afecta cómo se siente al usar los siguientes modos de transporte? Marque todos los factores que correspondan.

Conductores
inseguros/exceso
exceso de
velocidad
Distancia entre
banquetas o carriles
para bicicletas
Las banquetas o
carriles para
bicicletas son
incómodos o
inaccesibles
Intersecciones o
cruces inseguros
Distancia a
mis destinos
Transporte
público
inadecuado
Condiciones
meteorológic
as
Caminar
Andar en
bicicleta
Rodar (moto
patín, patines,
patineta)
Usar una silla de
ruedas
Tomar el
transporte
público
12645065 4

7. ¿Tiene hijos en su hogar que caminan, andan en bicicleta, usan silla de ruedas o toman el transporte público para ir a la escuela? Si es así, ¿le preocupa algunos de los siguientes factores? Si tiene hijos a su cargo, pero no caminan, andan en bicicleta, usan silla de ruedas o toman el transporte público, ¿qué factores les impiden hacerlo? Marque todos los factores que correspondan.

Conductores
descuidados/exc
esivamente
rápidos.

Distancia entre
banquetas o
carriles para
bicicletas.

Las banquetas o
carriles para
bicicletas son
incómodos o
inaccesibles
Intersecciones o
cruces inseguros
La escuela está
demasiado lejos
Transporte
público
inadecuado
Condiciones
meteorológicas
Caminar
Andar en bicicleta
Rodar (moto patín,
patines, patineta)
Usar una silla de
ruedas
Tomar el
transporte público
12645065 5

8. ¿Qué mejoras podrían animarle a caminar o andar en bicicleta en Porterville? Marque todas las mejoras que le gustaría ver.

Banquetas Rampa peatonal Cruces más seguros en intersecciones con semáforos
Cruces más seguros en ubicaciones a
mitad de cuadra
Ciclovía (Clase II) Bulevar para bicicletas (Clase III) Ciclovía protegida (Clase IV) Sendero (Clase I) 12645065 6
Instalaciones que apoyen el caminar
y andar en bicicleta, como
estacionamiento para bicicletas y
estaciones de sombra/fuente de agua
Medidas que calmen el tráfico para reducir
la velocidad de los conductores, como
elementos elevados, reducción de carriles,
extensiones de banquetas y glorietas
Programas que apoyen el caminar y andar
en bicicleta, como el programa de
educación de Rutas Seguras a la Escuela

9. ¿A dónde le gustaría caminar o andar en bicicleta (pero actualmente no lo hace)? Seleccione todas las opciones que correspondan. Si hay destinos específicos, por favor indíquelos abajo.
a. Trabajo
b. Escuela
c. Parada de autobús
d. Parques y/o senderos
e. Restaurantes
f. Compras
g. Destino(s) específico(s): ______________________
12645065 7
Preguntas suplementarias opcionales
Las siguientes preguntas son opcionales, pero nos ayudan a comprender información demográfica adicional y quién está respondiendo a la encuesta.

1. ¿Cuál es su edad?
• 0 – 17 años de edad
• 18 – 29 años de edad
• 30 – 44 años de edad
• 45 – 64 años de edad
• 65 y arriba de años de edad
• Prefiero no responder

2. ¿Con qué género se identifica?
• Mujer
• Hombre
• No binario
• Otro:______________
• Prefiero no responder

3. ¿Cuál es su raza/etnia (selecciona todas las que correspondan) • Asiático
• Negro/Afroamericano
• Latino o hispano
• Nativo americano
• Nativo hawaiano o isleño del Pacífico
• Blanco
• Otro: __________
• Prefiero no responder

4. ¿Hay miembros en su hogar que tengan más de 65 años o que tengan una discapacidad que afecte su capacidad para caminar o andar en bicicleta?
• Sí
• No
• Prefiero no responder
Public Input Survey - Short
The Power of Commitment
12645065 1

1. How do you get around Porterville?
a. Drive a car
b. Walk
c. Bike
d. Roll (scooter, skates, skateboard, etc.)
e. Use a wheelchair
f. Take public transit

2. Where do you currently walk or bike to? Select all that apply. If there are specific destinations, please tell us below.
a. Work
b. School
c. Bus Stop
d. Parks and trails
e. Restaurants
f. Shopping
g. Specific destination(s): ________________________

3. How comfortable do you feel walking or bicycling in Porterville? a. Very comfortable
b. Somewhat comfortable
c. Somewhat uncomfortable
d. Very uncomfortable
e. I don’t walk or bike

4. What factors, if any, make you feel uncomfortable walking or bicycling in Porterville? Select all that apply.
a. Unsafe/speeding drivers
b. Gaps in sidewalks or bicycle lanes
c. Sidewalks or bike lanes are uncomfortable or inaccessible d. Unsafe intersections or crossings
e. Distance to my destinations
f. Weather conditions
12645065 2

5. Do you have children in your household that walk, bike, roll, or take transit to school? If so, are you concerned about any of the following factors? If you have children in your care, but they do not walk, bike, roll, or take transit, what factors prevent them from doing so? Select all that apply. a. Unsafe/speeding drivers
b. Gaps in sidewalks or bicycle lanes
c. Sidewalks or bike lanes are uncomfortable or inaccessible d. Unsafe intersections or crossings
e. School is too far away
f. Weather conditions

6. What improvements might encourage you to walk or bike in Porterville? Mark all improvements that you’d like to see.
a. Sidewalks
b. ADA compliant curb ramps
c. Safer crossings at signalized intersections
d. Safer crossings at minor intersections or mid-block locations e. Shared Use Path (Class I): Bike and pedestrian paths that are off-road f. Bike Lane (Class II): Bike lanes that are on-road and separated from vehicle traffic by paint and signage
g. Bicycle Boulevard (Class III): Bike routes that are on-road and shared with vehicle traffic, usually at lower speeds
h. Protected/Separated Bike Lanes (Class IV): Bikeways that are on-road and separated from vehicle traffic by barriers like curbs or bollards
i. Facilities that support walking and bicycling, such as bike parking and shade/water filling stations
j. Traffic calming to slow driver speeds, such as raised elements, reduced lanes, bulb outs, and roundabouts
k. Programs that support walking and bicycling, such as the Safe Routes to School Education Program

7. Where would you like to walk or bike to (but currently do not)? Select all that apply. If there are specific destinations, please tell us below.
h. Work
i. School
j. Parks and trails
k. Restaurants
l. Shopping
m. Specific destination(s): ________________________
Public Input Survey – Short (Spanish)
The Power of Commitment
12645065 1

1. ¿Cómo se mueve por la ciudad de Porterville?
a. Conduciendo un coche
b. Caminando
c. Andando en bicicleta
d. Rodando (moto patín, patines, patineta, etc.)
e. Usando una silla de ruedas
f. Tomando el transporte público

2. ¿Hacia a dónde camina o anda en bicicleta actualmente? Seleccione todas las opciones que correspondan.
a. Trabajo
b. Escuela
c. Parada de autobús
d. Parques y/o senderos
e. Restaurantes
f. Hacer Compras
g. Destinos específicos: ________________________

3. ¿Qué tan cómodo se siente caminando y andando en bicicleta en Porterville? a. Muy cómodo
b. Algo cómodo
c. Algo incómod
d. Muy incómodo
e. No camino ni ando en bicicleta

4. ¿Cual de los siguientes factores afecta cómo se siente al usar los siguientes modos de transporte? Marque todos los factores que correspondan.
a. Conductores inseguros/excesivamente rápidos.
b. Huecos en las aceras o carriles para bicicletas.
c. Las aceras o carriles para bicicletas son incómodos o inaccesibles d. Intersecciones o cruces inseguros
e. Distancia a mis destinos
f. Transporte público inadecuado
g. Condiciones meteorológicas
12645065 2

5. ¿Tiene hijos en su hogar que caminan, andan en bicicleta, usan silla de ruedas o toman el transporte público para ir a la escuela? Si es así, ¿le preocupan algunos de los siguientes factores? Si tiene hijos a tu cargo, pero no caminan, andan en bicicleta, usan silla de ruedas o toman el transporte público, ¿qué factores les impiden hacerlo? Marque todos los factores que correspondan.
a. Conductores descuidados/excesivamente rápidos.
b. Distancia entre banquetas o carriles para bicicletas. c. Las banquetas o carriles para bicicletas son incómodos o inaccesibles d. Intersecciones o cruces inseguros
e. La escuela está demasiado lejos
f. Transporte público inadecuado
g. Condiciones meteorológicas

6. ¿Qué mejoras podrían animarle a caminar o andar en bicicleta en Porterville? Marque todas las mejoras que le gustaría ver.
a. Banquetas
b. Rampa peatonal
c. Cruces más seguros en intersecciones con semáforos
d. Cruces más seguros en ubicaciones a mitad de cuadra
e. Sendero (Clase I): caminos fuera de la calle compartidos por peatones y ciclistas f. Ciclovía (Clase II): Ciclovía que están en la carretera y separados del tráfico vehicular solo por pintura y señalización
g. Bulevar para bicicletas (Clase III): Rutas para bicicletas que están en la carretera y se comparten con el tráfico de vehículos, generalmente a velocidades más bajas. h. Ciclovía protegida (Clase IV): Ciclovías que están en la carretera y separadas del tráfico vehicular por barreras como bordillos o bolardos
i. Instalaciones que apoyan el caminar y andar en bicicleta, como estacionamiento para bicicletas y estaciones de sombra/fuente de agua
j. Medidas que calmenel tráfico para reducir la velocidad de los conductores, como elementos elevados, reducción de carriles, extensiones de banquetas y glorietas k. Programas que apoyen el caminar y andar en bicicleta, como el programa de educación de Rutas Seguras a la Escuela

7. ¿A dónde le gustaría caminar o andar en bicicleta (pero actualmente no lo hace)? Seleccione todas las opciones que correspondan. Si hay destinos específicos, por favor indíquelos abajo. a. Trabajo
b. Escuela
c. Parada de autobús
d. Parques y/o senderos
e. Restaurantes
f. Compras
g. Destino(s) específico(s): ___________
5 Appendix C
Level of Traffic Stress
Methodology
Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
i
Table of Contents

1.1 Bicycle LTS...........................................................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Pedestrian LTS.................................................................................................................................................................................9 Table Index
Table 1 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Segment with Bike Lane and Adjacent Parking Lane................................. 4 Table 2 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Segment with Bike Lane, no Adjacent Parking Lane...................................5 Table 3 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Segments in Mixed Traffic ...............................................................................................6 Table 4 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersection Crossing without a Median Refuge1 ............7 Table 5 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersection Crossing with a Median Refuge1.................... 8 Table 6 – Pedestrian LTS Criteria..........................................................................................................................................................10 Figure Index
Figure 1 – Level of Traffic Stress by User Category......................................................................................................................2 Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
1 Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress
(LTS) Methodology
Level of traffic stress (LTS) is a suitability rating system from the perspective of different subsets of the population, which measures the perceived comfort, safety and convenience associated with bicycling or walking in or adjacent to vehicle traffic. Studies have shown that 60 percent of the population will be deterred from bicycling or walking if an active transportation facility features high levels of traffic stress and they will only choose the routes with the highest levels of perceived safety.1 The less stressful the experience, and the lower the LTS score, the more likely bicycling or walking is to appeal to a broader segment of the population.

A bicycle and pedestrian network will attract greater numbers of residents, employees and visitors of all ages and abilities if it is designed to reduce the level of stress associated with potential conflicts with motor vehicles and safely connect people to their destinations.

Facilities that provide greater separation between vehicle traffic and people walking and bicycling, as well as minimize the potential for stressful conflicts between these road user groups, will result in the lowest levels of traffic stress and highest comfort using the facility.

This memorandum describes the LTS methodology and analysis criteria in additional detail.

1.1 Bicycle LTS
The LTS analysis analyzes the traffic stress associated with bicycling. Bicycle LTS analysis employs the level of traffic stress methodology described in the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) “Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2, Chapter 14, Multimodal Analysis,” (August 2024). The methodology presented therein is based on the paper, Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Report 11-19, published by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) (May 2012). The LTS methodology as reported by ODOT’s latest Multimodal Analysis Procedure Manual includes updates to the methodology that was originally published by MTI. The updated methodology includes analysis criteria for new bicycle facility types that have become more frequently implemented since the original report was published and considers additional infrastructure types not analyzed under the MTI methodological approach. Additionally, analysis criteria for bicycle segment LTS has been updated by Peter Further, co-author of the 2012 MTI report, multiple times, most recently in 1 “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland,” Geller, 2006 Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
2 20222. While the 2024 ODOT study uses analysis from 2017, this methodology employs the most recent 2022 criteria.

The bicycle LTS methodology considers a variety of roadway infrastructure characteristics to determine the LTS score of a roadway or intersection, including:
 Level of separation from vehicular traffic
 Street width (number of lanes), daily traffic volumes and/or functional classification  Presence and width of bike lanes, parking lanes, medians and turn lanes  Frequency of bike lane blockage
 Speed limit or prevailing speed of adjacent street or streets being travelled along or crossed
 Intersection control type
Level of traffic stress scores are governed by the worst-case principle, meaning that the highest stress score associated with analyzed criteria will determine the LTS score of the overall segment, with LTS 1 being the lowest stress and LTS 4 being the highest stress. The application of these criteria-specific bicycle LTS analysis is described below.

Figure 1 describes each LTS score by bicycle user type or category. 60 percent of the population falls within the interested but concerned LTS 1 or LTS 2 categories. Bicycle LTS analyzes roadway segments, intersection approaches and intersection crossings, and the worst score among the three analysis categories determines the overall LTS score of the overall segment.

Figure 1 – Level of Traffic Stress by User Category
2 Furth, 2022. https://bpb-use1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northeastern.edu/dist/e/618/files/2014/05/LTS-Tables-v2.2.pdf Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
3 Segments
The criteria for analyzing Bicycle LTS is broken into three categories:
 Physically separated paths or lanes, such as Class I shared-use paths or Class IV cycle tracks
 Streets with standard bicycle lanes, such as Class II or Class II buffered bicycle lanes  Streets without bicycle lanes, also referred to as mixed traffic Physically separated paths or lanes are generally assigned LTS scores of one due to the greater separation from vehicular traffic, while the LTS scores associated with the other two categories vary based on a variety of factors.

The criteria for analyzing the segment LTS of streets with Class II bicycle lanes are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, which are separated by segments that feature an adjacent parking lane, and those that do not. As shown, the segment LTS score considers bicycle lane width, presence and parking lane width, speed and lanes per direction. Prevailing speeds from the speed survey conducted by the city of Porterville in 2014 were used where available.

Otherwise, posted speeds were used.

Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
4 Table 1 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Segment with Bike Lane and Adjacent Parking Lane Prevailing or Posted Speed
Number of
Lanes
Bike lane
reach = bike +
parking lane
width
0-28.5 28.5-33.5 33.5-38.5 38.5-43.5
1 thru lane per
direction or
contraflow lane
15+ ft LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
<15 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
1-way
multilane
15+ ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
<15 ft LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
2-way, 2 lanes
per direction
15+ ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
<15 ft LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Other 2-way
multilane
any LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Notes

1. If bike lane is frequently blocked (as may be the case in commercial areas), use mixed traffic criteria.

2. Minimum bike lane reach is 12 ft. For narrower reach, use Mixed Traffic criteria.

3. Bike lane reach includes any marked buffer next to the bike lane; also, add 2 ft if road has one thru lane per direction and a central two-way turn lane.

4. Use mixed traffic criteria if it would result in lower LTS.

Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
5 Table 2 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Segment with Bike Lane, no Adjacent Parking Lane Prevailing or Posted Speed
Number
of Lanes
Bike Lane
Width
0-28.5 28.5-

33.5 33.5-

38.5 38.5-

43.5 43.5-

48.5 48.5+
1 thru lane
per
direction
or
contraflow
lane
6+ ft LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Less than
6 ft
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
2 thru
lanes per
direction
6+ ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Less than
6 ft
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ lanes
per
direction
Any width LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Notes

1. If bike lane is frequently blocked (as may be the case is commercial areas), or if parking is allowed in an advisory lane, use mixed traffic criteria.

2. Minimum bike lane width is 4 ft next to a curb and 3.5 ft next to a road edge or discontinuous gutter seam.

For narrower bike lanes, use Mixed Traffic criteria.

3. Bike lane width includes nay market buffer next to the bike lane; also, add 2 ft if road has one thru lane per direction and a central two-way turn lane.

4. Use mixed traffic criteria if it would result in lower LTS.

Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
6 Table 3 presents the criteria for analyzing segments without bicycle lanes that require a bicyclist to ride with mixed traffic. If daily traffic volume is available, then that data should be considered in the analysis. If daily volume data is not available, functional classification should be analyzed in place of daily traffic volumes. As shown, lower speed roadways and higher speed roadways are analyzed differently, but both categories consider presence of a marked centerline, number of through lanes per direction, daily traffic volume or functional classification, and speed.

Table 3 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Segments in Mixed Traffic Posted or Prevailing Speed (mph)
Number
of Lanes
ADT 0-23.5 23.5-

28.5 28.5-

33.5 33.5-

38.5 38.5-

43.5 43.5-

48.5 48.5+
Unlaned
2-way
street (no
centerline)
0-750 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
751-
1500
LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
1501-
3000
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3001+ LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2-way
with 1 lane
per
direction
and
centerline,
or wide* 1-
way, 1 lane
0-1000 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
1001-
1500
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1501+ LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Narrow*
one-way, 1
lane
0-600 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
601-
1000
LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1001+ LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2 thru
lanes per
direction
0-8000 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
8001+ LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ thru
lanes per
direction
Any
ADT
LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Notes
* A one-way street is “narrow” if its width is less than 30 ft with parking on both sides, less than 22 ft with parking on one side, or less than 15 ft with no parking. Otherwise, it is wide.

Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
7 Intersection Crossings

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The Bicycle LTS criteria for analyzing intersection crossings considers only unsignalized intersections, because signalized intersections usually do not create a barrier as the signal generally provides adequate protections. LTS 1 is assumed for the crossing movements at signalized intersections unless the location is known to create a barrier for the user. All signalized intersections analyzed herein were assigned a LTS score of 1 due to no available data to suggest otherwise. If there are locations known to feature issues causing a barrier, the LTS score of the locations should be adjusted to reflect this information. Barriers could result from difficulty in triggering signal detection, or an intersection may not have the proper markings, ramps, and/or push-button accommodations for bicyclists. In locations such as these, the bicyclist is often forced to use the crosswalk like a pedestrian and should be assigned LTS 2. Engineering judgement should be used for assigning stress levels higher than LTS 1 at signalized intersections.

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Table 4 and Table 5 present the LTS criteria for analyzing unsignalized crossing locations, which considers the total number of through lanes, daily traffic volume or functional classification and speed. Locations with a median refuge can lower traffic stress by providing space for bicyclists if they are unable to cross before oncoming traffic is approaching. Thus, they are analyzed differently, as shown in Table 4and Table 5. Prevailing speeds from the speed survey conducted by the city of Porterville in 2014 were used where available.

Otherwise, posted speeds were used.

Table 4 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersection Crossing without a Median Refuge1 Prevailing
Speed or
Speed Limit
(mph)
Total Through/Turn Lanes Crossed (Both Directions)
≤ 3 Lanes 4 -5 Lanes ≥ 6 Lanes
Functional Class/ADT (daily traffic volume)
Local Collector Arterial Arterial Arterial
≤ 1,200
1,200 -
≤3,000 >3,000 ≤ 8,000 >8,000 Any ADT
≤ 25 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
30 LTS 1 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
35 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
≥ 40 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
1 For street being crossed
Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
8 Table 5 – Bicycle LTS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersection Crossing with a Median Refuge1 Prevailing Speed or Speed
Limit (mph)
Maximum Through/Turn Lanes Crossed per Direction
1 Lane 2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4+ Lanes
≤ 25 LTS 1 2 LTS 2 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
30 LTS 1 2 LTS 2 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
35 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
≥ 40 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
1 For street being crossed.
2 Refuge should be at least 10 feet to accommodate a wide range of bicyclists (i.e., bicycle with a trailer) for LTS 1, otherwise LTS=2 for refuges 6 to <10 feet.

Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
9 1.2 Pedestrian LTS
Pedestrian LTS and the related concept of pedestrian level of service have received substantial attention from researchers. However, unlike with bicycle LTS, there is no consensus, in either academic literature or planning and engineering practice, on a particular form of pedestrian LTS.3
As such, we use a version of the Oregon Department of
Transportation’s pedestrian LTS criteria,4 which were also proposed for Caltrans’ district Active Transportation Plans.5 The Oregon pedestrian LTS scheme has the added advantage of mirroring the 4-tier rating system of Furth’s bicycle LTS scheme, offering greater consistency between the bicycle and pedestrian LTS criteria.

Sidewalk width is one of the most widely used variables in pedestrian LTS schemes.6 It has a significant influence on pedestrian comfort based on the ability to walk or use a mobility device, and particularly the ability to pass others or walk side-by-side.7 As part of width, effective sidewalk width (i.e., the clear, unobstructed path) is critically important; sidewalk obstructions are another of the most commonly used variables for estimating pedestrian LTS. Sidewalk condition is similarly important, especially from an equity perspective, because people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices may not be able to use a sidewalk in poor condition, they may be forced into the street.

Data on sidewalk condition, width, and effective width/obstructions are not widely available.

Assessing these factors in this project would be extremely time-consuming and likely beyond the available budget. To reduce data collection, we use the General Plan Land Use criteria to give a high-level assessment of pedestrian level of traffic stress.

Among variables studied directly, land use context has one of the highest impacts on physical measures of pedestrian stress.8 The following table is from Oregon Department of Transportation Exhibit 14-30.
3 There is a current effort underway to develop a standardized pedestrian LTS. See https://www.pedbikesafety.org/projects/23uwm05
4 Oregon Department of Transportation. 2020. Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2: Chapter 14 – Multimodal Analysis: p.14-35 et seq. See
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Planning/Documents/APMv2_Ch14.pdf 5 The plans did not end up actually assessing pedestrian LTS, however. For proposed methodology, see:

Caltrans, Toole Design, Cambridge Systematics and WSP. 2019. California Active Transportation Plans Data Framework and Applications.
6 Raad and Burke 2018
7 Vogt et al. 2022
8 LaJeunesse et al. 2021
Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Methodology
10 Table 6 – Pedestrian LTS Criteria
Pedestrian LTS Based on General Land Use
Overall Land Use Pedestrian LTS
Residential, central business districts, neighborhood commercial, parks and other public facilities, governmental buildings/plazas, offices/office parks
LTS 1
Low density development, rural subdivisions, unincorporated communities, strip commercial, mixed employment LTS 2
Light industrial, big box/auto-oriented commercial
LTS 3
Heavy industrial, intermodal facilities, freeway interchanges LTS 4
6 Appendix D
Improvement Toolkit+
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
1 Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
Table 1 – Toolkit of Infrastructure Improvement Types
User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Pedestrian Network Sidewalks
Sidewalks are paved facilities that
provide comfortable walking space
separate from the roadway. They
serve as a fundamental element of
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliance.

Brandon Whyte; Marion, IA-Sidewalk
Pedestrian Network Curb Ramps
Curb ramps provide accessible
routes which pedestrians can use
to safely transition from a roadway
to a curbed sidewalk and vice versa.

GHD; Sacramento, CA-Curb Ramp
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
2 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Pedestrian Crossing High Visibility
Crosswalks
High visibility crosswalks are bold
white bars that run perpendicular
to the pedestrian path of travel.

High visibility crosswalks aid
pedestrians in alerting drivers of
the crosswalk.

GHD; San Diego, CA-High Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Crossing Advanced Stop
Bar
Advanced Stop Bars include a
painted bar prior to a marked
crossing that indicates where
drivers should stop and discourage
vehicle encroachment into the
crosswalk.

GHD; Sacramento, CA – Advanced Stop Bar
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
3 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Pedestrian Crossing Curb
Extensions
Curb extensions expand the
sidewalk into the street at a
crossing. Curb extensions are
typically used where there is on
street parking. They narrow traffic
lanes to slow speeds, shorten
crossing distances, and improve
visibility of people crossing the
street.
www.pedbikeimages.com / Lara Justine; Davis, CACurb Extension GHD, Sacramento, CA – Curb Extension
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
4 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Pedestrian Crossing Median Refuge
Island
At intersections and midblock
crossings, Median Refuge Islands
break up long crossings and reduce
crossing distances for pedestrians.

A protected, pedestrian designated
space is placed in the middle of the
roadway and allows pedestrians to
wait and cross one direction of
traffic at a time.
www.pedbikeimages.org / Dan Burden; Bellevue, WA -
Median Refuge Island
Bicyclist
and
Pedestrian
Crossing
Rectangular
Hybrid Beacon
(RRFB)
RRFBs combine pedestrian
crossing signs and bright flashing
lights that are illuminated when a
pedestrian presses a button. RRFBs
improve visibility at crossings and
are proven to increase yielding.

RRFBs can be used at intersections
or midblock crossings and can be
either be at pedestrian level or
overhead.
www.pedbikeimages.org / Lara Justine; Davis CARRFB
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
5 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
[Continue from previous page]
GHD; Sacramento, CA - Overhead RRFB
Bicyclist
and
Pedestrian
Crossing
Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon
(PHB or HAWK)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs)
and pedestrian signals are installed
where drivers must yield to
pedestrians, but no signal or stop
sign exists. Factors like lane count,
crossing distance, and speed limit
help determine their placement.

PHBs and pedestrian signals are
pedestrian activated and display a
red signal when the button is
pushed, indicating drivers to stop.

Pedestrians must wait for a WALK
signal before crossing. www.pedbikeimages / Mike Cynecki; Phoenix, AZ - PHB on high-speed corridor
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
6 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Pedestrian Crossing
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
LPIs are signalized intersections
with a walk phase that prevents the
green phase for motorists by a few
seconds, allowing pedestrians to
get a head start crossing the street.

LPIs improve visibility of
pedestrians by bringing them into
the crosswalk into the field of view
for turning vehicles.

SFMTA; San Francisco, CA-LPI
Pedestrian Crossing
Raised
Crosswalk
Raised crosswalks are crosswalks
that are elevated a few inches
above the street to improve
pedestrian visibility. Raised
crosswalks also act as speed tables
or speed humps, slowing vehicle
speed.

City of Chicago - Raised Crosswalk
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
7 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclist
and
Pedestrian
Network Shared-use
Paths (Class 1)
Class I shared-use paths are twoway, paved trails completely separated from the roadway. Class I
facilities are intended for
pedestrians and bicyclists to share
and are more comfortable for less
experienced or vulnerable riders as
compared to on-the-street facilities.

City of Porterville – Shared-use Path
Bicyclist Network
Bicycle Lanes
and Buffered
Bicycle Lanes
(Class II)
Class II bicycle lanes are one-way
travel lanes for bicyclists. A painted,
striped buffer can be added on
both sides of the lane to increase
separation from vehicle traffic and
parked cars, where people may
open doors into the bicycle lane.

Some Class II bicycle lanes may also
include green paint to increase the
visibility of bicyclists in areas known
to feature higher levels of vehicle to
bicyclist conflict. GHD; Sacramento, CA-Class II Bike Lane Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
8 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclist Network
Bicycle Routes
and Bicycle
Boulevards
(Class III)
Class III bicycle facilities are signed
routes on low-speed, low volume
streets where bicyclists share the
road with motorists. Sharrows, or
shared lane markings that indicate
a Class III, can be added to
recommend to alert drivers that
bicyclists may be present. Class III
bicycle boulevards are Class III
routes enhanced with traffic
calming measures that prioritize
bicyclists and increase comfort. GHD; Sacramento, CA-Class III Sharrow Bicyclist Network
Protected
Bikeways (Class
IV), including
One-way, Twoway, and
Parking
Protected
Class IV protected bikeways are on
street bicycle facilities with a
physical barrier separating them
from vehicle traffic. Bollards,
parking, planters, and landscaping
can all be used as protection from
the roadway. Class IV bikeways can
be one-way or two-way and
increase comfort at higher speed;
higher volume roadways where
inexperienced or vulnerable road
users may be uncomfortable on
Class II bike lanes.

GHD; Sacramento, CA – one-way Class IV protected
bikeway with bollards
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
9 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
[Continue from previous page]
GHD; San Luis Obispo – one-way Class IV protected
bikeway with armadillos.

GHD; San Diego, CA – Two-way Class IV Bikeway.

Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
10 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclist Crossing
Bike Box and
Two Stage Turn
Queue
Bike boxes provide a designated
space for bicyclists to wait ahead of
vehicles during red lights,
improving visibility and facilitating
safer left turns. Two-stage turn
queue boxes are used at
intersections with separated bike
lanes but no protected intersection.

They allow bicyclists to cross one
leg of the intersection at a time,
rather than mixing with traffic to
turn left
GHD; Sacramento, CA-Two-Stage Turn Queue Box
GHD; Sacramento, CA- Bicycle Box
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
11 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclist Crossing Green Conflict
Markings
Green conflict markings are dashed
marks placed where potential
conflicts with drivers are
anticipated. Locations typically
include intersections and
driveways. Conflict markings
increase visibility of bicycle facilities
and remind drivers to yield to
bicyclists.

GHD; Sacramento, CA-Green Conflict Markings
Bicyclist Crossing Mixing Zones
Mixing Zones ensure safe and easy
transitions with vehicle traffic and
bike lanes through creating a
defined merge space for vehicles to
yield and cross paths with bicyclists.

The merging area separates the
bike lane and traffic lane to create a
shared one-way space with slowed
speeds.

Virginia Gov; Arlington, VA-Mixing Zone
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
12 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclist Crossing Bicycle
Detection
Bike detectors are utilized to detect
bicycles separately from vehicles,
which can also be installed with or
without bike signals. Bicycle
detection eliminates the need for
bicyclists to push a button to
receive a green crossing signal,
allowing bicyclists to remain
upright on their bicycle and
reducing risk of collisions with
turning vehicles. Most commonly,
bicycle detection loops are placed
in the pavement that detect metal
bicycle frames to turn the crossing
signal green.

GHD; Seattle, WA- Bike Signal
Bicyclist
and
Pedestrian
Crossing
Protection
Intersection:

One-way
Bikeways/ Twoway Bikeways/
Two-way to
One-way
Bikeways
Protected intersections improve
safety and reduce conflicts at
intersections by providing
dedicated and clearly marked
space for bicyclists, pedestrians,
and drivers, including raised islands
that reduce crossing distances and
offer physical separation between
modes. At protected intersections,
bicyclists cross like pedestrians,
crossing one leg of the intersection
at a time.

City of San Louis Obispo; CA-Protection Intersection
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
13 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclist Crossing Bicycle Signal
Bicycle signals are traffic signal
heads that provide a designated
period for bicycles to enter the
intersection ahead of, or separately
from motor vehicles.

GHD; Boston, MA- Bike Signal
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
14 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclist
and
Pedestrian
Amenities Wayfinding
Wayfinding signage informs road
users of their surroundings and
guides them along the best routes
to key destinations. Wayfinding
signage includes decision signs,
turn signs, and confirmation signs.

They may also show information
about how long or far a destination
may be from the sign location,
allowing pedestrians to navigate
efficiently to their desired
destinations.

GHD; San Diego, CA – Wayfinding
GHD; San Francisco – Trail Wayfinding.

Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
15 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclist
and
Pedestrian
Amenities Lighting
Lighting illuminate walkways to
increase comfort for people
walking and improves visibility of
pedestrians and bicyclists for
drivers. Pedestrian scaled lighting is
typically mounted 10 to 15 feet high
and spaced 15 to 30 feet apart.

Lighting may also be used at
intersections to improve driver
visibility of crossing pedestrians
and bicyclists.

Phillip, Bobitz; FHWA-Street Lighting
Smart Growth Online - Pedestrian Scale Lighting.

Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
16 User
Improvement
Type Name Description Image
Bicyclists Amenities Bicycle Parking
Bicycle racks at convenient
locations provide secure places to
park and lock bicycles on a shortterm basis. Providing sanctioned bike parking in the right locations
avoids bikes locked to objects such
as trees, fences, railings, etc. which
may cause maintenance or
accessibility issues.

www.pedbikeimages / Dan Burden; Greeley, CO- Bike
Parking
Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
17 Table 2 – Toolkit of Non-Infrastructure Improvement Types Program Description
Annual Bike and Walk to
School Days
Annual Bike and Walk to School Days would establish designated citywide days for walking and bicycling.

This could encourage students and families to walk with their classmates and neighbors, respectively, creating a strengthened sense of community and comfort for residents who may not typically walk or bike.

The city or school district could host Annual Bike and Walk to School Days consistent with national events, which are typically held in May and October.

Annual Report Card
An annual report card could assess the City’s progress toward the goals and implementation of recommended projects and programs. Annual report cards can also incorporate a review of effectiveness to evaluate costs and benefits of various efforts and adjust investments to maximize results. The annual report card could include annual collision data, program participation data, progress of project implementation, and other relevant metrics to highlight successes and challenges of improving bicycling and walking to school each year. The City could also develop specific performance measures to be included and tracked in the annual report card.

Annual Walk Audit/RideAlong
Similar to the walk audit, an annual walk-audit or ride-along could be used to identify new opportunities or challenges that may arise in the future as new development and the Plan are implemented. The walk audit/ride-along could include City staff, school staff, students and parents, and other community stakeholders. Findings from the audit/ride-along could be included in the annual report card.

Bicycle Repair Program
A bicycle repair program could be hosted by the City, a community organization, bicycle shop, or a collaboration of multiple partners. The program could offer courses on bicycle repair and proper bicycle maintenance. The program could also gather community input on key locations where fix-it station would be well positioned in the City.

Bicycle and Pedestrian
Rodeos
Bicycle and pedestrian rodeos could educate students and families about walking and bicycling to school safety. Held during school hours, rodeos could include a presentation of traffic laws, safe pedestrian and bicycle behavior, and how to use new crossing infrastructure (RRFBS, PHBs, midblock crosswalks, etc.).

Rodeos typically include an interactive component, held in a parking lot or blacktop, where students could learn how to traverse an intersection safety, use a bicycle lane, and more.

Bicycle Safety Education
for Adults
The League of American Bicyclists teaches Smart Cycling classes that focuses on how bicyclists should behave to be safer, more predictable, and can be confident bicycling on streets both with and without dedicated bicycle facilities. The City should support such classes with advertising and by providing meeting space or other in-kind support.

Bicycle Patrol Program
A bicycle patrol program, also known as bike patrol or cops on bikes, encourages law enforcement officers to ride bicycles while on patrol. This program is geared to improving officers’ duties as it calls on law enforcement to pay close attention to their surroundings, allows them to interact with their community, and enhances officers’ mobility.

Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
18 Program Description
Bike Rack Program
Bicycle rack programs coordinate and streamline bicycle rack installation. The program could be managed by a City staff member who would work with City staff and business owners to install bicycle racks and bicycle corrals citywide. This would include ensuring bicycle racks are properly installed to avoid blocking sidewalks and located to make them convenient and accessible for bicyclists. The City could also develop customized bicycle racks. These racks can serve as a “brand,” highlighting the identity of the City as a bicycle friendly community.

Count Evaluation Program
Local agencies can use count evaluation programs to gauge the success of their programs and track their progress toward local active transportation goals. The City may conduct pedestrian and bicycle counts before and after implementing a program or completing infrastructure to better understand the impacts of a project. The City could also organize annual pedestrian and bicycle counts to evaluate whether the City is making progress towards increasing pedestrian and bicycle mode share.

Crossing Guard Program
A crossing guard program could include hiring crossing guards, training for school staff, and creating recognizable uniforms for all crossing guards. Although some schools have crossing guards, staffing concerns have been a limiting factor. Having an adequate number of crossing guards at desired crossing locations will increase a sense of comfort for parents and encourage walking and bicycling to school.

Crossing guard duties may include helping students cross the street, teaching children about pedestrian safety, and communicating with drivers about how to safely drive in school zones. Classroom presentations about pedestrian safety could further educate students and parents.

Demonstration Projects
Demonstration projects are low-cost, temporary roadway projects that help local agencies introduce design solutions that increase safety and access to walking, bicycling, and public spaces to the public.

Demonstration projects are meant to increase public engagement with active transportation solutions – temporary demonstrations generally last one day to one week and bring awareness to local transportation needs, allow stakeholders to interact with potential design elements, increase support for active transportation projects, and create stronger connections between government agencies, elected officials, non-profit organizations, local businesses, and residents. They allow a city to test design solutions and receive feedback before making permanent infrastructure investments.

Education Campaign
An education campaign uses print and digital media, radio, and television to educate the community about safe driving, bicycling, and walking behavior. The campaign could be used to target behaviors that are particularly prevalent in the City. Education campaigns could target parents specifically through newsletters, online resources, back to school materials, and in-person meetings.

Safe Routes to School
(SRTS)
A safe routes to school plan should incorporate walking and bicycling routes located near a school, include a schedule for strategies the City and its partners intend to implement, detail how the program will be evaluated, and provide recommendations to increase walking and bicycling to school.

Light and Helmet
Giveaway Programs
A light and helmet giveaway program, where giveaways are provided at SRTS-related events, ensures that students and families have adequate safety equipment, which may encourage new bicyclists. Lights and helmets could be funded by donations or City funding.

Appendix D: Improvement Toolkit+
19 Program Description
Lighting Program
Lighting illuminate walkways to increase comfort for people walking and improves visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists for drivers. Lighting programs encourage community members to host “night walks” where the public walk their town at night to identify lighting needs.

School Contests
School contests use friendly competitions to encourage walking and bicycling to school. Contests could be held at the classroom level, between grades, or between schools, and reward students who walk and bike most often. Prizes could include a pizza party, classroom trophy, and more.

Social Walks and Rides
Supporting social walks and bicycle rides can provide many benefits to the community. People who are uncomfortable walking or bicycling alone, or who are unfamiliar with the best routes to use, will benefit from having a group to show them the way. Rides can also be used as information educational opportunities to remind participants about safe walking or bicycling behavior.

Targeted Enforcement Targeting enforcement at collision hotspots or locations with identified near misses can be used to deter risky driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist behavior.

Walking and Bicycling
Ambassadors
A volunteer ambassador program is where volunteers wear green vests to identify themselves and spend each week bicycling or walking. In addition to reporting maintenance needs, ambassadors carry small kits with supplies for basic first aid, bicycle repairs, graffiti removal, or other tasks based on their interest and preference. An ambassador program acts as eyes, report maintenance needs, shares educational materials and maps, and provides a friendly presence in the community. Staffing needs for this program could be limited to coordinating occasional volunteer training sessions. Trusted volunteers may be enlisted to help with program coordination, and grant funds could be pursued to offer a stipend to ambassadors or coordinators.

Walking and Biking Arrival
and Dismissal Procedures
Arrival and dismissal can be challenging for students and parents traveling by most transportation modes.

When developing a school arrival and dismissal program, some key principles should address pedestrians and bicyclists specifically: Assess needs through walk and bike audits; Prioritize the safety and comfort of students walking and bicycling; Use multiple strategies that incorporate the E’s of SRTS: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Evaluation, and Equity; Separate motor vehicles from pedestrians and bicyclists and reduce conflict areas between them; Clearly demarcate and enforce the appropriate channels for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians with signs, pavement marking, and educational materials.

Walking School Buses and
Bike Trains
Walking school buses and bike trains create regular and ongoing opportunities for groups of parents and students who live near one another to walk and bike together. Walking and bicycling as a group improve community connections, increases visibility, and can encourage wider adoption of active transportation to school.
7 Appendix E
Projects
Appendix E: Projects
1 Appendix E: Projects Table 1 – Bikeway Projects Bikeway # Road Start End Project Regional Project 1 Avenue 128 Friant Kern Canal Butterfield Stage Corridor Shared-use Path (Class I) Yes 2 Brian Street Westwood Street Lombardi Street Shared-use Path (Class I) 3 Butterfield Stage Corridor College Avenue City Limit (Gibbons Avenue) Shared-use Path (Class I) 4 Castle Avenue Lombardi Street Newcomb Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 5 Conner Street Morton Avenue Olive Avenue Shared-use Path (Class I) 6 Elderwood Street Westfield Avenue Porter Creek Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 7 Friant Kern Canal Avenue 178 Avenue 128 Shared-use Path (Class I) Yes 8 Henderson Avenue Westwood Street Newcomb Street Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II) 9 Henderson Avenue Newcomb Street Indiana Street Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II) 10 Henderson Avenue Indiana Street Plano Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) 11 Indiana Street Westfield Avenue North of Olive Avenue Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II) 12 Indiana Street North of Olive Avenue Devon Avenue Bicycle Lane (Class II) 13 Indiana Street Devon Avenue Tule River Parkway Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 14 Jaye Street Henderson Avenue Grand Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 15 Jaye Street Putnam Avenue Orange Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class IV) 16 Kessing Street Morton Avenue Putnam Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class IV) 17 Lombardi Street Castle Avenue Brian Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 18 Lowery Street Morton Avenue Putnam Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 19 Mathew Street Castle Avenue Henderson Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 20 Mathew Street Della Avenue Clare Avenue Bicycle Lane (Class II) 21 Morton Avenue Westwood Street Plano Street Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II) 22 Morton Avenue Plano Street Conner St Bicycle Lane (Class II) 23 Morton Avenue Newcomb Street Prospect Street Shared-use Path (Class I) 24 Newcomb Street W North Grand Avenue Tule River Parkway Bicycle Lane (Class II) 25 Newcomb Street Henderson Avenue Morton Avenue Shared-use Path (Class I) 26 Olive Avenue Westwood Street Plano Street Protected Bikeway (Class IV) 27 Orange Street Jaye Street E Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 28 Orange Street E Street Butterfield Stage Corridor Bicycle Lane (Class II) 29 Palm Street Grand Avenue Morton Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class IV) 30 Plano Street Reid Avenue Morton Avenue Bicycle Lane (Class II) Yes Appendix E: Projects
2 Bikeway # Road Start End Project Regional Project
31 Porter Creek Avenue Elderwood Street Westwood Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 32 Prospect Street W North Grand Avenue Pioneer Avenue Bicycle Lane (Class II) 33 Putnam Avenue Conner Street Tulsa Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 34 Reid Avenue Plano Street Butterfield Stage Corridor Bicycle Lane (Class II) Yes 35 Scranton Avenue West Street Westwood Street Shared-use Path (Class I) 36 Tule River Parkway SR 65 Westwood Street Shared-use Path (Class I) 37 Tule River Parkway Westwood Street Friant Kern Canal Shared-use Path (Class I) Yes 38 W Grand Avenue Indiana Street Jaye Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) 39 W North Grand Avenue Friant Kern Canal West of Newcomb Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) Yes 40 W North Grand Avenue West of Newcomb Street Butterfield Stage Corridor Bicycle Lane (Class II) 41 Walnut Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor Santa Fe Byway Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 42 Westfield Ave Indiana Street Butterfield Stage Corridor Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 43 Westfield Avenue Elderwood Street Mathew Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 44 Westwood Street Northern City Limits Olive Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class IV) 45 Westwood Street Olive Avenue Tule River Parkway Bicycle Lane (Class II) 46 Westwood Street Tule River Parkway City Limit (Scranton Avenue) Bicycle Lane (Class II) Yes 47 West Street Scranton Avenue Avenue 128 Shared-use Path (Class I) Yes 48 Butterfield Stage Corridor W. North Grand Ave Strathmore (Avenue 196) Shared-use Path (Class I) Yes Table 2 – Bicycle Crossing Projects Bike Crossing # Primary Road Cross Road Project 1 Westwood Street Henderson Avenue Protected intersection 2 Henderson Avenue Mathew Street RRFB 3 Henderson Avenue Newcomb Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 4 Henderson Avenue Prospect Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 Henderson Avenue SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing Zones, Conflict 6 Henderson Avenue Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 7 Henderson Avenue Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 8 Henderson Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 9 Henderson Avenue Santa Fe Byway Pedestrian Median Island 10 Butterfield Stage Corridor Locust Street (w/o Butterfield Stage Corridor)
Trail Crossing
11 Westwood Street Morton Avenue Protected intersection Appendix E: Projects
3 Bike Crossing # Primary Road Cross Road Project
12 Morton Avenue Newcomb Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 13 Morton Avenue Prospect Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 14 Morton Avenue Porter Road Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 15 Morton Avenue Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 16 Morton Avenue Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 17 Morton Avenue Palm Street/Kessing Street RRFB (Overhead Arm) 18 Morton Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 19 Morton Avenue Santa Fe By Way RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 20 Morton Avenue Plano Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 21 Westwood Street Olive Avenue Protected intersection 22 Olive Avenue Mathew Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 23 Olive Avenue Newcomb Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 24 Olive Avenue SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing Zones, Conflict 25 Olive Avenue Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings, 26 Olive Avenue Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 27 Olive Avenue Jaye Street Protected intersection 28 Olive Avenue G Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 29 Olive Avenue E Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 30 Olive Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 31 Olive Avenue D Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 32 Olive Avenue Main Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 33 Olive Avenue 2nd Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 34 Olive Avenue Santa Fe By Way RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 35 Tule River Parkway Westwood Street RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 36 Palm Street W Grand Avenue Green/White Paint, Mixing Zones, Conflict 37 Friant Kern Canal W North Grand Avenue Trail Crossing 38 W North Grand Avenue SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing Zones, Conflict, Signage 39 W North Grand Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island Notes: RRFB = rectangular rapid flashing beacon
Appendix E: Projects
4 Table 3 – Sidewalk ProjectsSidewalk # Road Start End Project Project Location 1 Westwood Street City boundary (about 463 ft north of W Nancy Avenue)
W Westfield Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side
2 Westfield Avenue Westwood Steet Lombardi Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 3 Westwood Street Westfield Avenue About 171 ft south of Westfield Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 4 Westwood Street About 464 ft north of Bel Aire Court About 102 ft north of Bel Aire Court School Sidewalk Gap East side 5 Westwood Street W Porter Creek Avenue About 393 ft south of Porter Creek Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap Both sides
6 Westwood Street About 393 ft south of Porter Creek
Avenue
W Henderson Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side
7 Henderson Avenue N Creekview Street N Elderwood Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 8 Henderson Avenue N Elderwood Street About 86 ft west of Brandy Way School Sidewalk Gap North side 9 Henderson Avenue About 407 ft west of Westwood Street Westwood Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 10 Mathew Street About 804 ft north of Henderson Avenue
Henderson Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides
11 Mathew Street W Westfield Avenue About 517 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 12 Westfield Avenue Lombardi Street N Mathew Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 13 Westwood Street W Olive Avenue Vine Avenue/Westwood Street School Sidewalk Gap West side 14 Westwood Street Forest Court W Orange Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 15 W N Grand Avenue About 665 ft west of Rose Street About 331 ft west of Rose Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 16 W N Grand Avenue About 331 ft west of Rose Street Rose Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 17 W N Grand Avenue N Prospect Street Highway 65 School Sidewalk Gap North side 18 W N Grand Avenue Highway 65 N Main Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 19 Newcomb Street About 273 ft north of Lotas Street About 140 ft south of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap East side 20 Newcomb Street About 322 ft north of Castle Avenue Castle Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 21 Newcomb Street About 76 ft north of Brian Lane Pioneer Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 22 Newcomb Street About 393 ft north of Westfield Avenue Westfield Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 23 Westfield Avenue Newcomb Street About 349 ft east of Newcomb Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 24 Westfield Avenue Beverly Street Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 25 Westfield Avenue About 303 ft west of Villa Street Main Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 26 Henderson Avenue Jaye Street About 483 ft east of Jaye Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 27 Henderson Avenue About 340 ft east of G Street About 691 ft east of G Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 28 Morton Avenue About 141 ft west of Ohio Cir Cottage Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 29 Morton Avenue About 144 ft west of Johnson Pl About 212 ft west of Johnson Pl School Sidewalk Gap South side 30 Morton Avenue About 197 ft west of El Granito Street El Granito Street School Sidewalk Gap North side Appendix E: Projects
5 Sidewalk # Road Start End Project Project Location
31 Morton Avenue About 326 ft east of Plano Street Park Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 32 Morton Avenue Park Street Leggett Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 33 Olive Avenue About 172 ft west of Atkins Street Atkins Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 34 Olive Avenue About 372 ft east of Maston Street About 451 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 35 Olive Avenue About 130 ft west of the Highway 65 ramps intersection
Highway 65 ramps intersection School Sidewalk Gap North side 36 Prospect Street Morton Avenue About 398 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 37 Prospect Street About 435 ft south of Morton Avenue About 605 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 38 Prospect Street About 697 ft south of Morton Avenue About 834 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 39 Prospect Street About 527 north of Putnam Avenue About 456 ft north of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 40 Prospect Street About 456 ft north of Putnam Avenue About 399 ft north of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 41 Prospect Street About 399 ft north of Putnam Avenue About 264 ft north of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 42 Prospect Street About 264 ft north of Putnam Avenue Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 43 Prospect Street Putnam Avenue About 99 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 44 Prospect Street about 99 ft south of Putnam Avenue About 221 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 45 Prospect Street About 221 ft south of Putnam Avenue About 275 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 46 Prospect Street About 275 ft south of Putnam Avenue About 324 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 47 Prospect Street About 335 ft north of Tomah Avenue About 190 ft north of Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 48 Prospect Street About 94 ft north of Tomah Avenue Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 49 Prospect Street Olive Avenue About 304 ft south of Olive Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 50 Prospect Street About 304 ft south of Olive Avenue About 398 ft south of Olive Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 51 Prospect Street About 398 ft south of Olive Avenue About 621 ft south of Olive Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 52 Prospect Street About 435 ft north of Roby Avenue About 359 ft north of Roby Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 53 Prospect Street About 301 ft north of Roby Avenue Roby Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 54 Prospect Street Roby Avenue About 243 ft south of Roby Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 55 Prospect Street About 121 ft north of Forest Avenue End of Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap West side 56 Indiana Street About 190 ft south of Mulberry Avenue About 645 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 57 Villa Street Mulberry Avenue About 267 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 58 Villa Street About 270 ft north of Morton Avenue About 188 ft north of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 59 Villa Street About 128 ft south of Morton Avenue About 357 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 60 Villa Street About 528 ft south of Morton Avenue About 962 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 61 Villa Street About 669 ft north of Putnam Avenue About 371 ft north of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 62 Villa Street Putnam Avenue About 136 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 63 Main Street About 193 ft north of Danner Avenue Danner Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 64 Plano Street City limit (about 1313 ft north of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides Appendix E: Projects
6 Sidewalk # Road Start End Project Project Location
Westfield Avenue
65 Plano Street Mulberry Avenue About 665 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 66 Plano Street Prosperity Cir About 162 ft south of Prosperity Cir School Sidewalk Gap East side 67 Plano Street About 162 ft south of Prosperity Cir About 234 ft south of Prosperity Cir School Sidewalk Gap West side 68 Plano Street About 164 ft north of Henderson Avenue
Henderson Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides
69 Plano Street Locust Avenue Date Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 70 Plano Street About 313 ft north of Poplar Avenue Poplar Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 71 Plano Street Poplar Avenue City limit (about 503 ft south of Worth Avenue)
School Sidewalk Gap Both sides
72 Reid Avenue Main Street Scenic Dr School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 73 Date Avenue West end of Date Avenue Jaye Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 74 Date Avenue Jaye Street Kessing Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 75 Date Avenue Kessing Street H Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 76 Date Avenue H Street G Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 77 Date Avenue About 252 ft west of E Street About 110 ft west of E Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 78 Date Avenue West end of Date Avenue Hockett Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 79 Date Avenue Hockett Street Main Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 80 Date Avenue Plano Street Park Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 81 Prospect Street Castle Street Pioneer Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 82 Prospect Street Pioneer Avenue Westfield Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 83 Pioneer Avenue Beverly Street Atkins Way School Sidewalk Gap South side 84 Pioneer Avenue 195 ft west of Lowery Street Lowery Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 85 Pioneer Avenue Lowery Street Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 86 Pioneer Avenue 220 ft west of Cobb Street Cobb Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 87 Pioneer Avenue Cobb Street 110 ft east of Cobb Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 88 Pioneer Avenue 110 ft east of Cobb Street 300 ft east of Cobb Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 89 Beverly Street W N Grand 480 ft north of Castle Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 90 Beverly Street 480 ft north of Castle Avenue W Median Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 91 Pioneer Avenue 330 ft east of Milo 460 ft east of Milo School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 92 Pioneer Avenue 46660 ft east of Milo Ohio Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 93 Pioneer Avenue 120 ft west of Cottage Pl 50 ft west of Cottage Pl School Sidewalk Gap South side 94 Pioneer Avenue 330 ft west of Villa Street 206 ft west of Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 95 Pioneer Avenue 2066 ft west of Villa Street Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 96 Putnam Street Newcomb Street 300 ft east of Newcomb Street School Sidewalk Gap North side Appendix E: Projects
7 Sidewalk # Road Start End Project Project Location
97 Putnam Avenue 300 ft east of Newcomb Street 90 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 98 Putnam Avenue 90 ft east of Lotas Street 220 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 99 Putnam Avenue 220 ft east of Lotas Street 325 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 100 Putnam Avenue 325 ft east of Lotas Street 425 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 101 Putnam Avenue 285 ft west of Beverly Street Beverly Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 102 Putnam Avenue Beverly Street Mankins Cir School Sidewalk Gap South side 103 Putnam Avenue Lowery Street 105 ft east of Lowery Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 104 Putnam Avenue 105 ft east of Lowery Street 236 ft east of Lowery Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 105 Putnam Avenue 236 ft east of Lowery Street Westside Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 106 Putnam Avenue Westside Street 170 ft east of Westside Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 107 Putnam Avenue 170 ft east of Westside Street 250 ft east of Westside Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 108 Putnam Avenue 250 ft east of Westside Street Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 109 Putnam Avenue Prospect Street 300 ft east of Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 110 Putnam Avenue 90 ft west of Maston Street Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 111 Putnam Avenue 60 ft east of Maston Street 130 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 112 Putnam Avenue 130 ft east of Maston Street 210 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 113 Putnam Avenue 100 ft west of Capitola Street Capitola Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 114 Tomah Avenue 120 ft east of Newcomb Street 205 ft east of Newcomb Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 115 Tomah Avenue Lotas Street 550 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 116 Tomah Avenue 550 ft east of Lotas Street Beverly Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 117 Tomah Avenue 165 ft west of Beverly Street 700 ft east of Beverly Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 118 Tomah Avenue 700 ft east of Beverly Street 790 ft east of Beverly Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 119 Tomah Avenue 790 ft east of Beverly Street 160 ft east of Waukesha Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 120 Tomah Avenue 150 ft west of Dameron Street 40 ft west of Dameron Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 121 Tomah Avenue Dameron Street 75 ft east of Dameron Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 122 Tomah Avenue 170 ft west of Prospect Street Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 123 Tomah Avenue Prospect Street 165 ft east of Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 124 Tomah Avenue 85 ft east of Maston Street 145 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 125 Tomah Avenue 145 ft east of Maston Street 265 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 126 Tomah Avenue 265 ft east of Maston Street 355 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 127 Tomah Avenue 355 ft east of Maston Street 495 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 128 Tomah Avenue 130 ft west of Cobb Street Cobb Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 129 Beverly Street Morton Avenue 75 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 130 Beverly Street 75 ft south of Morton Avenue 420 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side Appendix E: Projects
8 Sidewalk # Road Start End Project Project Location
131 Beverly Street 420 ft south of Morton Avenue 305 ft south of Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 132 Beverly Street 305 ft south of Thurman Avenue 430 ft south of Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 133 Beverly Street 165 ft north of Putnam Avenue 95 ft north of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 134 Beverly Street 95 ft north of Putnam Avenue Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 135 Beverly Street Putnam Avenue 100 ft north of Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 136 Beverly Street 100ft north of Tomah Avenue Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 137 Waukesha Street Putnam Avenue 230 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 138 Waukesha Street 230 ft south of Putnam Avenue 290 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 139 Waukesha Street 290 ft south of Putnam Avenue 440 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 140 Waukesha Street 160 ft north of Tomah Avenue 110 ft north of Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 141 Waukesha Street 110 ft north of Tomah Avenue Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 142 Hawaii Street Belleview Avenue 135 ft south of Belleview Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 143 Hawaii Street 135 ft south of Belleview Avenue School Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 144 Hawaii Street School Avenue 90 ft south of School Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 145 Hawaii Street 145 ft north of Morton Avenue 90 ft north of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 146 Hawaii Street 50 ft north of Morton Avenue Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 147 Villa Street 250 ft south of Olive Avenue 380 ft south of Olive Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 148 Villa Street 145 ft north of Vine Avenue Vine Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 149 Villa Street 460 ft south of Vine Avenue 660 ft south of Vine Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 150 Villa Street 660 ft south of Vine Avenue 820 ft south of Vine Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 151 Villa Street 820 ft south of Vine Avenue 900 ft south of Vine Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 152 Villa Street 510 ft north of Union Avenue 310 ft north of Union Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 153 Belleview Avenue 300 ft east of E Street 400 ft east of E Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 154 Belleview Avenue 200 ft east of E Street 300ft east of E Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 155 Thurman Avenue 210 ft east of E Street 310 ft east of E Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 156 Avenue 154 Rd 222 Westwood Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 157 Olive Avenue Rd 222 Westwood Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 158 Road 223 Olive Avenue 160 ft south of Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 159 Road 222 Olive Avenue 150 ft south of Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 160 Road 223 150 ft south of Thurman Avenue Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 161 Putnam Avenue Mathew Street 175 ft east of Mathew Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 162 Putnam Avenue 175 ft east of Mathew Street Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 163 Putnam Avenue Walch Street 100 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 164 Putnam Avenue 100 ft east of Walch Street 150 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides Appendix E: Projects
9 Sidewalk # Road Start End Project Project Location
165 Putnam Avenue 150 ft east of Walch Street 210 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 166 Putnam Avenue 210 ft east of Walch Street 275 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 167 Putnam Avenue 275 ft east of Walch Street 335 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 168 Putnam Avenue 335 ft east of Walch Street 395 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 169 Putnam Avenue 360 ft west of Belmont Street 100 ft west of Belmont Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 170 Putnam Avenue Belmont Street Salisbury Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 171 Putnam Avenue Salisbury Street 85 ft east of Salisbury Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 172 Putnam Avenue 85 ft east of Salisbury Street 475 ft east of Salisbury Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 173 Putnam Avenue 475 ft east of Salisbury Street York Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 174 Putnam Avenue York Street Newcomb Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 175 La Vida Avenue 850 ft west of Villa Street 800 ft west of Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 176 La Vida Avenue 640 ft west of Villa Street 300 ft west of Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 177 La Vida Avenue 300 ft west of Vila Street Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 178 Mulberry Avenue Willford Dr 675 ft east of Willford Dr School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 179 Willford Dr Mulberry Avenue 650 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 180 Willford Dr 650 ft south of Mulberry Avenue 730 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 181 Willford Dr 450 ft north of Henderson Avenue Henderson Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 182 Henderson Avenue Plano Street 1500ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 183 Henderson Avenue 1650 ft east of Plano Street 2140 ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 184 Henderson Avenue 2200 ft east of Plano Street 2300 ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 185 Henderson Avenue 325 ft west of Leggett Street Leggett Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 186 College Avenue 400 ft east of Rd 252 Rd 252 School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 187 College Avenue 400 ft east of Rd 252 1590 ft east of Main Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 188 Yates/Worth Avenue Main Street Rd 252 School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 189 Avenue 162 Plano Street Esther Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 190 Newcomb Street 630 ft north of Morton Avenue Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 191 Grand Avenue 180 ft west of Capitola Street Capitola Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 192 Grand Avenue 180 ft west of Capitola Street Douglas Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 193 Grand Avenue Douglas Street 105 ft west of Douglas Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 194 Villa Street Pioneer Avenue Westfield Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 195 Howland Street 270 ft south of Westfield Avenue Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 196 Jaye Street Henderson Avenue 550 ft north of Henderson School Sidewalk Gap West side 197 Jaye Street 550 ft north of Henderson 670 ft north of Henderson School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 198 Jaye Street 670 ft north of Henderson 750 ft north of Henderson School Sidewalk Gap East side Appendix E: Projects
10 Sidewalk # Road Start End Project Project Location
199 Jaye Street Mulberry Avenue 460 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 200 Belmont Street 110 ft north of Henderson 370 ft north of Henderson School Sidewalk Gap West side 201 Belmont Street 300 ft south of Bel Aire Avenue 100 ft south of Bel Aire Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 202 Belmont Street 100 ft south of Bel Aire Avenue Bel Aire Avenue School Sidewalk Gap West side 203 Maple Avenue 150 ft west of Kessing Street Kessing Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 204 Maple Avenue 160 ft west of H Street H Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 205 E Street 185 ft north of Willow Street 430 ft north of Willow Street School Sidewalk Gap East side 206 Beverly Street Slaughter Avenue Roby Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 207 Vandalia Avenue Main Street 100 ft west of 3rd Pl School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 208 Vandalia Avenue 100 ft west of 3rd Pl 100 ft east of 3rd Pl School Sidewalk Gap South side 209 Vandalia Avenue 100 ft east of 3rd Pl 420 ft east of 3rd Pl School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 210 Vandalia Avenue 420 ft east of 3rd Pl 570 ft east of 3rd Pl School Sidewalk Gap North side 211 Vandalia Avenue 240 ft west of Roche Street 50 ft west of Roche Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 212 Vandalia Avenue Roche Street Roche Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 213 Vandalia Avenue 600 ft west of Plano Street 370 ft west of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 214 Vandalia Avenue 370 ft west of Plano Street 200 ft west of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 215 Vandalia Avenue 200 ft west of Plano Street Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 216 Poplar Avenue 170 ft east of Plano Street 430 ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 217 Poplar Avenue 100 ft east of Esther Street East end of Poplar Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 218 Thurman Avenue 290 ft east of Plano Street 620 ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 219 Thurman Avenue 180 ft West of Larson Street Larson Street School Sidewalk Gap South side 220 Lowery Street Castle Avenue Median Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 221 Lowery Street 150 ft south of Median Avenue Pioneer Avenue School Sidewalk Gap East side 222 Lowery Street Pioneer Avenue 300 ft south of Pioneer Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 223 Lowery Street 300 ft south of Pioneer Avenue 130 ft north of Atkins Way School Sidewalk Gap East side 224 Lowery Street 130 ft north of Atkins Way Atkins Way School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 225 Lowery Street Atkins Way Westfield Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 226 Beverly Street North end of Beverly Street (270 ft north of Agnes Avenue)
N Grand Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides
227 Maston Street Merrill Avenue N Grand Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 228 Baker Street Westside Street Douglas Street School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 229 Newcomb Street N Grand Avenue 1350 ft north of N Grand Avenue School Sidewalk Gap Both sides 230 Putnam Avenue 60 ft east of H Street 180 ft west of G Street School Sidewalk Gap North side 231 Putnam Avenue G Street F Street School Sidewalk Gap North side Appendix E: Projects
11 Table 4 – Pedestrian Crossing Projects Ped Crossing # Primary Road Cross Road Project 1 Bellview Avenue E Street Signage 2 Bellview Avenue Main Street High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, ped median island, RRFB 3 Plano Street Date Avenue High visibility crosswalks, LPI 4 Henderson Avenue Newcomb Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 Henderson Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 6 Henderson Avenue SR 65 High visibility crosswalks, LPI 7 Morton Avenue Westwood Street High visibility crosswalks, add crosswalk to south leg LPI 8 Morton Avenue Villa Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 9 Morton Avenue El Granito Street/E Street High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, ped median island, RRFB 10 Newcomb Street Mulberry Avenue High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, ped median island, RRFB 11 Olive Avenue Howland Street/Carmelita Street Curb extensions, pedestrian median island 12 Olive Avenue Main Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 13 Olive Avenue 2nd Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 14 Olive Avenue F Street RRFB (overhead arm), signage, pedestrian median island 15 Olive Avenue D Street Controlled left turns (each leg) 16 Olive Avenue Hockett Street Right turn only 17 Orange Avenue Jaye Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 18 Pioneer Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, add crosswalk on north leg, curb extensions 19 Putnam Avenue Jaye Street Controlled left turns (one leg) 20 Putnam Avenue Newcomb Street Signal 21 Putnam Avenue Indiana Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 22 Putnam Avenue D Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 23 Putnam Avenue Main Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 24 W Grand Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 25 Westfield Avenue Mathew Street High visibility crosswalks, curb extensions 26 Westfield Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 27 Newcomb Street Tomah Ave Right in, right out (all legs) Notes: LPI = leading pedestrian intervals; RRFB = rectangular rapid flashing beacon 8 Appendix F
Project Prioritization
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
1 Appendix F: Project Prioritization Table 1 – Prioritization Measures Table 2 – Priority Bikeway Projects Prioritization Measure Points DAC Projects located in a disadvantaged community (DAC), as defined by the Healthy Places Index (i.e., census track in the 25th percentile or less) 5 Safety Projects located within 500 feet of a location with a fatal or severe injury bicycle or pedestrian collision 5 Gap Closure Projects that close a gap between existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities 4 Low Stress Network Bikeway projects that reduce the bike level of traffic stress (LTS) score to LTS 1 or 2, and sidewalk projects 3 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Projects located within 0.25 miles of a school 4 Community Input Projects that address a challenge or include an improvement identified by the community during public engagement 2 Activity Generator Projects located within 0.50-mile of an activity generator such as parks, civic facilities (library, community center, City Hall), grocery stores, or medical services 1 Transit Mobility Projects located within 0.25-mile of transit stops 1 Total 25
Bikeway # Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low Stress Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity Generator
Transit Mobility
Total
10 Henderson Avenue Indiana Street Plano Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 5 4 0 4 2 1 1 22 26 Olive Avenue Westwood Street Plano Street Protected Bikeway (Class IV) 5 5 0 3 4 2 1 1 21 44 Westwood Street Northern City Limits Olive Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class IV) 5 5 0 3 4 0 1 1 19 11 Indiana Street Westfield Avenue North of Olive Avenue
Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 5 0 0 4 2 1 1 18
9 Henderson Avenue Newcomb Street Indiana Street Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 5 0 0 4 2 1 1 18 Appendix F: Project Prioritization
2 Table 3 – Priority Bicycle Crossing Projects Table 4 – Priority Sidewalk Projects Bike Crossing # Primary Road Cross Road Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
22 Olive Avenue Mathew Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16
29 Olive Avenue E Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16
30 Olive Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 31 Olive Avenue D Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 34 Olive Avenue Santa Fe By Way RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 Sidewalk # Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
35 Olive Avenue About 130 ft west of the Highway 65
ramps intersection
Highway 65 ramps intersection
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 25
36 Prospect Street Morton Avenue About 398 ft south of
Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 25
37 Prospect Street About 435 ft south of Morton Avenue About 605 ft south of Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 25
24 Westfield Avenue Beverly Street Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
27 Henderson Avenue About 340 ft east of G Street About 691 ft east of G Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
29 W Morton Avenue About 144 ft west of Johnson Pl About 212 ft west of Johnson Pl
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
58 Villa Street About 270 ft north of Morton Avenue About 188 ft north of Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
59 Villa Street About 128 ft south of Morton Avenue About 357 ft south of Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
69 Plano Street Locust Avenue Date Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
80 Date Avenue Plano Street Park Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
96 Putnam Street Newcomb Street 300 ft east of Newcomb
Street
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
97 Putnam Avenue 300 ft east of Newcomb Street 90 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
147 Villa Street 250 ft south of Olive Avenue 380 ft south of Olive Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
3 Table 5 – Priority Pedestrian Crossing Projects Ped Crossing # Primary Road Cross Road Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
1 Bellview Avenue E Street Signage 5 5 0 0 4 2 1 1 18 9 Morton Avenue El Granito Street/E Street
High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, ped median island, RRFB 5 5 0 0 4 2 1 1 18
3 Plano Street Date Avenue High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 5 Henderson Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 11 Olive Avenue Howland Street/Carmelita Street
Curb extensions, pedestrian median island 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 14 Olive Avenue F Street RRFB (overhead arm), signage, pedestrian median island 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 15 Olive Avenue D Street Controlled left turns (each leg) 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 16 Olive Avenue Hockett Street Right turn only 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 24 W Grand Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 Sidewalk # Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
154 Belleview Avenue 200 ft east of E Street 300ft east of E Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
190 Newcomb Street 630 ft north of Morton Avenue Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
4 Table 6 – Bikeway Projects, Prioritization Scoring Bikeway # Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
10 Henderson Avenue Indiana Street Plano Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 5 4 0 4 2 1 1 22 26 Olive Avenue Westwood Street Plano Street Protected Bikeway (Class IV)
5 5 0 3 4 2 1 1 21
44 Westwood Street Northern City Limits Olive Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class IV)
5 5 0 3 4 0 1 1 19
9 Henderson Avenue Newcomb Street Indiana Street Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II)
5 5 0 0 4 2 1 1 18
11 Indiana Street Westfield Avenue North of Olive Avenue Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II)
5 5 0 0 4 2 1 1 18
20 Mathew Street Della Avenue Clare Avenue Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 21 Morton Avenue Westwood Street Plano Street Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II)
5 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 16
22 Morton Avenue Plano Street Conner Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 16 23 Morton Avenue Newcomb Street Prospect Street Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 16 36 Tule River Parkway SR 65 Westwood Street Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 4 2 1 0 15 37 Tule River Parkway Westwood Street Friant Kern Canal Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 14 45 Westwood Street Olive Avenue Tule River Parkway Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 5 0 0 0 2 1 1 14 5 Conner Street Morton Avenue Olive Avenue Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 4 0 0 1 13 7 Friant Kern Canal Avenue 178 Avenue 128 Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 4 0 0 1 13 8 Henderson Avenue Westwood Street Newcomb Street Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II)
5 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 13
15 Jaye Street Putnam Avenue Orange Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class IV)
5 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 13
24 Newcomb Street W North Grand Avenue Tule River Parkway Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 13 25 Newcomb Street Henderson Avenue Morton Avenue Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 13 28 Orange Street E Street Butterfield Stage Corridor Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 13 30 Plano Street Reid Avenue Morton Avenue Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 13 34 Reid Avenue Plano Street Butterfield Stage Corridor Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 13 12 Indiana Street North of Olive Avenue Devon Avenue Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 12 13 Indiana Street Devon Avenue Tule River Parkway Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
5 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 12
27 Orange Street Jaye Street E Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
5 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 12
38 W Grand Avenue Indiana Street Jaye Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 48 Butterfield Stage Corridor W North Grand Avenue Strathmore (Avenue 196) Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 12 16 Kessing Street Morton Avenue Putnam Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 Appendix F: Project Prioritization
5 Bikeway #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
IV)
18 Lowery Street Morton Avenue Putnam Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11
29 Palm Street Grand Avenue Morton Avenue Protected Bikeway (Class IV)
5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11
41 Walnut Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor Santa Fe Byway Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11
46 Westwood Street Tule River Parkway City Limit (Scranton Avenue) Bicycle Lane (Class II) 5 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 11 32 Prospect Street W North Grand Avenue Pioneer Avenue Bicycle Lane (Class II) 0 0 0 3 4 2 1 0 10 33 Putnam Avenue Conner Street Tulsa Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
5 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 10
35 Scranton Avenue West Street Westwood Street Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 9 1 Avenue 128 Friant Kern Canal Butterfield Stage Corridor Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 3 Butterfield Stage Corridor College Avenue City Limit (Gibbons Avenue) Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 47 West Street Scranton Avenue Avenue 128 Shared-use Path (Class I) 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 2 Brian Street Westwood Street Lombardi Street Shared-use Path (Class I) 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 7 14 Jaye Street Henderson Avenue Grand Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7
19 Mathew Street Castle Avenue Henderson Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 6
42 Westfield Avenue Indiana Street Butterfield Stage Corridor Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 6
43 Westfield Avenue Elderwood Street Mathew Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 6
6 Elderwood Street Westfield Avenue Porter Creek Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 5
31 Porter Creek Avenue Elderwood Street Westwood Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 5
40 W North Grand Avenue West of Newcomb Street Butterfield Stage Corridor Bicycle Lane (Class II) 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 5 4 Castle Avenue Lombardi Street Newcomb Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4
17 Lombardi Street Castle Avenue Brian Street Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4
39 W North Grand Avenue Friant Kern Canal West of Newcomb Street Bicycle Lane (Class II) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Appendix F: Project Prioritization
6 Table 7 – Bike Crossing Projects, Prioritization Scoring Bike Crossing # Primary Road Cross Road Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
22 Olive Avenue Mathew Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16
29 Olive Avenue E Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16
30 Olive Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 31 Olive Avenue D Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 34 Olive Avenue Santa Fe By Way RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 6 Henderson Avenue Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 12
8 Henderson Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 21 Westwood Street Olive Avenue Protected intersection 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 2 Henderson Avenue Mathew Street RRFB 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 3 Henderson Avenue Newcomb Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11
4 Henderson Avenue Prospect Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 11 Westwood Street Morton Avenue Protected intersection 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 13 Morton Avenue Prospect Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 17 Morton Avenue Palm Street/Kessing Street RRFB (Overhead Arm) 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 18 Morton Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 19 Morton Avenue Santa Fe By Way RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 23 Olive Avenue Newcomb Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11
26 Olive Avenue Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 27 Olive Avenue Jaye Street Protected intersection 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 28 Olive Avenue G Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 9 Henderson Avenue Santa Fe Byway Pedestrian Median Island 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 10 10 Butterfield Stage Corridor
Locust Street (w/o Butterfield Stage Corridor)
Trail Crossing 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 10
20 Morton Avenue Plano Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 10
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
7 Bike Crossing #
Primary Road Cross Road Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
39 W North Grand Avenue Butterfield Stage Corridor RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 10 5 Henderson Avenue SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing Zones, Conflict 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 7 Henderson Avenue Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 12 Morton Avenue Newcomb Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7
14 Morton Avenue Porter Road Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 15 Morton Avenue Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7
16 Morton Avenue Villa Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 24 Olive Avenue SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing Zones, Conflict 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 25 Olive Avenue Indiana Street Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings,
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7
32 Olive Avenue Main Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 33 Olive Avenue 2nd Street Bike Boxes, Mixing Zones, Conflict markings 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 36 Palm Street W Grand Avenue Green/White Paint, Mixing Zones, Conflict 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 1 Westwood Street Henderson Avenue Protected intersection 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 38 W North Grand Avenue SR 65 Green/White Paint, Mixing Zones, Conflict, Signage
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6
35 Tule River Parkway Westwood Street RRFB or Pedestrian Median Island 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 37 Friant Kern Canal W North Grand Avenue Trail Crossing 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Appendix F: Project Prioritization
8 Table 8 – Sidewalk Projects, Prioritization ScoringSidewalk # Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
35 W Olive Avenue About 130 ft west of the Highway
65 ramps intersection
Highway 65 ramps intersection School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 25
36 N Prospect
Street
Morton Avenue About 398 ft south of Morton
Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 25
37 N Prospect
Street
About 435 ft south of Morton Avenue
About 605 ft south of Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 25
27 W Henderson
Avenue
About 340 ft east of G Street About 691 ft east of G Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
29 W Morton
Avenue
About 144 ft west of Johnson Pl About 212 ft west of Johnson Pl School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
34 W Olive Avenue About 372 ft east of Maston Street About 451 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
58 N Villa Street About 270 ft north of Morton
Avenue
About 188 ft north of Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
59 N Villa Street About 128 ft south of Morton
Avenue
About 357 ft south of Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
69 S Plano Street Locust Avenue Date Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
80 E Date Avenue Plano Street Park Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
96 Putnam Avenue Newcomb Street 300 ft east of Newcomb Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
97 Putnam Avenue 300 ft east of Newcomb Street 90 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
147 Villa Street 250 ft south of Olive Avenue 380 ft south of Olive Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
154 Belleview
Avenue
200 ft east of E Street 300ft east of E Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
190 Newcomb
Street
630 ft north of Morton Avenue Morton Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 23
78 W Date Avenue West end of Date Avenue (near old
railroad tracks)
Hockett Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 0 22
79 W Date Avenue Hockett Street Main Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 0 22
173 Putnam Avenue 475 ft east of Salisbury Street York Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 0 22
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
9 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
174 Putnam Avenue York Street Newcomb Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 0 22
214 Vandalia Avenue 370 ft west of Plano Street 200 ft west of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 0 22
215 Vandalia Avenue 200 ft west of Plano Street Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 0 22
216 Poplar Avenue 170 ft east of Plano Street 430 ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 5 4 3 4 0 1 0 22
13 S Westwood
Street
W Olive Avenue Vine Avenue/Westwood Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 20
26 W Henderson
Avenue
Jaye Street About 483 ft east of Jaye Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 20
38 N Prospect
Street
About 697 ft south of Morton Avenue
About 834 ft south of Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 20
129 Beverly Street Morton Avenue 75 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 20
130 Beverly Street 75 ft south of Morton Avenue 420 ft south of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 20
131 Beverly Street 420 ft south of Morton Avenue 305 ft south of Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 20
157 Olive Avenue Rd 222 Westwood Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 20
9 W Henderson
Avenue
About 407 ft west of Westwood Street
Westwood Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 19
14 S Westwood
Street
Forest Ct W Orange Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 1 0 19
85 Pioneer Avenue Lowery Street Prospect Street School
Sidewalk Gap
0 5 4 3 4 2 1 0 19
156 Avenue 154 Rd 222 Westwood Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 19
230 Putnam Avenue 60 ft east of H Street 180 ft west of G Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 19
231 Putnam Avenue G Street F Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 19
10 N Mathew
Street
About 804 ft north of Henderson Avenue
Henderson Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
25 W Westfield
Avenue
About 303 ft west of Villa Street Main Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
28 W Morton
Avenue
About 141 ft west of Ohio Cir Cottage Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
10 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
30 W Morton
Avenue
About 197 ft west of El Granito Street
El Granito Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
31 W Morton
Avenue
About 326 ft east of Plano Street Park Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
32 W Morton
Avenue
Park Street Leggett Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
33 W Olive Avenue About 172 ft west of Atkins Street Atkins Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
39 N Prospect
Street
About 527 north of Putnam Avenue
About 456 ft north of Putnam Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
40 N Prospect
Street
About 456 ft north of Putnam Avenue
About 399 ft north of Putnam Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
41 N Prospect
Avenue
About 399 ft north of Putnam Avenue
About 264 ft north of Putnam Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
42 N Prospect
Avenue
About 264 ft north of Putnam Avenue
Putnam Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
43 N Prospect
Avenue
Putnam Avenue About 99 ft south of Putnam
Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
44 N Prospect
Avenue
about 99 ft south of Putnam Avenue
About 221 ft south of Putnam Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
45 N Prospect
Avenue
About 221 ft south of Putnam Avenue
About 275 ft south of Putnam Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
46 N Prospect
Avenue
About 275 ft south of Putnam Avenue
About 324 ft south of Putnam Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
47 N Prospect
Avenue
About 335 ft north of Tomah Avenue
About 190 ft north of Tomah Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
48 N Prospect
Avenue
About 94 ft north of Tomah Avenue
Tomah Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
49 N Prospect
Avenue
Olive Avenue About 304 ft south of Olive
Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
50 N Prospect
Avenue
About 304 ft south of Olive Avenue About 398 ft south of Olive Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
51 N Prospect
Avenue
About 398 ft south of Olive Avenue About 621 ft south of Olive Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
52 N Prospect
Avenue
About 435 ft north of Roby Avenue About 359 ft north of Roby Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
53 N Prospect
Avenue
About 301 ft north of Roby Avenue Roby Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
54 N Prospect
Avenue
Roby Avenue About 243 ft south of Roby
Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
11 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
56 N Indiana Street About 190 ft south of Mulberry
Avenue
About 645 ft south of Mulberry Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
57 N Villa Street Mulberry Avenue About 267 ft south of Mulberry Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
60 N Villa Street About 528 ft south of Morton
Avenue
About 962 ft south of Morton Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
61 N Villa Street About 669 ft north of Putnam
Avenue
About 371 ft north of Putnam Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
62 N Villa Street Putnam Avenue About 136 ft south of Putnam Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
63 N Main Street About 193 ft north of Danner
Avenue
Danner Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
81 Prospect Street Castle Street Pioneer Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
82 Prospect Street Pioneer Avenue Westfield Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 5 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
98 Putnam Avenue 90 ft east of Lotas Street 220 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
102 Putnam Avenue Beverly Street Mankins Cir School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
104 Putnam Avenue 105 ft east of Lowery Street 236 ft east of Lowery Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
105 Putnam Avenue 236 ft east of Lowery Street Westside Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
106 Putnam Avenue Westside Street 170 ft east of Westside Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
107 Putnam Avenue 170 ft east of Westside Street 250 ft east of Westside Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
108 Putnam Avenue 250 ft east of Westside Street Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
111 Putnam Avenue 60 ft east of Maston Street 130 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
112 Putnam Avenue 130 ft east of Maston Street 210 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
114 Tomah Avenue 120 ft east of Newcomb Street 205 ft east of Newcomb Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
115 Tomah Avenue Lotas Street 550 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
116 Tomah Avenue 550 ft east of Lotas Street Beverly Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
12 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
117 Tomah Avenue 165 ft west of Beverly Street 700 ft east of Beverly Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
118 Tomah Avenue 700 ft east of Beverly Street 790 ft east of Beverly Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
119 Tomah Avenue 790 ft east of Beverly Street 160 ft east of Waukesha Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
120 Tomah Avenue 150 ft west of Dameron Street 40 ft west of Dameron Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
121 Tomah Avenue Dameron Street 75 ft east of Dameron Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
122 Tomah Avenue 170 ft west of Prospect Street Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
123 Tomah Avenue Prospect Street 165 ft east of Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
124 Tomah Avenue 85 ft east of Maston Street 145 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
125 Tomah Avenue 145 ft east of Maston Street 265 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
126 Tomah Avenue 265 ft east of Maston Street 355 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
127 Tomah Avenue 355 ft east of Maston Street 495 ft east of Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
128 Tomah Avenue 130 ft west of Cobb Street Cobb Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
132 Beverly Street 305 ft south of Thurman Avenue 430 ft south of Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
133 Beverly Street 165 ft north of Putnam Avenue 95 ft north of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
134 Beverly Street 95 ft north of Putnam Avenue Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
135 Beverly Street Putnam Avenue 100 ft north of Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
136 Beverly Street 100ft north of Tomah Avenue Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
137 Waukesha
Street
Putnam Avenue 230 ft south of Putnam Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
138 Waukesha
Street
230 ft south of Putnam Avenue 290 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
139 Waukesha
Street
290 ft south of Putnam Avenue 440 ft south of Putnam Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
13 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
140 Waukesha
Street
160 ft north of Tomah Avenue 110 ft north of Tomah Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
141 Waukesha
Street
110 ft north of Tomah Avenue Tomah Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
142 Hawaii Street Belleview Avenue 135 ft south of Belleview Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
143 Hawaii Street 135 ft south of Belleview Avenue School Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
144 Hawaii Street School Avenue 90 ft south of School Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
145 Hawaii Street 145 ft north of Morton Avenue 90 ft north of Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
146 Hawaii Street 50 ft north of Morton Avenue Morton Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
148 Villa Street 145 ft north of Vine Avenue Vine Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
149 Villa Street 460 ft south of Vine Avenue 660 ft south of Vine Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
153 Belleview
Avenue
300 ft east of E Street 400 ft east of E Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
155 Thurman
Avenue
210 ft east of E Street 310 ft east of E Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
169 Putnam Avenue 360 ft west of Belmont Street 100 ft west of Belmont Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
170 Putnam Avenue Belmont Street Salisbury Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
171 Putnam Avenue Salisbury Street 85 ft east of Salisbury Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
191 Grand Avenue 180 ft west of Capitola Street Capitola Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
192 Grand Avenue 180 ft west of Capitola Street Douglas Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
193 Grand Avenue Douglas Street 105 ft west of Douglas Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
194 Villa Street Pioneer Avenue Westfield Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
195 Howland Street 270 ft south of Westfield Avenue Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
196 Jaye Street Henderson Avenue 550 ft north of Henderson School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
14 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
197 Jaye Street 550 ft north of Henderson 670 ft north of Henderson School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
198 Jaye Street 670 ft north of Henderson 750 ft north of Henderson School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
199 Jaye Street Mulberry Avenue 460 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
200 Belmont Street 110 ft north of Henderson 370 ft north of Henderson School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
203 Maple Avenue 150 ft west of Kessing Street Kessing Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
204 Maple Avenue 160 ft west of H Street H Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
205 E Street 185 ft north of Willow Street 430 ft north of Willow Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
206 Beverly Street Slaughter Avenue Roby Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
218 Thurman
Avenue
290 ft east of Plano Street 620 ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
219 Thurman
Avenue
180 ft West of Larson Street Larson Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 18
6 N Westwood
Street
About 393 ft south of Porter Creek Avenue
W Henderson Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 1 17
18 W N Grand
Avenue
Highway 65 N Main Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
55 N Prospect
Avenue
About 121 ft north of Forest Avenue End of Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
66 N Plano Street Prosperity Cir About 162 ft south of Prosperity Cir
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
67 N Plano Street About 162 ft south of Prosperity Cir About 234 ft south of Prosperity Cir
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
68 N Plano Street About 164 ft north of Henderson
Avenue
Henderson Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
70 S Plano Street About 313 ft north of Poplar
Avenue
Poplar Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
71 S Plano Street Poplar Avenue City limit (about 503 ft south of Worth Avenue)
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
73 W Date Avenue West end of Date Avenue Jaye Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
74 W Date Avenue Jaye Street Kessing Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
15 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
75 W Date Avenue Kessing Street H Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
76 W Date Avenue H Street G Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
77 W Date Avenue About 252 ft west of E Street About 110 ft west of E Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
99 Putnam Avenue 220 ft east of Lotas Street 325 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
100 Putnam Avenue 325 ft east of Lotas Street 425 ft east of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
101 Putnam Avenue 285 ft west of Beverly Street Beverly Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
103 Putnam Avenue Lowery Street 105 ft east of Lowery Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
109 Putnam Avenue Prospect Street 300 ft east of Prospect Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
110 Putnam Avenue 90 ft west of Maston Street Maston Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
113 Putnam Avenue 100 ft west of Capitola Street Capitola Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
150 Villa Street 660 ft south of Vine Avenue 820 ft south of Vine Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
151 Villa Street 820 ft south of Vine Avenue 900 ft south of Vine Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
152 Villa Street 510 ft north of Union Avenue 310 ft north of Union Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
161 Putnam Avenue Mathew Street 175 ft east of Mathew Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
162 Putnam Avenue 175 ft east of Mathew Street Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
163 Putnam Avenue Walch Street 100 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
164 Putnam Avenue 100 ft east of Walch Street 150 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
165 Putnam Avenue 150 ft east of Walch Street 210 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
166 Putnam Avenue 210 ft east of Walch Street 275 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
167 Putnam Avenue 275 ft east of Walch Street 335 ft east of Walch Street School 5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17 Appendix F: Project Prioritization
16 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
Sidewalk Gap
168 Putnam Avenue 335 ft east of Walch Street 395 ft east of Walch Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
172 Putnam Avenue 85 ft east of Salisbury Street 475 ft east of Salisbury Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
179 Willford Dr Mulberry Avenue 650 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
180 Willford Dr 650 ft south of Mulberry Avenue 730 ft south of Mulberry Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
181 Willford Dr 450 ft north of Henderson Avenue Henderson Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
182 Henderson
Avenue
Plano Street 1500ft east of Plano Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
186 College Avenue 400 ft east of Rd 252 Rd 252 School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
187 College Avenue 400 ft east of Rd 252 1590 ft east of Main Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
207 Vandalia Avenue Main Street 100 ft west of 3rd Pl School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
208 Vandalia Avenue 100 ft west of 3rd Pl 100 ft east of 3rd Pl School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
209 Vandalia Avenue 100 ft east of 3rd Pl 420 ft east of 3rd Pl School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
210 Vandalia Avenue 420 ft east of 3rd Pl 570 ft east of 3rd Pl School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
211 Vandalia Avenue 240 ft west of Roche Street 50 ft west of Roche Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
212 Vandalia Avenue Roche Street Roche Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
213 Vandalia Avenue 600 ft west of Plano Street 370 ft west of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
217 Poplar Avenue 100 ft east of Esther Street East end of Poplar Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 17
64 N Plano Street City limit (about 1313 ft north of
Westfield Avenue
Mulberry Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
65 N Plano Street Mulberry Avenue About 665 ft south of Mulberry Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
72 W Reid Avenue Main Street Scenic Dr School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
178 Mulberry
Avenue
Willford Dr 675 ft east of Willford Dr School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
17 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
183 Henderson
Avenue
1650 ft east of Plano Street 2140 ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
184 Henderson
Avenue
2200 ft east of Plano Street 2300 ft east of Plano Street School Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
185 Henderson
Avenue
325 ft west of Leggett Street Leggett Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
188 Yates/Worth
Avenue
Main Street Rd 252 School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
189 Avenue 162 Plano Street Esther Street School
Sidewalk Gap
5 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 16
11 N Mathew
Street
W Westfield Avenue About 517 ft south of Mulberry
Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 15
12 W Westfield
Avenue
Lombardi Street N Mathew Street School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 15
22 N Newcomb
Street
About 393 ft north of Westfield Avenue
Westfield Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 15
23 W Westfield
Avenue
Newcomb Street About 349 ft east of Newcomb
Street
School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 15
1 N Westwood
Street
City boundary (about 463 ft north of W Nancy Avenue)
W Westfield Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 14
2 W Westfield
Avenue
N Westwood Avenue Lombardi Street School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 14
3 N Westwood
Street
W Westfield Avenue About 171 ft south of Westfield
Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 14
158 Rd 223 Olive Avenue 160 ft south of Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 14
159 Rd 222 Olive Avenue 150 ft south of Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 14
160 Rd 222 150 ft south of Thurman Avenue Thurman Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 14
19 N Newcomb
Street
About 273 ft north of Lotas Street About 140 ft south of Lotas Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 2 0 0 13
24 W Westfield
Avenue
Beverly Street Prospect Street School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
86 Pioneer Avenue 220 ft west of Cobb Street Cobb Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
94 Pioneer Avenue 330 ft west of Villa Street 206 ft west of Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
95 Pioneer Avenue 2066 ft west of Villa Street Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
18 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
175 La Vida Avenue 850 ft west of Villa Street 800 ft west of Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
176 La Vida Avenue 640 ft west of Villa Street 300 ft west of Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
177 La Vida Avenue 300 ft west of Vila Street Villa Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
201 Belmont Street 300 ft south of Bel Aire Avenue 100 ft south of Bel Aire Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
202 Belmont Street 100 ft south of Bel Aire Avenue Bel Aire Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
222 Lowery Street Pioneer Avenue 300 ft south of Pioneer Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
223 Lowery Street 300 ft south of Pioneer Avenue 130 ft north of Atkins Way School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
224 Lowery Street 130 ft north of Atkins Way Atkins Way School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
225 Lowery Street Atkins Way Westfield Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 1 13
4 N Westwood
Street
About 464 ft north of Bel Aire Ct About 102 ft north of Bel Aire Ct School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 0 1 12
5 N Westwood
Street
W Porter Creek Avenue About 393 ft south of Porter
Creek Avenue
School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 0 1 12
8 W Henderson
Avenue
N Elderwood Street About 86 ft west of Brandy Way School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 0 1 12
17 W N Grand
Avenue
N Prospect Street Highway 65 School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
21 N Newcomb
Street
About 76 ft north of Brian Ln Pioneer Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
83 Pioneer Avenue Beverly Street Atkins Way School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
84 Pioneer Avenue 195 ft west of Lowery Street Lowery Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
87 Pioneer Avenue Cobb Street 110 ft east of Cobb Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
88 Pioneer Avenue 110 ft east of Cobb Street 300 ft east of Cobb Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
89 Beverly Street W N Grand 480 ft north of Castle Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
90 Beverly Street 480 ft north of Castle Avenue W Median Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
19 Sidewalk #
Road Start End Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
91 Pioneer Avenue 330 ft east of Milo 460 ft east of Milo School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
92 Pioneer Avenue 46660 ft east of Milo Ohio Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
93 Pioneer Avenue 120 ft west of Cottage Pl 50 ft west of Cottage Pl School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
220 Lowery Street Castle Avenue Median Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
221 Lowery Street 150 ft south of Median Avenue Pioneer Avenue School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
226 Beverly Street North end of Beverly Street (270 ft
north of Agnes Avenue)
N Grand Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
227 Maston Street Merrill Avenue N Grand Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
228 Baker Street Westside Street Douglas Street School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 12
7 W Henderson
Avenue
N Creekview Street N Elderwood Street School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 11
15 W N Grand
Avenue
About 665 ft west of Rose Street About 331 ft west of Rose Street School Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 11
16 W N Grand
Avenue
About 331 ft west of Rose Street Rose Street School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 11
20 N Newcomb
Street
About 322 ft north of Castle Avenue
Castle Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 11
229 Newcomb
Street
N Grand Avenue 1350 ft north of N Grand Avenue School
Sidewalk Gap
0 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 11
Appendix F: Project Prioritization
20 Table 9 – Pedestrian Crossing Projects, Prioritization Scoring Ped Crossing # Primary Road Cross Road Project DAC Safety Gap
Closure
Low
Stress
Network
SRTS Community
Input
Activity
Generator
Transit
Mobility
Total
1 Bellview Avenue E Street Signage 5 5 0 0 4 2 1 1 18 9 Morton Avenue El Granito Street/E Street High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, ped median island, RRFB
5 5 0 0 4 2 1 1 18
3 Plano Street Date Avenue High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 5 Henderson Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 11 Olive Avenue Howland Street/Carmelita Street Curb extensions, pedestrian median island 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 14 Olive Avenue F Street RRFB (overhead arm), signage, pedestrian median island
5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16
15 Olive Avenue D Street Controlled left turns (each leg) 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 16 Olive Avenue Hockett Street Right turn only 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 24 W Grand Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 16 8 Morton Avenue Villa Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 12 Olive Avenue Main Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 13 Olive Avenue 2nd Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 18 Pioneer Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, add crosswalk on north leg, curb extensions
0 5 0 0 4 2 1 0 12
23 Putnam Avenue Main Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 2 Bellview Avenue Main Street High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, ped median island, RRFB
5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11
4 Henderson Avenue Newcomb Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 7 Morton Avenue Westwood Street High visibility crosswalks, add crosswalk to south leg LPI
5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11
19 Putnam Avenue Jaye Street Controlled left turns (one leg) 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 20 Putnam Avenue Newcomb Street Signal 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 22 Putnam Avenue D Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 27 Newcomb Street Tomah Avenue Right in, right out (all legs) 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 11 17 Orange Avenue Jaye Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 10 6 Henderson Avenue SR 65 High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 21 Putnam Avenue Indiana Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 10 Newcomb Street Mulberry Avenue High visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, ped median island, RRFB
0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 6
26 Westfield Avenue Prospect Street High visibility crosswalks, LPI 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 6 25 Westfield Avenue Mathew Street High visibility crosswalks, curb extensions 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 9 Appendix G
Conceptual Renderings
Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
1 Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
Henderson Avenue Bicycle Lanes
Henderson Avenue at Monache High School
Henderson Avenue (facing east)
Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
2 Westwood Street Protected Bikeway
Westwood Street at Morton Avenue
Westwood Avenue (facing south-east)
Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
3 Palm Street / Kessing Street / Jaye Street Bikeway
Palm Street at W School Avenue
Palm Street (facing south-east)
Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
4 Palm Street / Kessing Street at Morton Avenue Intersection Kessing Street
Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
5 Kessing Street (facing south-east)
Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
6 Jaye Street Alternative 1: East Side Two-Way Bicycle Lane Jaye Street Alternative 1 (facing south)
Appendix G: Conceptual Renderings
7 Jaye Street Alternative 2: One-way Bicycle Lanes on Both Sides RESOLUTION NO. ____ - 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ADOPTING THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Porterville and the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) recognized the need for an Active Transportation Plan to guide the non-motorized transportation needs within the City of Porterville; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 4, 2024, the City Council of the City of Porterville authorized staff to enter into an agreement with GHD, Inc. for the development of the City’s first Active Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Plan is a strategic planning document that describes existing conditions within the City and identifies improvements designed to maintain and enhance the City’s active transportation network; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Plan identifies opportunities to increase the use of active modes of transportation such as walking and bicycling by improving safety, closing network gaps, prioritizing future active transportation projects, enhancing public health, and supporting greenhouse gas reduction goals; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the Active Transportation Plan will also improve the City’s competitiveness in applying for future funding opportunities for active transportation improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville hereby adopts the City of Porterville Active Transportation Plan to serve as a guiding document for future planning, funding, and implementation of active transportation improvements within the City of Porterville.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 2026. ________________________________
Greg Meister, Mayor
ATTEST:

Rich Tree, City Clerk
By: _____________________________________
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Item No. 15.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Approve Consolidation of the Community Development and Engineering & Project Management Departments
SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: As part of the City’s ongoing effort to improve development services and support economic growth in the community, staff conducted an organizational review of the Community Development Department and the Engineering and Project Management Department to evaluate opportunities to improve coordination, streamline development services, and better align City operations with the priorities established by the City Council.

Based on this review, staff is proposing to consolidate these functions into a new Planning and Engineering Department. This reorganization is intended to streamline development review, improve coordination between land use planning and infrastructure planning, and better position the City to support economic development opportunities and capital project delivery.

Currently, development-related services are divided between the Community Development Department and the Engineering and Project Management Department. While both departments perform essential functions, projects often move between departments at various stages of the development review process. Consolidating these functions into a single department will allow planning, engineering, and project management staff to work more closely together and provide a more coordinated approach to development review, infrastructure planning, and capital project delivery.

Many municipalities have adopted organizational models that integrate planning and engineering functions to improve coordination and streamline development services while emphasizing effective collaboration between the public and private sectors. These approaches help streamline the development process, support economic investment, and facilitate the delivery of new housing opportunities. In addition to organizational integration, many municipalities also utilize a service delivery model that combines internal management with specialized consultant services to perform technical development functions.

Item No. 15.

Under the proposed structure, the City will rely primarily on consultant services to perform most technical planning and engineering functions, including plan review, inspections, and other development-related services that were previously performed in-house. This approach allows the City to maintain service levels, respond efficiently to development activity, and align staffing resources with fluctuating workloads while maintaining oversight and coordination through the City’s Planning and Engineering Department.

As part of the proposed reorganization, several positions will be eliminated as responsibilities are realigned and certain technical planning and engineering functions transition to consultant-provided services under the new operational model. The attached organizational chart identifies the positions that will remain following the restructuring. In total, 19 positions across the two departments are proposed to be eliminated as part of the consolidation. The consolidation will also reduce the number of department-level leadership positions from two department directors to one director, creating a unified leadership structure responsible for coordinating planning, engineering, and development services.

Consistent with the City’s labor obligations, staff has initiated the meet-andconfer process regarding the proposed restructuring. On March 11, 2026, staff met with representatives of the affected bargaining units to present the proposed organizational changes and discuss potential impacts. Staff reductions associated with the reorganization will be conducted in accordance with the City’s personnel policies and applicable labor agreements, with staff reduction decisions based on seniority, experience, and qualifications within the affected departments. As part of this process, staff will also evaluate whether limited opportunities may exist for some impacted employees to transition into available positions within the City, consistent with applicable personnel policies and operational needs.

The proposed reorganization is expected to be implemented with a net-zero fiscal impact to the City’s budget through the realignment of existing resources. While immediate cost savings are not anticipated, staff expects that efficiencies created by the consolidated structure, together with future updates to developer fees to better reflect the cost of providing development services, will position the City to realize long-term operational efficiencies while maintaining service quality.

Staff believes the proposed structure will improve coordination across development services and better position the City to support responsible growth and future investment in the Porterville community. If approved, staff will begin implementing the new organizational structure immediately, with full transition anticipated by July 1, 2026. Staff will also evaluate the department annually to ensure the organizational structure continues to operate efficiently and remains aligned with City Council priorities and the Item No. 15.

City’s long-term economic development goals.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed reorganization consolidating the Community Development Department and the Engineering and Project Management Department into a single Planning and Engineering Department;

2. Authorize staff to implement the organizational and staffing changes necessary to carry out the new departmental structure; and

3. Direct staff to complete the meet-and-confer process with the affected bargaining units and implement the reorganization consistent with the City’s personnel policies and applicable labor agreements.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Organizational Chart - Planning & Engineering Department
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Richard Tree, City Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Porterville
Planning & Engineering Department
Organizational Chart
Department
Director
City Engineer
Project Manager
Admin.

Aide
Construction
Project Manager
Total Positions = 12
Planning Manager
Development Assistant Assistant Planner Housing Assistant Clerical Assistant III
(2 Positions)
Chief Building
Official
Item No. 16.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Ramirez Residential Subdivision Project
SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT: The Ramirez Residential Subdivision Project (PRC 2024-026-S) was initially reviewed by the Project Review Committee (PRC) at a publicly noticed meeting on August 7, 2024. The applicant is requesting approval of environmental review, a tentative subdivision map, and authorization to initiate annexation proceedings associated with the project.

The project site consists of approximately 11.47 acres located at the southwest corner of N. Newcomb Street and W. Linda Vista Avenue (APN 243-130-042).

The site is currently located within the unincorporated area of Tulare County but is adjacent to the Porterville city limits and within the City’s Sphere of Influence. The property is prezoned RS-2 (Low Density Residential) and has a Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use designation.

The project proposes the subdivision of the site into 30 single-family residential lots, ranging from approximately 10,762 square feet to 17,011 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 12,630 square feet. The proposed density of 2.61 units per gross acre is substantially below the maximum density permitted by the General Plan and zoning designation.

Circulation within the subdivision will be provided through an internal street network with connections to N. Newcomb Street and W. Linda Vista Avenue, along with a future street stub to the south to accommodate potential future development. Improvements will include sidewalks, streetlights, parkway landscaping, and other required infrastructure.

Because the property is located outside the City limits, the project cannot be served by urban services unless it is annexed into the City of Porterville. While the City may approve the tentative subdivision map at this time, the final subdivision map cannot be recorded until annexation is approved by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Porterville 2030 General Plan and would contribute additional housing units toward meeting the City’s Item No. 16.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Analysis
The project’s gross density of 2.61 units per acre falls below the maximum density of 6.0 units per acre allowed by the Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation and the 7.5 units per acre permitted within the RS-2 zoning district. The Porterville 2030 General Plan describes the Low Density Residential designation as “typical for single-family subdivisions.” The purpose of the RS-2 zoning district is to provide areas for attached or detached singlefamily homes.

The proposed project is consistent with these land use designations and would contribute additional housing units toward the City’s efforts to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Project Site is surrounded by orchards and single-family residences to the north, rural single-family residences to the east, and single-family residences to the west. The proposed subdivision density falls within the range permitted by the City’s General Plan.

Pursuant to PDO Section 400.04, the City Council must deny approval of a tentative subdivision map if any of the following findings can be made:

1. The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general or specific plans.

The Project Site is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan, which allows up to 6.0 units per acre. The tentative map proposes 30 singlefamily residential lots on 11.47 acres for a density of 2.61 units per acre and is therefore consistent with the General Plan. There is no applicable specific plan.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general or specific plans.

The design and improvement of the subdivision are consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the development standards contained within the Porterville Development Ordinance, which implements the General Plan. There is no applicable specific plan.

3. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is generally flat and level, making it physically suitable for the proposed residential development.

4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The site is generally flat and level and is physically suitable for the proposed residential development.

5. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure Item No. 16.
fish or wildlife or their habitat.

An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. With implementation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in significant impacts to the environment or to fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

The environmental analysis concluded that with mitigation incorporated, the project will not result in significant impacts related to public health.

7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

With the exception of public street rights-of-way that will be dedicated and improved as part of the subdivision, there are no known easements that would conflict with the proposed subdivision design.

Based on the information contained in the record, staff did not identify evidence supporting any of the findings that would require denial of the tentative map.

Annexation
The project site is located outside the City limits. However, Government Code Section 66454 allows the City to approve a tentative map on land outside city limits provided that the final map cannot be approved until annexation is complete.

Annexation would require approval by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The applicant has submitted the required applications and information necessary to proceed with annexation.

If the tentative map is approved, staff will coordinate with LAFCo and the applicant to proceed with the annexation process.

As part of the annexation review, LAFCo requires information regarding the City’s ability to provide services to the proposed development. The environmental analysis indicates that development of 30 residential units would represent less than a one percent increase above the City’s 2020 water demand and can be accommodated by existing groundwater resources during a normal water supply year.

Environmental Review
During review of the project, the City retained Precision Civil Engineering to prepare an Initial Study (IS) to evaluate potential environmental effects.

Item No. 16.

Based on the results of technical studies prepared in conjunction with the Initial Study, the City determined that with mitigation incorporated the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is appropriate.

Mitigation measures were identified for the following resource areas:
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Following completion of the Draft IS/MND, a Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion were filed in accordance with CEQA requirements. The document was circulated through the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2026010607) for a 30-day review period beginning January 20, 2026 and ending February 20, 2026. The local public review period began January 15, 2026 and ended February 15, 2026.

The City received comments from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District dated January 3, 2026 and from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife dated February 19, 2026. These agencies provided recommendations related to potential air quality and biological resource considerations. The comments and associated recommendations have been incorporated into the environmental review record for the project.

Public notice of this hearing was provided in accordance with Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 and PDO Section 609.06.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comments
regarding the Ramirez Residential Subdivision Project;

2. Adopt a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Ramirez Residential Subdivision Project;

3. Adopt a Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Ramirez Residential Subdivision Project (PRC 2024-026-S); and

4. Adopt a Resolution requesting that the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) initiate proceedings for Item No. 16.
annexation of approximately 11.47 acres into the City of Porterville and detachment from County Service Area No. 1.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map

2. General Plan Land Use Map

3. Public Review Draft ISMND

4. CEQA Draft Resolution

5. TSM Draft Resolution

6. LAFCo Draft Resolution
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Claudia Calderon, Community Development Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Ramirez Subdivision (City of Porterville, CA)
(PRC 2024-026-S, ANX 2026-001)
INITIAL STUDY – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
January 2026
Prepared for:

City of Porterville
291 N Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 2
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Regulatory Information................................................................................................................. 7

1.2 Document Format......................................................................................................................... 7 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Project Title................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ............................................................................................. 9

2.4 Study Prepared By......................................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 9

2.6 Latitude and Longitude ................................................................................................................. 9

2.7 General Plan Designation............................................................................................................ 12

2.8 Zoning ......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.9 Description of Project ................................................................................................................. 15

2.10 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................ 17

2.11 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................................... 17

2.12 Project Construction and Phasing............................................................................................... 17

2.13 Required Project Approvals ........................................................................................................ 17

2.14 Consultation with California Native American Tribes.................................................................. 18 3 DETERMINATION................................................................................................................................ 19

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................... 19

3.2 Determination............................................................................................................................. 19 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................................... 21

4.1 AESTHETICS................................................................................................................................. 21

4.1.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 21

4.1.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 22

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 24

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................................ 25

4.2.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 25

4.2.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 28

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 3

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 29

4.3 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................ 30

4.3.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 30

4.3.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 35

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 37

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................. 38

4.4.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 39

4.4.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 45

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 51

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 56

4.5.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 56

4.5.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 58

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 60

4.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 62

4.6.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 62

4.6.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 63

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 65

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 66

4.7.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 67

4.7.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 71

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 74

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 75

4.8.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 75

4.8.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 77

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 80

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ...................................................................................... 81

4.9.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 81

4.9.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 85

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 88

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 90

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 4

4.10.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 91

4.10.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 92

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 97

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING.................................................................................................................. 98

4.11.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 98

4.11.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 98

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 100

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 101

4.12.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 101

4.12.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 102

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 102

4.13 NOISE ........................................................................................................................................ 103

4.13.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 103

4.13.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 106

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 109

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................... 110

4.14.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 110

4.14.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 111

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 111

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES....................................................................................................................... 112

4.15.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 112

4.15.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 115

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 116

4.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................. 117

4.16.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 117

4.16.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 117

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 117

4.17 TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................... 118

4.17.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 118

4.17.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 122

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 5

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 124

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 125

4.18.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 125

4.18.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 125

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 127

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.............................................................................................. 128

4.19.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 128

4.19.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 129

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 133

4.20 WILDFIRE................................................................................................................................... 134

4.20.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 134

4.20.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 135

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 136

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................... 137

4.21.1 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 137 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM................................................................. 139 6 REPORT PREPARATION..................................................................................................................... 151 7 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 152

7.1 Appendix A: Air Quality/Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reference Materials................... 152

7.2 Appendix B: Biological Resources Database Results................................................................. 153

7.3 Appendix C: Cultural Resources Reference Materials............................................................... 154 Figures
Figure 2-1 Ramirez Subdivision Project Location ..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-2 Ramirez Subdivision Project Aerial.......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-3 General Plan Land Use Designation Map................................................................................................ 13 Figure 2-4 Zoning District Map................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 2-5 Tentative Subdivision Map...................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4-1 Farmland Type ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 4-2 CNDDB Occurrences within 5-miles of the Project Site .......................................................................... 42

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 6
Figure 4-3 Soils Map ................................................................................................................................................ 70 Figure 4-4 Flood Zone Map...................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 4-5 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments............................................................... 104 Tables
Table 2-1 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zoning Districts of Surrounding Properties..................... 17 Table 4-1 Farmland Type by Acreage within Project site ......................................................................................... 26 Table 4-2 SJVAPCD Recommended Air Quality Thresholds of Significance2F.......................................................... 33 Table 4-3 SPAL Thresholds for Residential Projects................................................................................................. 35 Table 4-4 SPAL Significance Thresholds................................................................................................................... 36 Table 4-5 Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5-mile radius of Project Site ................................................. 41 Table 4-6 Essential Habitats and Potential Existence of Special-Status Species on Site........................................... 43 Table 4-7 Project Energy Consumption.................................................................................................................... 64 Table 4-8 Scoping Plan Priority GHG Reduction Strategies Consistency Analysis .................................................... 78 Table 4-9 City of Porterville Existing and Projected Potable Water Demands by Use Type, 2020 - 2040................ 93 Table 4-10 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan for Residential Development............................... 99 Table 4-11 Exterior Noise Level Standards, dBA .................................................................................................... 105 Table 4-12 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria (Acoustical Analysis Table III)................................. 106 Table 4-13 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria (Acoustical Analysis Table IV) .................... 106 Table 4-14 Receptors and Baseline Analyzed in the RCNM ................................................................................... 107 Table 4-15 Typical Vibration Levels During Construction....................................................................................... 108 Table 4-16 City of Porterville Water Supply and Demand Comparison, Hydrologic Conditions, 2025 - 2040 ....... 130

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 7
1 INTRODUCTION
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. (PCE) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Porterville (City) to address the environmental effects of the proposed Ramirez Subdivision (“Project” or “proposed Project”). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq. The City of Porterville is the Lead Agency for this proposed Project. The site and the proposed Project are described in detail in SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.

1.1 Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq., also known as the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.

A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.2 Document Format
This IS/MND contains five (5) sections plus appendices. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION provides the basis of the IS/MND’s regulatory information and an overview of the Project. SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM provides a detailed description of Project components. SECTION 3 DETERMINATION concludes that based on the Initial Study, a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared, identifies the environmental factors potentially affected based on the analyses contained in this IS, and includes with the Lead Agency’s determination based upon those analyses. SECTION 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analyses for all impact areas and the mandatory findings of significance. A brief discussion of the reasons why the Project impact is anticipated to be potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, less than significant, or why no impacts are expected is included. SECTION 5 MITIGATION

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 8
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM presents the mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project. The CalEEMod Results (Appendix A), IPaC and CNDDB Occurrence Report (Appendix B), CHRIS Search Record and NAHC Correspondence (Appendix C) are provided at the end of this document.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 9
2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This section describes the components of the proposed Project in more detail, including Project location, Project objectives, and required Project approvals.

2.1 Project Title
Ramirez Subdivision (PRC 2024-026-S, Annexation (ANX) 2026-001)

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency
City of Porterville
Community Development Department
Claudia Calderon, Director
(559) 782-7460
Applicant
Callison Elite Construction, Inc.
1061 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
(559) 359-1737
[email protected]

2.4 Study Prepared By
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500

2.5 Project Location
The Project Site is located in Tulare County, California. The site is located on the southwest corner of North Newcomb Street and West Linda Vista Avenue (Figure 2-1), consisting of one (1) parcel that totals approximately

11.47 acres (Figure 2-2). The area is identified by the Tulare County Assessor as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 243-130-042. The site is a portion of Section 16, Township 21 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

2.6 Latitude and Longitude
The centroid of the Project site is 36.104660, -119.054799.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 10
Figure 2-1 Ramirez Subdivision Project Location
r - Porterville City Limits
N
A 0 0.25 0.5 1.5 2
--- - - Miles
~~~,-/~/ /\.I ,-----1 ,L-L-l---,JI IV
City of Porterville - Ramirez TSM -Date Created: 9/ 22/ 2025

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 11
Figure 2-2 Ramirez Subdivision Project Aerial
r - Porterville City Limits
N
0 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08
City of Porterville - Ramirez TSM

0.1 Miles
~~c::::-~,c=
----I I\. I ~~-1-.I-JI IV
Date
---- Created: 9/22/2025

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 12

2.7 General Plan Designation
The City of Porterville 2030 General Plan Land Use Diagram identifies the Project Site as having a land use designation of Low Density Residential (Figure 2-3). According to the General Plan, Low Density Residential “represents typical single-family subdivisions. The maximum residential density is 6.0 units per gross acre.”

2.8 Zoning
The Project Site has been prezoned RS-2 Low Density Residential (Figure 2-4). The Porterville Development Ordinance (PDO; Chapter 21 of the Porterville Municipal Code, or PMC) identifies the purpose of the RS-2 district to “provide areas for attached or detached single family homes with a maximum residential density of 7.5 units per net acre. This district also allows for limited uses such as day care homes, parks, and religious facilities that are appropriate in a low-density residential environment.”

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 13
Figure 2-3 General Plan Land Use Designation Map
ista Ave
C:J Project Site
r Porterville City Limits
General Plan Land Use Designation
N
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
0 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08
- 0.1
-- Miles
City of Porterville - Ramirez TSM -
Linda Vista Ave
"'
~ 0..

N
w
N
,-
z
z "'
~ 0
3 er
~
~
"' r
~ 0
3 er
~ I
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Gannin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) Ope_nSt reetMap contributors, and the GIS User Comm unity, Sources: Esri, TomTom;~ arroin:'1c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
r-,r-,~r-t~ I I\. I ,--1 ,L--&.....1---'1 I 'V
-Date Created: 10/2/2025

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 14
Figure 2-4 Zoning District Map
ista Ave
c::] Project Site
Porterville City Limits
Zoning District
N
A
RR (Rural Residential)
RS-1 (Very Low Density
Residentia I)
RS-2 (Low Density Residential)
0 0,01 0,03 0,05 0,08
City of Porterville - Ramirez TSM
0,1
Miles
Linda Vist a Ave
z
z
i
0 3
CT
V,
'c
I
I
I
z
z "'
~ 0
3 CT
)4
I
I
l
( ~ I
a '<
I
Sources: Esri. TomTom. Garmin. FAO. NOAA. USGS. (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esn, Tom Tom, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
r'!""lr'lr--r-1~1 - I\,. I r-1 ,~&...-1---JI IV
-Date Created: 10/2/2025

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 15

2.9 Description of Project
To facilitate the future development of the Project Site, the Applicant, Callison Elite Construction, Inc., has requested a Tentative Subdivision Map (PRC 2024-026-S) and Annexation (ANX No. 2026-001). These processes pertain to one (1) approximately 11.47-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of North Newcomb Street and West Linda Vista Avenue in Tulare County, CA (APN 243-130-042). The TSM proposes to subdivide the Project Site into 30 single-family lots (Lots 1 to 30), ranging from 10,762 square feet (sf.) to 17,011 sf., with an average lot size of 12,630 sf. (Figure 2-5). Each lot is proposed to be developed with one unit (2.61 du/ac). The Project proposes an internal network of local streets with one (1) point of ingress/egress on N. Newcomb Street, one (1) point of ingress/egress on W. Linda Vista Avenue, and one (1) street stub to the south in the southwestern portion of the site. All roadways within the proposed subdivision would be designed in accordance with City standards and would have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. In addition, N. Newcomb Street and W. Linda Vista Avenue in proximity to the Project site would be improved to their ultimate rights-of-way, with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, in addition to landscaping. The annexation would annex the one-parcel Project site from the County of Tulare into the City of Porterville.

Though no physical development is proposed at this time, any future development would be built in accordance with all mandatory water use requirements as outlined in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 and verified through the building permit process. As a residential development that would contain plumbing fixtures and fittings, the Project would be required to comply with water-conserving measures for water closets, urinals, showerheads, and faucets. Additionally, as a residential development that would contain landscaping including trees, shrubs, groundcover/annual plants, and lawn, the Project would be required to comply with the updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) (California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 2.7, Division 2), as implemented and enforced through the building permit process.

The Project is proposing annexation into City limits and thus, future development would be required to connect to water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Domestic water service would be provided to the site through proposed water mains located throughout the site and would connect to the City system. Sanitary sewer service would be provided though sewer mains located throughout the site and would connect to the City system. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. In addition, the Project would be subject to fees for the construction, acquisition, and improvements for public services including, but not limited to, fire protection services, police protection services, parks, and schools.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
January 2026
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – Ramirez Subdivision | 16
Figure 2-5 Tentative Subdivision Map

VICINITY MAP

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
NTS

COUNTY OF TULARE
f----------'4 ------------1
'
LOCAL STREET (TYP.)
LOT : A
16,36H-On
LOT:.S

12.0!S SQFT
LOT : 7
12,.612SQfT
LOT : 8

11.612SOl'T
i u+ ++••-f-•.,-+-t+ ~ •• ~6s°'CA~ PA'i(WM O
6 WlOE ClrY $10.

SIOtWAU:

S.!/WIOflAl'IDSCAPE
PAk'(WM
CITY $f0, Q.111111, GUHeA'
COLLECTOR STREET (TYP.)
_'t(~SllJNDA VISTA AVfNJ.Jt--t----
iTENTATIVE PARCEL MAP M:INGA DM51ClHOI A f!()tt()N0,fWltrw.lt()IJlltAtefi.Ol ' AI.CCLMl#MO. i.101 t.M.4&-ll lOCAICD IN A,otnOtlOI tH!NOltTH!ASfQUAtlEIO,SlCOOf,I U,. IOWNSMf'21SOUIH,.ltA.IQVl'ASf. M()Ut«OiA.kOIA.SfAt,()~IN MCOUl-lrY0,1LlAJtf.SfAJ!OfCAi.lfOI~
,AlT2()21.