CITY OF TULARE, CA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
RFP 26-850
April 28, 2026
Notice of Request for Proposals (RFP)
Services related to the implementation of a New Land-use/Permitting system for the City of Tulare, CA
The City of Tulare is accepting proposals for Consultant Services. Proposals will be received until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26th, 2026.
The submitting party acknowledges the right of the City to reject any or all proposals and to waive informality or irregularity in any proposal received and to award each item to different submitting parties or all items to a single submitter. In addition, the submitting party recognizes the right of the City to reject a proposal if the submitter fails to furnish any required data required by the RFP, or if the proposal is in any way incomplete or irregular. The City shall be the sole judge of compliance with the specifications and reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or parts thereof.
Exhibit C – RFP and Addendum
Issued by City of Tulare
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Contents
I. Invitation ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 II. Background ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 III. Role of a Consultant. ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 IV. Scope of Services ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Current-state Analysis and Documentation ...................................................................................................................... 6 B. Future-state Analysis and Documentation ........................................................................................................................ 7 C. System Requirements Development and RFP Creation .................................................................................................... 8 D. Proposal Evaluation and Review ...................................................................................................................................... 8 E. Contract Negotiation ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 F. Software Implementation Project Management ................................................................................................................ 9 V. MEETINGS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 VI. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT .......................................................................................................................... 10 VII. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................. 12 Exhibit A – Professional Services Agreement Template ............................................................................................................. 14 City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
I. Invitation
The City of Tulare (“City”) is requesting competitive proposals from qualified firms interested in assisting the City of Tulare in the following tasks related to the implementation of new land-use permitting system:
1) Current state analysis and documentation
2) Future state analysis and documentation
3) System requirements development and RFP Creation
4) Proposal Evaluation and Review
5) Contract Negotiation
6) Software Implementation Project Management
II. Background
Incorporated on April 5, 1888, Tulare, California, is in the San Joaquin Valley region of California, approximately forty-five miles south of Fresno and sixty miles north of Bakersfield. It has a population of approximately 71,000 residents.
The City operates under the council-manager form of government. Its five-member council includes four members, elected by district, for four-year staggered terms on a non-partisan basis, and a mayor who is selected by the City Council for a two-year term. The Council appoints the City Attorney and the City Manager, who is responsible for day-to-day administration of the City under the policy direction of the Council.
The City’s existing Land-use software system, Tyler Eden, is being sunset by the software vendor. The current system contains multiple components including but not limited to: Permits and Inspections, Code Enforcement, Licensing (Business Licenses, Tobacco Retailer Licenses (future), Cannabis Licenses), Online web portal including Fee estimation, IVR integration, Tyler Cashiering interface, Parcel Manager, General Ledger Interface, and Trusted System Integration (for supporting Documents).
The City desires to move to a modern solution that will not only offer support for existing land-use functions but also allow for continued growth and allow for easy integration with other technologies. Some examples of desired additional functionality include but are not limited to: Geographic Information Technologies (GIS) integration (ESRI), Mobility support for both staff and the public, Electronic Plan Review, and complete data conversion.
There is a desire for future implementations to manage short term rentals, home occupations, and a rental housing registry.
The City of Tulare has recently implemented Tyler EERP (previously Munis) for Financials and HRM/Payroll and is currently implementing Utility Billing and is expected to complete Utility Billing by July 1st, 2027. Currently the City of Tulare utilizes Tyler Cashiering, and desires that the new land use/permitting system will interface with Tyler Cashiering for all in person transactions.
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
The City of Tulare currently has a renewed interest in ensuring that land-use-related systems meet the needs of staff and public now and in the future. The City of Tulare desires to use an Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) approach with localization and minimizing custom work unless business requirements mandate custom work.
III. Role of a Consultant.
The Consultant will collaborate with the City of Tulare Development Services team, as well as stakeholders from other departments. Demonstrated expertise in evaluating current business processes and developing comprehensive, modern solutions for land use and permitting is required, with a holistic approach that considers the needs of the entire organization. The ideal candidate will possess significant experience with various contemporary land use and permitting systems. It is essential that the consultant remains impartial, avoiding preference for any specific technology vendor, and objectively assesses the organization's current status and future requirements to implement efficient, user-friendly solutions that support employees, contractors, and all stakeholders. The goal is to resolve key business challenges, foster organizational growth, and minimize technical barriers.
IV. Scope of Services
The City anticipates selecting a consultant and awarding contract for services in June 2026.
Consultant will be expected to complete current state analysis and develop RFP in July/August 2026 . The City expects award the software provider in Fall 2026.
The awarded consultant will be expected to perform the following tasks in reviewing current systems/processes and gathering information relative to the City’s requirements for a new land-use software and related systems. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive, but to provide a basic outline of the process anticipated by the City. Consultants are encouraged to provide additional details in their proposals relating to experience in developing Land-use software solicitations with other municipal governments.
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
A. Current-state Analysis and Documentation
1) Conduct stakeholder meetings, and interviews to gather comprehensive feedback on current system usage, including workflows, data management practices, and user interactions. Solicit input from all relevant departments (Development Services, Finance, HRM/Payroll, Utility Billing, Code Enforcement, Licensing, IT, and public users) to identify operational challenges, features lacking, pain points, and areas where the current system fails to support organizational goals. 2) Analyze existing systems and business processes, including Tyler Eden and associated integrations (Tyler Cashiering, Parcel Manager, General Ledger Interface, IVR, Laserfiche) to identify limitations, inefficiencies, gaps in functionality, integration failures, and areas impacting productivity or service delivery. Assess technical tools, data quality, reporting capabilities, compliance with regulatory requirements, and scalability. Evaluate how the current system handles permits, inspections, code enforcement, licensing, fee estimation, and document management, and note any manual workarounds or duplicate efforts.
3) Document findings in a structured assessment that highlights key issues, user needs, and opportunities for improvement. Include a detailed summary of stakeholder feedback, workflow diagrams, system maps, and process flowcharts. Identify critical requirements for future system planning, such as mobility support, GIS/ESRI integration, electronic plan review, and improved online portal functions. Provide actionable recommendations for addressing pain points, optimizing processes, and ensuring seamless integration with Tyler Cashiering and other City systems. Use the assessment to inform future decisionmaking and define priorities for the new land-use software solution.
Deliverables:
1) Comprehensive Current-state Analysis Report with supporting documentation, including stakeholder feedback summaries, workflow diagrams, system architecture review, technical assessment and recommendations for improvement.
2) Conduct a meeting to review current-state analysis report, present key findings, facilitating discussion among stakeholders, and gathering additional input to refine recommendations and ensure alignment with organizational objectives.
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
B. Future-state Analysis and Documentation
1) Conduct in-depth stakeholder engagement sessions, workshops, and interviews with Department staff, City leadership, and the development community to clearly identify and document the City’s operational needs, strategic goals, and desired improvements for the new land-use system. These sessions should explore department-specific requirements, cross-departmental workflows, regulatory compliance objectives, and future growth considerations. Distinguish between critical requirements necessary for day-one operations and preferred enhancements. 2) Define, prioritize, and document desired system features and functional capabilities, ensuring alignment with departmental workflows, regulatory mandates, reporting needs, and scalability for future expansion. This includes identifying opportunities for automation, improved user interfaces, mobile accessibility, document management, digital permitting and inspections, advanced GIS/ESRI integration, and streamlined communication channels between departments and with external stakeholders.
This should be a practical approach to a future state that is based on feasibility of execution. Lofty expectations of what technology might be able to accomplish are not beneficial, as it can create unrealistic expectations.
3) Assess technology trends, best practices, and emerging solutions in municipal land-use management systems, drawing from industry benchmarks and peer city implementations. Evaluate how these innovations could be feasibly adapted to Tulare's context, considering budget, organizational readiness, and integration challenges.
4) Evaluate which required features should be delivered natively within the new system and which could be effectively achieved through integrations with existing or future systems, outlining integration requirements, data exchange needs, and interoperability considerations.
Deliverables:
1. Comprehensive future-state analysis report with supporting documentation, including stakeholder engagement summaries, prioritized requirements matrix, workflow diagrams, system feature recommendations, integration strategy, KPI framework, change management plan, and feasibility assessment.
2. Conduct a meeting to review the future-state analysis report, present key findings, facilitate discussion among stakeholders, and gather additional input to refine recommendations and ensure alignment with organizational objectives.
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
C. System Requirements Development and RFP Creation
1) A comprehensive System Requirements document detailing a summary of current state findings, a summary of future state findings, a gap analysis, and fully defined functional, technical, and operational requirements.
2) Develop a comprehensive, publicly releasable Request for Proposals (RFP) that clearly articulates system requirements, scope of work, implementation expectations, and evaluation criteria. The RFP should include:
• Detailed technical specifications and performance standards • Data management, migration, and integration requirements • Implementation approach, timeline, and milestones
• Vendor qualifications and experience requirements
• Cost structure and pricing format
• Evaluation criteria and selection methodology
• Terms, conditions, and compliance requirements
Ensure the RFP is structured to promote fair competition, transparency, and the selection of a solution that best meets organizational and stakeholder needs.
The RFP solicitation will be posted by City staff.
Deliverables:
1) System Requirements Document
2) Request for Proposal suitable for public release.
D. Proposal Evaluation and Review
1) Support the City in managing a structured and transparent review process for all submitted land use system proposals, including confirming compliance with RFP requirements, responses to Requests for Information, and coordinating evaluation timelines. 2) Facilitate and document the proposal scoring process, working with the evaluation committee to apply established criteria consistently and fairly across all respondents. 3) Coordinate and participate in proposer interviews and product demonstrations, ensuring key functional, technical, and operational requirements are thoroughly evaluated and stakeholder questions are addressed.
4) Prepare a clear, well-documented award recommendation based on scoring results, demonstration outcomes, reference checks, and overall alignment with the City’s needs and strategic objectives.
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
5) Serve as a neutral third-party advisor throughout the evaluation process, adhering to a defined and transparent methodology, avoiding conflicts of interest, and refraining from influencing the outcome beyond providing objective analysis and process guidance.
Selection decision will be made by the evaluation committee, not the consultant.
Deliverables:
1) Unbiased guidance, review and summary of proposals received 2) Completed review process with final recommendation provided by City of Tulare review committee.
3) City Council presentation of work completed. Virtual meeting attendance is acceptable.
E. Contract Negotiation
1) Provide guidance and support to the City throughout the contract negotiation process, ensuring all terms and conditions reflect the City’s requirements, priorities, and risk management objectives. 2) Review proposed contract language, including pricing, service level agreements, deliverables, timelines, and warranties, and recommend adjustments or clarifications to protect the City’s interests.
3) Facilitate communication between the City and the selected vendor to resolve outstanding issues, document agreements, and ensure a clear, mutually acceptable contract is finalized.
Deliverables:
1) City of Tulare best interests fully represented through contract negotiations. 2) Professional negotiated contract acceptable to both parties following best practices.
F. Software Implementation Project Management
1) Develop and maintain a detailed software implementation project plan, including timelines, milestones, resource allocation, risk management strategies, and clear accountability for all tasks. 2) Coordinate all project activities, ensuring alignment between stakeholders, vendor teams, and City departments to meet functional, technical, and operational requirements. 3) Monitor progress, track deliverables, manage issues and changes, and provide regular status reports to leadership to ensure the project stays on schedule, within budget, and achieves desired outcomes.
Deliverables:
1) Project Plan and support
2) Successful management of project implementation
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
V. MEETINGS
For each Phase of the Project, the consultant should include the following meetings in their proposal at a minimum:
A. Kick-off meeting with consultants and City staff to review objectives and expectations, agree to stakeholders involved, methodology, and exchange information.
B. Stakeholder meetings shall be conducted with the required groups for the phase, including but not limited to Community Development, Finance, Information Technology, and Code Enforcement.
These sessions are intended to identify all data collection needs relevant to their respective domains.
C. Clarification meetings with stakeholders as required. These meetings will be to provide information and data collected and provide any additional relevant information.
D. Review of findings and recommendations with departmental and city management. Consultant to provide information supporting findings and recommendations.
The city of Tulare is expecting a mix of in-person and virtual meetings. At least one meeting of the overall project with each stakeholder group will be in person. Subsequent virtual meetings are acceptable if they are recorded and made available to the City of Tulare.
VI.PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT
The proposal should demonstrate the qualifications of the Proposer and of the staff to be assigned to perform the work. The proposal shall be clear, accurate, and comprehensive. Excessive or irrelevant materials will not be favorably received.
A. Cover Letter. A cover letter summarizing the key points of the proposal in a clear and concise manner shall be signed by an individual in the authorized to negotiate terms, render binding decisions, and commit resources. The letter shall state the proposer has read and will comply with all terms and conditions of the RFP and summarize the understanding of the work to be done and ability to perform it. It must also include a statement indicating the proposal shall remain valid for a period of not less than ninety (90) days from the date of submittal, the proposer’s full legal name, state of incorporation, location of office(s), and background and other general information, including the size of the organization, and years in business.
B. Project Proposal. Detailed description of the work proposed.
C. Timing – What is the expected timeframe when the project will be able to start.
D. Personnel. Names, qualifications, proposed roles, office location(s), and availability of the principal personnel who would be assigned to perform the services. The primary person(s) who would be responsible for managing the relationship with the City.
E. Subconsultants. If any part of the work described in the proposal is to be provided by subconsultants provide a description of each subcontractor’s role, previous joint ventures with the subcontractor, and their experience.
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
F. Organizational Chart. Provide an organizational chart for the project team.
G. References. Provide a minimum of three (3) client references. References should be California cities or other public sector entities with similar engagements. Provide the designated person's name, title, telephone number, email address, the project that was completed under their direction, and the dollar value of that contract.
H. Contract Terminations. If your organization has had a contract terminated in the last five (5) years, describe such incident. Termination for default is defined as notice to stop performance due to the Consultant’s non-performance or poor performance and the issue of performance was either (a) not litigated due to inaction on the part of the Consultant, or (b) litigated and such litigation determined that the Consultant was in default. Submit full details of the terms for default including the other party’s name, address, and phone number. Present the Consultant’s position on the matter. The City will evaluate the facts and may, at its sole discretion, reject the proposal on the grounds of the experience.
If the organization has not experienced any such termination for default or early termination in the past five (5) years, so indicate.
Consultants, their principals, or subcontractors may not be presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any regulatory agency
I. Conflict of Interest Disclosure. The Proposer must disclose any finder’s fees, fee splitting, payments to consultants, or other contractual arrangements of the proposer which constitute a real or perceived conflict of interest.
J. Pricing Methodology – Please state if this is a time and materials proposal or a firm fixed pricing. The City of Tulare is open to working with either methodology, but it is important that is clearly communicated which methodology is being used.
K. Pricing. Pricing shall be broken down to include each of the identified phases of the project. Phases D, E and F of the project should stand alone and have the ability to be removed from the overall project if required.
a. Current state analysis and documentation
b. Future state analysis and documentation
c. System requirements development and RFP Creation
d. Proposal Evaluation and Review
e. Contract Negotiation
f. Software Implementation Project Management
L. Deviations from the RFP. Explanation must be provided for proposed deviation from any requirement specified in this RFP.
City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
VII. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESS
M. Evaluation Criteria Proposers will be evaluated on a combination of responsiveness, organization, and clarity of proposals related to the scope of work, as well as the following criteria: experience with similar engagements, qualifications and relevant experience of proposed assigned personnel, demonstrated understanding of the City’s desired scope of work, cost proposal, and references.
N. Selection Process Staff will evaluate the proposals received and select the most qualified proposers for further reviewed consideration. Interviews (virtual and/or in-person) may be scheduled. Based upon the outcome(s) of the evaluation and/or interviews, a recommendation will be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
O. Tentative Schedule
RFQ Issued Tuesday, April 28th , 2026
Last day questions can be submitted. Tuesday, May 12th, 2026 2:00 p.m.
Deadline for submission of proposals Tuesday, May 26th, 2026 2:00 p.m.
Interviews of Top qualifying firms Week of June 15th 23, 2026 City Council Consideration July Council Meeting
P. Professional Services Agreement A draft Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with insurance requirements is shown as Exhibit A. In submitting a proposal, Consultant certifies it takes no exceptions to the RFQ and will accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement. If any exceptions are taken, such exceptions must be clearly noted in the proposal and may be reason for rejection of the proposal. As such, Consultant is directed to carefully review the sample Agreement VIII. OTHER PROPOSAL INFORMATION
Q. Reservations Issuance of this RFP does not commit the City to award an agreement or to procure an agreement for services. The City reserves the right to amend this RFP. The City reserves the right to postpone or cancel, for any or no reason, in part or in its entirety, this RFP. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or any portion of any proposal received in response to this RFP without cause or liability or to waive any irregularities or informalities in the proposals or proposal process. The City is not obliged to accept any proposal or to negotiate with any respondent.
Execution of an agreement is dependent upon the negotiation of a mutually acceptable agreement with the successful respondent.
R. Variations in Scope of Work The City may materially change the scope of work of this RFP. Such changes may include additions, deletions, or other revisions within the general scope. No material changes or adjustments shall be made without a written amendment to this RFP.
S. Costs for Preparing Proposal The City will not compensate for the cost of preparing any proposal, and all materials submitted with a proposal shall become the property of the City. The City will City of Tulare, CA
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a new land-use/permitting system
retain all proposals submitted and may use any idea in a proposal, regardless of whether that proposal is selected.
T. Applicable Laws Any litigation related to this RFP shall be brought in the State of California, with a venue of the Tulare County Superior Courts.
U. Non-Conforming Terms & Conditions Any proposal that includes terms and conditions that do not conform to the terms and conditions of this RFP or Agreement may be subject to rejection as nonresponsive. The City reserves the right to permit the respondent to withdraw non-conforming terms and conditions from its proposal prior to action by the City to award an agreement.
V. California Public Records Act Documents received by the City may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such, may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.
W. Questions All questions regarding this RFQ shall be submitted via Bid Net Direct. All interpretations and any supplemental instructions will be sent to all proposers. All addenda issued shall become part of the contract documents. Under no circumstances may any other department or individual be contacted for clarification or interpretation of any requirements herein. Any oral statements made that materially change any portion of this RFP are not valid unless subsequently ratified by a formal written amendment to this RFP.
Exhibit A – Professional Services Agreement Template
CITY OF TULARE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Professional Services Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of xxxx between the City of Tulare, a California charter city ("City") and consultant legal name, a corporation/company type and state of registration ("Consultant") with respect to the following recitals, which are a substantive part of this Agreement.
RECITALS
The City of Tulare desires to obtain services for a Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study ("Services") more fully described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Consultant is engaged in the business of furnishing Services and hereby represents they are qualified, experienced, and capable of performing Services, and possesses any required licenses, certifications, security/bonding, and/or training necessary to perform Services.
The City of Tulare desires to retain Consultant, and Consultant desires to provide City with Services, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein, City and Consultant agree as follows:
Scope of Services. Consultant shall perform Services described in the Recitals and detailed in Exhibit A. Changes in the scope of Services, including the work performed and/or deliverables produced, shall be made in writing and particularly describe the changes in Services, including payment/costs and schedule/term, as applicable.
Priority and Conflicts; Exclusions. If the terms and requirements of this Agreement conflict with Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. No contractual terms and/or conditions found in Exhibit A shall purport to waive, disclaim, or limit Consultant’s liability, indemnification obligations, warranties, damages for breach or delay, or any security, bonding, or insurance requirements, and any such provisions shall have no force or effect with respect to this Agreement and Services performed by Consultant.
Term of Agreement; Commencement of Services; Schedule. Consultant shall begin performing Services upon notice from City on or after the Effective Date, unless otherwise instructed by the City, and continue with Services until xxxx (“Completion Date”). This Agreement may be terminated prior to the Completion Date pursuant to Section 14 herein.
Payment for Services. As sole compensation for the performance of Services, City hereby agrees to pay Consultant monthly for services rendered to City pursuant to this Agreement on a time and materials basis according to the rates of compensation as set forth in Exhibit A. The total amount paid by the City to Consultant for Services shall not exceed xxxx dollars ($xxxx). The foregoing is inclusive of all labor, equipment, materials, costs and expenses, taxes, and overhead. Consultant will receive no royalty or other remuneration for the production or distribution of any products developed by City or by Consultant in connection with, or based upon, Services. Consultant shall submit to City an itemized invoice, prepared in a form satisfactory to the City, describing its services and costs for the period covered by the invoice. Except as specifically authorized by the City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant’s bills shall include the following information to which such services cost or pertain: a brief description of services performed; the date Services were performed; and the number of hours spent, rate, and by whom. Any such invoices shall be in full accord with any and all applicable provisions of this Agreement. City shall make payment on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt; provided, however, if Consultant submits an invoice which is incorrect, incomplete, or not in accord with the provisions of this Agreement, City shall not be obligated to process any payment to Consultant until thirty (30) days after a correct and complying invoice has been submitted by Consultant.
Independent Contractor Status, Taxes. Consultant is an independent contractor, and nothing contained in this Agreement is intended, or shall be construed in any manner to create or establish the relationship of agent or employee of the City. Consultant has no authority to bind City by contract or otherwise. Consultant will perform the professional services under the general direction of the City Manager or their Designee, subject to the requirement that Consultant shall, at all times, comply with applicable law. Consultant shall pay all taxes, assessments, and premiums under the federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers Compensation insurance premiums (if required), sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes or assessments now, or hereafter, in effect and payable by reason of, or in connection with, Services performed by Consultant. Consultant shall be required to possess a valid and current City of Tulare Business Tax Certificate.
Warranty. By executing this Agreement, Consultant agrees Services it will perform under this Agreement will be of a professional quality conforming to generally accepted industry standards and practices and that Consultant shall maintain all required licenses and certifications necessary for performance of Services hereunder. Consultant further agrees and represents to City that Consultant possesses, or shall arrange to secure from others, all of the necessary professional capabilities, experience, resources, and facilities necessary to provide City Services contemplated under this Agreement and that City relies upon the professional skills of Consultant to do and perform Consultant’s work. Consultant further agrees and represents that Consultant shall follow the current, generally accepted industry practices to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding Services rendered under this Agreement.
Subcontractor Provisions. Consultant shall include in its written agreements with its subcontractors, if any, provisions which: (a) impose upon the subcontractors the obligation to provide to City the same insurance and indemnity obligations that Consultant owes to the City; (b) make clear that City intends to rely upon the reports, opinions, conclusions and other work product prepared and performed by subcontractors for Consultant; and (c) entitle City to impose upon subcontractors the assignment rights found elsewhere in this Agreement.
Power to Act on Behalf of the City. Consultant is not acting as an agent of City and shall not have any right, power, or authority to create any obligation, express or implied, or make representations on behalf of City except as may be expressly authorized in advance in writing from time to time by City and then only to the extent of such authorization.
Access to Records. Consultant shall maintain all preparatory books, records, documents, accounting ledgers, and similar materials, including, but not limited to, calculations and notes relating to work performed for City under this Agreement, on file for at least three (3) years following the date of final payment to Consultant by the City. Any duly authorized representative(s) of City shall have access to such records for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying at reasonable times during Consultant’s usual and customary business hours. Consultant shall provide proper facilities to the City’s representative(s) for such access and inspection.
Ownership of Documents. Title to all final documents, including drawings, specifications, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software (if purchased on the City’s behalf), video and audio tapes, software output, and any other materials with respect to work performed under this Agreement shall vest with City at such time as City has compensated Consultant, as provided herein, for Services rendered by Consultant in connection with which they were prepared. City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Consultant against all damages, claims, lawsuits, and losses of any kind including defense costs arising out of any use of said documents, drawings, and/or specifications on any other project without written authorization of the Consultant. The provisions of this Section 4 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason.
Confidentiality. All work product prepared and performed by and on behalf of Consultant in connection with Services performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be kept confidential and shall be disclosed only to the City, unless otherwise provided by law or expressly authorized by the City. Consultant shall not disclose or permit the disclosure of any confidential information acquired during performance of Services, except to its agents, employees and subcontractors who need such confidential information in order to properly perform their duties relative to this Agreement. Consultant shall also require its subcontractors to be bound to these confidentiality provisions.
Conflicts of Interest. Consultant represents that neither Consultant nor any of its employees have an improper interest, present or contemplated, in Services which would affect Consultant’s or its employees’ performance of Services and the work product produced. Consultant further warrants that neither Consultant nor any of its employees have real property, business interests or income that will be affected by Services. Consultant covenants that no person having any such interest, whether an employee or subcontractor shall perform Services under this Agreement. During the performance of Services, Consultant shall not employ or retain Services of any person who is employed by City or a member of any City board, commission, committee, or other legislative or recommending body.
City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants. This Agreement and performance of Services are non-exclusive and City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with Services while this Agreement is in effect.
Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate as provided in Section 3, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the following:
Termination by City or Consultant: For Convenience. Either party may, at their discretion, terminate this Agreement for convenience and without cause upon ninety (90) days prior written notice to the other party. Upon receipt of a termination notice pursuant to this subsection, Consultant shall promptly discontinue all Services affected, unless the notice directs otherwise.
Termination by City or Consultant: For Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days prior written notice to the other party of a material breach, and a failure within that time period to cure or commence reasonable steps to cure the breach.
Compensation to Consultant Upon Termination. Consultant shall be paid compensation for Services satisfactorily performed prior to service of the written notice of termination. As to any phase partially performed but for which the applicable portion of Consultant's compensation has not become due, Consultant shall be paid the reasonable value of its Services provided. However, in no event shall such payment when added to any other payment due under the applicable part of the work exceed the total compensation of such part as specified Section 4. In the event of termination due to Consultant’s failure to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the City, and City may withhold an amount that would otherwise be payable as an offset to the City's damages caused by such failure.
Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall: (i) promptly discontinue all Services affected, unless the notice of termination directs otherwise; and (ii) deliver or otherwise make available to the City, without additional compensation, all work product and/or deliverables accumulated by Consultant in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in process. Consultant may not refuse to provide such work product for any reason whatsoever.
Non-Appropriation; Lack of Available Funds. The parties acknowledge Services to be performed under this Agreement are expected to extend beyond the City’s budgeted fiscal year. If, during the term of this Agreement, or any renewal term, as applicable, City budget does not appropriate sufficient funds for this Agreement, then City may elect to terminate this Agreement, at its sole discretion, by giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice of termination to Consultant. Upon termination of the Agreement under this section, City shall have no further liability to pay any funds to Consultant or to furnish any other consideration under this Agreement, and Consultant shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Agreement or to provide services intended to be funded pursuant to this Agreement. If partial funds are appropriated or provided, City shall have the option to either terminate this Agreement with no liability to City or offer an amendment to Consultant to reflect the reduced amount. City represents and warrants that (i) as of the Effective Date, it has appropriated the funds for this Agreement for the current fiscal year and (ii) it shall not use the foregoing right to terminate for non-appropriation as a means to terminate for convenience. Consultant’s assumption of risk of possible non-appropriation is part of the consideration for this Agreement. City budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the City Council.
Insurance. Consultant shall satisfy the insurance requirements set forth in Exhibit B.
Indemnity and Defense. Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, demands, causes of action, actions, damages, losses, expenses, and other liabilities, (including without limitation reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the alleged or actual acts, errors, omissions or negligence of Consultant or its subcontractors relating to the performance of Services and the safeguarding of any financial data and information obtained from City necessary to perform Services described herein to the fullest extent permitted by law, unless the injuries or damages are the result of the City's sole negligence or willful misconduct, subject to any limitations imposed by law. Consultant and City agree that said indemnity and defense obligations shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement for any items specified herein that arose or occurred during the term of this Agreement.
Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. Services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance and full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and city laws and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.
Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any duties or obligations hereunder shall be assignable by Consultant without the prior written consent of the City. In the event of an assignment to which City has consented, the assignee shall agree in writing to personally assume and perform the covenants, obligations, and agreements herein contained. In addition, Consultant shall not assign the payment of any monies due 38 Section 8, Item 8D. 5 Consultant from City under the terms of this Agreement to any other individual, corporation or entity. City retains the right to pay any and all monies due Consultant directly to Consultant.
Form and Service of Notices. Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be delivered to, served upon, or given to either party to this Agreement by the other party shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, served or given by one of the following methods: a. Personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed. Service shall be deemed the date of delivery. b. Delivered by e-mail to a known address of the party to whom it is directed provided the e-mail is accompanied by an acknowledgment of receipt by the other party. Service shall be deemed the date of acknowledgement. c. Delivery by a reliable overnight delivery service, ex., Federal Express, receipted, addressed to the addressees set forth below the signatories to this Agreement. Service shall be deemed the date of delivery. d. Delivery by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid. Service shall be deemed delivered seventy-two (72) hours after deposit.
Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the Exhibits and any other attachments, represents the entire Agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral with respect to the subject matter herein. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both City and the Consultant.
Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
Severability. In the event any term or provision of this Agreement is declared to be invalid or illegal for any reason, this Agreement will remain in full force and effect and will be interpreted as though such invalid or illegal provision were not a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions will be construed to preserve the intent and purpose of this Agreement and the parties will negotiate in good faith to modify any invalidated provisions to preserve each party’s anticipated benefits.
Applicable Law and Interpretation and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against either party. This Agreement is entered into by City and Consultant in the County of Tulare, California. Consultant shall perform Services required under this Agreement in the County of Tulare, California.
Amendments and Waiver. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended in any way, and no provision shall be waived, except in writing signed by the parties hereto. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision. Failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to confer any rights upon any party not a signatory to this Agreement.
Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts such that signatures may appear on separate signature pages. A copy or an original, with all signatures appended together, shall be deemed a fully executed Agreement.
Alternative Dispute Resolution. If a dispute arises out of or relating to this Agreement, or the alleged breach thereof, and if said dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, the parties agree first to try in good faith to settle the dispute by non-binding mediation before resorting to litigation. The mediator shall be mutually selected by the parties, but in case of disagreement, the mediator shall be selected by lot from among two nominations provided by each party. All costs and fees required by the mediator shall be split equally by the parties, otherwise each party shall bear its own costs of mediation. If mediation fails to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days, either party may pursue litigation to resolve the dispute. Demand for mediation shall be in writing and delivered to the other party to this Agreement.
A demand for mediation shall be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for mediation be made after the date when commencement of legal or equitable proceedings based on such a claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by California statues of limitations.
Non-Discrimination. Consultant shall not discriminate based on any protected class under federal or State law in the provision of Services or with respect to any Consultant employees or applicants for employment. Consultant shall ensure any subcontractors are bound to this provision. A protected class includes, but is not necessarily limited to race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, and disability.
Performance Requirements. Notwithstanding, and in addition to the provisions of Section 17 of this Agreement, if Services performed hereunder are not in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement and other pertinent documents, City shall have the right to require Consultant to correct the work in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement at no additional increase in the payment to Consultant. Consultant shall promptly correct the work rejected by City for failing to conform to the requirements of the Agreement. Remedy for non-compliance or nonperformance shall commence within 24 hours of notice. City shall also have the right to require Consultant to take all necessary steps to ensure future performance of Services in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to correct the work or fails to take necessary steps to ensure the future performance of Services in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement, City shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement for default.
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement on the date(s) set forth below:
CONSULTANT LEGAL NAME CITY OF TULARE
Name, Title City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
City Attorney City Clerk
Exhibit B – Insurance Requirements
CSJVRMA Category 1 Non-Technology Professional Services Prior to commencement of the Services, Consultant shall take out and maintain at its own expense the insurance coverage required by this Exhibit B. Consultant shall cause any subcontractor with whom Consultant contracts for the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement to take out and maintain equivalent insurance coverage. Said insurance shall be maintained at all times during Consultant’s performance of Services under this Agreement, and for any additional period specified herein.
i. Commercial General Liability.
a. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate, and one million dollars ($1,000,000) products and completed operations aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Consultant’s general liability policies shall be primary and shall not seek contribution from the City’s coverage, and be endorsed using Insurance Services Office form CG 20 10 (or equivalent) to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall be additional insureds under such policies. For construction projects, an endorsement providing completed operations coverage for the additional insured, ISO form CG 20 37 (or equivalent), is also required.
b. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies by Consultant shall not affect coverage provided the City.
c. Coverage shall state that Consultant insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. d. Coverage shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City. ii. Business Automobile Liability. Consultant shall provide auto liability coverage for owned, non-owned, and hired autos using ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 (or equivalent) with a limit of no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident. The policy shall be endorsed to name the City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall as additional insureds. Coverage shall provide and be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City. If the Consultant does not own any autos, coverage for non-owned and hired autos shall be provided. iii. Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability – Statutory. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident or disease. Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. Proof of Worker’s Compensation is not required if Consultant provides written verification that they have no employees.
iv. All Coverages.
a. It shall be a requirement under this agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any Insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the Contractor under this agreement. b. Each insurance policy required by the agreement shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, or reduced in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice has been given to the City, except that ten (10) days’ prior written notice shall apply in the event of cancellation for nonpayment of premium. If a carrier will not provide the required notice of cancellation, the Consultant shall provide written notice to the City of a cancellation no later than five (5) business days before cancellation.
c. All self-insurance, self-insured retentions, and deductibles must be declared and approved by the City. d. Evidence of Insurance - Prior to commencement of work, the Consultant shall furnish the City with certificates, additional insured endorsements, and waivers of subrogation evidencing compliance with the insurance requirements above. The Consultant must agree to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies if requested by the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers - Insurance shall be placed with insurers admitted in the State of California and with an AM Best rating of A- VII or higher.
v. Ancillary Coverages.
a. Professional Liability Insurance. Contractor shall maintain professional liability insurance that insures against professional errors and omissions that may be made in performing the Services to be rendered in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this agreement, and Contractor agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three years after completion of the services required by this agreement.
RFP 26-850 Services related to the implementation of a New Land-use/Permitting system for the City of Tulare, CA
Addendum #1
Below is a summary of questions submitted via the Bidnet platform. Several inquiries were repetitive, so we have consolidated the questions for clarity.
Some questions lack numbers because multipart submissions were divided for individual responses.
1. Q: Will the City allow for fully remote work within the Continental US? A: No, The city of Tulare is not interested in 100% remote work. As stated in section V. Meetings.
“The city of Tulare is expecting a mix of in-person and virtual meetings. At least one meeting of the overall project with each stakeholder group will be in person. Subsequent virtual meetings are acceptable if they are recorded and made available to the City of Tulare.”
2. Q: Does the City of a budget for this effort? If so, could the City please share that budget?
A: The City of Tulare has reviewed the anticipated scope of work and is comfortable that sufficient funding has been allocated to support the effort as proposed.
3. Q: Does the City have a desired timeline for this project? A: The City of Tulare is ready to start this project as soon as reasonable. City expectation is, if it is determined that an RFP is the best path forward, the RFP will be on the street no later than April 1st 2027. The goal would be to have a project ready to start implementation in Summer of 2027.
4. Q: Will the City have a dedicated Project Manager and project team to support coordination across functional areas?
A: Yes, Jason Bowling, the Deputy City Manager / Chief Technology Officer will serve as the project manager for this project. The project team will consist of subject matter experts from the various departments and divisions.
5. Q: Has the City done any work to date to document processes or requirements? A: No. We are at the very start of this project.
6. Q: Has the City previously or is currently working with outside consultants or vendors, other than Tyler Technologies, to procure, oversee, manage, and/or implement any Tyler Tech products including Eden, EERP (Core Financials, Utility Billing, HR/ Payroll, etc.)? If yes, who are the consultants or vendors and what's their role?
A: Yes, for the Core Financials, HRM/Payroll, and Utility Billing portions of the existing EERP project, the City of Tulare has been working with Client First as a technical resource and to assist as needed.
Has the City previously or is currently working with outside consultants or vendors for this Permitting System Procurement RFP? If yes, who are the consultants or vendors and what's their role?
A: No, the city has not worked with any outside consultants in the creation of this RFP or for the Land-use/Permit system replacement.
7. Q: At a high-level, can you describe how the following groups currently use the City's permitting system - Finance, HRM/Payroll, and Utility Billing? A: From a high level, Finance works with permitting system in typical ways a Finance work interact with departmental systems. Some examples might include, taking payments, issue refunds when required, reviewing developer deposit projects.
In the existing permit system, a “developer deposit” project is able to be created with a prepaid amount of funds, city staff is then able to charge time to the developer deposit project through the Eden Payroll. (There was minimal use of this feature previously and currently isn’t functioning because payroll has been moved from Eden to EERP, there will need to be discussion if this is a system requirement in the future)
Utility billing receives notifications when permits that trigger a utility billing account to be created and billed to ensure that an account is created and billing is started.
What types of Licenses are being issued in the City's permitting system? Currently all licenses are being issued out of the Licensing module in Eden. We are in process of implementing EERP for animal licenses, so that is out of scope for this engagement. The current additional licensing types in Eden are Apartment License, Business License, Contractor, Special License and Transient Occupancy Tax.
What types of Code Cases are being managed in the City's permitting system? Code Enforcement Cases are currently being managed from the Code enforcement module in Eden. There are currently 24 different types of Code Enforcement Cases that can be issued in the Code enforcement module.
What IVR system is currently being used through the City's permitting system? Currently the IVR system in use is the IVR from Tyler technologies to work with Eden.
Staff believes it is called Typer payments or Tyler Notify. The product naming has changed over the years and the exact name isn’t clear.
How is Laserfiche currently being used through the City's permitting system? On premise Laserfiche is currently integrated into all modules of Eden. When a user is in Eden on a specific permit or item and clicks on the “paperclip” icon and attaches reference files, those files are added to Laserfiche using a Tyler built standard integration for Eden that automatically fills out metadata based on the permit or item the user is on. On premise Laserfiche then syncs with a Cloud instance of Laserfiche. This enables documents to be accessible through GIS maps via a GIS/Laserfiche Cloud integration.
Aside from Tyler Tech Eden, are there any other systems that need to be considered being replaced by the new permitting system?
A: The primary purpose is the replacement of multiple modules of Eden (Permits and Inspections, Code Enforcement, and Licensing) and business process related to Eden modules.
Staff is not currently aware of any other significant system that would be in scope.
There are 2 other smaller systems that are in scope : 1) ShareFile is currently in use as a means to securely accept digital file submissions online because the existing system did not have that functionality. The expectation is Sharefile will be replaced with a more complete system. 2) Solar App +, is an application that is strongly encouraged by California Law SB 379. Currently Solar App + is in “standalone” mode. Solar app+ use and related processes for solar permits are in scope.
8. Q: What departments and divisions will be the primary users of the new permitting system?
A: Primarily the Land Use/building permits as we have defined it will include:
Community Development – This department is made up of Building, Planning, Permit Center and Business License.
Finance – Currently Finance is also involved in Business License (Payments and Renewals) as well as financial support of the permitting system.
Engineering - Engineering issues multiple different types of permits.
Code Enforcement – Currently uses Eden for case Tracking and to generate communications (letters) to customers for Code Enforcement cases.
Building Community/End Users – Contractors, Owner/builders, etc. (Permits), Business owners (Business License) and Customers (Code Enforcement)
Can the City provide additional detail regarding anticipated integration requirements beyond Tyler Cashiering, GIS, Laserfiche, utility systems, ERP modules, public records systems, payment gateways, and future third-party applications? The purpose of the engagement is to formally define this. However from a high level, General Ledger (may handled by Tyler Cashiering, or alternative method) , IVR, possibility Solar App + if use is required, and online customer-facing site could all be added to the above listing.
9. Q: Can the City provide a high-level overview of the anticipated stakeholder groups and departments that will participate in the evaluation and selection process? A: From a high level, Community Development, Finance, Engineering , Code Enforcement, Information Technology, City Administration, and end users (needs to be further defined) will be involved in the selection process of a desired system. A subset of those will be involved in the review of this RFP.
10. Q: Has the City developed a list of processes for current and future state process workflow mapping as part of Section A. Current State Analysis and Documentation and Section B. Future State Analysis and Documentation? If so, it is possible to share the list of processes?
A: No, we have not.
11. Q: Can you please confirm if Planning processes will be included in scope for the project? If so, can you provide a list of the planning areas you'd expect to be included in the project scope?
A: Yes, planning permit tracking is in scope.
12. Q: Can you please confirm if Engineering permits and inspections (such as encroachment permits or oversize load permits) would be in scope for the project? If so, can you provide a list of the Engineering permit/inspection areas or processes you'd expect to be included in the project scope?
A: Yes. Engineering is in scope of the project. There are currently 18 different types of Engineering related permit types issued from Eden. (Including 5 different types of encroachment permits)
13. Q: Can you please confirm if Addressing would be in scope for the project (such as request for new addresses or address assignment)?
A: Yes. Address assignment is a function performed by planning and the process will need to be included in the review.
14. Q: We understand the City is looking for a change management plan as part of section B. item 4.1. Is the City interested in change management services from the consultant for the section F. Software Implementation Project Management? A: It is important to have a right sized approach to change management. The intent would be to have the right sized change management plan developed at part of the future state based on the level of changes being made. Then, that plan can be executed as part of Implementation.
15. : Section A item 1 requests the consultant to solicit input from public users. Does the City have a specific format desired for this item (e.g., public survey, focus groups, individual interviews)?
A: No. As part of any solution development process the end-user needs to have voice. There have not been any discussions as how best to capture end-user needs. We would be looking for industry standard, cost effective ways to ensure that the end-user interests are represented in the project.
16. Q: The RFP mentions: "There is a desire for future implementations to manage short term rentals, home occupations, and a rental housing registry." Are short term rentals, home occupations, and a rental housing registry in scope for this assessment and selection project?
A: Only home occupations is a current practice and in scope of the project.
17. Q: The RFP mentions that Tyler Eden contains "Tobacco Retailer Licenses (future)." Does the City have a current process in place to manage tobacco retailer licenses currently? If not, is the City looking for support from the consultant to define this process?
A: No. The City does not currently have a tobacco retailer licensing ordinance. No, we are not looking for the consultant to define the process,
18. Q: Could the City share the names and roles of the RFP evaluation team for this solicitation?
A: No. The RFP evaluation team will be made up of members of departments who use the system most. Specific names and roles will not be released.
19. Q: Section IV labeled as "Scope of Services" (p. 5) indicates that the contract will be awarded in June, but the project is not going to Council until July (see section VII.O. on page 12). Please provide clarification regarding the overall timeline.
A: The following line on Page 5 can be removed:
“Consultant will be expected to complete current state analysis and develop RFP in July/August 2026 . The City expects award the software provider in Fall 2026.”
This RFP timeline has shifted from when this was originally written, and this line was not changed in error. The current desired timeframe is outlined in Question #3 on this document.
20. Q: Our approach typically gathers information on data quality and compliance as part of stakeholder feedback and discussions with the project team. Our approach can be scaled based on the level of detail the City is looking to capture. Is the general approach during stakeholder discussions sufficient, or is the City seeking a full, independent review of the City's data for in-scope areas as part of a data quality and compliance assessment?
A: The city of Tulare is looking for general discussion and documentation to the level where systems in use, and desired functions can be documented. The intent of the documentation is to develop system requirements to ensure functionality exists in proposed systems and provide clarity to all stakeholders.
Item #: 7.10
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: July 21, 2026
Department: Information Technology Services
Submitted by: Jason Bowling, Deputy City Manager / Chief Technology Officer Agenda Title: Technology Disaster Recovery Site Partnership with the City of Merced
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve a Technology Disaster Recovery Site Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Tulare and City of Merced and authorize the City Manager to execute the MOU and any administrative documents necessary to implement the MOU.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Organizational Excellence
SUMMARY
The City of Tulare relies on information technology systems to deliver essential government services, including public safety, finance, payroll, utility billing, permitting, legislative operations, and numerous other municipal functions. As technology has become integral to City operations, the ability to recover critical systems following a disaster has become an important component of maintaining continuity of government.
Proposed Memorandum of Understanding
The proposed MOU establishes a reciprocal Technology Disaster Recovery Site Partnership between the City of Tulare and the City of Merced. Under this MOU, each city agrees to make available secure data center rack space, reliable electrical service with emergency backup power, cooling infrastructure, physical security, limited on-site technical assistance, and temporary workspace during a declared emergency.
Why Merced?
Staff evaluated several factors when identifying an appropriate disaster recovery partner. The City of Merced provides sufficient geographic separation to reduce the likelihood that the same regional disaster would affect both jurisdictions while remaining close enough for practical coordination when necessary.
Merced also maintains secure municipal data center facilities and operates a technology environment similar to the City of Tulare, making the partnership operationally compatible.
Both cities provide similar municipal services and operate comparable technology environments, making each well positioned to support the other's future disaster recovery and continuity planning needs. The reciprocal nature of this MOU allows both agencies to strengthen resiliency by leveraging existing public infrastructure and technical expertise.
Why Not Simply Use Cloud Services?
The City of Tulare already utilizes cloud-based services where appropriate. Cloud services are an important component of the City's overall technology strategy but do not eliminate the need for disaster recovery planning.
Many critical technology components continue to rely upon physical infrastructure, including network equipment, cybersecurity appliances, identity management systems, backup repositories, and specialized applications that cannot be fully migrated to the cloud. In addition, migrating every system to the cloud is not always technically feasible, operationally appropriate, or financially prudent.
Industry best practices recommend a layered disaster recovery strategy that combines cloud services, local backups, and geographically separated recovery capabilities. This partnership complements the City's existing cloud investments by leveraging existing municipal facilities rather than relying solely on commercial hosting solutions.
Impact on City Resources
No appropriation of funds is required for approval of this MOU.
This MOU establishes a cooperative framework between the City of Tulare and the City of Merced, but does not authorize the purchase or deployment of disaster recovery technology. This MOU does not require either city to compensate the other for providing data center space, emergency power, cooling, temporary workspace, or facility access. Each city remains responsible for its own equipment, software, maintenance, telecommunications connectivity, and any future disaster recovery investments.
Future equipment, telecommunications, software, or infrastructure necessary to support City of Tulare disaster recovery operations will be evaluated separately and brought forward through the City's annual budget or Capital Improvement Program, as appropriate. By leveraging existing municipal infrastructure, this MOU provides a cost-effective foundation for future disaster recovery initiatives while avoiding the significantly higher costs associated with constructing, leasing, and operating a dedicated secondary data center or commercial colocation facility.
This MOU establishes the legal framework for each city to host the other's disaster recovery infrastructure within existing municipal facilities. Any disaster recovery technology deployed under this MOU will be planned, procured, and implemented through future technology projects as funding and operational priorities allow.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.
LEGAL REVIEW
The MOU has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This item does not require a public hearing and was noticed as a part of the agenda.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes
2. Deny
3. Table
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tulare - Merced Technology Disaster MOU
Reviewed/Approved: MM
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR TECHNOLOGY DISASTER RECOVERY SITE PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERCED AND THE CITY OF TULARE
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made and entered into by and between the City of Merced ("Merced"), a California charter municipal corporation, and the City of Tulare ('"Tulare"), a California charter municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties") with respect to the following recitals, which are a substantive part of this MOU.
RECITALS
A. This MOU is entered into by the Parties for the purpose of establishing a cooperative relationship and mutual agreement to serve as geographically redundant technology disaster recovery (DR) sites for one another.
B. This partnership is intended to enhance the resilience of each city's critical Information Technology (IT) infrastructure and to ensure continuity of operations in the event of an incident, including but not limited to ,natural disasters, cyberattacks, or other emergencies that significantly disrupt IT services.
C. This MOU supports interagency coordination in accordance with the principles of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS), and is intended to facilitate continuity of operations (COOP) during a Declared Incident that impacts either Party's ability to maintain essential IT services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agr~ements herein, City and Consultant agree as follows:
l. Definitions.
Declared Incident. A significant disruption to IT services or infrastructure formally recognized by the City Manager or their designee of either Party, which activates the provisions of this MOU.
Disaster Recovery (DR) Site. A designated facility equipped to host critical IT infrastructure and systems for the purpose of supporting continuity of operations during a Declared Incident.
Emergency Workspace. Temporary space provided per this MOU to support essential personnel in maintaining operations during a Declared Incident.
Incident. An occurrence, natural or human-caused, that requires a coordinated response to protect life, property, operations, or the environment. This includes but is not limited to cyberattacks, infrastructure failures, and natural disasters.
2. Term. This MOU shall be effective for a period of ten (10) years from September 1, 2026 to August 31th, 2036, unless otherwise amended or terminated in accordance with the terms herein.
3. Scope of Cooperation. The intent of this MOU is to provide reciprocal support for IT DR and COOP. Parties will make available a dedicated and secure data center space to accommodate the other Party's deployment and operation of its own DR equipment, and to provide limited operational support in the event of a Declared Incident that disrupts the other Party's primary data center or critical IT services.
4. Power to Act on Behalf of the other Party. Parties are not acting as an agent of the other Party and shall not have any right, power, or authority to create any obligation, express or implied, or make representations on behalf of the other Party except as may be expressly authorized in advance in writing from time to time by the other Paiiy and then only to the extent of such authorization.
5. Mutual Hosting of Recovery Infrastructure. Each Party agrees to provide, at no cost to the other, access to designated space within its data center facilities to support the other Party's hosting of DR infrastructure.
a. Space Provided. This support shall include: rack space sufficient to suppo1i mutually agreed-upon DR technology infrastructure, not exceeding lOU, including limited secured cabinet or rack space for the storage of essential DR materials such as preprinted check stock, multi-factor authentication (MFA) tokens, DR documentation, official seals, backup media, or other critical operational items.
b. Utilities. Reliable power, including emergency backup power systems to ensure continuity during outages, and cooling infrastructure adequate to maintain safe operating temperatures for hosted equipment shall be provided by the Parties. c. Security. Physical security measures, including but not limited to: access control systems, surveillance monitoring, and restricted access protocols shall be provided by the Parties. d. Connectivity. The Parties will coordinate the establishment of dedicated network circuits between their respective sites, utilizing mutually agreed-upon providers. Each Party will be responsible for its own connectivity costs unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. e. Facility-Based Technical Assistance. During normal operations, each Party agrees to provide minimal on-site support as needed, including, but not limited to: equipment power cycles, cable checks and physical inspections, visual verification of system status indicators, escorting authorized remote personnel or vendors, if required. f Temporary Continuity Operations Workspace. In the event of a Declared Incident (including but not limited to a natural disaster, cyberattack, infrastructure failure, or other emergency that disrupts essential IT services) each Party agrees to provide the other, upon request, with temporary workspace suitable for essential personnel to conduct critical operations for a period not to exceed seven (7) consecutive calendar days. If continued use of the workspace is required beyond the initial seven (7) days, the term may be extended for an additional period not to exceed twenty-one (21) consecutive calendar days, provided that both City Managers mutually agree in writing. Such extension shall also be provided at no cost to either Party. In connection with the provision of temporary workspace, the hosting Party will, subject to availability and operational feasibility, provide limited temporary internet connectivity to support essential governmental functions of the requesting Party. The hosting Party reserves the right to limit, restrict, or discontinue connectivity if such use materially impacts its operations, capacity, or security posture.
g. Extended Incident Support Services. During the period in which continuity workspace is being utilized, each Party further agrees to provide extended on-site support, as reasonably feasible and at no cost, to assist the requesting Party in maintaining or restoring essential IT functions. Extended support may include but is not limited to: deployment of IT personnel to assist with system setup, troubleshooting, and restoration of services; physical handling and installation of hardware or network equipment; coordination with third-party vendors or service providers on behalf of the requesting Party; and assistance with secure access to hosted systems and data. The scope and duration of such support shall be determined based on the nature of the Declared Incident and the operational needs of the requesting Party and shall not exceed the agreed-upon continuity workspace period unless otherwise authorized in writing by both City Managers.
6. Mutual Personnel Clearance and Facility Access Assurance. Given the presence of sensitive systems and restricted-access infrastructure, such as criminal justice information systems and confidential records, both Paiiies recognize the need for strict personnel vetting and physical access controls. Each Party is solely responsible for conducting or verifying background checks for its personnel requiring access to the other Party's facilities, in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal standards. Each Party certifies that its designated personnel have passed the required vetting and are eligible for secure access. The Parties agree to rely on each other's certification and will not require duplicate background checks unless mandated by law.
7. Continuity Coordination and Site Management. Each Party shall designate a Continuity Coordinator and an alternate who shall be responsible for overseeing the implementation and ongoing management of this IT DR partnership. The Continuity Coordinator shall serve as the primary point of contact for all matters related to: coordination of site-based support activities under this MOU, management of infrastructure access and physical security compliance, facilitation of communication between Parties during Declared Incidents, and verification of readiness and availability of designated resources and workspace.
8. Incident Declaration and Continuity Activation Procedures. The provisions of this MOU, including access to co-location services, emergency workspace, and extended on-site support, shall be activated upon the declaration of a disaster by either Party. a. Process. Activation shall require a written declaration of a disaster or major service disruption by the City Manager or their designee of the requesting Party. The declaration shall include: a description of the nature and scope of the Declared Incident; the anticipated duration of the disruption; and the specific support being requested under this MOU. b. Notification Procedure. The requesting Party shall notify the Continuity Coordinator of the responding Party via email and phone as soon as practicable. Written confirmation of the declaration shall follow within 48 hours of initial contact. c. Response Coordination. Upon receipt of the declaration, the responding Party shall acknowledge the request in writing and direct the Continuity Coordinator to initiate access to facilities, systems, and personnel as outlined in this MOU. d. Documentation. Both Parties shall maintain records of all communications, actions taken, and resources deployed during the activation period for audit and review purposes.
9. Cost. These services shall be provided solely for the purpose of supporting the mutual DR objectives outlined in this MOU and shall not be subject to rental, hosting, or service fees unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both Parties.
a. Agency-Incurred Costs. Each Party shall bear its own costs incurred under this MOU, including but not limited to: procurement, installation, and maintenance of DR infrastructure; network connectivity and telecommunications services; personnel time, travel, and related labor expenses; and routine testing and validation of hosted systems. b. Shared Costs and Reimbursement. Any costs that may be shared between the Paiiies, or any reimbursement for services rendered beyond the scope of this MOU, shall: be negotiated in advance and documented in writing, include a clear description of the services or resources provided, and be supported by appropriate cost documentation in accordance with ICS resource tracking standards.
c. Resource and Cost Tracking During Declared Incidents. During a Declared Incident, each Party shall maintain accurate records of all expenditures, personnel time, and resources deployed in support of the other Paiiy. These records shall be maintained in accordance with ICS Form 214 (Activity Log) or equivalent documentation, and be made available upon request.
10. Joint Disaster Recovery Testing. To promote preparedness and validate the effectiveness of this MOU, the Parties may conduct joint DR tests at mutually agreed intervals. These tests are intended to validate: infrastructure readiness and compatibility; network connectivity and failover capabilities; communication and coordination procedures; and physical access and support logistics. Participation in such tests shall be coordinated by the designated Continuity Coordinators. Test results should be used to improve operational readiness and inform updates to this MOU.
11. Data Privacy and Ownership.
a. Ownership of Equipment and Data. Each Party retains full ownership and control of all hardware, software, and data it installs or operates within the other Party's facilities under this MOU. The hosting Party shall not access, manage, or interfere with the colocated equipment or any data stored or processed therein, except as expressly authorized for the purpose of providing support services described in this MOU.
b. No Data Hosting or Custodial Responsibility. This MOU does not establish a data hosting relationship. The Parties acknowledge that the facilities and services provided are only those expressly identified in this MOU. The hosting Party shall not be considered a custodian or processor of the colocated Party's data for any legal, regulatory, or operational purpose.
12. Confidentiality. Parties shall not disclose or permit the disclosure of any confidential information except to those who need such confidential information in order to properly perform their duties relative to this MOU. IT DR planning documentation is not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
13. Termination. This MOU shall terminate as provided in Section 1, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the following:
a. Termination for Convenience. Either Party may, at their discretion, terminate this MOU for convenience and without cause upon ninety (90) days prior written notice to the other Party.
b. Termination for Cause. Either Party may terminate this MOU upon ten (10) days prior written notice to the other Party of a material breach, and a failure within that time period to cure or commence reasonable steps to cure the breach.
c. Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this MOU, Paiiies shall promptly work to remove their infrastructure from the other Party's site.
14. Indemnity and Defense. Parties hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the other Party, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, demands, causes of action, actions, damages, losses, expenses, and other liabilities, (including without limitation reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the alleged or actual acts, errors, omissions or negligence of the other Party relating to the performance of this MOU, unless the injuries or damages are the result of the other Party's sole negligence or willful misconduct, subject to any limitations imposed by law. Parties agree that said indemnity and defense obligations shall survive the expiration or termination of this MOU for any items specified herein that arose or occurred during the term of this MOU.
15. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. Services provided by the Parties shall be performed in accordance and full compliance with all applicable federal, and state laws and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.
16. Assignment. Neither this MOU nor any duties or obligations hereunder shall be assignable by a Party without the prior written consent of the other Party.
17. Form and Service of Notices. Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this MOU or by law to be delivered to, served upon, or given to either Party to this MOU by the other Party shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, served or given by one of the following methods: a. Personally delivered to the Paiiy to whom it is directed.
Service shall be deemed the date of delivery. b. Delivered by e-mail to a known address of the Party to whom it is directed provided the e-mail is accompanied by an acknowledgment of receipt by the other Party. Service shall be deemed the date of acknowledgement. c. Delivery by a reliable overnight delivery service, receipted, addressed to the addressees set forth below the signatories to this MOU. Service shall be deemed the date of delivery. d. Delivery by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid. Service shall be deemed delivered seventy-two (72) hours after deposit.
18. Entire MOU. This MOU, including the Exhibits and any other attachments, represents the entire agreement between Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral with respect to the subject matter herein. This MOU may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Parties.
19. Severability. In the event any term or provision of this MOU is declared to be invalid or illegal for any reason, this MOU will remain in full force and effect and will be interpreted as
though such invalid or illegal provision were not a paii of this MOU. The remaining provisions will be construed to preserve the intent and purpose of this MOU and the parties will negotiate in good faith to modify any invalidated provisions to preserve each party's anticipated benefits.
20. Applicable Law, Interpretation, and Venue. This MOU shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The language of all parts of this MOU shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against either Party.
This MOU is entered into by the Parties in the County of Merced, California.
21. Amendments and Waiver. This MOU shall not be modified or amended in any way, and no provision shall be waived, except in writing signed by the Parties. No waiver of any provision of this MOU shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision. Failure of either Party to enforce any provision of this MOU shall not constitute a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of the remaining provisions of this MOU.
22. Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to confer any rights upon any Party not a signatory to this MOU.
23. Execution in Counterparts or Electronically. This MOU may be executed in counterparts such that signatures may appear on separate signature pages. This MOU may be electronically via Docusign, Adobe Sign, or similar means.
24. Alternative Dispute Resolution. If a dispute arises out of or relating to this MOU, or the alleged breach thereof, and if said dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, the Parties agree first to try in good faith to settle the dispute by non-binding mediation before resorting to litigation.
The mediator shall be mutually selected by the Parties, but in case of disagreement, the mediator shall be selected by lot from among two nominations provided by each Party. All costs and fees required by the mediator shall be split equally by the Parties, otherwise each Party shall bear its own costs of mediation. If mediation fails to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days, either Party may pursue litigation to resolve the dispute. Demand for mediation shall be in writing and delivered to the other Party to this MOU. A demand for mediation shall be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for mediation be made after the date when commencement of legal or equitable proceedings based on such a claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by California statues of limitations.
25. Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be held liable for failure to fulfill obligations under this MOU due to events beyond their reasonable control, including but not limited to natural disasters, war, or acts of terrorism.
26. Technical Contacts.
Jeff Bennyhoff Director of Information
Technolo
Aarin Garrison Information Technology
Mana er
Coordinator
209-385-6829 [email protected]
209-385-6961 [email protected]
Jason Bowling Deputy City Manager/ 559-684-4266 [email protected] ChiefTechnolo Officer
Ken Wales Computer Systems 559-684-4228 [email protected] Su ervisor
Alternate
NOW, THEREFORE, the have executed this Agreement on the date(s) set forth below:
CITY OF MERCED
D. Scott McBride, Merced City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY OF TULARE
Marc Mondell, Tulare City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Mario U. Zamora, Tulare City Attorney
Item #: 7.11
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: July 21, 2026
Department: Police
Submitted by: Fred Ynclan, Chief of Police
Agenda Title: Award for Tulare Animal Services Strategic Plan Consultant
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Matrix Consulting Group in an amount not to exceed $65,900 to conduct a comprehensive operational study and strategic plan for Tulare Animal Services.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Organizational Excellence
SUMMARY
The City advertised a Request for Proposals (26-849) in May for a firm to complete a strategic plan for Tulare Animal Services aimed at ensuring the organization operates at maximum efficiency while delivering high-quality community services.
Firms were requested to make proposals to provide:
• Organizational Assessments
• Evaluation of Staffing Needs and Roles
• Recommendations for Organizational Change
• Service Delivery Strategy
• A Report and Action Plan
The Consultant will work with staff to determine the necessary other public facilities, equipment, and staffing to deliver animal control services at the City’s current population and as the City grows. The Consultant shall provide recommendations regarding opportunities to streamline operations and reduce costs, as well as providing a neutral, detailed evaluation of potential future delivery models, including privatization, consolidation, and further internalization. Crucially, this analysis must be supported by financial modeling that estimates the implementation costs and long-term savings for each scenario, resulting in a final report with prioritized, actionable recommendations. For context and comparison, the Consultant shall perform research and provide a summary of operations from similar California cities and surrounding communities.
Proposals were received from the following proposers:
Consultant Location
Matrix Consulting Group San Mateo, CA
Remedy HealthCare Consulting Kansas City, MO
The proposals were reviewed and evaluated by the Assistant City Manager and the Chief of Police.
Based on the review of the proposals, staff determined that the most qualified firm was Matrix Consulting Group.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
Funding for the Tulare Animal Services Strategic Plan will be paid out of a contingency fund transfer as authorized by the City Manager.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.
LEGAL REVIEW
The Professional Services Agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s office.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This item does not require a public hearing and was noticed as a part of the agenda.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes
2. Deny
3. Table
ATTACHMENTS
None
Reviewed/Approved: MM
Item #: 7.12
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: July 21, 2026
Department: Engineering Services - Project Management
Submitted by: Michael Miller, City Engineer
Agenda Title: Capital Improvement Project Dashboards for July 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Accept the Capital Improvement Project Dashboards for July 2026.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Infrastructure and Transportation
SUMMARY
On December 16, 2014, the Tulare City Council adopted the Tulare Project Management System Program Policy (TPMS). The TPMS is designed to help the City accomplish significant projects on time, within budget, and in accordance with each project’s clearly defined scope. The TPMS uses a systematic approach to project management with the following goals:
• Establish consistency in how projects are managed,
• Create department 5-year project plans,
• Improve pre-planning and preparation,
• Identify and implement management policies and procedures, • Improve project cost tracking and project delivery,
• Formalize and improve project reporting, and
• Review and evaluate project successes or failures upon completion to improve future projects.
Pursuant to the City Council’s request, staff provides quarterly Capital Improvement Project Dashboards for all major capital projects within the City Council’s purview. The dashboards provide a visual summary of overall project progress so the City Council is aware of their status. The dashboards identify the project number, project title, project phase, project manager, start date, end date, budget, expenditures/encumbrances, and special notes on the project's status and/or issues.
The attached Capital Improvements Project Dashboard reflects the quarterly status of active projects as of July 2026. The completion status graphic (pie chart) uses a color metric that reflects the phase each project is in. BLUE shading indicates that the project is in the Design phase, GREEN shading indicates that the project is in the Environmental or Right-of-Way Acquisition phase, and ORANGE shading indicates that the project is in the Construction or Implementation phase.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.
LEGAL REVIEW
This item does not require legal review.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This item does not require a public hearing and was noticed as a part of the agenda.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes
2. Deny
3. Table
ATTACHMENTS
1. July 2026 CIP Dashboards
Reviewed/Approved: MM
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0074: Cross &
West
Improvements
District(s): 1 & 2
Total budget: $2,423,785
Division: Engineering Total Contract: $1,422,775
Project Manager: Dylan ChimientiEngineer: 4 Creeks Contract Working Days: 120Contractor: 99 Pipeline Estimated Completion: 2026Funding: Measure R, Gas Tax, RMRA SB Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion WT0056: Well 50
(Well 1
Replacement)
District(s): 2
Total budget: $5,692,894
Division: Water Drilling Contract: $589,300Project Manager: Dylan Chimienti Drilling Working Days: 65 Engineer: CarolloContractor: Drilling - South Valley Companies. Equipping - Unified Field Services Corp.
Equipping Contract: $3,372,133
Funding: Water CIP Equipping Working Days: 240
Estimated Completion: 2027
This project involves installing a sidewalk on the north side of Cross Avenue, enhancing surface water drainage, modifying water and sewer services, reconstructing the street, and improving the westerly side of the Cross AvenueWest Street intersection. The project will also improve pedestrian connectivity in the area.
Construction: All contract work is complete. City staff is currently working with the contractor through the closeout process. Remaining items include labor compliance obligations. Once complete, the staff will prepare the NOC for Council.
Construction of new water well to replace existing Well #1 on the same site.
Construction:The contractor has completed some onsite improvements, including underground electrical and concrete work. The project is on hold while City staff coordinate with the design team to redesign the flush to waste storm drain line from D St to B St. The line is being redesigned because routing it to D St would cause surcharging and water retention during flushing. Construction is expected to resume in July.
Design R.O.W. Const.
100%
Design R.O.W. Const.
10%
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0088: Prosperity
& West Traffic
Signal
District(s): 1 & 2
Total budget: $4,831,616
Division: Engineering Contract Amount: $3,082,653Project Manager: Dylan ChimientiEngineer: QK Contract Working Days: 125Contractor: 99 Pipeline Estimated Completion: 2026Funding: Measure R, Gas Tax, CIP Water, Sewer CIP Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0095: Academy
& Apricot
Improvements
District(s): 4
Total budget: $12,741,517
Division: Engineering
Construction Contract: $9,931,583
Project Manager: Dylan ChimientiEngineer: 4 Creeks Contract Working Days: 280Contractor: Dawson-Mauldin LLC.
Estimated Completion: January 2026
Funding: Gas Tax (RMRA/HUTA), Water CIP, Sewer CIP, Streets CIP, Storm Drain CIP, CDBG Pavement Management System / Utility project on Apricot Ave. between Gem St. and Blackstone St.; Academy Ave. between Gem St. and Blackstone Ave.; Pine Dr. between Academy Ave. and Highland St.; E. La Mesa Dr. between Academy Ave. and Blackstone St.; N. Gem St. between San Joaquin Ave. and Academy Ave.; Highland St. between San Joaquin Ave. and the Santa Fe Trail; and Olympic Ct. at Apricot Ave. Includes ADA Concrete work, Water, Sewer and Surface Water facilities.
Construction:Construction is completed, and staff are working with the contractor on project closeout. Notice of completion was approved by Council on March 17, 2026.
Expansion project to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Prosperity and West. This includes ROW acquisition to allow the placement of facilities at their ultimate location. Includes ADA concrete work, sewer water, storm drain, and TID facilities.
Construction:On 4/7/26, the project was awarded to 99 Pipeline by Council. Staff is working with Chicago Title to have the deeds for the acquired property recorded and the funds wired. Staff is also working with private utilities on their utility pole relocation. Concurrently, staff is working through the construction submittal process.
Design R.O.W. Const.
0%
Design R.O.W. Const.
100%
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0099: Mt. View
St. Improvemetns District(s): 5
Total budget: $5,521,134
Division: Engineering Contract Amount: TBDProject Manager: Dylan ChimientiEngineer: 4Creeks Contract Working Days: TBDContractor: TBD Estimated Completion: TBDFunding: Gas Tax (RMRA), Water CIP, Sewer CIP, Streets CIP, Storm Drain CIP Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0101: TesoriBella Oaks
Improvements
District(s): 5
Total budget: $3,247,500
Division: Engineering Contract Amount: TBDProject Manager: TBD Remaining Budget:
Engineer: 4Creeks Contract Working Days: TBDContractor: TBD Estimated Completion: TBDFunding: State HWY DIF Fund, Other General Fund CIP, Nunley Settlement Pavement Management System / Utility project on Tulare Ave./Cheryl Lane Alley between Canby St. and Mt. View St.; Cheryl Lane at Laspina St.; Academy Ave. between Laspina St. and Mt. View St.; Burton Ave. west of Laspina to east of Mt. View St.; Eastgate Ave. west of Laspina St. to Mt. View St.; Vineland Ave. between Laspina St. and Mt. View St.; and Fairwind Ct. at Vineland Ave. Includes ADA Concrete work, Water, Sewer and Surface Water facilities.
Design:One hundred percent of the design and bid specifications have been completed. Waiting for approval to put out to bid, following the completion of the Tulare Dayton Improvement project.
Infrastructure improvements, traffic safety, liability relief concerns, and compliance with ADA requirements associated with the Tesori and Bella Oaks subdivisions, including Mooney Boulevard (SR63) improvements across project frontages.
Design:City staff is collaborating with the design engineer to finalize construction plans. They are also securing the required Caltrans permit and coordinating with Southern California Edison. Additionally, they are working with SJVH to establish a reimbursement agreement for the improvements, which will be carried out alongside the SJVH Sorento frontage development.
Design R.O.W. Const.
100%
Design R.O.W. Const.
70%
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion FM0046:
Courthouse
Renovation
District(s): 3
Total budget: $8,096,462
Division: Facility Maintenance
Construction Contract: $5,803,272
Project Manager: Bryan CahillEngineer: 4Creeks Contract Working Days: 280Contractor: 4CG and Various others Estimated Completion: 2026Funding: ARPA Funds, General CIP, Lease Revenue Bonds Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0096:
International Agricenter Interchange District(s): 3
Total budget: $52,800,000
Division: Engineering
Construction Contract: $52,800,000
Project Manager: Bryan CahillEngineer: Caltrans & NV5 Contract Working Days: Contractor: Security Paving Estimated Completion: May 2026Funding: TCAG 4 Lane overpass constructed over Hwy 99 connecting K St through Commercial Ave to Laspina St.
Construction: The contractor is working on completing the striping, signage, and errosion control. The contractor expects to finish the project by July / August 2026.
City of Tulare purchased the Tulare County Superior Court House, Renovations include Police Department, Business Incubator, and Chamber of Commerce.
Construction: Nearing completion, the remaining items are the parking lot access controls. The TBIZ building is occupied by the Police Department and City Chamber of Commerace. Anticpaited completion is July.
Design R.O.W. Const.
99%
Design R.O.W. Const.
90%
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0097:
International Agricenter Extension District(s): 3
Total budget: $6,040,779
Division: Engineering Construction Contract: TBD
Project Manager: Bryan CahillEngineer: Peter Engineering Group Contract Working Days: TBDContractor: TBD Estimated Completion: TBDFunding: Measure R Local, CDBG, Streets DIF, Water DIF, IAC Way Benefit District and Federal Earmark Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0078: Bardsley
Sidewalk
Improvements
District(s): 5
Total budget: $303,444
Division: Engineering Construction Contract:
Project Manager: Bryan CahillEngineer: City of Tulare Contract Working Days: Contractor: TBD Estimated Completion: TBDFunding: Gas Tax Traffic Safety Project. To install a continuous ADA-compliant sidewalk and curb gutter along Bardsley Ave at Morrison St.
Design: Right of way acquisition is now complete. City staff is working with the design team to finalize the plans and specifications, with the intent to advertise in August 2026.
Street Construction, including water, sewer, and storm drain lines. Connecting Laspina St thru to Turner Dr.
Design: Currently, Plans and Specifications are 90% developed. Acorn Environmental Consultant has been contracted for the NEPA Study. The NEPA Study is underway per the Acorn schedule, with completion expected in August 2026.
Design R.O.W. Const.
90%
Design R.O.W. Const.
95%
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0103: Tulare Ave
Roundabout District(s): 5
Total budget: $2,356,404
Division: Engineering
Construction Contract: $2,063,478
Project Manager: Dylan ChimientiEngineer: 4Creeks Contract Working Days: 180Contractor: Cen-Cal Estimated Completion: 2026Funding: Fund 245 – State HWY DIF Funds Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion WT0055: HWY 99
Water Crossing at
Washington Ave
District(s): 4
Total budget: $1,400,000
Division: Water Construction Contract: TBD
Project Manager: Bryan CahillEngineer: Provost & Prichard Contract Working Days: TBDContractor: TBD Estimated Completion: TBDFunding: Water DIF; Water CIP Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Ave and Morrison Street in partnership with Caltrans and Woodside homes, the developer of the Farrar Estates subdivision.
Construction: All construction activities are complete, and the NOC was approved on 4/10/2026. However, City staff is collaborating with Caltrans to address deficiencies identified by Caltrans after construction.
Construction of a water main under Highway 99 between Prosperity and Cartmill. This project has been identified in the Water Master Plan and is needed to help loop the system on the north side of Tulare. This project will need to occur with the development of Cartmill.
Design: Property acquisition and environmental review have been completed. Construction plans are at 100%, and staff is working with the design engineer on specifications. The project is anticipated to be advertised for bids in August 2026.
Design R.O.W. Const.
100%
Design R.O.W. Const.
50%
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0102: South K
Street
Improvements
District(s): 3
Total budget: $7,009,870
Division: Engineering
Construction Contract: $4,508,582
Project Manager: Bryan CahillEngineer: Peter Engineering Group Contract Working Days: 120Contractor: Archer Civil Construction Estimated Completion: Summer 2026
Funding: Measure R Local, Gas Tax (HUTA), STBGP Funds, Franchise Fee (Solid Waste) Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0093: Prosperity
& J St. Intersection
Improvements District(s): 2 & 4
Total budget: $2,800,000
Division: Engineering Construction Contract:
Project Manager: TBDEngineer: Peter Engineering Group Contract Working Days: Contractor: TBD Estimated Completion: 2026Funding: Gas Tax (HUTA), CRISI Grant The pavement management system project is on South K Street between Olson Avenue and Paige Avenue. It includes ADA concrete work.
Construction: The contractor has completed the additional work to install water services. They have transitioned back to road reconstruction.
CRISI Grant funded project to add protected left movements for E/bound & W/bound traffic at Prosperity and J Street, add a pre-signal in advance of the UPRR crossing, and install ADA compliant pedestrian improvements.
Design: Due to additional scope required by the UPRR that is not covered by the available CRISI grant funding, this project is not expected to move forward to construction. Design per the original scope will be completed to be used for future funding applications.
Design R.O.W. Const.
20%
Design R.O.W. Const.
85%
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion FM0048:
Emergency
Homeless Shelter
District(s): 3
Total budget: $12,970,101
Division: Facility Maintenance
Construction Contract: $8,940,000
Project Manager: Bryan CahillEngineer: 4Creeks Contract Working Days: 300Contractor: Superior Construction Estimated Completion: March 2026
Funding: ARPA Federal Grant, 601 General Fund, County ARPA, Federal Earmark, ERF Round 2 Grant, State Earmark.
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion EN0098: Tulare -
Dayton Ave
Improvements
District(s): 3
Total budget: $11,596,462
Division: Engineering
Construction Contract: $7,268,707
Project Manager: Dylan ChimientiEngineer: Peter Engineering Group Contract Working Days: 240Contractor: 99 Pipeline Estimated Completion: 2027Funding: Gas Tax (RMRA), Water CIP, Sewer CIP, Storm Drain CIP, CDBG Construct an emergency homeless shelter facility consisting of perimeter fencing, parking, exterior lighting, modular offices, laundry, living quarters, ADA restrooms, showers, single-use restrooms, showers, modular classrooms, a food pantry, storage containers, dog kennels, and 20,000 sf steel building primary shelter structure.
Construction: The contractor is currently installing finishes and fixtures. They are concurrently working on paving the parking lot and the remaining hardscapes. SCE is scheduled to bring power to the site on 6/27/26. The anticipated completion is mid-July 2026.
Pavement Management System / Utility project on Academy Ave. between Dayton St. and Laspina St; Stanley Dr. between Lane St. and Academy Ave.; La Mesa Ave. between Dayton St. and Spruce St.; Burton Ave. east of Lane St.; Miracle Ct.; Dayton St. between Tulare Ave. and La Mesa Ave.; Lane St. between Tulare Ave. and Burton Ave.; and Canby St. between Tulare Ave. and the Santa Fe Trail. Includes ADA Concrete work, Water, Sewer and Surface Water facilities.
Construction: The project was awarded to 99 Pipeline on 6/2/2026. City staff is working with the contractor to execute the contract and schedule a preconstruction meeting. Construction is anticipated to begin in August.
Design R.O.W. Const.
95%
Design R.O.W. Const.
0%
Project Name Contacts Discription Progress Update Project Budget Phase Completion PK0039: Alpine
Property
Improvements
District(s):
5 Total budget: $419,790
Division: Parks
Construction Contract: $294,062.60
Project Manager: Dylan ChimientiEngineer: Lane Engineering Contract Working Days: 65Contractor: TBD Estimated Completion: 2026Funding: Fund 601 - Other General Fund CIP Design and construct frontage improvements across City-owned property at the southeast corner of Alpine Avenue and Nelder Grove Street in accordance with the terms of a lease agreement between the City and Tulare City School District dated December 12, 2023.
Construction: All construction activities have been completed. Staff is working with the contractor on project closeout. Remaining items include procuring the warranty bond and fulfilling labor compliance obligations. Once complete, staff will prepare the NOC for Council.
Design R.O.W. Const.
100%
Item #: 7.13
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: July 21, 2026
Department: City Manager
Submitted by: Marc Mondell, City Manager
Agenda Title: Recognition of Ex-Officio City Clerk Appointment
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution reaffirming the appointment of the City Manager to the Office of the City Clerk and recognizing the City Manager’s appointment of Melissa Wilcox as Ex-Officio City Clerk effective July 11, 2026.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Organizational Excellence
BACKGROUND
Section 17 of the Freeholders' Charter of the City of Tulare provides that the City Council shall appoint the City Clerk. Since 1987, the City Manager has served as the Council-appointed City Clerk while the day-to-day administration and operation of the Office of the City Clerk have been performed by City Clerk staff.
As part of the Fiscal Year 2027 budget adopted by the City Council, the position of Chief Deputy City Clerk was reclassified to City Clerk & Public Affairs Director to reflect the expanded leadership responsibilities of the position. Although the employee classification changed, the day-to-day administration and operation of the Office of the City Clerk did not.
Melissa Wilcox currently serves as the City's City Clerk & Public Affairs Director and continues to perform the full range of operational responsibilities of the Office of the City Clerk, including agenda administration, legislative services, records management, election administration, public records administration, and public transparency functions. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Management, is a Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) through the International Institute of Municipal Clerks, and has earned the California Professional Municipal Clerk (CPMC) designation through the University of California, Riverside.
The proposed resolution does not change how the Office of the City Clerk operates. Rather, it formally documents and clarifies the City's existing operational structure following the reclassification of the employee position from Chief Deputy City Clerk to City Clerk & Public Affairs Director.
Under the proposed resolution, the City Manager will continue to serve as the Council-appointed City Clerk and retain the legal authority and responsibilities assigned to that office under the City Charter, Municipal Code, and applicable law. The resolution also recognizes the City Manager's appointment of Melissa Wilcox as Ex-Officio City Clerk, reflecting the operational role she previously performed as Chief Deputy City Clerk and now continues in her position as City Clerk & Public Affairs Director. As Ex-Officio City Clerk, Ms. Wilcox will continue performing the day-to-day operational duties of the Office of the City Clerk and may use the title "City Clerk" while serving under the administrative direction of the City Manager.
The purpose of this action is to formally document and clarify the City's longstanding operational structure following the reclassification of the employee position. This action is not intended to change the governance, authority, or administration of the Office of the City Clerk. The City Manager will continue to serve as the Council-appointed City Clerk, and City Clerk services will continue to be administered in the same manner as they were prior to the reclassification of the employee position.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.
LEGAL REVIEW
This proposed action has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This item does not require a public hearing and was noticed as a part of the agenda.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes
2. Deny
3. Table
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
Reviewed/Approved: MM
RESOLUTION 2026-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE
REAFFIRMING THE APPOINTING OF THE CITY MANAGER TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND RECOGNIZING THE CITY MANAGER’S APPOINTMENT OF MELISSA WILCOX AS EXOFFICIO CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF TULARE EFFECTIVE JULY 11, 2026 WHEREAS, Section 17 of the Freeholders’ Charter of the City of Tulare provides that the City Council shall appoint the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, since 1987, the City Manager has been appointed to the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to affirm the appointment of the City Manager, Marc Mondell, to the Office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager may appoint an ex-officio City Clerk to carry out the duties of the Office of the City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tulare, as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby reaffirms its appointment of the Office of City Clerk to City Manager Marc Mondell.
Section 2. City Manager Marc Mondell hereby appoints Melissa Wilcox as Ex-Officio City Clerk for the City of Tulare effective July 11, 2026.
Section 3. As Ex-Officio City Clerk, Melissa Wilcox shall perform all duties prescribed by the Charter of the City of Tulare, the Tulare Municipal Code, applicable resolutions and policies of the City Council, the laws of the State of California, and have authority to use the title of “City Clerk.” Section 4. Prior to entering upon the duties of the appointed Office of the City Clerk, the City Clerk and Ex-Officio City Clerk shall take and file the oath of office and satisfy any bonding requirements required by the Charter, Municipal Code, or applicable law.
Section 5. Appointment to, or removal from, the Office of the City Clerk shall be separate and apart from any employment with the City of Tulare.
Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tulare this 21st day of July 2026, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Patrick Isherwood, President of the Council
and Ex-Officio Mayor
ATTEST:
Marc Mondell, City Clerk
Resolution 2026-XXX
By Melissa Wilcox, City Clerk & Public Affairs
Director
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the Tulare City Council.
Item #: 8.1
Public Hearing
Staff Report
City Council
Date: July 21, 2026
Department: Engineering Services - Engineering
Submitted by: Michael W Miller, City Engineer
Agenda Title: Landscape Maintenance Assessments for Fiscal Year 2027
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold a public hearing; adopt a resolution confirming diagram and landscape maintenance assessments and levying assessments for Fiscal Year 2027; and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Compliance Certification and Hold Harmless Statement regarding the assessment of fees.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Infrastructure and Transportation
SUMMARY
Each year City Council is required to set landscape maintenance assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. On June 16, 2026, Council adopted Resolution of Intention No. 2026-050 setting July 21, 2026 as the public hearing date to adopt landscape maintenance assessments for Fiscal Year 2027 and directing the City Engineer to file the required Engineers Report with the City Clerk.
The public hearing will allow property owners within each of the thirty-one landscape districts to comment on the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 assessment for their district. The proposed assessments compare to the prior fiscal year as follows:
• two districts are proposed to decrease,
• nineteen districts are proposed to increase,
• seven districts would experience no change from the prior year, and • three districts have not yet completed any improvements requiring maintenance and therefore do not have any proposed assessments.
For the nineteen districts that would experience an increase in assessment, none of the proposed assessments exceed the rate approved by property owners at the time of their formation, accounting for CPI adjustments where allowed. Therefore, with regard to Proposition 218 requirements, they do not constitute an assessment increase that would trigger the need for property owner approval by ballot.
Due to its size, electronic copies of the Engineers Report will be made available to councilmembers through the City Clerk’s office. A Compliance Certification and Hold Harmless Statement is required to be signed by the City Manager upon approval of the Council, and submitted to the County in conjunction with the assessments.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
Revenue generated through the proposed assessments will be directed into the respective landscape and lighting district accounts and shall solely be used for the purposes identified in the Engineers Report for Fiscal Year 2027.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.
LEGAL REVIEW
This item does not require legal review.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A notice of public hearing was published in the Visalia Times Delta on July 7, 2026, which is at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes - Substantial changes to the Resolution Levying Assessments could impact improvements and services provided to the respective districts and could increase the risk of legal challenge.
2. Deny - Adoption of a Resolution is a legally required step in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for establishing assessments for the coming fiscal year.
3. Table - Assessments for the coming fiscal year must be adopted by Council and provided to the Tulare County Tax Collector’s office by August 11th. Tabling this item until the next available Council meeting date (August 4, 2026) would not allow sufficient time for City staff to complete and submit the required documentation to the County by the August 10, 2026 deadline.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Compliance Certification and Hold Harmless Statement Reviewed/Approved: MM
RESOLUTION 2026-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE
CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 WHEREAS, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.) requires the City Council to annually review and confirm assessments for the City’s Landscape Maintenance Districts; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026-050 declaring its intention to levy and collect landscape maintenance assessments for Fiscal Year 2027, directed the City Engineer to file the annual Engineer’s Report, and set a public hearing for July 21, 2026, to consider the proposed assessments; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was provided in the manner and within the time required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, thereby providing all interested persons the opportunity to review the Engineer’s Report and present testimony regarding the proposed assessments; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered the Engineer's Report and all oral and written testimony received regarding the proposed assessments, and determined that the assessments should be confirmed for Fiscal Year 2027.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tulare, as follows:
Section 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2027 prepared pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
Section 2. Assessments for Fiscal Year 2027 are hereby set for the following landscape maintenance districts:
89-01 North Oaks Estates $110.00
89-02 The Grove Subdivision
Single-family lots $324.00
Single-family 1 ½ size lots (lot mergers) $486.00
Single-family double size lots (lot line adjustments) $648.00 90-01 Southgate Villa No. 11
Single-family lots $190.00
Multi-family lots $570.00
91-01 Westwood Village Estates $94.00
93-01 Sunrise Estates $112.00
2000-01 Del Lago Subdivisions
Single-family lots $336.00
Single-family double size lots (lot merger) $672.00
2001-01 Autumn Glen Subdivision $44.00
2003-01 Shadow Wood and Majestic Subdivisions $60.00
2003-02 Kaweah Estates $42.00
2005-01 Academy Estates $148.00
2005-02 Palm Ranch, Woodbridge, and Cambridge Subdivisions $200.00 Resolution 2026-XXX
2005-03 Admiral Estates, Gail Estates, and Heritage North Subdivisions $242.00 2005-04 Valley Estates, Montecito, and Sherwood North Subdivisions $148.00 2005-05 Rancho Ventura (Inactive) $0.00
2005-06 The Greens Subdivision
Single-family lots $190.00
Single-family double size lots (lot merger) $380.00
2005-07 Westgate Estates $170.00
2005-08 California Ranchos and Cottonwood Estates
Single-family lots $154.00
Single-family double size lots (lot merger) $308.00
2007-01 Goble Court Subdivision
Single-family lots $80.00
2010-01 Sycamore $205.00
2016-01 Sierra Vista No. 2
Single-family lots $203.00
Single-family double size lots (lot merger) $406.00
2018-01 Willow Glen and Kensington Estates $363.00
2018-02 The Greens at Oak Creek and Oak Creek #’s 2 - 4 Single-family lots $208.00
Multi-family lot (Oak Creek #2) $3,120.00
Multi-family lots (Oak Creek #3) $263.00
Multi-family lots (Oak Creek #4) $312.00
2020-01 Farrar Estates $399.00
2021-01 Oakcrest $212.00
2021-02 Liberty Hill $337.00
2022-01 Fernjo Estates $273.00
2024-01 Wild Oak $558.00
2024-02 Fulton Estates $399.00
2025-01 Mission Creek $0.00
2025-02 F&C Farming $0.00
2025-03 Valov, Lekkerkerker & Fernandes $0.00
Section 3. The City Council finds that the assessments set forth in the Engineer's Report are imposed without regard to property valuation and are in compliance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and applicable provisions of California law.
Section 4. The diagrams and assessments contained in the Engineer's Report are hereby confirmed, and the assessments set forth therein are hereby levied for Fiscal Year 2027 pursuant to Section 22631 of the California Streets and Highways Code.
Resolution 2026-XXX
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tulare this XX day of XXXX 202X, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Patrick Isherwood, President of the Council
and Ex-Officio Mayor
ATTEST:
Melissa Wilcox, City Clerk & Public
Affairs Director
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the Tulare City Council.
Compliance Certification and Hold Harmless Statement
The City of Tulare certifies the following:
I have read and am familiar with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the State Constitution as revised by Proposition 218, including the articles cited below, and believe that all of the taxes, assessments, levies and fees accompanying this submission to the County Auditor-Controller for inclusion on the secured property tax roll are in compliance with the law.
Article XIIIC. Sec. 2 c. “Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue of imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective date of this article and in compliance with subdivision b.”
Article XIIIC. Sec. 2 d. “No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.” Article XIIID. Sec. 5. “…this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July 1, 1997, all existing, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article.” Article XIIID. Sec. 6 d. “Beginning July 1, 1997, all fees or charges shall comply with this section.” In addition, the City agrees that it shall be solely liable and responsible, and will defend and hold the County harmless from any liability as a result of claims or claims for refunds and related interest due filed by taxpayers against any assessments, fees, charges or taxes placed on the roll for the City by the County; and
The City shall be solely liable and responsible, and will defend and hold the County and the County Auditor harmless from any and all legal fees or other costs incurred related to such a claim.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Tulare on July 21, 2026.
ATTEST:
________________________________________ ____________________________ Marc Mondell Date
City Manager
Item #: 9.1
General Business
Staff Report
City Council
Date: July 21, 2026
Department: Engineering Services - Engineering
Submitted by: Michael W Miller, City Engineer
Agenda Title: 2026 Citywide Speed Zone Study Presentation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive a presentation from Willdan Engineering regarding the findings and recommendations of the 2026 Citywide Speed Zone Study, and set August 4, 2026 as the public hearing date for adoption of an ordinance amending the existing speed zones.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
SUMMARY
See attached staff report detailing findings of the 2026 Citywide Speed Zone Study prepared by Willdan Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Future action adopting an ordinance to revise existing speed zones would result in expenditures associated with purchase and installation of necessary signage.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney will review the 2026 Citywide Speed Zone Study and draft Ordinance prior to the public hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This item does not require a public hearing and was noticed as a part of the agenda. A public hearing will be held prior to Council acceptance of the 2026 Citywide Speed Zone Study and subsequent adoption of an ordinance amending the existing speed zones. This public hearing will be properly noticed as statutorily required.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes – To the degree possible, staff will work with the consultant to implement changes or recommendations directed by Council.
2. Deny – Outright rejection of the 2026 Citywide Speed Zone Study would prevent the City from meeting statutory requirements for speed zones to be enforced by radar or laser speed measurements.
3. Table – Tabling the item will cause delays in adoption of speed limits that are based upon required engineering studies, resulting in a period of time in which speed zones may be not be enforceable by radar or laser speed measurements.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report
2. Excerpts from 2026 Citywide Speed Zone Study
Reviewed/Approved: MM
STAFF REPORT
2026 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT
Background
In order to maintain radar- and laser-enforceable speed zones per the provisions of the California Vehicle Code, the City must regularly conduct engineering and traffic surveys justifying those zones. To this end, Willdan Engineering was retained to prepare the “2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report”. Attached as Exhibit A to this staff report are pertinent sections of Willdan Engineering’s report, including introductory elements and recommendations. 161 roadway segments were surveyed as part of the 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report. City staff worked closely with Willdan Engineering to carefully scrutinize every location. Recommended increases to designated speed limits were minimized to the extent allowed by the California Vehicle Code while maintaining the ability to utilize radar and laser speed measurement for enforcement.
Summary of Recommended Speed Zone Changes
Following is a list of all the speed zone study locations, and recommended speed zone changes resulting from the studies.
Study
Segment Zone Description
Existing Speed
Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
1 Akers Street from Cartmill Avenue to
North City Limits 50 50 0
2 Albers Place (a.k.a., Cartmill/J
Connector Road) from Cartmill
Avenue to J Street
35 35 0
3 Alpine Avenue from Mooney
Boulevard to Morrison Street 35 35 0
4 B Street from Inyo Avenue to Cross
Avenue 35 35 0
5 Bardsley Avenue from Enterprise
Street to West Street New 45 N/A
6 Bardsley Avenue from West Street to
Pratt Street 40 45 +5
7a Bardsley Avenue from Pratt Street to
“E” Street 40 40 0
7b Bardsley Avenue from “E” Street to
“H” Street 45 40 -5
8 Bardsley Avenue from “H” Street to
“K” Street 45 45 0
9 Bardsley Avenue from K Street to O
Street 40 45 +5
Study
Segment Zone Description
Existing Speed
Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
10 Bardsley Avenue from O Street to
Blackstone Street 45 45 0
11 Bardsley Avenue from Blackstone
Street to Laspina Street 40 40 0
12 Bardsley Avenue from Laspina Street
to Mooney Blvd. 45 45 0
13 Bardsley Avenue from Mooney
Boulevard to Morrison Street 50 45 -5
14 Bardsley Avenue from Morrison
Street to Oakmore Street 55 45 -10
15 Bardsley Avenue from Oakmore
Street to Road 132 55 45 -10
16 Bella Oaks Avenue from De La Vina
to Laspina Street 35 35 0
17 Bella Oaks Avenue from Laspina
Street to end E/O Paseo Del Lago 35 30 -5
18 Blackstone Street from south end to
Paige Avenue 45 40 -5
19 Blackstone Street from Paige Avenue
to Levin Avenue 50 45 -5
20 Blackstone Street from Levin Avenue
to Walnut Avenue 50 45 -5
21 Blackstone Street from Walnut
Avenue to Bardsley Avenue 50 45 -5
22 Blackstone Street from Bardsley
Avenue to Tulare Avenue (SR 137) 45 45 0
23 Blackstone Street from Tulare
Avenue (SR 137) to Lyndale Avenue 40 40 0
24 Blackstone Street from Lyndale
Avenue to Prosperity Avenue 35 35 0
25 Brentwood Street from Cross Avenue
to Prosperity Avenue 35 35 0
26 Cartmill Avenue West City Limits to
Albers Place 55 55 0
27a Cartmill Avenue from Albers Place
to “M” Street 50 50 0
27b Cartmill Avenue from “M” Street to
Akers Street 55 50 -5
28 Cartmill Avenue from Akers Street to
Hillman Street 55 50 -5
29 Cartmill Avenue from Hillman Street
to De La Vina Street 50 50 0
30 Cartmill Avenue from De La Vina
Street to Mooney Boulevard (SR 63) 50 50 0
Study
Segment Zone Description
Existing Speed
Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
31 Cherry Street from Tulare Avenue
(SR 137) to Prosperity Avenue 40 35 -5
32 Continental Avenue from “K” Street
to Blackstone Street 40 35 -5
33 Corvina Avenue from Retherford
Street to Hillman Street New 40 N/A
34 Corvina Avenue from Hillman Street
to Laspina Street 35 35 0
35 Cross Avenue from Tulare Drive to
West Street 40 30 -10
36 Cross Avenue from West Street to
“B” Street 45 40 -5
37 Cross Avenue from “B” Street to “J”
Street 40 40 0
38 Cross Avenue from “J” Street to “M”
Street 35 30 -5
39 Cross Avenue from “M” Street to
Blackstone Street 35 35 0
40 Cross Avenue from Blackstone Street
to Laspina Street 40 40 0
41 Cross Avenue from Laspina Street to
Mooney Boulevard (SR 63) 35 35 0
42 De La Vina Street from Corvina
Avenue to Cartmill Avenue 40 40 0
43 De La Vina Street from Cartmill
Avenue to Pacific Avenue 45 40 -5
44 “E” Street from South End to
Bardsley Avenue 40 40 0
45 “E” Street from Bardsley Avenue to
Inyo Avenue (SR 137) 40 40 0
46 “E” Street from Inyo Avenue (SR
137) to Tulare Avenue 30 30 0
47 “E” Street from Tulare Avenue to
Cross Avenue 35 35 0
48 “E” Street from Cross Avenue to
Pleasant Avenue 35 35 0
49 “E” Street from Pleasant Avenue to
Prosperity Avenue 40 40 0
50 “E” Street from Prosperity Avenue to
Zumwalt Avenue 40 40 0
51 “F” Street from Tulare Avenue to
Cross Avenue 25 25 0
52 Foster Drive from Laspina Street to
Mooney Boulevard 50 45 -5
Study
Segment Zone Description
Existing Speed
Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
53 Gail Avenue from Northridge Street
to “E” Street 35 35 0
54 Gem Street from Cross Avenue to
Merritt Avenue New 30 N/A
55 Gem Street from Prosperity Avenue
Sandra Avenue New 35 N/A
56 “H” Street from Cross Avenue to
Pleasant Avenue 40 40 0
57 “H” Street from Pleasant Avenue to
Prosperity Avenue 40 40 0
58a Hillcrest Avenue from Hillman Street
to Brentwood Street 35 35 0
58b Hillcrest Avenue from Brentwood
Street to Laspina Street 35 35 0
59 Hillman Street from SR 99 to
Prosperity Avenue 40 35 -5
60 Hillman Street from Prosperity
Avenue to Leland Avenue 40 35 -5
61 Hillman Street from Leland Avenue
to Corvina Avenue 45 50 +5
62a Hillman Street from Corvina Avenue
to 2000’ S/O Cartmill Avenue 50 55 +5
62b Hillman Street from 2000’ S/O
Cartmill Avenue to Cartmill Avenue 50 55 +5
62c Hillman Street from Cartmill Avenue
to North City Limits 60 55 -5
63 J Street from Owens Avenue to Cross
Avenue 40 35 -5
64 J Street from Cross Avenue to
Pleasant Avenue 45 50 +5
65 J Street from Pleasant Avenue to
Prosperity Avenue 50 50 0
66 J Street from Prosperity Avenue to
Sandra Avenue 50 55 +5
67a J Street from Sandra Avenue to
Albers Place 55 55 0
67b J Street from Albers Place to North
City Limits 60 55 -5
68 K Street from State Highway 99
N/bound Ramps to Rankin Avenue New 45 N/A
69 K Street from Rankin Avenue to
1720’ N/O Rankin Avenue 55 55 0
70 K Street from 1720’ N/O Rankin
Avenue to Industrial Avenue 55 50 -5
Study
Segment Zone Description Existing Speed Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
71 K Street from Industrial Avenue to
Paige Avenue 50 55 +5
72 K Street from Paige Avenue to
Bardsley Avenue 50 50 0
73 K Street from Bardsley Avenue to
Owens Avenue 40 45 +5
74 Kern Avenue from West Street to J
Street New 30 N/A
75 Kern Avenue from O Street to
Blackstone Street 40 35 -5
76 La Dawna Street from Pleasant
Avenue to Berryhill Avenue 35 35 0
77 Laspina Street from Hosfield Drive to
3,100’ N/O Hosfield Drive 55 55 0
78 Laspina Street from 3,100’ N/O
Hosfield Drive to Tex Drive 55 55 0
79 Laspina Street from Tex Drive to
Paige Avenue 60 65 +5
80 Laspina Street from Paige Avenue to
Cerritos Avenue 40 40 0
81 Laspina Street from Cerritos Avenue
to Bardsley Avenue 40 40 0
82 Laspina Street from Bardsley Avenue
to Tulare Avenue (SR 137) 45 45 0
83 Laspina Street from Tulare Avenue
(SR 137) to Prosperity Avenue 45 45 0
84 Laspina Street from Prosperity
Avenue to Bella Oaks Avenue 35 35 0
85 Levin Avenue from K Street to
Blackstone Street New 35 N/A
86 Levin Avenue from Laspina Street to
Durango Street New 35 N/A
87 Lincoln Street from Cross Avenue to
Prosperity Avenue 35 35 0
88 M Street from Tulare Avenue (SR
137) to Cross Avenue 35 35 0
89 M Street from Cross Avenue to
Prosperity Avenue 40 40 0
90 M Street from Prosperity Avenue to
Sandra Avenue 45 45 0
91 M Street from Sandra Avenue to
Cartmill Avenue 40 40 0
92 Maple Avenue from Sacramento
Street to E Street New 25 N/A
Study
Segment Zone Description
Existing Speed
Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
93 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue from
K Street to O Street 40 40 0
94 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue from
O Street to Blackstone Street 40 40 0
95 Merritt Avenue from Oaks Street to
Blackstone Street 40 40 0
96 Milner Street from Capistrano
Avenue to Prosperity Avenue 35 35 0
97 Mooney Boulevard from Foster Drive
to Wagonwheel Avenue 55 45 -10
98 Mooney Boulevard from
Wagonwheel Avenue to Bardsley
Avenue
55 55 0
99 Mooney Boulevard from Bardsley
Avenue to Tulare Avenue (SR 137) 60 55 -5
100 Morrison Street from South End to
Bardsley Avenue 40 30 -10
101 Morrison Street from Bardsley
Avenue to Alpine Avenue 40 35 -5
102 Morrison Street from Alpine Avenue
to Tulare Avenue (SR 137) 40 40 0
103 Morrison Street from Tulare Avenue
(SR 137) to Prosperity Avenue 55 50 -5
104 Nelder Grove Street from Bardsley
Avenue to Alpine Avenue 35 35 0
105 O Street from Continental Avenue to
Bardsley Avenue 45 45 0
106 O Street from Bardsley Avenue to
Tulare Avenue (SR 137) 45 45 0
107 O Street from Tulare Avenue (SR
137) to Cross Avenue 35 35 0
108 Oakmore Street from Bardsley
Avenue to Avenue 228 50 50 0
109 Oakmore Street from Avenue 228 to
Tulare Avenue (SR 137) 50 50 0
110 Oaks Street from Pleasant Avenue to
Prosperity Avenue 40 40 0
111 Oaks Street from Prosperity Avenue
to Sandra Avenue 40 40 0
112 Oaks Street from Sandra Avenue to
M Street 40 40 0
113 Pacific Avenue from De La Vina
Street to Mooney Boulevard New 45 N/A
Study
Segment Zone Description
Existing Speed
Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
114 Paige Avenue from I Street to
Blackstone Street 50 45 -5
115 Paige Avenue from Blackstone Street
to Laspina Street 40 35 -5
116 Paseo Del Lago from Laspina Street
westerly to Corvina Avenue 40 40 0
117 Paseo Del Lago from Corvina
Avenue to De La Vina Street 40 40 0
118 Paseo Del Lago from De La Vina to
Bella Oaks Drive 40 40 0
119 Paseo Del Lago from Laspina Street
easterly to Bella Oaks Drive 40 40 0
120 Pleasant Avenue from Enterprise
Street to Cromley Street 45 45 0
121 Pleasant Avenue from Cromley Street
to West Street 40 45 0
122a Pleasant Avenue from West Street to
Sacramento Street 40 40 0
122b Pleasant Avenue from Sacramento
Street to H Street 40 40 0
123 Pleasant Avenue from J Street to M
Street 40 40 0
124 Pleasant Avenue from M Street to
Gem Street 30 30 0
125 Pratt Street from Paige Avenue to
Bardsley Avenue 55 45 -10
126 Pratt Street from Bardsley Avenue to
Inyo Avenue (SR 137) 35 35 -5
127 Prosperity Avenue from West City
Limits to Milner Street 50 50 0
128 Prosperity Avenue from Milner Street
to West Street 40 45 +5
129a Prosperity Avenue from West Street
to Sacramento Street 40 40 0
129b Prosperity Avenue from Sacramento
Street to E Street 40 40 0
130 Prosperity Avenue from E Street to J
Street 40 40 0
131 Prosperity Avenue from J Street to M
Street 40 40 0
132 Prosperity Avenue from M Street to
Blackstone Street 40 40 0
Study
Segment Zone Description
Existing Speed
Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
133 Prosperity Avenue from Blackstone
Street to Hillman Street 35 35 0
134 Prosperity Avenue from Hillman
Street to Laspina Street 40 40 0
135 Prosperity Avenue from Laspina
Street to Mooney Boulevard (SR 63) 45 45 0
136 Prosperity Avenue from Mooney
Boulevard (SR 63) to Morrison Street 55 55 0
137 Rankin Avenue from I Street to State
Highway 99 New 35 N/A
138
Retherford Street from Leland
Avenue to 2000’ S/O Cartmill
Avenue
45 45 0
139 Retherford Street from 2000’ S/O
Cartmill Avenue to Cartmill Avenue 50 50 0
140 Sacramento Street from Cross
Avenue to Maple Avenue 35 35 0
141 Sacramento Street from Maple
Avenue to Pleasant Avenue 35 35 0
142 Sacramento Street from Pleasant
Avenue to Prosperity Avenue 35 35 0
143 San Joaquin Avenue from West
Street to “J” Street 30 30 0
144 Seminole Avenue from Mooney
Boulevard (SR 63) to Spyglass Street 35 40 +5
145 Seminole Avenue from Spyglass
Street to Morrison Street New 45 N/A
146 Sonora Avenue from West Street to
“E” Street New 25 N/A
147 Sonora Avenue from “E” Street to “I”
Street New 25 N/A
148 Sonora Avenue from “O” Street to
Blackstone Street 25 30 +5
149 Spruce Street from Bardsley Avenue
to Birch Avenue 40 35 -5
150 Sunrise Street from Commercial
Avenue to Foster Drive 35 35 0
151 Tulare Drive from West City Limits
to Cross Avenue 50 55 +5
152 Tulare Drive from Cross Avenue to
West Street 50 50 0
153 Tulare Avenue from West Street to J
Street 40 40 0
Study
Segment Zone Description
Existing Speed
Limit (mph)
Proposed Speed
Limit (mph)
Change
(mph)
154 Tulare Avenue from “J” Street to
“M” Street (SR 137) 25 25 0
155 Turner Drive from Commercial
Avenue to Foster Drive 55 50 -5
156 West Street from Paige Avenue to
Bardsley Avenue 55 50 0
157 West Street from Bardsley Avenue to
Sonora Avenue 45 40 -5
158 West Street from Sonora Avenue to
Inyo Avenue (SR 137) 45 40 -5
159 West Street from Inyo Avenue (SR
137) to Cross Avenue 40 40 0
160 West Street from Cross Avenue to
Pleasant Avenue 45 40 -5
161 West Street from Pleasant Avenue to
Prosperity Avenue 45 45 0
Recommended Council Action
It is recommended that the City Council set a date for public hearing, and following said hearing approve the Ordinance amending speed zones throughout the City of Tulare. The zones established therein are based upon traffic and engineering studies conducted by Willdan Engineering and the engineering judgment of City staff.
EXHIBIT A
Excerpts from July 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report prepared by Willdan Engineering
City of Tulare
2026 Engineering and
Traffic Survey Report
July 2026
Draft
Willdan Engineering
13191 Crossroads Pkwy N Suite 405
City of Industry, CA 91746
562.908.6200
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 1
CITY OF TULARE
July 13, 2026
Michael Miller
City Engineer
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
Subject: Draft Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) - 2026 Dear Mr. Miller:
As requested, Willdan has completed an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) to justify and update the posted speed limits along 161 street segments in the City of Tulare. These segments were last surveyed in 2020 and require an update to comply with the 7-year limitation set forth in the California Vehicle Code (CVC).
We are pleased to submit the enclosed Report that describes the E&TS procedures and contains recommendations for posted speed limits on the City’s arterial and collector street system. A summary of these recommendations is included in the Analysis. Supporting documentation for each speed zone recommendation is provided in the Appendices.
The Report was conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the CVC, following procedures outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) dated January 2026, and as required by Section 627 of the CVC. The Report is intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 40802 of the CVC to enable the continued use of radar for traffic speed enforcement.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Tulare and the assistance, cooperation, and guidance afforded to us during the course of this study.
Very truly yours,
WILLDAN
Nicolle Spann, P.E., T.E.
Traffic Engineer
Enclosure
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 2
CITY OF TULARE
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................3 Elements Of the Engineering and Traffic Survey....................................................................................... 5 Speed Sampling...................................................................................................................................... 5 Crash History.......................................................................................................................................... 6 Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists...................................................................................... 6 Safety Corridors – New from AB 43 ....................................................................................................... 6 Survey Conditions ...............................................................................................8 Survey Locations........................................................................................................................................ 8 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Speed Data............................................................................................................................................. 8 Field Review Data .................................................................................................................................. 9 Crash Data ...........................................................................................................................................10 Residential Density and Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12p)...................10 Analysis ............................................................................................................11 Speed Limit Recommendations.........................................................................12 Recommendation Tables.........................................................................................................................12 Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits.............................................................................13 Table 2 - Street Segments with Recommended Speed Changes..........................................................30 Table 3 – Street Segments Maintaining the Posted Speed Limit .........................................................32 Segments with Special Conditions.....................................................................36 Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists.......................................................................................36 Safety Corridors.......................................................................................................................................40 Segments with 25 mph Posted Speed Limits ..........................................................................................40 Table 4 – Segments with 25 mph Recommended Speed Limits...........................................................40 Appendices
APPENDIX A
Street Segment Data
APPENDIX B
Radar Speed Distribution Forms
APPENDIX C
ADT Count Sheets
APPENDIX D
Safety Corridors
APPENDIX E
Survey Equipment
APPENDIX F
Legislative References
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 3
CITY OF TULARE
Introduction
This E&TS is intended to be the basis for the establishment, revision, and enforcement of speed limits for selected streets within the City of Tulare. This E&TS presents recommended speed limits for 161 street segments in the City of Tulare. E&T Surveys are required by the State of California to establish intermediate speed limits on local, major, secondary, collector, and arterial streets and to enforce those limits using radar or other speed measuring devices. Historically, these surveys must be updated every 7 to 14 years to ensure the speeds reflect current conditions, and can be enforced per CVC Section 40802.
E&T Surveys are prepared under the direction of CVC Sections 627,22350-22359, and 40801-40803. The CVC also requires that the surveys be conducted based on the methodology required by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) dated January 2026.
Assembly Bill No. 43 (AB 43), signed in October 2021, has given local agencies more leeway in lowering and maintaining speed limits aimed at enhancing traffic safety. The California Vehicle Code was amended in 2022 and the CA MUTCD was amended in March 2023 and updated in January 2026 to implement laws and guidelines with the changes set forth in AB 43. There were three major changes to how speed limits can be recommended under AB 43 as follows:
1. An E&T Survey conducted more than 7 years ago may be extended to 14 years (previously to 10 years) if a traffic engineer certifies that no changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred [CVC 40802 (c)(2)(B)(i)(II)].
2. A local authority may establish and designate safety corridors throughout their jurisdiction. The local authority may recommend a speed limit with an additional five mile per hour reduction on segments designated as safety corridors. Local authorities may not lower a speed limit under this section until June 30, 2024, or until the Judicial Council has developed an online tool for adjudicating infraction violations statewide, whichever is sooner. Since the E&TS was completed in January 2026, this report reflects lowering speeds on these designated roadway segments.
3. If a local authority, after completing an E&T Survey, finds that the speed limit is still reasonable or safe, the local authority may retain the current speed limit or restore the immediately prior speed limit if that speed limit was established with an E&T Survey and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established the prior speed limit.
This E&TS was requested by the City for the proper posting of speed limits and to enable the Police Department to utilize radar or other electronic speed measuring devices for speed enforcement. CVC Sections 40801 and 40802 require E&T Surveys that verify the prima facie speed limit before enforcement by such a device is legal. The law further specifies that these surveys be conducted every 5 years. The surveys can be extended to 7 years provided the Police Department(s) have completed a 24- hour radar operator course [CVC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)].
Posted speed limits are primarily established to protect the public by mitigating the risks posed by reckless and unpredictable driving behavior. The posted speed limits provide law enforcement with a clearly understood method to identify and apprehend violators of the basic speed law [CVC Section 22350]. This law states that "No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 4
CITY OF TULARE
of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." The posted speed limit gives motorists a clear warning of the maximum speed that is reasonable and prudent under typical driving conditions.
The basic fundamentals for establishing speed limits recognize that the majority of drivers behave in a safe and reasonable manner, and therefore, the normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable driver should be considered legal. Speed limits established on these fundamentals conform to the consensus that those who drive the highway determine what speed is reasonable and safe, not on the judgment of one or a few individuals. A radar speed study is usually conducted to record the prevailing speed of reasonable drivers.
Speed limits are also established to advise drivers of conditions which may not be readily apparent to a reasonable driver. For this reason, accident history, roadway conditions, traffic characteristics, and land use must also be analyzed before determining speed limits. Speed limit changes are usually made in coordination with physical changes in roadway conditions or roadside developments. Unusually short zones of less than one-half mile in length should be avoided to reduce driver confusion.
The E&T Surveys for the City were conducted in accordance with procedures outlined in the CA MUTCD and as required by Section 627 of the CVC. The Code further describes three elements of an E&T Survey:
1. Measurement of prevailing speed based on the 85th percentile rule
2. Accident history on the roadway
3. Roadway conditions and other relevant factors that are not readily apparent to the motorist.
Additionally, it is generally accepted that speed limits cannot be successfully enforced without voluntary compliance by a majority of drivers. Consequently, only the driver whose behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic is usually targeted for enforcement.
The setting of speed limits can be controversial and requires a rational and defensible determination to maintain public confidence. Speed limits are normally set near the 85th-percentile speed that statistically represents one standard deviation above the average speed and establishes the upper limit of what is considered reasonable and prudent. As with most laws, speed limits need to depend on the voluntary compliance of the greater majority of motorists. Speed limits cannot be set arbitrarily low, as this would create violators of the majority of drivers and would not command the respect of the public.
Artificially low speed limits can lead to poor compliance as well as large variations in speed within the traffic stream. Increased speed variance can also create more conflicts and passing maneuvers.
To achieve desired operating speeds, agencies often implement other speed management strategies concurrently with setting speed limits, such as traffic calming measures, geometric design features, speed safety cameras, and increased enforcement.
The most effective way to reduce speeds is through a combination of strategies using traffic control devices related to speed management, roadway design and engineering solutions, traffic calming techniques and measures, public education, and enforcement efforts. Effectively managing road user speed relies on numerous factors, which include enforcement, roadway characteristics, surrounding environment, adjacent land use, and traffic control devices. Many studies find that engineering changes, such as change a road’s infrastructure, are one of the most important factors in reducing vehicle operating speeds. Engineering changes are also one of the most effective interventions at reducing 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 5
CITY OF TULARE
pedestrian injury and fatality rates. Potential street engineering changes, such as curb extensions, median islands, raised crosswalks, roundabouts, and speed bumps or speed humps, naturally result in lower speeds. It is realized that these engineering changes can be costly and time-consuming to implement.
Elements Of the Engineering and Traffic Survey
The CA MUTCD specifies the methodology to be used for completing E&T Surveys. This methodology includes an evaluation of current vehicle speeds, accident history and conditions not readily apparent to motorists. The basic elements of the E&TS are discussed in more detail as follows:
Speed Sampling
Existing vehicle speeds are surveyed by a certified radar operator with a calibrated radar unit in an unmarked vehicle. Speed samples are taken for each segment representing a statistically significant sample of current traffic. This data is then evaluated to identify the distribution of speeds. A key element in the evaluation is the identification of the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic travels. This threshold represents what is historically found to be a safe and reasonable speed for most drivers based on common roadway conditions. A speed limit is established in the options below.
Options:
Closest to 85th Percentile Speed – A speed limit is established at the nearest 5-mile per hour increment to the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12z) Reduction using Segments with Special Conditions - For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed would require rounding down, the speed limit may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, in compliance with CVC Section 627 and 22358.5. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12aa) Rounding Down - For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed would require a rounding up, the speed limit may be rounded down to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12ab) Additional 5 mph Speed Reduction – Additional lowering of the speed limits from those calculated using rounding down or using the reduction using special conditions is prohibited, except for the local agency roadway segments designated as “safety corridor” or “land or facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians” in compliance with CVC Sections 22358.6(d) and 22358.7. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12ag) If the speed limit to be posted has had the 5 mph reduction applied, then an E&T Survey shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Section 627 and 22358.5. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12ac)
The total reduction in the speed limit using the nearest 5 mph increment, rounding down and using 5 mph speed reduction, additional 5 mph speed reduction for safety corridor designation or adjacent to land or facility generating high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians shall not exceed 12.4 mph from the 85th-percentile speed. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12ae) 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 6
CITY OF TULARE
The following examples are provided to explain the application of these speed limit criteria:
Examples Showing the Applicability of Rounding and Additional Speed Reduction 85th
Percentile
Speed
(mph)
Rounding to the
nearest 5 mph
increment
If rounding to the
nearest is up, may
round down
If rounding to the
nearest is down, it
may be additional
be lowered by 5
mph
If safety corridor or
adjacent to high
concentration of
bicyclists &
pedestrians, may
additional lower by
5 mph
48-50 50 45 N/A 40
45-47 45 N/A 40 35
43-45 45 40 N/A 35
40-42 40 N/A 35 30
Crash History
Reported crashes reviewed from California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) electronic crash database are reviewed for each street segment to determine if there is a higher than expected average rate of crashes. A segment that has an above-average crash rate typically suggests conditions that are not readily apparent to motorists.
Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists
Each street segment is field inspected to identify roadway conditions that may not be readily apparent to motorists. A determination is made whether any conditions are significant and warrant the recommendation of the speed limit 5 mph below the basic speed limit.
The Legislature, in adopting Section 22358.5 of the CVC, has made it clear that physical conditions, such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not be the basis for special downward speed zoning.
Conditions not readily apparent to motorists include the considerations of crash history, poor visibility, and the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians.
Safety Corridors – New from AB 43
The provisions of CVC Section 22358.7, a new section added through AB 43, to additionally lower the speed limit by designating a safety corridor, shall not be applicable until actions required per CVC Section 22358.7 by Department of Transportation and Judicial Council are completed or June 30, 2024, whichever is sooner. Since the E&TS was completed in 2026 on these designated roadway segments, this report reflects lowering speeds using the application of safety corridors.
A safety corridor is defined as a roadway segment within an overall roadway network where the highest number of serious injury and fatality crashes occur. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12ai) 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 7
CITY OF TULARE
Data used to determine a safety corridor may be from the most recent E&T Survey performed. The crash data source may include, but is not limited to, California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12al) The prioritized subset of safety corridors shall include the following three requirements. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12am):
1. Identify specific locations with high crash occurrences.
2. Identify corridor-level segments with a pattern of crash reoccurrence.
3. Be able to be stratified by mode.
Safety corridors shall represent a prioritized subset of the overall roadway network within an authority’s responsibilities and shall not exceed one-fifth of the overall roadway network. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12an)
A jurisdiction should use three to five years of the most recent crash data to determine a safety corridor based on Fatal and Serious Injury data. For crash coverage, safety corridors may identify the subset of the overall roadway network where a minimum of 25% of the Fatal + Serious Injury (F+SI) crashes occur. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12ao-ap)
A licensed professional engineer shall sign off on logical termini identified for a safety corridor using existing E&TS. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12ar)
The Crash/Volume rate may be used to provide additional locations to be included in the safety corridor.
Local agencies may use proactive measures as indicators. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12as) The total reduction in the speed limit using the nearest 5 mph increment, rounding down and using 5 mph speed reduction, plus an additional 5 mph speed reduction for safety corridor designation, shall not exceed 12.4 mph from the 85-percentile speed. Refer to (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12ae) 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 8
CITY OF TULARE
Survey Conditions
The E&T Study considered the roadway context. The factors that are considered when conducting an E&T Survey are the following (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.07):
1. Roadway environment not readily apparent to the driver (CVC § 627) (such as roadside development, number and frequency of driveways and access points, and land use), functional classification, public transit volume and location or frequency of stops, parking practices, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities and activity;
2. Roadway characteristics not readily apparent to the driver (CVC § 627) (such as lane widths, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, median type, and sight distance);
3. Geographic context (such as residential district, business district, business activity district;
4. Reported crash experience for at least a 36-month period;
5. Speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles including the pace, median (50th-percentile), and 85th- percentile speeds; and
6. A review of past speed studies to identify any trends in operating speeds (CVC § 22358.8) Survey Locations
The procedures below describe the criteria and methods used to survey selected streets within the City of Tulare. The specific location of the radar speed survey for each street segment was selected after considering the following:
1. Minimum stop sign and traffic signal influence.
2. Minimum visibility restrictions.
3. Non-congested traffic flow away from intersections and driveways.
4. Minimum influence from curves or other roadway conditions that would affect the normal operation of a vehicle.
Data Collection
Data of existing conditions was obtained including prevailing speed of vehicles, traffic crashes, visibility restrictions, and roadway conditions within the community. ADT and field reviews were conducted at 161 locations during the months of January and February 2026. The ADT forms are in Appendix C.
Speed Data
Prevailing speeds were determined by a speed zone survey for each roadway segment. The speed zone surveys follow the following guidelines identified in the CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12n:
(A) The intent of the speed measurements is to determine the actual speed of unimpeded traffic. The speed of traffic should not be altered by concentrated law enforcement, or other means, just prior to, or while taking the speed measurements. (B) Speeds should be read directly from a radar or other electronic speed measuring devices; or, 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 9
CITY OF TULARE
(C) Devices, other than radar, capable of accurately distinguishing and measuring the unimpeded speed of free flowing vehicles may be used.
(D) A location should be selected where prevailing speeds are representative of the entire speed zone section. If speeds vary on a given route, more than one speed zone section may be required, with separate measurements for each section. Locations for measurements should be chosen so as to minimize the effects of traffic signals or stop signs. (E) Speed measurements should be taken during off-peak hours between peak traffic periods on weekdays. If there is difficulty in obtaining the desired quantity, speed measurements may be taken during any period with free flowing traffic. (F) The weather should be fair (dry pavement) with no unusual conditions prevailing. (G) The surveyor and equipment should not affect the traffic speeds. For this reason, an unmarked car is recommended, and the radar speed meter located as inconspicuously as possible.
(H) In order for the sample to be representative of the actual traffic flow, the minimum sample should be 100 vehicles in each survey. In no case should the sample contain less than 50 vehicles.
(I) Short speed zones of less than 0.5 miles should be avoided, except in transition areas. (J) Speed zone changes should be coordinated with changes in roadway conditions or roadside development.
(K) Speed zoning should be coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions.
Speed zone surveys were conducted at 161 locations during the months of January and February 2026.
The radar speed distribution forms are in Appendix B.
Field Review Data
A field review was conducted for each of the selected street segments in the City with consideration for the following factors:
1. Street width and alignment;
2. Pedestrian activity and traffic flow characteristics;
3. Number of lanes and other channelization and striping patterns;
4. Frequency of intersections, driveways, and on-street parking;
5. Location of stop signs and other regulatory traffic control devices;
6. Visibility obstructions;
7. Land use and proximity to schools;
8. Pedestrian and bicycle usage;
9. Uniformity with existing speed zones and those in adjacent jurisdictions; and
10. Any other unusual condition not readily apparent to the driver. 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 10
CITY OF TULARE
Crash Data
Crash data was obtained from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) electronic crash database. For this study, crash data was used from the latest 3 years of reported accidents from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2025. The crash rates for the 161 segments are expressed in crashes per million vehicle miles (C/MVM). To calculate these rates, 24-hour traffic volumes were collected for each street segment. This information was then entered into the following formula to determine the crash rate:
, , × = ࡾ
࢙࢟ࢇࢊ × ࢚
࢘ࢇࢋ࢟
࢜ × ×
C = Number of midblock crashes over time period
R = Crash Rate (crashes/million vehicle miles)
t = Time Period Covered (in years)
l = Length of Segment (miles)
v = Traffic Volume (average daily traffic)
The segment crash rate was then compared to the average statewide crash rate of similar roadways.
The average statewide crash rates were obtained from 2023 Collision Data on California State Highways published by Caltrans.
Residential Density and Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12p) When qualifying an appropriate speed limit, local authorities may also consider residential density and bicyclist and pedestrian safety.
If any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district:
1. Upon one side of the highway, within 0.25 miles, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
2. Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of 0.25 miles the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
3. The portion of highway is larger than 0.25 miles but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph 1 or 2 above.
Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, with increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused.
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 11
CITY OF TULARE
Analysis
Survey data was compiled and analyzed to determine the recommended speed limit in accordance with several criteria contained in the CA MUTCD. Some of the criteria used are:
A. The critical speed or 85th percentile speed is that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. This speed is the baseline value in determining what the majority of drivers believe is safe and reasonable. Speed limits set higher than the critical speed are not considered reasonable and safe. Speed limits set lower than the critical speed make a large number of reasonable drivers "unlawful," and do not facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. The “basic speed limit” is the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed.
B. The 10 mile per hour (mph) pace speed is the 10 mph increment that contains the highest percentage of vehicles. It is a measure of the dispersion of speeds across the range of the samples surveyed. An accepted practice is to keep the speed limit within the 10 mph pace while considering the critical speed and other factors that might require a speed lower than the critical speed.
C. The crash rate for each street segment is compared to average crash rates that can be reasonably expected to occur on streets and highways in other jurisdictions, in proportion to the volume of traffic per lane mile. These average crash rates have been developed by the State of California and are considered reasonable for use in the City of Tulare.
The Engineering and Traffic Survey Forms, presented in Appendix A, illustrate results of a thorough evaluation of available data and recommend a speed limit for each of the 161 street segments surveyed based on the guidelines for an Engineering and Traffic Survey set forth by the CA MUTCD and the CVC. A complete summary of all 161 E&TS recommendations is shown in Table 1. In each case, the recommended speed limit was consistent with the prevailing behavior as demonstrated by the radar speed measurements. Typically, a speed limit in the upper range of the 10-mile pace was selected unless a crash rate significantly higher than expected was discovered or roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver were identified. Any segments with recommended speed limits 5 mph or more below the basic speed limit are fully explained later in the Segments with Special Conditions section of this report.
The California State Legislature, in adopting Section 22358.5 of the CVC, has made it clear that physical conditions, such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not be the basis for special downward speed zoning. In these cases, the basic speed law (CVC Section 22350) is sufficient to regulate such conditions. 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 12
CITY OF TULARE
Speed Limit Recommendations
The recommendations contained in this Report are intended to establish prima facie speed limits. They are not intended to be absolute for all prevailing conditions. All prima facie speed violations are actually violations of the basic speed law (CVC Section 22350). This statute states that a person shall not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is safe having regard for traffic, roadway, and weather conditions. A prima facie limit is intended to establish a maximum safe speed under normal conditions.
The establishment of a speed limit of more than 5 mph below the 85th percentile speed should be done with great care as studies have shown that establishing a speed limit less than the 85th percentile generally results in an increase in collision rates; in addition, this may make violators of a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers. (CA MUTCD Section 2B.21.12s) Recommendation Tables
Tables 1-3 summarizing the recommendations are referenced below and included in the following pages. The speed limit recommendations have been organized into the following three tables:
Recommendation Table
Total Number
of Segments
Table 1 - Summary of E&TS Recommended Speed Limits 161
Table 2 - Street Segments with Recommended Changes to the Posted Speed Limit 59 Table 3 - Recommended Street Segments Maintaining the Posted Speed Limit 102 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 36
CITY OF TULARE
Segments with Special Conditions
This section is meant to further explain the use of special conditions to lower the recommended speed limit lower than the 85th Percentile speed. These special conditions include the following:
Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists
Safety Corridors
Segments with 25 mph Posted Speed Limit Recommendations Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists
The following segments surveyed had recommended speed limits that were 5 miles per hour (mph) or more below the 85th percentile speed due to conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Each segment is discussed below.
Segment 8 – Bardsley Avenue – H Street to K Street
This segment is currently posted at 45 mph and has two through lanes in each direction with an ADT of 13,448 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and commercial along the 0.23-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 50 mph and would normally justify a 50 mph posted speed limit.
However, to maintain uniformity with adjacent segments, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 45 mph for the above reason.
Segment 18 – Blackstone Street – South End to Paige Avenue This segment is currently posted at 50 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 1,652 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are vacant and industrial along the 0.56-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit.
However, due to the segment’s high crash rate, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 40 mph for the above reason.
Segment 29 – Cartmill Avenue – Hillman Street to De La Vina Street This segment is currently posted at 55 mph and has two through lanes in each direction with a center turn lane and an ADT of 10,725 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are commercial, vacant, and residential along the 0.48-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 56 mph and would normally justify a 55 mph posted speed limit. However, due to the segment’s high crash rate, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 50 mph for the above reason.
Segment 46 – E Street – Inyo Avenue to Tulare Avenue
This segment is currently posted at 30 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 4,694 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and commercial along the 0.44-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 37 mph and would normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit.
However, due to residential density and hidden driveways that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 30 mph for the above reason.
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Akers St Cartmill Ave NCL 2,883 50 1.68 40-49 0.00 0.73 71 Closest to 85th Speed 50 NP 1 %Albers Pl Cartmill Ave J St 3,153 38 0.96 30-39 0.00 0.18 81 Round Down 85th Speed 35 NP 2 %Alpine Ave Mooney Blvd Morrison St 2,148 36 1.68 25-34 0.00 0.53 65 Closest to 85th Speed 35** 35** 3 %B St Inyo Ave (SR 137)
Cross Ave 1,665 38 1.68 29-38 1.10 0.5 60 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 4 % Bardsley Ave Enterprise St
(Rd 84)
West St 377 47 1.68 39-48 0.00 0.98 76 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 5 % Bardsley Ave West St Pratt St 5,732 47 1.68 35-44 0.00 0.48 64 Closest to 85th Speed 45 40 6 %Bardsley Ave Pratt St H St 8,314 40 1.68 31-40 0.00 0.53 70 Closest to 85th Speed 40** 40** 7 %Bardsley Ave H St K St 13,448 50 0.96 38-47 0.59 0.23 66 Special Condition* 45 45 8 %Bardsley Ave K St O St 14,636 43 0.96 32-41 0.66 0.19 74 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 9 %Bardsley Ave O St Blackstone St 19,568 48 0.96 37-46 0.30 0.47 61 Round Down 85th Speed 45 45 10 % 13 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Bardsley Ave Blackstone St Laspina St 19,680 39 0.96 30-39 0.00 0.48 57 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 11 %Bardsley Ave Laspina St Mooney Blvd 17,561 47 1.68 37-46 0.22 0.47 72 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 12 %Bardsley Ave Mooney Blvd Morrison St 12,601 48 1.24 39-48 0.81 0.54 68 Round Down 85th Speed 45 50 13 %Bardsley Ave Morrison St Oakmore St (Rd 124) 7,838 43 1.68 30-39 1.20 0.39 62 Closest to 85th Speed 45** NP** 14 %Bardsley Ave Oakmore St (Rd 124)
Rd 132 7,112 43 1.68 32-41 0.00 0.99 65 Closest to 85th Speed 45 NP 15 % Bella Oaks Ave De La Vina St Laspina St 1,867 36 1.68 28-37 2.72 0.18 63 Closest to 85th Speed 35** NP** 16 %Bella Oaks Ave Laspina St End E/O Paseo Del Lago
1,153 31 1.68 22-31 1.89 0.42 63 Closest to 85th Speed 30 NP 17 % Blackstone St South End Paige Ave 1,652 45 1.68 34-43 5.92 0.56 49 Special Condition* 40 50 18 %Blackstone St Paige Ave Levin Ave 4,588 47 1.40 33-42 0.81 0.49 48 Closest to 85th Speed 45 50 19 %Blackstone St Levin Ave Walnut Ave 5,080 48 1.24 39-48 0.00 0.26 67 Round Down 85th Speed 45 50 20 % 14 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Blackstone St Walnut Ave Bardsley Ave 6,322 45 1.24 35-44 0.00 0.23 68 Closest to 85th Speed 45 50 21 %Blackstone St Bardsley Ave Tulare Ave (RD 137) 9,072 45 0.96 34-43 0.57 0.88 64 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 22 %Blackstone St Tulare Ave (Rd 137)
Lyndale Ave 10,334 40 0.96 31-40 0.00 0.56 77 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 23 % Blackstone St Lyndale Ave Prosperity Ave 14,502 39 0.96 30-39 0.21 0.59 62 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 24 %Brentwood St Cross Ave Prosperity Ave 5,178 39 1.68 31-40 0.00 0.33 70 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 25 %Cartmill Ave WCL Albers Pl 5,437 56 0.96 44-53 0.76 0.44 54 Closest to 85th Speed 55 55 26 %Cartmill Ave Albers Pl Akers St 14,845 50 0.47 42-51 0.09 0.7 47 Closest to 85th Speed 50 55 27 %Cartmill Ave Akers St Hillman St 16,999 50 0.47 35-44 0.00 0.48 58 Closest to 85th Speed 50 55 28 %Cartmill Ave Hillman St De La Vina St 10,725 56 0.47 47-56 0.53 0.48 59 Special Condition* 50 55 29 %Cartmill Ave De La Vina St Mooney Blvd (SR 63) 9,311 53 0.47 42-51 0.20 0.48 59 Round Down 85th Speed 50 50 30 % 15 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Cherry St Tulare Ave (Rd
137)
Prosperity Ave 4,242 37 1.68 27-36 0.77 1.12 60 Closest to 85th Speed 35 40 31 % Continental Ave K St Blackstone St 1,330 42 1.68 31-40 0.00 0.55 52 Round Down 85th Speed 35 40 32 %Corvina Ave Retherford St Hillman St 618 39 1.68 29-38 0.00 0.22 51 Closest to 85th Speed 40 NP 33 %Corvina Ave Hillman St Laspina St 1,479 37 1.68 26-35 0.00 0.51 60 Closest to 85th Speed 35 35 34 %Cross Ave Tulare Dr West St 1,890 30 1.68 23-32 0.00 0.39 86 Closest to 85th Speed 30 40 35 %Cross Ave West St B St 3,314 44 1.68 34-43 0.00 0.43 57 Round Down 85th Speed 40 45 36 %Cross Ave B St J St 8,541 39 1.68 31-40 0.38 0.56 74 Closest to 85th Speed 40** 40** 37 %Cross Ave J St M St 10,224 31 0.96 23-32 0.00 0.22 65 Closest to 85th Speed 30 35 38 %Cross Ave M St Blackstone St 11,830 36 1.68 27-36 0.30 0.76 73 Closest to 85th Speed 35** 35** 39 %Cross Ave Blackstone St Laspina St 9,816 43 1.68 34-43 0.12 0.77 78 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 40 % 16 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Cross Ave Laspina St Mooney Blvd (SR 63) 6,009 39 1.68 30-39 1.24 0.49 77 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 41 %De La Vina St Corvina Ave Cartmill Ave 1,771 39 1.68 29-38 0.00 0.55 74 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 42 %De La Vina St Cartmill Ave Pacific Ave 2,053 43 1.68 33-42 1.82 0.49 65 Round Down 85th Speed 40** NP** 43 %E St South End Bardsley Ave 2,320 44 1.68 33-42 0.00 0.74 59 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 44 %E St Bardsley Ave Inyo Ave 4,831 42 1.68 32-41 0.00 0.53 72 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 45 %E St Inyo Ave Tulare Ave 4,694 37 1.68 28-37 0.00 0.44 73 Special Condition* 30 30 46 %E St Tulare Ave Cross Ave 4,398 39 1.68 30-39 0.00 0.35 54 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 47 %E St Cross Ave Pleasant Ave 2,731 41 1.68 32-41 0.80 0.42 73 Special Condition* 35** 35** 48 %E St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 2,118 45 1.68 34-43 0.00 0.5 68 Special Condition* 40 40 49 %E St Prosperity Ave Zumwalt Ave 2,037 40 1.68 28-37 0.91 0.49 44 Closest to 85th Speed 40** NP** 50 % 17 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
F St Tulare Ave Cross Ave 818 28 1.68 15-24 0.00 0.35 74 Round Down 85th Speed 25 25 51 %Foster Dr Laspina St Mooney Rd (SR 63) 9,476 43 1.24 34-43 0.29 0.67 59 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 52 %Gail Ave Northridge St E St 1,649 34 1.68 25-34 0.00 0.25 48 Closest to 85th Speed 35** 35** 53 %Gem St Cross Ave Merritt Ave 1,352 32 1.68 15-24 0.00 0.51 50 Closest to 85th Speed 30** 35** 54 %Gem St Prosperity Ave Sandra Ave 851 37 1.68 27-36 0.00 0.33 48 Closest to 85th Speed 35 NP 55 %H St Cross Ave Pleasant Ave 3,319 43 1.68 31-40 0.00 0.39 64 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 56 %H St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 3,205 45 1.68 34-43 0.00 0.49 65 Special Condition* 40 40 57 %Hillcrest Ave Hillman St Laspina St 1,871 36 1.68 28-37 0.00 0.49 65 Closest to 85th Speed 35 35 58 %Hillman St State HWY 99 Prosperity Ave 9,708 38 1.31 28-37 1.34 0.21 66 Round Down 85th Speed 35 40 59 %Hillman St Prosperity Ave Leland Ave 19,428 42 0.47 32-41 0.64 0.22 73 Special Condition* 35 40 60 % 18 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Hillman St Leland Ave Corvina Ave 12,716 50 0.47 38-47 0.00 0.23 60 Closest to 85th Speed 50 45 61 %Hillman St Corvina Ave NCL 12,426 56 0.47 46-55 0.37 0.59 62 Closest to 85th Speed 55 50 62 %J St Owens Ave Cross Ave 8,197 35 0.96 27-36 0.34 0.65 71 Closest to 85th Speed 35 40 63 %J St Cross Ave Pleasant Ave 11,161 50 0.96 37-46 0.70 0.35 60 Closest to 85th Speed 50** 45** 64 %J St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 9,316 54 0.96 43-52 0.20 0.5 71 Round Down 85th Speed 50 50 65 %J St Prosperity Ave Sandra Ave 9,745 58 0.96 46-55 0.00 0.34 59 Round Down 85th Speed 55 45 66 %J St Sandra Ave NCL 9,728 60 1.24 50-59 0.09 1 54 Special Condition* 55 55 67 %K St Rankin Rd Golden State HWY 99 3,049 46 1.68 34-43 0.57 0.53 62 Closest to 85th Speed 45 30 68 % K St Rankin Rd (Ave
200)
1720' N/O Rankin Rd 3,491 55 1.24 45-54 0.00 0.32 60 Closest to 85th Speed 55 55 69 % K St 1720' N/O
Rankin Rd (Ave 200)
Industrial Ave 3,776 52 1.24 41-50 0.20 1.24 51 Closest to 85th Speed 50 55 70 % 19 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
K St Industrial Ave Paige Ave 4,360 54 1.24 40-49 1.31 0.48 51 Closest to 85th Speed 55 55 71 %K St Paige Ave Bardsley Ave 7,652 51 0.96 41-50 0.48 0.99 50 Closest to 85th Speed 50 50 72 %K St Bardsley Ave Owens Ave 8,618 49 0.96 38-47 0.82 0.52 63 Round Down 85th Speed 45 40 73 %Kern Ave West St J St 1,170 34 1.68 26-35 0.00 1.1 49 Round Down 85th Speed 30 30 74 %Kern Ave O St Blackstone St 1,237 36 1.68 28-37 0.00 0.51 45 Closest to 85th Speed 35** 35** 75 %La Dawna St Pleasant Ave Berryhill Ave 1,353 38 1.24 26-35 0.00 0.42 55 Round Down 85th Speed 35 NP 76 %Laspina St Hosfield Dr (Ave 200)
3100' N/O Hosfield Dr
1,711 57 1.24 45-54 0.00 0.59 52 Closest to 85th Speed 55 55 77 % Laspina St 3100' N/O
Hosfield Dr
Tex Dr 2,309 59 1.40 48-57 1.98 0.4 56 Round Down 85th Speed 55 55 78 % Laspina St Tex Dr Paige Ave 3,284 65 1.40 56-65 0.81 1.37 67 Closest to 85th Speed 65 60 79 %Laspina St Paige Ave Cerritos Ave 4,688 43 1.68 34-43 0.00 0.43 58 Round Down 85th Speed 40** 40** 80 % 20 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Laspina St Cerritos Ave Bardsley Ave 6,832 45 1.68 36-45 0.00 0.57 73 Special Condition* 40** 40** 81 %Laspina St Bardsley Ave Tulare Ave (SR 137) 8,910 43 1.24 32-41 0.21 0.98 61 Closest to 85th Speed 45** 45** 82 %Laspina St Tulare Ave (SR 137)
Prosperity Ave 10,239 45 1.24 35-44 0.00 0.98 69 Closest to 85th Speed 45** 45** 83 % Laspina St Prosperity Ave Bella Oaks Dr 3,075 34 1.68 25-34 0.00 0.56 77 Closest to 85th Speed 35** 35** 84 %Levin Ave K St Blackstone St 935 35 1.68 15-24 1.66 0.59 51 Closest to 85th Speed 35 35 85 %Levin Ave Laspina St Durango Ct 940 33 1.68 15-24 0.00 0.49 49 Closest to 85th Speed 35 NP 86 %Lincoln St Cross Ave Prosperity Ave 2,035 38 1.68 30-39 0.00 0.31 69 Round Down 85th Speed 35 NP 87 %M St Tulare Ave Cross Ave 4,764 37 1.68 29-38 0.00 0.35 70 Closest to 85th Speed 35 35 88 %M St Cross Ave Prosperity Ave 5,590 41 1.68 33-42 0.40 0.82 78 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 89 %M St Prosperity Ave Sandra Ave 5,771 43 1.24 35-44 0.00 0.33 69 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 90 % 21 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
M St Sandra Ave Cartmill Ave 5,439 44 1.68 35-44 0.00 0.73 66 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 91 %Maple Ave Sacramento St E St 1,967 28 1.68 15-24 0.00 0.36 67 Round Down 85th Speed 25** NP** 92 %Martin Luther King Jr Ave K St O St 2,025 41 1.68 30-39 1.73 0.26 62 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 93 % Martin Luther King Jr Ave
O St Blackstone St 2,137 42 1.68 32-41 0.00 0.47 60 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 94 % Merritt Ave Oak St Blackstone St 4,135 39 1.68 29-38 0.00 0.87 60 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 95 %Milner St Capistrano Ave Prosperity Ave 3,191 40 1.68 31-40 0.00 0.77 67 Special Condition* 35** 35** 96 %Mooney Blvd Foster Dr Wagonwheel Ave 7,797 47 1.68 37-46 0.31 0.38 65 Closest to 85th Speed 45 40 97 %Mooney Blvd Wagonwheel Ave
Bardsley Ave 8,976 53 0.96 42-51 0.00 0.33 46 Closest to 85th Speed 55 55 98 % Mooney Blvd Bardsley Ave Tulare Ave 17,885 58 0.96 47-56 0.21 0.98 58 Round Down 85th Speed 55 55 99 %Morrison St South End Bardsley Ave 3,343 30 1.68 19-28 0.54 0.51 69 Closest to 85th Speed 30 40 100 % 22 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Morrison St Bardsley Ave Alpine Ave 2,653 35 1.68 27-36 0.96 0.36 64 Closest to 85th Speed 35** 40** 101 %Morrison St Alpine Ave Tulare Ave (SR 137) 2,693 45 1.68 35-44 0.57 0.6 50 Special Condition* 40 40 102 %Morrison St Tulare Ave (SR 137)
Prosperity Ave 790 51 1.24 41-50 0.00 1 41 Closest to 85th Speed 50 45 103 % Nelder Grove St Bardsley Ave Alpine Ave 2,423 38 1.68 28-37 0.00 0.36 52 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 104 %O St Continental Ave Bardsley Ave 1,301 45 1.68 37-46 0.96 0.73 42 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 105 %O St Bardsley Ave Tulare Ave (SR137) 5,184 46 0.96 36-45 0.00 0.83 68 Closest to 85th Speed 45** 45** 106 %O St Tulare Ave Cross Ave 3,148 40 1.68 32-41 0.00 0.35 53 Special Condition* 35 35 107 %Oakmore St (Rd 124) Bardsley Ave Ave 228 2,550 51 1.24 39-48 1.49 0.48 58 Closest to 85th Speed 50** 50** 108 % Oakmore St (Rd 124)
Ave 228 Tulare Ave (SR 137) 2,921 52 1.24 42-51 0.00 0.49 51 Closest to 85th Speed 50 50 109 % Oaks St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 2,023 43 1.68 34-43 0.00 0.5 54 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 110 % 23 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Oaks St Prosperity Ave Sandra Ave 3,383 44 1.68 31-40 0.00 0.33 55 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 111 %Oaks St Sandra Ave M St 3,162 38 1.68 28-37 0.00 0.55 47 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 112 %Pacific Ave De La Vina St Mooney Blvd 2,641 43 1.68 32-41 1.41 0.49 62 Round Down 85th Speed 40** NP** 113 %Paige Ave I St Blackstone St 6,363 48 1.24 39-48 0.90 0.64 63 Round Down 85th Speed 45 45 114 %Paige Ave Blackstone St Laspina St 10,481 37 1.68 26-35 1.49 0.35 45 Closest to 85th Speed 35 40 115 %Paseo Del Lago Laspina St Westerly
Corvina Ave 3,424 38 1.68 30-39 0.00 0.56 76 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 116 % Paseo Del Lago Corvina Ave De La Vina St 2,026 44 1.68 35-44 0.00 0.63 62 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 117 %Paseo Del Lago De La Vina St Bella Oaks Dr 2,346 44 1.68 36-45 0.68 0.57 55 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 118 %Paseo Del Lago Laspina St Easterly
Bella Oaks Dr 3,100 39 1.68 29-38 0.00 0.5 70 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 119 % Pleasant Ave Enterprise St Cromley St 1,490 46 1.24 34-43 0.00 0.2 62 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 120 % 24 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Pleasant Ave Cromley St West St 1,733 44 1.24 34-43 0.68 0.77 61 Closest to 85th Speed 45** 45** 121 %Pleasant Ave West St H St 4,437 39 1.68 29-38 0.00 0.74 66 Closest to 85th Speed 40** 40** 122 %Pleasant Ave J St M St 2,279 40 1.68 30-39 0.00 0.3 62 Closest to 85th Speed 40** 40** 123 %Pleasant Ave M St Gem St 1,257 31 1.68 15-24 0.00 0.24 56 Closest to 85th Speed 30** 30** 124 %Pratt St Paige Ave Bardsley Ave 2,252 45 1.68 33-42 0.00 0.98 62 Closest to 85th Speed 45** 35** 125 %Pratt St Bardsley Ave Inyo Ave (SR 137) 2,581 38 1.68 29-38 0.00 0.48 63 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 126 %Prosperity Ave WCL Milner St 1,672 51 1.68 38-47 0.00 0.58 52 Closest to 85th Speed 50 NP 127 %Prosperity Ave Milner St West St 6,865 49 1.68 41-50 0.00 0.4 64 Round Down 85th Speed 45 45 128 %Prosperity Ave West St E St 7,220 47 1.68 37-46 0.26 0.48 66 Special Condition* 40** 40** 129 %Prosperity Ave E St J St 11,280 43 0.94 32-41 0.00 0.3 65 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 130 % 25 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Prosperity Ave J St M St 9,823 40 1.68 29-38 0.23 0.41 69 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 131 %Prosperity Ave M St Blackstone St 11,485 44 0.96 33-42 0.17 0.47 64 Round Down 85th Speed 40 40 132 %Prosperity Ave Blackstone St Hillman St 29,039 39 0.96 30-39 0.15 0.21 77 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 133 %Prosperity Ave Hillman St Laspina St 20,666 41 0.47 30-39 0.94 0.47 70 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 134 %Prosperity Ave Laspina St Mooney Rd (SR 63) 19,010 45 0.47 36-45 0.31 0.47 64 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 135 %Prosperity Ave Mooney Blvd (SR 63)
Morrison St 6,359 57 1.24 47-56 0.54 0.53 67 Closest to 85th Speed 55 55 136 % Rankin Rd I St Golden State HWY
99 2,733 35 1.68 24-33 0.00 0.19 61 Closest to 85th Speed 35 NP 137 % Retherford St Leland Ave 2000' S/O Cartmill
Ave
3,715 46 1.24 37-46 0.74 0.33 67 Closest to 85th Speed 45 45 138 % Retherford St 2000' S/O
Cartmill Ave
Cartmill Ave 4,628 52 1.24 42-51 0.52 0.38 60 Closest to 85th Speed 50 50 139 % Sacramento St Cross Ave Maple Ave 3,052 38 1.68 30-39 0.00 0.24 42 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 140 % 26 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Sacramento St Maple Ave Pleasant Ave 2,850 41 1.68 31-40 1.34 0.24 51 Special Condition* 35 35 141 %Sacramento St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 1,140 38 1.68 28-37 0.00 0.52 63 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 142 %San Joaquin Ave West St J St 1,735 35 1.68 27-36 0.00 1 59 Special Condition* 30 30 143 %Seminole Ave Mooney Blvd (SR 63)
Spyglass St 3,312 40 1.68 31-40 0.00 0.2 69 Closest to 85th Speed 40 NP 144 % Seminole Ave Spyglass St Morrison St 2,530 48 1.68 33-42 0.00 0.31 43 Round Down 85th Speed 45 NP 145 %Sonora Ave West St E St 1,495 26 1.68 15-24 0.00 0.73 77 Special Condition* 25** 25** 146 %Sonora Ave E St I St 115 25 1.68 15-24 0.00 0.29 80 Special Condition* 25 NP 147 %Sonora Ave O St Blackstone St 1,248 33 1.68 24-33 0.00 0.48 48 Round Down 85th Speed 30 25 148 %Spruce St Bardsley Ave Birch Ave 2,272 37 1.68 27-36 0.00 0.52 70 Closest to 85th Speed 35 35 149 %Sunrise St Commercial Ave Foster Dr 1,343 38 1.68 28-37 0.00 0.56 65 Round Down 85th Speed 35 35 150 % 27 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
Tulare Ave Enterprise St
(Rd 84)
Tulare Dr 5,603 55 1.24 48-57 0.00 0.57 62 Closest to 85th Speed 55 50 151 % Tulare Dr Cross Ave West St 7,148 50 1.24 40-49 1.00 0.51 61 Closest to 85th Speed 50 50 152 %Tulare Ave West St J St 6,691 40 1.68 32-41 0.00 1.1 71 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 153 %Tulare Ave J St M St (SR 137) 7,941 27 0.96 19-28 0.00 0.21 75 Closest to 85th Speed 25 25 154 %Turner Dr Commercial Ave Foster Dr 6,175 51 1.24 41-50 0.28 0.52 51 Closest to 85th Speed 50 55 155 %West St Paige Ave Bardsley Ave 2,138 52 1.24 41-50 0.44 0.98 51 Closest to 85th Speed 50 45 156 %West St Bardsley Ave Sonora Ave 6,747 41 1.24 32-41 0.00 0.29 62 Closest to 85th Speed 40 45 157 %West St Sonora Ave Inyo Ave 8,401 42 1.24 32-41 0.00 0.19 59 Closest to 85th Speed 40 45 158 %West St Inyo Ave Cross Ave 11,543 40 1.68 31-40 0.16 0.48 78 Closest to 85th Speed 40 40 159 %West St Cross Ave Pleasant Ave 9,899 45 1.68 34-43 0.38 0.49 69 Special Condition* 40 40 160 % 28 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Crash
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
Pace Act.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit Justification No.
CITY OF TULARE
West St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 9,400 50 1.68 39-48 0.40 0.49 67 Special Condition* 45 40 161 % 29 *** Crash rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles** 25 mph when children are presentExp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Recommended Speed Limit Reduction Recommended Speed Limit Increase * See Segments with Special Conditions Section for detailed justification Act.: Actual Crash Rate based on mid-block crashes recorded between 1/1/2023-12/31/2025 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report
Table 2 - Street Segments with Recommended Speed Changes No. Street From To Existing New Change
CITY OF TULARE
1 Akers St Cartmill Ave NCL NP 50 PL
2 Albers Pl Cartmill Ave J St NP 35 PL
6 Bardsley Ave West St Pratt St 40 45 + 5
13 Bardsley Ave Mooney Blvd Morrison St 50 45 - 5
14 Bardsley Ave Morrison St Oakmore St (Rd 124) NP 45 PL 15 Bardsley Ave Oakmore St (Rd 124) Rd 132 NP 45 PL
16 Bella Oaks Ave De La Vina St Laspina St NP 35 PL
17 Bella Oaks Ave Laspina St End E/O Paseo Del Lago NP 30 PL 18 Blackstone St South End Paige Ave 50 40 - 10
19 Blackstone St Paige Ave Levin Ave 50 45 - 5
20 Blackstone St Levin Ave Walnut Ave 50 45 - 5
21 Blackstone St Walnut Ave Bardsley Ave 50 45 - 5
27 Cartmill Ave Albers Pl Akers St 55 50 - 5
28 Cartmill Ave Akers St Hillman St 55 50 - 5
29 Cartmill Ave Hillman St De La Vina St 55 50 - 5
31 Cherry St Tulare Ave (Rd 137) Prosperity Ave 40 35 - 5 32 Continental Ave K St Blackstone St 40 35 - 5
33 Corvina Ave Retherford St Hillman St NP 40 PL
35 Cross Ave Tulare Dr West St 40 30 - 10
36 Cross Ave West St B St 45 40 - 5
38 Cross Ave J St M St 35 30 - 5
43 De La Vina St Cartmill Ave Pacific Ave NP 40 PL
50 E St Prosperity Ave Zumwalt Ave NP 40 PL
54 Gem St Cross Ave Merritt Ave 35 30 - 5
55 Gem St Prosperity Ave Sandra Ave NP 35 PL
59 Hillman St State HWY 99 Prosperity Ave 40 35 - 5
60 Hillman St Prosperity Ave Leland Ave 40 35 - 5
61 Hillman St Leland Ave Corvina Ave 45 50 + 5
62 Hillman St Corvina Ave NCL 50 55 + 5
63 J St Owens Ave Cross Ave 40 35 - 5
64 J St Cross Ave Pleasant Ave 45 50 + 5
66 J St Prosperity Ave Sandra Ave 45 55 + 10
PL= Post Speed Limit Sign 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 30 NP= No Posted Speed Limit
Table 2 - Street Segments with Recommended Speed Changes No. Street From To Existing New Change
CITY OF TULARE
68 K St Rankin Rd Golden State HWY 99 30 45 + 15
70 K St 1720' N/O Rankin Rd (Ave 200) Industrial Ave 55 50 - 5 73 K St Bardsley Ave Owens Ave 40 45 + 5
76 La Dawna St Pleasant Ave Berryhill Ave NP 35 PL
79 Laspina St Tex Dr Paige Ave 60 65 + 5
86 Levin Ave Laspina St Durango Ct NP 35 PL
87 Lincoln St Cross Ave Prosperity Ave NP 35 PL
92 Maple Ave Sacramento St E St NP 25 PL
97 Mooney Blvd Foster Dr Wagonwheel Ave 40 45 + 5
100 Morrison St South End Bardsley Ave 40 30 - 10
101 Morrison St Bardsley Ave Alpine Ave 40 35 - 5
103 Morrison St Tulare Ave (SR 137) Prosperity Ave 45 50 + 5 113 Pacific Ave De La Vina St Mooney Blvd NP 40 PL
115 Paige Ave Blackstone St Laspina St 40 35 - 5
125 Pratt St Paige Ave Bardsley Ave 35 45 + 10
127 Prosperity Ave WCL Milner St NP 50 PL
137 Rankin Rd I St Golden State HWY 99 NP 35 PL
144 Seminole Ave Mooney Blvd (SR 63) Spyglass St NP 40 PL 145 Seminole Ave Spyglass St Morrison St NP 45 PL
147 Sonora Ave E St I St NP 25 PL
148 Sonora Ave O St Blackstone St 25 30 + 5
151 Tulare Ave Enterprise St (Rd 84) Tulare Dr 50 55 + 5 155 Turner Dr Commercial Ave Foster Dr 55 50 - 5
156 West St Paige Ave Bardsley Ave 45 50 + 5
157 West St Bardsley Ave Sonora Ave 45 40 - 5
158 West St Sonora Ave Inyo Ave 45 40 - 5
161 West St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 40 45 + 5
Total Segments with Recommended Speed Limit Changes = 59 PL= Post Speed Limit Sign 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 31 NP= No Posted Speed Limit
Table 3 - Street Segments Maintaining the Posted Speed Limit No. Street From To Existing New
CITY OF TULARE
3 Alpine Ave Mooney Blvd Morrison St 35 35
4 B St Inyo Ave (SR 137) Cross Ave 35 35
5 Bardsley Ave Enterprise St (Rd 84) West St 45 45
7 Bardsley Ave Pratt St H St 40 40
8 Bardsley Ave H St K St 45 45
9 Bardsley Ave K St O St 45 45
10 Bardsley Ave O St Blackstone St 45 45
11 Bardsley Ave Blackstone St Laspina St 40 40
12 Bardsley Ave Laspina St Mooney Blvd 45 45
22 Blackstone St Bardsley Ave Tulare Ave (RD 137) 45 45 23 Blackstone St Tulare Ave (Rd 137) Lyndale Ave 40 40
24 Blackstone St Lyndale Ave Prosperity Ave 35 35
25 Brentwood St Cross Ave Prosperity Ave 35 35
26 Cartmill Ave WCL Albers Pl 55 55
30 Cartmill Ave De La Vina St Mooney Blvd (SR 63) 50 50 34 Corvina Ave Hillman St Laspina St 35 35
37 Cross Ave B St J St 40 40
39 Cross Ave M St Blackstone St 35 35
40 Cross Ave Blackstone St Laspina St 40 40
41 Cross Ave Laspina St Mooney Blvd (SR 63) 35 35
42 De La Vina St Corvina Ave Cartmill Ave 40 40
44 E St South End Bardsley Ave 40 40
45 E St Bardsley Ave Inyo Ave 40 40
46 E St Inyo Ave Tulare Ave 30 30
47 E St Tulare Ave Cross Ave 35 35
48 E St Cross Ave Pleasant Ave 35 35
49 E St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 40 40
51 F St Tulare Ave Cross Ave 25 25
52 Foster Dr Laspina St Mooney Rd (SR 63) 45 45
53 Gail Ave Northridge St E St 35 35
56 H St Cross Ave Pleasant Ave 40 40
57 H St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 40 40
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 32
Table 3 - Street Segments Maintaining the Posted Speed Limit No. Street From To Existing New
CITY OF TULARE
58 Hillcrest Ave Hillman St Laspina St 35 35
65 J St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 50 50
67 J St Sandra Ave NCL 55 55
69 K St Rankin Rd (Ave 200) 1720' N/O Rankin Rd 55 55
71 K St Industrial Ave Paige Ave 55 55
72 K St Paige Ave Bardsley Ave 50 50
74 Kern Ave West St J St 30 30
75 Kern Ave O St Blackstone St 35 35
77 Laspina St Hosfield Dr (Ave 200) 3100' N/O Hosfield Dr 55 55 78 Laspina St 3100' N/O Hosfield Dr Tex Dr 55 55
80 Laspina St Paige Ave Cerritos Ave 40 40
81 Laspina St Cerritos Ave Bardsley Ave 40 40
82 Laspina St Bardsley Ave Tulare Ave (SR 137) 45 45
83 Laspina St Tulare Ave (SR 137) Prosperity Ave 45 45
84 Laspina St Prosperity Ave Bella Oaks Dr 35 35
85 Levin Ave K St Blackstone St 35 35
88 M St Tulare Ave Cross Ave 35 35
89 M St Cross Ave Prosperity Ave 40 40
90 M St Prosperity Ave Sandra Ave 45 45
91 M St Sandra Ave Cartmill Ave 40 40
93 Martin Luther King Jr Av K St O St 40 40
94 Martin Luther King Jr Av O St Blackstone St 40 40
95 Merritt Ave Oak St Blackstone St 40 40
96 Milner St Capistrano Ave Prosperity Ave 35 35
98 Mooney Blvd Wagonwheel Ave Bardsley Ave 55 55
99 Mooney Blvd Bardsley Ave Tulare Ave 55 55
102 Morrison St Alpine Ave Tulare Ave (SR 137) 40 40
104 Nelder Grove St Bardsley Ave Alpine Ave 35 35
105 O St Continental Ave Bardsley Ave 45 45
106 O St Bardsley Ave Tulare Ave (SR137) 45 45
107 O St Tulare Ave Cross Ave 35 35
108 Oakmore St (Rd 124) Bardsley Ave Ave 228 50 50
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 33
Table 3 - Street Segments Maintaining the Posted Speed Limit No. Street From To Existing New
CITY OF TULARE
109 Oakmore St (Rd 124) Ave 228 Tulare Ave (SR 137) 50 50 110 Oaks St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 40 40
111 Oaks St Prosperity Ave Sandra Ave 40 40
112 Oaks St Sandra Ave M St 40 40
114 Paige Ave I St Blackstone St 45 45
116 Paseo Del Lago Laspina St Westerly Corvina Ave 40 40 117 Paseo Del Lago Corvina Ave De La Vina St 40 40
118 Paseo Del Lago De La Vina St Bella Oaks Dr 40 40
119 Paseo Del Lago Laspina St Easterly Bella Oaks Dr 40 40 120 Pleasant Ave Enterprise St Cromley St 45 45
121 Pleasant Ave Cromley St West St 45 45
122 Pleasant Ave West St H St 40 40
123 Pleasant Ave J St M St 40 40
124 Pleasant Ave M St Gem St 30 30
126 Pratt St Bardsley Ave Inyo Ave (SR 137) 35 35
128 Prosperity Ave Milner St West St 45 45
129 Prosperity Ave West St E St 40 40
130 Prosperity Ave E St J St 40 40
131 Prosperity Ave J St M St 40 40
132 Prosperity Ave M St Blackstone St 40 40
133 Prosperity Ave Blackstone St Hillman St 35 35
134 Prosperity Ave Hillman St Laspina St 40 40
135 Prosperity Ave Laspina St Mooney Rd (SR 63) 45 45
136 Prosperity Ave Mooney Blvd (SR 63) Morrison St 55 55 138 Retherford St Leland Ave 2000' S/O Cartmill Ave 45 45 139 Retherford St 2000' S/O Cartmill Ave Cartmill Ave 50 50 140 Sacramento St Cross Ave Maple Ave 35 35
141 Sacramento St Maple Ave Pleasant Ave 35 35
142 Sacramento St Pleasant Ave Prosperity Ave 35 35
143 San Joaquin Ave West St J St 30 30
146 Sonora Ave West St E St 25 25
149 Spruce St Bardsley Ave Birch Ave 35 35
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 34
Table 3 - Street Segments Maintaining the Posted Speed Limit No. Street From To Existing New
CITY OF TULARE
150 Sunrise St Commercial Ave Foster Dr 35 35
152 Tulare Dr Cross Ave West St 50 50
153 Tulare Ave West St J St 40 40
154 Tulare Ave J St M St (SR 137) 25 25
159 West St Inyo Ave Cross Ave 40 40
160 West St Cross Ave Pleasant Ave 40 40
Total Segments Maintaining the Posted Speed Limit =102
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 35
2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 37
CITY OF TULARE
Segment 48 – E Street – Cross Avenue to Pleasant Avenue This segment is currently posted at 35 mph, with a 25 mph school-zone speed limit when children are present, and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 2,731 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and a school zone along the 0.42-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 41 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit. However, due to residential density, hidden driveways, heavy pedestrian use, and an uncontrolled crosswalk that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 35 mph, with 25 mph when children are present, for the above reasons.
Segment 49 – E Street – Pleasant Avenue to Prosperity Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 2,118 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential, commercial, and vacant along the 0.50- mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, due to hidden driveways and moderate pedestrian use that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph for the above reasons.
Segment 57 – H Street – Pleasant Avenue to Prosperity Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 3,205 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential, commercial, and park along the 0.49-milelong segment. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, due to uncontrolled crosswalks and moderate pedestrian use that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph for the above reasons.
Segment 60 – Hillman Street – Prosperity Avenue to Leland Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has three through lanes in each direction with an ADT of 19,428 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is commercial along the 0.22-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 42 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit. However, due to the segment’s high crash rate and moderate pedestrian use, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 35 mph for the above reasons.
Segment 81 – Laspina Street – Cerritos Avenue to Bardsley Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph, with a 25 mph school-zone speed limit when children are present, and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 6,832 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential, commercial, vacant, and a school zone along the 0.57-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, due to residential density, hidden driveways, and moderate pedestrian use that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph, with 25 mph when children are present, for the above reasons. 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 38
CITY OF TULARE
Segment 96 – Milner Street – Capistrano Avenue to Prosperity Avenue This segment is currently posted at 35 mph, with a 25 mph school-zone speed limit when children are present, and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 3,191 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential, school, and park along the 0.77-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 40 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit. However, due to an uncontrolled crosswalk, moderate pedestrian use, residential density, and hidden driveways that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 35 mph, with 25 mph when children are present, for the above reasons.
Segment 102 – Morrison Street – Alpine Avenue to Tulare Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 2,693 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is residential along the 0.60-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, due to moderate pedestrian use that is not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph for the above reason.
Segment 107 – O Street – Tulare Avenue to Cross Avenue
This segment is currently posted at 35 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 3,148 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are commercial, residential, and park along the 0.35-milelong segment. The 85th percentile speed is 40 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit. However, due to residential density and uncontrolled crosswalks that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 35 mph for the above reasons.
Segment 129 – Prosperity Avenue – West Street to E Street This segment is currently posted at 40 mph, with a 25 mph school-zone speed limit when children are present, and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 7,220 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential, vacant, and a school zone along the 0.48-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 47 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, due to uncontrolled crosswalks and moderate pedestrian use that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph, with 25 mph when children are present, for the above reasons.
Segment 141 – Sacramento Street – Maple Avenue to Pleasant Avenue This segment is currently posted at 35 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 2,850 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are school and residential along the 0.24-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 41 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit.
However, due to the segment’s crash history, hidden driveways, an uncontrolled crosswalk, moderate pedestrian use, and residential density that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 35 mph for the above reasons. 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 39
CITY OF TULARE
Segment 143 – San Joaquin Avenue – West Street to J Street This segment is currently posted at 30 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 1,735 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are commercial and residential along the 1.00-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 35 mph and would normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit.
However, due to residential density and hidden driveways that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 30 mph for the above reasons.
Segment 146 – Sonora Avenue – West Street to E Street
This segment is currently posted at 25 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 1,495 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and a school zone along the 0.73-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 26 mph and supports a 25 mph posted speed limit. In addition, posting the 25 mph speed limit is prudent due to the paved roadway width exceeding 40 feet. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 25 mph for the above reason.
Segment 147 – Sonora Avenue – E Street to I Street
This segment is currently not posted and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 115 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is residential along the 0.29-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 25 mph and supports a 25 mph posted speed limit. In addition, posting the 25 mph speed limit is prudent due to the paved roadway width exceeding 40 feet. It is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 25 mph for the above reason.
Segment 160 – West Street – Cross Avenue to Pleasant Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 9,899 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and vacant along the 0.49-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit.
However, due to hidden driveways and residential density that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph for the above reasons.
Segment 161 – West Street – Pleasant Avenue to Prosperity Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 9,400 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and vacant along the 0.49-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 50 mph and would normally justify a 50 mph posted speed limit.
However, to due to the transition to adjacent lower-speed West Street segments, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 45 mph for the above reason. 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 40
CITY OF TULARE
Safety Corridors
The following segment surveyed had a recommended speed limit that was reduced an additional 5 miles per hour (mph) below the engineer’s initial recommended speed limit because the segment is in a designated safety corridor.
Segment 67 – J Street – Sandra Avenue to North City Limit This segment is currently posted at 55 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 9,728 vehicles per day. The adjacent land is commercial, agricultural, with a railroad corridor along the
1.00-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 60 mph and would normally justify a 60 mph posted speed limit by rounding to the nearest 5-mph speed. However, the segment is along a designated safety corridor and the City recommends that the speed limit remain at 55 mph. The reduced speed limit is less than 12.4 mph below the 85th percentile speed.
Segments with 25 mph Posted Speed Limits
The City will typically not post 25 mph speed limit signs on local residential streets. However, in cases where the speed limit is designated with a 25 mph speed limit through an E&T Survey, posting 25 mph speed limit signs is recommended. The following segments identified in Table 4 have 25 mph recommended speed limits through the E&T Survey.
The City typically does not post 25 mph speed limit signs on local residential streets where the 25 mph speed limit is otherwise established by the California Vehicle Code or local practice. However, where a 25 mph speed limit is established through an Engineering and Traffic Survey, posting 25 mph speed limit signs is recommended to document the surveyed speed zone and support enforceability, including radar enforcement where applicable.
The segments listed in Table 4 have recommended 25 mph speed limits through this Engineering and Traffic Survey. Posting is recommended for these segments due to the 85th percentile speeds, roadway width, adjacent land uses, pedestrian activity, uncontrolled crosswalks, school or senior-center conditions, downtown context, or other segment-specific conditions documented in the segment data sheets. The 25 mph recommendations are summarized below.
Table 4 – Segments with 25 mph Recommended Speed Limits No. Segment From To Justification for Posting
51 F Street Tulare
Avenue
Cross
Avenue
Presence of the Tulare Senior Center and uncontrolled
crosswalks along the segment
92 Maple
Avenue
Sacramento
Street E Street
The paved roadway width exceeds 40 feet and due to the
presence of the Tulare Adult School, school-zone conditions, heavy pedestrian activity, and uncontrolled crosswalks
146 Sonora
Avenue West Street E Street The paved roadway width exceeds 40 feet 147 Sonora
Avenue E Street I Street The paved roadway width exceeds 40 feet 154 Tulare
Avenue J Street M Street (SR 137) Downtown District context 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 39
CITY OF TULARE
Segment 143 – San Joaquin Avenue – West Street to J Street This segment is currently posted at 30 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 1,735 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are commercial and residential along the 1.00-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 35 mph and would normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit.
However, due to residential density and hidden driveways that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 30 mph for the above reasons.
Segment 146 – Sonora Avenue – West Street to E Street
This segment is currently posted at 25 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 1,495 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and a school zone along the 0.73-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 26 mph and supports a 25 mph posted speed limit. In addition, posting the 25 mph speed limit is prudent due to the paved roadway width exceeding 40 feet. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 25 mph for the above reason.
Segment 147 – Sonora Avenue – E Street to I Street
This segment is currently not posted and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 115 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is residential along the 0.29-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 25 mph and supports a 25 mph posted speed limit. In addition, posting the 25 mph speed limit is prudent due to the paved roadway width exceeding 40 feet. It is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 25 mph for the above reason.
Segment 160 – West Street – Cross Avenue to Pleasant Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 9,899 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and vacant along the 0.49-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit.
However, due to hidden driveways and residential density that are not readily apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph for the above reasons.
Segment 161 – West Street – Pleasant Avenue to Prosperity Avenue This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 9,400 vehicles per day. The adjacent land uses are residential and vacant along the 0.49-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 50 mph and would normally justify a 50 mph posted speed limit.
However, to due to the transition to adjacent lower-speed West Street segments, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 45 mph for the above reason. 2026 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 40
CITY OF TULARE
Safety Corridors
The following segment surveyed had a recommended speed limit that was reduced an additional 5 miles per hour (mph) below the engineer’s initial recommended speed limit because the segment is in a designated safety corridor.
Segment 67 – J Street – Sandra Avenue to North City Limit This segment is currently posted at 55 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 9,728 vehicles per day. The adjacent land is commercial, agricultural, with a railroad corridor along the
1.00-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 60 mph and would normally justify a 60 mph posted speed limit by rounding to the nearest 5-mph speed. However, the segment is along a designated safety corridor and the City recommends that the speed limit remain at 55 mph. The reduced speed limit is less than 12.4 mph below the 85th percentile speed.
Segments with 25 mph Posted Speed Limits
The City will typically not post 25 mph speed limit signs on local residential streets. However, in cases where the speed limit is designated with a 25 mph speed limit through an E&T Survey, posting 25 mph speed limit signs is recommended. The following segments identified in Table 4 have 25 mph recommended speed limits through the E&T Survey.
The City typically does not post 25 mph speed limit signs on local residential streets where the 25 mph speed limit is otherwise established by the California Vehicle Code or local practice. However, where a 25 mph speed limit is established through an Engineering and Traffic Survey, posting 25 mph speed limit signs is recommended to document the surveyed speed zone and support enforceability, including radar enforcement where applicable.
The segments listed in Table 4 have recommended 25 mph speed limits through this Engineering and Traffic Survey. Posting is recommended for these segments due to the 85th percentile speeds, roadway width, adjacent land uses, pedestrian activity, uncontrolled crosswalks, school or senior-center conditions, downtown context, or other segment-specific conditions documented in the segment data sheets. The 25 mph recommendations are summarized below.
Table 4 – Segments with 25 mph Recommended Speed Limits No. Segment From To Justification for Posting
51 F Street Tulare
Avenue
Cross
Avenue
Presence of the Tulare Senior Center and uncontrolled
crosswalks along the segment
92 Maple
Avenue
Sacramento
Street E Street
The paved roadway width exceeds 40 feet and due to the
presence of the Tulare Adult School, school-zone conditions, heavy pedestrian activity, and uncontrolled crosswalks
146 Sonora
Avenue West Street E Street The paved roadway width exceeds 40 feet 147 Sonora
Avenue E Street I Street The paved roadway width exceeds 40 feet 154 Tulare
Avenue J Street M Street (SR 137) Downtown District context Item #: 9.2
General Business
Staff Report
City Council
Date: July 21, 2026
Department: Economic Development & Redevelopment
Submitted by: Jennifer Gomez, Executive Director of Economic Development & Redevelopment Agenda Title: Economic Development Quarterly & June Updates
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive an update on economic development activities.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Economic Development
SUMMARY
Attached is a presentation covering April-June 2026 highlighting activities and updates over the last quarter.
Also attached for your reference is the June 2026 Economic Development Bulletin identifying activities and projects that took place in the previous month highlighting four elements of economic development. • Building permits issued pertaining to residential and commercial improvements along with the total value of those improvements
• Business licenses that were issued for either new businesses, change of ownership, or businesses that failed to have a business license previously • Active projects that will have a sizeable impact on economic development • Site Plan Review projects that have been submitted to the City that could positively address commercial and residential needs
This is an informational item only and does not require any action by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.
LEGAL REVIEW
This item does not require legal review.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This item does not require a public hearing and was noticed as a part of the agenda.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes
2. Deny
3. Table
ATTACHMENTS
1. June 2026 Economic Development Bulletin
Reviewed/Approved: MM
The Economic Development
BULLETIN
June 2026
Building Permits
219 Building Permits - Total Valuation $18,648,795.00
Residential
Single Family, Accessory/Alterations/Additions,
Re-Roof, Photovoltaic, Patio/Porch/Carport,
Pool/Spa/Water Feature, Multifamily
Commercial
New, Alterations/Additions, Tenant
Improvements, Site Improvements, Signage
209 10
Net New Business Licenses
19 New Businesses
Business Address
Bernardo Construction 4204 S. University St.
Educational Employees Credit Union 1398 E. Prosperity Ave.
Royalty Hair 219 E. Tulare Ave.
Ewing Irrigation Products 2321 South K St.
Prime Towing and Transport 1250 South O St.
Zephyrus Liquidation 704 Industrial Ave.
Legacy Wrestling Academy 851 E. Bardsley Ave.
Barkat Noor Foods 724 W. Inyo Ave.
Rafaelas Casa Del Marisco 561 Bardsley Ave.
Wholesale Warehouse Liquidation 1389 S. Blackstone
Tulare Nail Lounge 1586 Hillman St.
Ernie’s Barbershop 139 South K St.
Dream Glow Esthetics 305 E. San Joaquin
Pathway Escrow 1008 E. Tulare Ave.
Fraga Towels & Linens 1501 E. Tulare Ave.
United Truck Wash 3550 South K St.
Norah Benevedes 162 North M St.
All American Diesel Repair and Auto 1539 E. Tulare Ave., Unit H Crosby Street Transit 25430 Rd 140
Active Projects
Status of Active Projects
Project Title & Description Address
International Agri-Center Way Interchange
Construction 90% Completed
Anticipated Completion July/Aug 2026
Hwy 99 & International Agri-Center Way
International Agri-Center Way Extension
Design Phase - 100%
Environmental Phase - Anticipated Completion Sept.
2026
Connecting Laspina St. to Turner Dr.
Santa Fe Trail Residential
Multi-Family Residential - 40 units
Permits approved
North M Street & Santa Fe Trail
Ginder Apartments
Multi-Family Residential - 216 units
Plan Review
N. Retherford btw E. Cartmill Ave. & E. Corvina Ave.
Glass Avenue - Phase I
Mutli-Family Residential - 54 units
Under construction
N. Retherford btw E. Cartmill Ave. & E. Corvina Ave.
Villas @ Sierra Ranch
Single Family Residential - 90 lots
Under Construction
N. Retherford btw E. Corvina Ave. & E. Leland Ave.
Sorrento
Single Family Residential - 132 lots
Under construction
SW Corner of Mooney Blvd. & Cartmill Ave.
KCOK 4, 6, 7
Single Family Residential - 95 lots
Under construction
Morrison St. btw Prosperity Ave. & Castlerock Ave.
Caltrans: Hwy 99 Widening Project & Paige Ave.
Interchange
Design Phase - 95%
ROW Acquisition
Farrar 2, 3, & 4
Single Family Residential - 257 lots
Under construction
Morrison St. btw Seminole Ave. & Pine Valley Ave.
Fulton Estates
Single Family Residential - 183 lots
Under construction
SW Corner of Tulare Ave. & Rd. 124
Hidden Ridge
Single Family Residential - 30 lots
Under construction
Bardsley Ave. btw Mammoth St. & Morrison St.
Mission Creek
Single Family Residential - 273 lots
Under construction
SW Corner of Bardsley Ave. & Rd. 124
Cottonwood 3
Single Family Residential - 86 lots
Under construction
SE Corner of Foster Dr. & Mooney Blvd.
Maverik Travel Center
Under Construction
Opening Summer 2026
SE Corner of Hwy 99 & Cartmill Ave.
Sequoia Marketplace
Chipotle - OPEN!!!
Carwash - Under Construction
Service Station - Under Construction
Savemart - application pending
NE Corner of Mooney Blvd. & Bardsley Ave.
iONNA EV
Under construction.
621 E. Prosperity Avenue
Fernandes Subdivision
Single Family Residential - 120 lots
Tentative Subdivision Map Approved
NE Corner of Paige Ave. & E Street
Hwy 99 Water Crossing
Environmental phase
Near intersection of Washington Ave. & Gem Street
on the west side of Hwy 99 and extend east to
Corvina Ave. alignment west of Retherford Street
F&C Farming
Single Family Residential - 543 lots
Under construction
SW Corner of Prosperity Ave. & Oakmore Road
Sam’s Foods Supermarket
Remodel of former R-N Market
Under Construction
1043 E. Bardsley Avenue
Corvina Apartments
Mixed Use - 8 duplexes & commercial
Building permit plan check
SW Corner of Corvina Ave. & Hillman St.
Santa Fe West
Single Family Residential - 171 lots
Tentative Map Approved
SE Corner of Zumwalt & E Street
Valov
Single Family Residential - 160 lots
Improvement Plans Approved
North of Paige Ave. & East of E St.
Lekkerkerker
Single Family Residential - 228 lots
Improvement Plans Approved
NE Corner of Paige Ave. & Pratt St.
Sherwood South Subdivision
Single Family Residential - 209 lots
Multi-Family Residential - 76 units
Tentative Map Approved
NE Corner of Bardsley Ave. & Enterprise St.
Dutch Bros.
Building permit plan check
SE Corner of Hwy 99 & Cartmill Ave.
The Oasis
Commercial Development
Under Construction
215 E. Kern Ave.
Site Plan Review
Preliminary Site Plan Review Applications
Project Title & Description Address
Home 2 Suites Hotel SE corner of Corvina Ave. & Retherford Ave.
Canton Restaurant 2002 E. Prosperity Ave.
For any inquires on these projects, please reach out to:
Jennifer Gomez, MPA
Executive Director of Economic Development & Redevelopment [email protected]
559.684.4230 | C: 559.309.4726
425 East Kern Avenue, Tulare, CA 93274