Tulare City Council
October 6, 2026

City of Tulare

4.6. GRANT AND LOAN SECURITY
A. CDBG assistance will not involve a lien recorded against a participant’s property.

B. PLHA assistance will involve a loan agreement recorded against a participant’s property and a period of three years of loan servicing to confirm principal occupancy by the Sponsor.

CONSTRUCTION

5.1. STANDARDS
A. All repair work will meet Local Building Code standards. Priority will be the elimination of health and safety hazards and the elimination of code deficiencies.

B. Contracting Process

1. Contracting will be done on a competitive basis.

2. The homeowner will be the responsible agent, but the Program Operator will prepare the work write-up, prepare, and advertise the bid package, and assist the owner in negotiating the construction contract.

3. The Sponsor nor the Program Operator does not warrant any construction work or provide insurance coverage.

C. Approved Contractors

1. Contractors are required to be licensed with the State of California and be active and in good standing with the Contractors’ License Board and the Sponsor.

2. Contractors will be checked against the Federal System for Award Management (SAM.gov) for debarred status. No award will be granted to a contractor on the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS).

3. Contractors must have public liability and property damage insurance, and worker’s compensation, unemployment, and disability insurance, to the extent required by State law.

4. Contractor must agree to comply with all federal and state regulations.

D. Sweat Equity Labor
The Sponsor does not allow sweat equity participation.

E. Occupants of units constructed prior to 1978 will receive proper notification of LeadBased Paint (LBP) hazards as identified in Section 3.3.A.

F. Units constructed prior to 1978 will also be inspected according to the following HUD regulations.

Lead Certification Process
CDBG funds used to rehabilitate existing units built prior to 1978, must meet the Lead Safe Housing Rule. The lead hazard evaluation and reduction activities required for rehabilitation projects depend on the level of rehabilitation assistance received by the project. • Evaluate project to determine if the lead requirements apply. • Calculate the amount of federal assistance to determine the level of evaluation and hazard City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
reduction treatments.
• The amount of rehabilitation assistance is the lesser of two amounts. • Hard costs from all sources per unit (exclude soft costs and lead hazard control) OR
• Federal assistance per unit.

Exterior repair or special purpose programs are not exempt from the rule.

Lead Safe Housing Rule.
• < $5,000 per unit:

Lead Hazard Evaluation.
– Paint testing must be conducted to identify lead-based paint on painted surfaces that will be disturbed or replaced. (Provide scope of work to lead inspector)
Lead Hazard Reduction.
– Repair surfaces that will be disturbed during rehabilitation, unless such paint is found not to be lead-based paint.
– If lead-based paint is detected, lead safe work practices must be used during rehabilitation.
– Clearance is required by a certified clearance examiner. • $5,000-$25,000 per unit:

Lead Hazard Evaluation.
– A risk assessment must be conducted by a qualified professional prior to rehabilitation to find lead-based paint hazards in assisted units, in common areas that service those units, and on exterior surfaces. The risk assessment must include paint testing of any surfaces to be disturbed by the rehabilitation. (Provide scope of work to lead inspector) Lead Hazard Reduction.
– If the risk assessment identifies lead-based paint hazards interim controls must be implemented to address all lead-based paint hazards. – Interim controls must be performed by qualified professionals using safe work practices.
– Clearance, conducted by a qualified clearance examiner, is required when lead hazard reduction activities are complete.

Note: Risk assessment applies even if the program is for the exterior. If results indicate LBP hazards on the interior, interim control work of the interior hazards is required (add hazards to the scope of work). However, all hazards identified in the LBP Risk assessment that were not listed on the original scope of work or were not the original intent of the rehabilitation will be considered as soft cost items. • >$25,000 per unit:

Lead Hazard Evaluation.
– A risk assessment must be conducted prior to rehabilitation to find leadbased paint hazards in assisted units, in common areas that service those units, and on exterior surfaces. The risk assessment must include paint testing of any surfaces to be disturbed by the rehabilitation.

Lead Hazard Reduction.
– Abatement must be conducted to reduce all identified lead-based paint hazards within the risk assessment. Abatement must be conducted by a certified CDPH abatement contractor/supervisor. (Note: Abatement shall City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
include lead-based paint hazard items found during the risk assessment that may have not been listed on the original scope of work. However, the additional lead-based paint hazards will be charged as soft costs. All items that were listed on the original scope of work that have been identified as lead-based paint hazards during the risk assessment will be charged as hard cost.)
– Clearance is required when lead hazard reduction activities are complete. • Presume LBP
• Not recommended.
• Hazard control measures are enhanced, and potentially much greater costs incurred as the level of assistance increases.

1. 5.2. ELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
“Rehabilitation” means, in addition to the definition in Section 50096 of the Health and Safety Code, repairs and improvements to a home necessary to correct any condition causing the home to be substandard pursuant to Section 1704 of Title 25, California Code of Regulations.

Rehabilitation also means repairs and improvements where necessary to meet any locally adopted standards used in local rehabilitation Programs. Rehabilitation does not include replacement of personal property.

Temporary relocation benefits must be planned for and budgeted into the total allowable subsidy for the project, but if required would be in the form of a grant.

Allowable rehabilitation\reconstruction costs include:

A. Cost of building permits and other related government fees.

B. Cost of architectural, engineering, and other consultant services, which are directly related to the rehabilitation of the property.

C. Costs associated with the repair, replacement, or abandonment of domestic water wells and/or associated costs (such as water pump lowering).

D. Manufactured housing units are not eligible to participate.

E. Rehabilitation will address the following issues in the order listed. Eligible costs are included for each item.

1. Health and Safety Issues
Eligible costs include, but are not limited to, energy-related improvements, lead-based paint hazard evaluation and reduction activities, improvements for handicapped accessibility, repair or replacement of major housing systems. A driveway may be considered part of rehabilitation if it is determined to be a health and safety issue.

2. Code and Regulation Compliance
Eligible costs include, but are not limited to, additional work required to rehabilitate and modernize a home, and bring it into compliance with current building codes and regulations. Painting and weatherization are included.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

3. Demolition
Eligible costs include, but are not limited to, the tear down and disposal of dilapidated structures when they pose a health, safety, or code violation. If a garage or carport is detached, it may not be rehabilitated but may be demolished if it is determined to be a health and safety issue.

4. Upgrades
The Program will not fund additions to a home.

5. General Property Improvements
General property improvements may include replacement of a stove, oven, refrigerator, dishwasher, and/or garbage disposal, and repair or installation of fencing. Items such as refrigerators, stoves, and dishwashers that are not built in may be replaced due to incipient failure, or documented medical condition of the homeowner, and must be of moderate quality. Luxury items (i.e., granite countertops) and certain free-standing appliances (i.e., washers and dryers) are not allowed.

All improvements must be physically attached to the property and permanent in nature.

Non-code property improvements (fencing, landscaping, driveway, etc.) will be limited to 15 percent of the rehabilitation financing amount. Any cash contribution by the property owner will be considered a general property improvement and be included in this percentage.

6. Rehabilitation Standards
All repair work related to health and safety conditions will meet Local Building Code standards. The priority will be the elimination of health and safety hazards and code compliance.

5.3. ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS/ACTIVITY DELIVERY COSTS
Examples of eligible project related costs include:
• Appraisal
• Property Report/Title Insurance
• Building Plan
• Termite Report
• Land Survey
• Grading Plan
• Recording Fees
• Construction materials
• Labor associated with the project
Costs are based on charges currently incurred by the Sponsor, or the Program Operator, for these products and/or services. Any cost increases charged to the Sponsor/Program Operator for these products and/or services will be passed on to the homeowner and included in the grant. All fees are subject to change and are driven by the market.

5.4. REPAIR CALLBACKS
City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
Contractors will comply with State law regarding all labor and material warranties. All labor and material shall meet FHA minimum specifications. All labor, materials and installation shall be guaranteed for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance by homeowner, when subjected to normal use and care, and provided homeowner has complied, in full, with the terms and payments and other conditions of Contract. Upon written notice from homeowner, Contractor shall repair or remedy any defect in materials and workmanship within the one-year period specified. Contractor shall furnish homeowner with and assign to homeowner all manufacturers' and suppliers' written guarantees and warranties covering materials and equipment furnished.

6.0. EXCEPTIONS AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

6.1. AMENDMENTS
The Program Operator may make amendments to these Participant Guidelines. Any changes made shall be in accordance with federal and state regulations, shall be approved by the Sponsor and applicable federal or state agency.

6.2. EXCEPTIONS
Any case to which a standard policy or procedure as stated, does not apply or an applicant treated differently from others of the same class would be an exception.

6.3 PROCEDURES FOR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
A. The Sponsor or its Program Operator may initiate consideration of an exception and prepare a report. This report shall contain a narrative, including the Sponsor’s/Program Operator’s recommended course of action and any written or verbal information supplied by the applicant.

B. The Sponsor shall make a determination of the exception based on the recommendation of the Program Operator. The request can be presented to the Sponsor’s grant committee and/or governing body for decision.

7.0. DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND APPEALS PROCEDURES

7.1. PROGRAM COMPLAINT AND APPEAL PROCEDURE
Complaints concerning the Sponsor’s Rehabilitation Program should be made to the Program Operator first. If unresolved in this manner, the complaint or appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the Sponsor. The Sponsor will then schedule a meeting with the Sponsor’s Grant Review Committee. Their written response will be made within thirty (30) working days. If the applicant is not satisfied with the committee's decision, a request for an appeal may be filed with the local governing body. Final appeal may be filed in writing with HUD regarding CDBG assistance and with HCD regarding PLHA assistance within one year after denial or the filing of the Project Notice of Completion.

7.2. GRIEVANCES BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS AND CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACTOR
Contracts signed by the contractor and the participant include the following clause, which provides a procedure for resolution of grievances:

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
Any controversy arising out of or relating to this Contract, or the breach thereof, shall be submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the California Arbitration Law, Code of Civil Procedure 1280 et seq., and the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall have the final authority to order work performed, to order the payment from one party to another, and to order who shall bear the costs of arbitration. Costs to initiate arbitration shall be paid by the party seeking arbitration.

Notwithstanding, the party prevailing in any arbitration proceeding shall be entitled to recover from the other all attorney's fees and costs of arbitration.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

ATTACHMENT A
24 CFR Part 5 Annual Income and Assets Inclusions and Exclusions https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5180/part-5-section-8-income-inclusions-andexclusions/ City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

ATTACHMENT B

CURRENT INCOME LIMITS FOR TULARE COUNTY (FOR HOME/CDBG) (Effective 6/1/2026)
Number of Persons in Household
Income
Limit
Category
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
30%
Extremely
Low
$20,450 $23,350 $26,250 $29,150 $31,500 $33,850 $36,150 $38,500 50% Very
Low
$34,000 $38,850 $43,700 $48,550 $52,450 $56,350 $60,250 $64,100 80% Low $54,400 $62,200 $69,950 $77,700 $83,950 $90,150 $96,350 $102,600 For all income categories, the income limits for households larger than eight persons are determined as follows: For each person in excess of eight, add eight percent of the four-person "50%" limit to the "50%" limit for eight persons and round the answer to the nearest $50. For example, the nine-person "50%" limit for Yuba County equals $41,260 ($29,450 * 0.08 = $2,356, added to $38,900 = $41,256, rounded to $41,260).

Accessed at: https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5334/cdbg-income-limits/ HCD Income Limits for County of Tulare effective 06/23/2026 Accessed at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2026.pdf City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
*Sponsor will insert the limits for the county in which the Program is located and will update the income limits annually as HUD provides new information. The link to the official, HUDmaintained, income limits is: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cdbgincome-limits.html

SPONSOR STANDARDS FOR BEDROOM AND BATHROOM ADDITIONS TO

ALLEVIATE OVERCROWDING
Maximum No.
of Persons in
the Household
Number of
Bedrooms
Number of
Bathrooms
1 SRO 1
1 0-BR 1
2 1-BR 1
4 2-BR 2
6 3-BR 2
8 4-BR 3
10 5-BR 3
12 6-BR 4
• Opposite sex children under 6 years of age may share a bedroom, up to 2 children per bedroom.
• Opposite sex children 6 years of age and older may have their own bedroom. • Children shall be permitted a separate bedroom from their parents. • Same sex children of any age may share a bedroom, up to 2 children per bedroom. • Adults not in a partner relationship may have their own bedroom. • 4 or more people – a second bathroom may be added.
• 8 or more people – a third bathroom may be added.
• Same rules apply to mobile home units.

The chart above is used as a guide to overcrowding.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

ATTACHMENT C

HOUSING REHABILITATION MARKETING PLAN

SUMMARY
The Sponsor will continue its efforts to market the Housing Rehabilitation Program in a manner that will reach all community members.

All marketing related to the Housing Rehabilitation Program is publicized in both English and Spanish. All marketing materials include information identifying the Sponsor’s commitment to fair housing laws and affirmative marketing policy and are widely distributed. Equal opportunity is emphasized in written materials and oral presentations. A record is maintained by the Sponsor identifying what marketing materials are used, and when and where they are distributed.

Forms of marketing may include fliers, brochures, newspaper ads, articles, and public service announcements. Fliers and brochures are distributed at local government buildings, other public buildings and through the mail, as well as to businesses that assist those not likely to apply without special outreach. Advertisements and articles are published in newspapers that are widely circulated within the community.

Established working relationships with local lending agencies also aid in informing the public by facilitating the distribution of informational fliers to households seeking financial assistance for repairs that are unable to obtain conventional financing.

Informational meetings are offered to potential participants to explain Program requirements. Often, minimal formal outreach efforts are required as the need for assistance generally exceeds funds available. However, marketing measures are actively performed in order to maintain a healthy interest list.

Characteristics on all applicants and participants are collected and compared with the Sponsor’s demographics. Should the Sponsor find that there are underserved segments of the population, a plan to better serve them will be developed and implemented.

MARKETING FORMS
Fliers
Brochures
Newspaper Ads and Articles
Public Service Announcements
Public Informational Meetings

MARKETING VENUES
Local Government Buildings
Local Public Services Buildings
Private Businesses
Lending Agencies
Real Estate Offices
Newspaper
Radio
Mail
City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

ATTACHMENT D

RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND TEMPORARY RELOCATION PLAN Version 2
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, require all grantees of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds or Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds to follow a written Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (Plan) for any activities which could lead to displacement of occupants whose property is receiving funds from these or other federal funding source. Having been developed in response to both aforesaid federal legislations, this Plan is intended to inform the public of the compliance of the City of TULARE (Sponsor) with the requirements of federal regulations 24 CFR 570.606 under state recipient requirements and Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and 24 CFR 92 of the HOME federal regulations. The Plan will outline reasonable steps, which the Sponsor will take to minimize displacement and ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state relocation requirements. The Sponsor’s governing body has adopted this plan via a formal resolution.

This Plan will affect rehabilitation activities funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the following Program titles: HOME, CDBG, Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG), Special Purpose Grants, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, and such other grants as HUD may designate as applicable, which take place within the Sponsor’s jurisdiction limits.

The rehabilitation of owner-occupied units is considered voluntary therefore the relocation requirements do not apply regardless of whether the unit is being treated for lead-based paint.

All Sponsor Programs/projects will be implemented in ways consistent with the Sponsor’s commitment to Fair Housing. Participants will not be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, age, ancestry, national origin, sex, familial status, or handicap. The Sponsor will provide equal relocation assistance available 1) to each HUD Low/Mod individual household displaced by the demolition or rehabilitation of housing or by the conversion of a HUD Low/Mod individual dwelling to another use as a direct result of assisted activities; and 2) to each separate class of HUD Low/Mod individual persons temporarily relocated as a direct result of activities funded by HUD Programs.

A. Minimizing Permanent Displacement and Temporary Relocation Resulting from Housing Rehabilitation or Reconstruction Activities consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the Act, the Sponsor will take the following steps to minimize the displacement of persons from their homes during housing rehabilitation or reconstruction funded by HUD Programs:

1. Stage rehabilitation of assisted households to allow owner occupants to remain during minor rehabilitation.

B. Lead Based Paint Mitigation Which Causes Temporary Relocation:

On September 15, 2000, the Final Rule for Lead Based Paint Hazard Control went into effect.

Among other things, it requires that federally funded rehabilitation must use safe work practices so that occupants and workers can be protected from lead hazards. At no time should the tenantoccupant(s) be present in work areas or designated adjacent areas while LHC activities are City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
taking place in any dwelling unit interior, common area, or exterior. As such, occupants may not be allowed to remain in their units during the time that lead-based paint hazards are being created or treated. Once work that causes lead hazards has been completed, and the unit passes clearance, the occupants can return. The tenant-occupants may not reoccupy a work area or adjacent area until post-lead hazard reduction clearance standards have been achieved and verified with laboratory results. The final rule allows for certain exceptions: Programs:

1. The work will not disturb lead-based paint, or create dust-lead or soil-lead hazard; or

2. The work is on exterior only and openings are sealed to prevent dust from entering the home, the work area is cleaned after the work is completed, and the residents have alternative leadfree entry; or

3. The interior work will be completed in one period of less than 8-daytime hours and the work site is contained to prevent the release of dust into other areas of the home; or

4. The interior work will be completed within five (5) calendar days, the work site is contained to prevent the release of dust, the worksite and areas within 10 feet of the worksite are cleaned at the end of each day to remove any visible dust and debris, and the residents have safe access to kitchen and bath and bedrooms.

If temporary relocation assistance is not provided because the Sponsor believes that the project meets one of the above criteria, then proper documentation must be provided in the rehabilitation project file to show compliance. It is up to the Sponsor to ensure that the owner occupant in the project does not get impacted by lead paint mitigation efforts. In most cases where lead paint mitigation is taking place, occupants (tenants or owners) will be strongly encouraged to relocate even for just a few days until a final lead clearance can be issued by a certified lead-based paint assessor. Occupants who are temporarily relocated because of lead based paint mitigation are entitled to the same relocation assistance as those who are relocated because of substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction activities.

C. Temporary Relocation of Owner Occupants:

Owner occupants are not allowed to stay in units which are hazardous environments during leadbased paint mitigation.

APPENDIX for Attachment D

DISCLOSURE TO OCCUPANT OF TEMPORARY RELOCATION ASSISTANCE Top to be completed at time of application submittal or Home Visit Property Address:

Owner/Occupied Unit
The rehabilitation Project Manager has explained the temporary relocation services and assistance available under the current rehabilitation Program relocation plan.

I/we have been advised that the Project Manager will inform me if I need to be temporarily relocated and will to assist me with scheduling any necessary moves and answer any questions about assistance City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
as needed.

Acknowledged:

Occupant Signature Date Occupant Signature Date
Complete this at time of acceptance of Work Write Up with initials by occupant The Project Manager for Self-Help Enterprises
has explained the Rehabilitation Scope of Work for our house and I/we agree that it will:
____ Not require I/we to be relocated. (If initialed then STOP here and sign bottom.) ____ Yes, I/we need to be temporarily relocated. (Complete rest of form if initialed.) Start date and duration of relocation:
____ Starting on or about we will move for all or part of the rehabilitation project.

Approximate length of temporary relocation: Number of days.

For temporary relocation, I/We elect to (check all that apply):
____ Relocate with friends and family.
____ Relocate into a suitable temporary housing unit
____ Relocate furnishings only into a temporary storage unit. ____ I/We have been told what our relocation assistance is and elect Not to be reimbursed for any eligible relocation expenses.

N/A I/We have been told what our relocation assistance is and want to be reimbursed for:

By signing, occupant(s) acknowledge receipt of copy of this form:

Occupant Signature Date Occupant Signature Date
City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

ATTACHMENT E

LEAD-BASED PAINT

VISUAL ASSESSMENT, NOTICE OF PRESUMPTION, AND HAZARD REDUCTION FORM Section 1: Background Information
Property Address: No LBP found or LBP exempt o
Select one: Visual Assessment o Presumption o Hazard Reduction o Section 2: Visual Assessment. Fill out Sections 1, 2, and 6. If paint stabilization is performed, also fill out Sections 4 and 5 after the work is completed.

Visual Assessment Date: Report Date:

Check if no deteriorated paint found o
Attachment A: Summary where deteriorated paint was found. For multi-family housing, list at least the housing unit numbers and common areas and building components (including type of room or space, and the material underneath the paint).

Section 3: Notice of Presumption. Fill out Sections 1, 3, 5, and 6. Provide to occupant w/in 15 days of presumption.

Date of Presumption Notice:

Lead-based paint is presumed to be present o and/or Lead-based paint hazards are presumed to be present o
Attachment B: Summary of Presumption: For multi-family housing, list at least the housing unit numbers and common areas, bare soil locations, dust-lead location, and or building components (including type of room or space, and the materials underneath the paint) of lead-based paint and/or hazards presumed to be present.

Section 4: Notice of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Activity. Fill out Sections 1, 4, 5, and 6.

Provide to occupant w/in 15 days of after work completed.

Date of Hazard Reduction Notice:

Initial Hazard Reduction Notice? Yes o No o Start & Completion Dates:

If “No”, dates of previous Hazard Reduction Activity Notices:

Attachment C: Activity locations and types. For multi-family housing, list at least the housing unit numbers and common areas (for multifamily housing), bare soil locations, dust–lead locations, and/or building components (including type of room or space, and the material underneath the paint), and the types of lead-based paint hazard reduction activities performed at the location listed.

Attachment D: Location of building components with lead-based paint remaining in the rooms, spaces or areas where activities were conducted.

Attachment E: Attach clearance report(s), using DHS form 8552 (and 8551 for abatement activities) Section 5: Resident Receipt of Notice for Presumption or Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Activity and Acknowledgement of Receipt of pamphlet Protection Your Family from Lead in Your Home.

Printed Name: Signature: Date:

Section 6: Contact Information Organization:

Contact Name: Contact Signature:

Date: Address: Phone:

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

ATTACHMENT F

HOUSING REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM CONTRACTOR

GUIDELINES AND INFORMATION SHEET
Introduction
The mission of Self-Help Enterprises (SHE) is to work together with low-income families to build and sustain healthy homes and communities.

Though known as a top agricultural production region, the San Joaquin Valley has among the highest poverty rates in the State of California with many rural, unincorporated communities lacking adequate housing, water and sewer services. In particular, the people who provide the source of labor for the agricultural fields can find little except substandard housing in existing stock and have insufficient income to qualify for standard new home loans. Similarly, the low income, elderly, and handicapped often find themselves trapped in substandard housing. Through our programs, staff works with cities, counties and residents to help meet the needs of our participants and the communities they call home.

SHE appreciates your interest in improving the housing conditions of low-income families in the San Joaquin Valley. It is our hope that together we can realize the dream of safe and decent housing for the less fortunate in our community.

A. General Program Information
The aim of the Housing Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Program is to repair or replace houses making life-safety and sanitary upgrades under the standards of the California Building Code (CBC) and the requirements of the State and/or Federal funding sources.

To accomplish this, Self-Help Enterprises (SHE):

1. Assists the jurisdiction to apply for funds providing low-interest financing to eligible Owners so that they can afford to rehabilitate or reconstruct their home or rental unit;

2. Contracts with the jurisdiction to provide technical assistance for the financial and construction aspects of the program; and

3. Keeps jobs on schedule, running smoothly, and when problems arise, works with all parties to swiftly resolve those problems.

B. Work Standards
The work must meet all applicable building codes and be done in a competent manner. We expect professional quality. Everything must be functional, visually acceptable, and be built to California Building Performance Guidelines for Residential Construction Standards.

C. Contractor Eligibility

1. Contractors must be licensed in the State of California as a Class B General Contractor and their license must be in good standing with the Contractors’ State Licensing Board;

2. California law requires Contractors have a minimum of $1,000,000.00 liability insurance, worker’s compensation, and a valid Contractor Bond. Evidence of these must be provided prior to entering into a Construction Contract and insurance must be in force throughout the term of the Contract.

3. Contractors will be checked against the Federal System for Award Management (SAM.gov) for debarred status. Contractors listed on the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)are ineligible;

4. Contractors must complete an application;
City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

5. Contractors may be asked to participate in project orientation; and

6. Contractors will receive an evaluation after every job.

D. Contractor Suspension/Elimination from Bid List
A Contractor will be moved to the Inactive Contractor List for the reasons identified below and/or if a performance evaluation results in a Below Standard rating. If not permanently eliminated, a Contractor can submit a request to be reinstated to Active status upon correction of the issue or following the time period found in parenthesis by each reason.

1. Contractor fails to return the annual request for confirmation of interest in remaining on the Active Contractor List (Upon Receipt of Confirmation of Interest)

2. Contractor’s license is no longer valid (Upon Proof of Correction)

3. Inability to acquire insurance (Upon Proof of Correction)

4. Failure to finish one or more jobs in the time specified in the Contract (One Year)

5. Failure to prove the knowledge and/or ability to perform the work required of any given Contract per the California Building Code (One Year AND Upon Proof of Correction)

6. Quality of work does not meet specifications in the Contract (One Year)

7. Failure to resolve legitimate complaints about the workmanship and/or materials (Permanent Elimination)

8. Evidence of financial problems (One Year AND Proof of Positive Credit/Credit Report)

9. Withdrawal of bids and/or failure to attend bid tours (Six Months)

10. Pressuring Owners to choose a specific Contractor; promising rebates, kickbacks, or additional work not included in the bid documents, or otherwise trying to circumvent the bid process in an unethical or illegal manner (Permanent Elimination)

11. Failure to disclose that the Contractor, or an employee of the Contractor, is the Owner of, or has a financial interest in, the property the Contractor is rehabilitating (Permanent Elimination)

12. Failure to comply with established jurisdiction guidelines and/or standards (Permanent Elimination)
E. Federal/State Requirements
The paperwork required (contracts, bid procedures, payment requisition, etc.) is designed to protect the Contractor’s and Owner’s interests, and it is far less complicated than the typical federally funded project.

Three requirements to take note of are:

1. Equal opportunity laws govern the program. Discriminatory practices in the employment of individuals based on race, creed, color, gender, age, religion, or national origin are unacceptable;

2. No jurisdiction or SHE employee can have any direct or indirect financial interest in the work to be performed and cannot have any financial dealings with Contractors or Owners involved in the program; and

3. Neither a Contractor, nor their employee(s) can be the Owner of or have a financial interest in the property, except as an Owner-Builder.

F. Scope of Work
The Owner, working with SHE staff and jurisdiction inspectors, decides on the work. This is specified in the bid documents and any drawings needed.

G. Bid/Contractor Selection
When a home comes up for bid in the area(s) you requested, your name/company will be submitted with other contractors to the family for consideration. If the family selects your name, you will be City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
contacted by a SHE Rehabilitation Specialist to attend a bid tour. Owners have the right to exclude Contractors from the list without justification, and they may request that other qualified Contractors be added. Contractors will be notified via telephone and/or in writing (email, fax, etc.) at least one week prior to each bid tour.

1. Contractors must develop a proven performance record to be awarded multiple contracts. A Contractor develops a proven performance record upon completion of the following steps:
a. All new Contractors who have been awarded their first contract under the Housing Rehabilitation Programs operated by SHE are not eligible to receive additional contracts until the awarded contract is completed and job performance is evaluated by the jurisdiction’s building official or building inspector and SHE’s Rehabilitation Construction Manager or Rehab Specialist (see attached Contractor Job Performance Evaluation).
b. After completion and positive evaluation of the first contract, a Contractor may be awarded two contracts but will not be eligible to receive additional contracts until one or both of the two awarded contracts are completed and evaluated. c. Following the completion of three, positively evaluated contracts, a Contractor is considered to have established a proven performance record. Once a Contractor establishes a proven performance record, that Contractor is eligible to bid and receive multiple contracts.

2. Contractors cannot submit a bid on any property in which they have a vested interest. Such a Contractor may act as an Owner-Builder, subject to standard construction procedures. (OwnerBuilders are reimbursed for purchased materials which are verified by invoice/receipt and used on the job, but they are not reimbursed for labor. Reimbursement occurs after the work is completed, inspected by the Building Department as required/applicable, and verified by a SHE Rehabilitation Specialist).

3. Homeowners are encouraged to accept the lowest reasonable bid. Reasonableness is determined by comparing the bids received with the cost estimate prepared by the SHE Rehab Specialist.

Bids should be within 10% of SHE’s cost estimate.

4. The total bid amount is non-confidential and available for everyone to see. However, the itemized amounts for each part of the work required with the bid are confidential.

5. Construction Contract is between the Owner and Contractor. Neither the jurisdiction nor SHE is a party to the Contract. The Owner pays for all work specified in the Contract from the grant which he or she has received.

H. Change Orders
All changes in the scope of work must be in writing and approved by the Owner, Contractor, SHE Rehab Specialist, and the jurisdiction. No changes to the scope of work should be handled without a written change order. It is not a sound business practice. The Contractor has no guarantee of payment without an approved, written change order.

I. Grant Funds
Grant funds are safe. A construction account is established with SHE for each job. Before the job starts, the grant funds are on deposit. Since no money can be withdrawn without authorization by the Owner and review by SHE, you can be assured that funds are available to cover the amount of the Contract.

J. Payment
City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
Contractor submits an invoice for a progress payment based on work completed. The invoice must be inspected and approved by the Owner and SHE’s Rehab Specialist prior to payment of the invoice.

Generally, a contractor will receive payment by mail within two (2) to three (3) weeks after submitting an invoice.

Ten Percent (10%) of each invoice will be withheld and paid to the Contractor thirty-five days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded and all paperwork has been submitted and pick up/punch list work completed.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

CONTRACTOR JOB PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS
I. Introduction
Contractor performance is defined as how a contractor carries out the obligations of the contract. This includes all requirements stated in the contract scope of work, provisions, and SHE’s General Specifications, adherence to the budget or price, and the provision of customer service. The purpose of this document is to establish a standardized process for Self-Help Enterprises (SHE) to identify, document, and communicate performance with contractors and other program, SHE, and City staff. The process used provides staff the ability to identify performance issues, if any, as they arise. The performance evaluation and rating process provides feedback to contractors with below standard, standard, and above standard performance.

Performance evaluations will occur at the end of the life of the contract, no later than 30 calendar days following the final walk-through, clearance of any punch list items, or submission of the contractor’s final invoice, whichever occurs later. SHE will email or mail a copy of the results of the evaluation to the contractor for review and comment. The evaluation process is NOT a collaborative process between the contractor and staff. Contractors do not participate in the evaluation and rating process. The purpose for sharing the evaluations with the contractor is to provide feedback to the contractor on performance.

All evaluation results will be recorded by SHE to determine eligibility, and Active or Inactive status, of the contractor for future contracting.

II. General Instructions
A. Contractor Notification
Contractor should be made aware of the evaluation process prior to receiving the results of the evaluation. Contractors attending a bid tour will receive a copy of this document to explain the purpose of the evaluation, process, and rating system. Contractors requesting additional information about the evaluation process will be instructed to contact SHE directly.

B. Evaluation Timeline
Performance evaluations must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the final walk-through, clearance of any punch list items, or submission of the contractor’s final invoice, whichever occurs later. During the 30 calendar days, the evaluation is conducted, the results are sent to the contractor and the contractor is provided 14 calendar days to review the results and submit comments to SHE. There is some flexibility of this timeline for unforeseen or unusual circumstances (e.g., a death in the family).

III. Evaluation Process
The staff member(s) conducting the evaluation must be familiar with the contract and the contractor’s performance. Unless otherwise stated in writing, the jurisdiction’s building official or building inspector and SHE’s Rehabilitation Construction Manager or Rehab Specialist will perform the performance evaluation. These individuals are referred to as the “Evaluators” in performance evaluation related materials.

IV. Below Standard Ratings & Disputes
Performance evaluations may result in a Below Standard rating. If this occurs, the Evaluators will move the contractor from the Active Contractor List to the Inactive Contractor List with City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
reasons noted and send the contractor a letter of explanation along with the copy of his or her evaluation results.

Regardless of the rating given, a contractor may disagree with the evaluation/rating. A contractor must dispute his or her evaluation by submitting comments to SHE within 14 days of receiving his or her copy of the evaluation results. Upon receipt of a dispute, the Evaluators will review the contractor’s comments and respond to the contractor by elaborating on the reasons for the rating given.

V. Evaluation Category Definitions and Factors
The seven categories listed below are used by SHE to assess each contractor’s performance during the contract period. Each evaluation category is described, and examples of possible factors provided. Factors listed below that are not applicable can be removed from the list and replaced with applicable factors developed by the Evaluators. While factors can be customized, the descriptions CANNOT.

Each contract is unique, and the Evaluators should utilize contract specific factors to evaluate performance under each category. This necessary flexibility may be confusing to contractors and will require thoughtful explanation. If the contractor requires clarification or additional information about the categories or evaluation process, they may contact SHE directly.

A. Quality: The contractor achieved desired outcomes with a minimum of avoidable errors and problems. Work met the requirements, expectations, or desired outcomes as set forth in the contract/scope of work. The work was accurate and complete. The work was done in an efficient and effective manner.

Factors:
• Overall compliance – the contractor complied with the terms and conditions (to include program and funding requirements) of the contract and showed an understanding of agency’s standards and expectations.
• Conformity to specifications – the product or service conformed to the specifications identified in the original solicitation and contractual agreement. The product performed and/or the services were provided as expected. • Reliability – the rate of product failure was within reasonable limits or repairs and rework was acceptable.
• Durability – reasonable period of time lapses before replacement is necessary. • Support – available from the contractor in a reasonable period of time and met the need for assistance.
• Warranty – reasonable length and provisions of warranty protection offered and problems resolved in a timely fashion.
• State-of-the-art product/service – The contractor offered products and/or services consistent with industry standards. The contractor consistently refreshes product life by adding enhancements.

B. Timeliness: The contractor performed work within the time frames identified or specified in the contract/scope of work and kept the project on schedule.

Factors:
• The contractor delivered product and/or services by date agreed to in the contract.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
• The contractor met timelines for the submission of deliverables such as reports, plans, invoices, etc.
• The contractor responded/replied to requests for information or assistance in a reasonable period of time.
• The contractor’s average delivery time was comparable to that of other contractors for similar products and/or services.

C. Price/Budget: The contractor effectively managed costs and the value of the product and/or services received supported the costs. The contractor adhered to budget as specified in the contract/scope of work.

Factors:
• Contractor’s invoices were accurate with appropriate backup documentation. • Estimates did not vary from the final invoice.
• There were a low number of variances from the initial agreed to prices and the costs stated on received invoices.
• The contractor was sensitive to costs and demonstrated respect for funding and the agency’s needs.

D. Business Relations/Customer Service: The degree to which the contractor was professional and respectful in its business approach and interactions with the agency.

Factors:
• The contractor was courteous, cooperative, and had a professional approach in all forms of communication.
• The contractor handled complaints efficiently and effectively. • The contractor was knowledgeable about the project and/or had the expertise to provide assistance as requested.
• The contractor managed change effectively.
• The contractor attempted to resolve problems in a timely manner and followed up with a status report.
• The contractor provided technical support for maintenance, repair, and installation situations. Technical instructions, documentation, and general information was also provided.
• The contractor provided training on the effective use of its products or services.

E. Deliverables/Requirements: The degree to which the contractor was compliant in meeting the standards of contract requirements and deliverables.

Factors:
• All deliverables submitted were complete, accurate, and submitted within the required timeline using required forms or format, if applicable. • Requirements were demonstrated and/or documented.

F. Safety: The degree to which the contractor mitigated and demonstrated freedom from risk of injury, danger, damage, or loss of life or property.

Factors:
• The contractor complied with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations concerning the health and safety of workers, the general public, and personal property.
• Contractor’s safety record for the project.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
G. Dependability: The degree to which contractor demonstrated trustworthiness and reliability.

Factors:
• The contractor was fair, honest, and reasonable in interactions with the agency. • The contractor demonstrated consistency in business operations. • The contractor was sincere in efforts to deliver a quality product and/or services. • The contractor followed through on agreements made with the program/agency.

VI. Contractor Performance Rating Definitions and Factors The following three ratings make up the evaluation rating structure. These rating definitions and factors CANNOT be customized.

A. Below Standard: Contractor performance has been less than standard or satisfactory.

This rating encompasses contractors whose performance does not consistently meet expectations defined in the contract/scope of work.

Factors:
• Contractor performance does not consistently meet expectations defined in the contract.
• Close supervision of the contractor was required to progress the work. • Work was unsatisfactory and consistently failed to meet expectations. • Lack of cooperation.
• Most performance requirements were not met.
• Significant cost overruns.
• Many schedule slips with negative cost impact.
• Lack of user satisfaction.

B. Standard: Contractor has met all specifications and requirements. This rating includes a range of expected performance as stated in the contract/scope of work to support the project.

Factors:
• Contractor exhibits competency in the assignments and consistently meets the desired expectations of the project.
• Contractor meets standards and objectives and all performance requirements. • Contractor sometimes exceeds expectations.
• Contractor met overall price.
• Contractor met expectations.
• Deliveries were on time.
• Project schedule was not impacted.
• Adequate user satisfaction.

C. Above Standard: Contractor performance exceeds standard or satisfactory. This rating represents consistent and exceptional performance or consistently superior achievement beyond regular assignments and expectations as stated in the contract/scope of work.

Factors:
• Meeting and exceeding performance requirements.
• Significant positive impact to the project.
• Reduced costs while meeting contract requirements.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
• All deliveries on time with some arriving early.
• Significantly exceeded expectations.
• High user satisfaction.
• Highly responsive and proactive.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
VII. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

CONTRACTOR JOB PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
File #: Contractor Name:

Project: License #:

Project Address: Project Address:

City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip:

Below
Standard Standard
Above
Standard
Overall Rating:

1. Quality

2. Timeliness
Original Contract Completion Date:
_______________
Actual Contract Completion Date:
_______________

3. Price/Budget
Original Contract Amount: $_______________
Final Contract Amount: $_______________

4. Business Relations/Customer Service

5. Deliverables/Requirements

6. Safety

7. Dependability
Evaluator Information:

Printed Name: Organization:

Title: Address:

City/State/Zip:

Signature/Date:

Comments:

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

PERFORMANCE FACTORS

1. Quality: The contractor achieved desired outcomes with a minimum of avoidable errors and problems. Work met the requirements, expectations, or desired outcomes as set forth in the contract/scope of work. The work was accurate and complete. The work was done in an efficient and effective manner.

FACTORS:

Overall compliance – the contractor complied with the terms and conditions (to include program and funding requirements) of the contract and showed an understanding of agency’s standards and expectations
Conformity to specifications – the product or service conformed to the specifications identified in the original solicitation and contractual agreement. The product performed and/or the services were provided as expected
Reliability – the rate of product failure was within reasonable limits or repairs and rework was acceptable
Durability – reasonable period of time lapses before replacement is necessary Support – available from the contractor in a reasonable period of time and met the need for assistance
Warranty – reasonable length and provisions of warranty protection offered, and problems resolved in a timely fashion
State-of-the-art product/service – The contractor offered products and/or services consistent with industry standards. The contractor consistently refreshes product life by adding enhancements

2. Timeliness: The contractor performed work within the time frames identified or specified in the contract/scope of work and kept the project on schedule.

FACTORS:

The contractor delivered product and/or services by date agreed to in the contract The contractor met timelines for the submission of deliverables such as reports, plans, invoices, etc.

The contractor responded/replied to requests for information or assistance in a reasonable period of time
The contractor’s average delivery time was comparable to that of other contractors for similar products and/or services

3. Price/Budget: The contractor effectively managed costs and the value of the product and/or services received supported the costs. The contractor adhered to budget as specified in the contract/scope of work.

FACTORS:

Contractor’s invoices were accurate with appropriate backup documentation Estimates did not vary from the final invoice
There were a low number of variances from the initial agreed to prices and the costs stated on received invoices
The contractor was sensitive to costs and demonstrated respect for funding and the agency’s needs City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

4. Business Relations/Customer Service: The degree to which the contractor was professional and respectful in its business approach and interactions with the agency.

FACTORS:

The contractor was courteous, cooperative, and had a professional approach in all forms of communication
The contractor handled complaints efficiently and effectively The contractor was knowledgeable about the project and/or had the expertise to provide assistance as requested
The contractor managed change effectively
The contractor attempted to resolve problems in a timely manner and followed up with a status report
The contractor provided technical support for maintenance, repair, and installation situations.

Technical instructions, documentation, and general information was also provided The contractor provided training on the effective use of its products or services

5. Deliverables/Requirements: The degree to which the contractor was compliant in meeting the standards of contract requirements and deliverables.

FACTORS:

All deliverables submitted were complete, accurate, and submitted within the required timeline using required forms or format, if applicable
Requirements were demonstrated and/or documented

6. Safety: The degree to which the contractor mitigated and demonstrated freedom from risk of injury, danger, damage, or loss of life or property.

FACTORS:

The contractor complied with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations concerning the health and safety of workers, the general public, and personal property Contractor’s safety record for the project

7. Dependability: The degree to which contractor demonstrated trustworthiness and reliability.

FACTORS:

The contractor was fair, honest, and reasonable in interactions with the agency The contractor demonstrated consistency in business operations The contractor was sincere in efforts to deliver a quality product and/or services The contractor followed through on agreements made with the program/agency City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

ATTACHMENT G
Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
Forgivable Loan Agreement
This Agreement is entered into on [date], by and between City of Tulare, hereinafter referred to as "Lender", and [OWNER NAMES], hereinafter referred to as "Borrower(s)", who is/are the owner(s) of the residential unit located at [ADDRESS], [CITY], California, hereinafter referred to as "Dwelling".

This Agreement is made for the purpose of financing the rehabilitation of the residential unit with funds provided by the Lender under the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), Permanent Local Housing Allocation (“PLHA”) Program.

This Agreement is made for the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Lender and Borrower, their heirs, successors, survivors and assigns.

THEREFORE, the Lender and Borrower(s) agree as follows:

WORK TO BE PERFORMED
The Borrower agrees to perform or to have performed the housing rehabilitation work described in the work write-up (hereinafter called "the Work") on the property.

The Borrower agrees that funds provided under this Agreement will be used only for approved work per the work write-up. Changes in the work are not permitted without prior execution of a Change Order authorized by the Lender or its agent and the Borrower.

GRANT CONDITIONS
The Lender agrees to grant the Borrower the amount of $ for the purpose of performing the Work.

The Borrower agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the Lender, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, material men, laborers, and any other person, firm, or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Borrower in the performance of this Agreement.

The Borrower, and the contractors, sub-contractors, agents, and employees of the Borrower, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of the Lender.

Without the written consent of the Lender, this Agreement is not assignable by the Borrower either in whole or in part.

Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

LOAN CLOSING
The date of loan closing shall be the date upon which the Lender approves the loan application.

TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT
If the Borrower fails to perform the covenants herein contained and in the manner herein provided, the Lender may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the Borrower.

If this Agreement is terminated by the Lender before the loan closing date, the Lender shall be relieved of any obligation which it may have hereunder.

If this Agreement is terminated by the Lender after the loan closing date, the Borrower shall immediately become liable for repayment to the Lender or its designee of the outstanding principal at the date of termination.

TERMINATION BY EITHER PARTY FOR CONVENIENCE
Prior to incurring any expenditures, either party may terminate this Agreement by giving 15 days' prior written notice to the other.

If this Agreement is terminated by either party before the grant closing date, both parties shall be relieved of all their obligations hereunder.

If this Agreement is terminated by either party after the grant closing date, the Borrower shall immediately repay to the Lender, or its designee, any funds expended as of the date of termination.

WORK INSPECTION
The Lender or its designee agrees to inspect all work as needed during the period in which actual construction, rehabilitation, or replacement work is being performed to ensure the work is being and has been performed in accordance with applicable housing and building codes.

COMPLETION OF WORK
Completion of the work shall be considered to take place upon the filing of a duly executed "Notice of Completion" in a form acceptable to the Lender. Said Notice shall signify:
(1) That the work as shown in a project write up and any approved change orders was completed; and
(2) The acceptance of said work by the Building Inspector and the Borrower.

Upon completion of work, the Borrower and Lender must have in its records the following:
(3) Copies of paid invoices and unconditional lien releases for costs of all Work performed in connection with the residential home and paid with the Loan proceeds. (4) A copy of the certificate of occupancy or equivalent documentation issued by the agency with jurisdiction over such certificates which establishes that the residential home has been approved for human occupancy.
(5) Submission of all lien waivers required by HCD or passage of the applicable statutory periods for filing mechanic and other similar liens for the Work on the residential home.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare
(6) A Certificate issued by the Borrower and Lender certifying that the work has been completed on the residential home in accordance with this Agreement.

RECORDS
All records, accounts, documentation, and all other materials relevant to a fiscal audit or examination, as specified by the Lender or HCD, shall be retained for a period of three (3) years from the date of termination of this Agreement.

The Borrower and Lender shall maintain records of all work and expenditures made with loan proceeds.

Such records must include, at a minimum, the following documents:
(1) Documentation establishing that the Resident is a Low-Income Resident within the meaning of the PLHA Guidelines.
(2) Documentation demonstrating that the Resident owns the single unit residential home. (3) Documentation of the Activities for which the Loan is requested and the projected cost of work. (4) A copy of all written contracts with each entity employed by the Borrower to perform any portion of the Work in connection with the residential home.
(5) Invoices for Work completed in connection with the manufactured home and any proof of payment of such invoices.

AUDIT
All records, accounts, documentation, and all other materials relevant to the work shall be accessible to the authorized representatives of the Lender or its designee on reasonable prior notice, for the purposes of examination or audit. All records must be accessible to HCD.

Any expenditure which is not authorized by this Agreement or which cannot be adequately documented shall be disallowed and must be reimbursed to the Lender or its designee by the Borrower. Expenditures for work on the property not included in the work described in a project write up shall be deemed authorized if the performance of such work is approved in writing by the Lender or its designee.

Absent fraud, mistake, or arbitrariness, the determination by the Lender or its designee of the allowability of any expenditures shall be final.

City of Tulare Home Rehabilitation Program

City of Tulare

MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OWNER-OCCUPANT
Borrower shall maintain the property in the condition and level to which it was rehabilitated, free of nuisances acceptable to community standards, without removing or demolishing any improvement on the property, for a minimum of five years. Should the property not be maintained accordingly, Lender shall provide the Borrower with a list of deficiencies to be corrected within 30 calendar days from receipt of notification.

Consistent with the Beneficiary's commitment to Fair Housing, applicants will not be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, ancestry, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or physical handicap.

Borrower Co-Borrower
City of Tulare

by:

Lender –
Item #: 7.11
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: October 6, 2026
Department: Engineering Services - Project Management
Submitted by: Michael Winton, City Engineer
Agenda Title: Bardsley Ave & Nelder Grove St Traffic Signal Design

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Authorize the City Manager to sign a task order with 4Creeks, Inc. in the amount of $115,600 for engineering design services for a new traffic signal at Bardsley Ave and Nelder Grove St (EN0061); and to approve change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($11,560) of the task order amount.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Infrastructure and Transportation

SUMMARY
The Capital Improvement Program project, EN0061, Transportation Expansion, receives annual funding to support projects involving new construction of transportation facilities, aiming to increase the capacity and reach of the City's transportation system.

In February 2026, an engineering traffic warrant study was conducted at the Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street Intersection. The study evaluated traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and the location's physical characteristics to determine whether installing a traffic control signal is justified. The intersection meets three of six applicable CMUTCD (California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) traffic signal warrants under existing conditions at the intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street. The three warrants that are met are traffic volume based, and with the pending commercial development at the northwest corner of the intersection, traffic volumes are expected to increase. For this reason, staff is recommending that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection. 4Creeks submitted a proposal to provide engineering services, including construction documents (preliminary plans, specifications, an opinion of probable cost, a signal timing plan, and a bid set), bidding support services, a topographic survey, and construction support services.

In May 2026, the City issued a Request for Qualifications for multiple on-call consultant services. One of the services was roadway and traffic engineering. Twelve (12) firms submitted the required information for consideration for inclusion on a list of pre-approved consultants to provide these services. The proposals were reviewed and rated in accordance with the consultant selection procedures identified in the RFQ, and the top five (5) firms were recommended for inclusion on the list of pre-qualified roadway and traffic engineering consultants. On July 7, 2026, the City Council approved the list of (5) consultants. 4Creeks of Visalia, CA, is included on the list of pre-qualified on-call roadway and traffic engineering consultants and demonstrated in its proposal that it has the skills, expertise, and resources to meet the City’s needs and to complete the design of this project within the required timeframe.

FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
Capital Improvement Program project EN0061, Transportation Expansion, is budgeted annually in the amount of $175,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.

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
Approval with changes would require resubmission and staff review before the Council can reconsider the proposal. Denying or tabling the request may prevent or delay the City from moving forward with the project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 4Creeks Proposal

2. Traffic Signal Warrant Study (Main Body)
Reviewed/Approved: MM
September 14, 2026
Dylan Chimienti
Senior Project Manager
City of Tulare
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
Subject: Proposal for Design Engineering Services — Bardsley Avenue / Nelder Grove Street Traffic Signal, City of Tulare Project No. EN0061
Dear Mr. Chimienti:
4Creeks, Inc. (“4Creeks”) is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Tulare (“City”) for design engineering services associated with the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street. This proposal also includes the design of pavement improvements requested by the City within the project limits. The following scope of services and associated fee outline the work required to complete the plans, specifications, and cost estimate for this project.

Below is a breakdown of the tasks proposed to complete this project:

Task 1: Project Management
The 4Creeks project team will provide overall project management services for the project, including ensuring the tasks identified in this scope of services are completed in a professional manner. 4Creeks will ensure appropriate communication, correspondence, and progress reporting with the City throughout the design process. 4Creeks will schedule, coordinate, and facilitate up to 4 project meetings with the City, as follows:
• Project kickoff meeting
• Preliminary design meeting
• Plan check review meeting (total of 2)
A total of 4 project meetings with the City is included in this task; additional meetings can be provided on a time-and-materials basis if requested.

The above Task 1 services will be provided for a Fixed Fee of $6,650.

Task 2: Topographic Survey
4Creeks will complete the topographic survey of the project limits for use in creating the base maps. The topographic survey shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Property and right-of-way lines (based on available information from the City); City of Tulare to provide Preliminary Title Reports for parcels impacted by the project as needed
• Existing grade and elevations to 10 feet beyond existing right-of-way and within the street right-of-way of any existing pavement, curb, gutters, sidewalks, natural grades, and other miscellaneous items
• Monument lines, if applicable
• Street centerlines
• Pavement edges, crowns, quarter crowns, and hinge points • Flowlines
• Curbs and gutters
• Sidewalks
• Drive approaches and driveways
• Edges of pavement
• Existing pavement delineation
• Sign locations
• Visible utility infrastructure including utility poles, valves, and streetlights • Fence locations
• Locations, depths, size, and type of sewer and storm drain lines and manholes • Local property control monuments to serve as the horizontal control and local City benchmark to serve as the vertical control
• Other surface improvements
Right-of-way limits will be drafted on the topographic survey from record maps. This fee does not include ordering title reports for separate properties or record research of dedicated easements/additional right of way. The City shall also provide available as-built plans for the project limits.

The above Task 2 services will be provided for a Fixed Fee of $8,350.

Task 3: Utility Research and Coordination
4Creeks will work with utility companies affected by the project in providing a complete set of plans for construction bidding. 4Creeks will complete utility research to identify and mitigate existing and potential conflicts. 4Creeks will complete the following utility research and coordination:
• Obtain utility plats and record drawings from utility companies. • Schedule meetings and site visits with affected utility companies and the City of Tulare to identify utility conflicts.
• Include obtained utility information in the topographic survey and base map. • Draft conflict maps for each affected facility.
• Utilize potholing information in updating the utilities added to the topographic survey and to clarify uncertainties regarding the existing utilities. • Coordinate follow-up meetings with affected utility companies. • Coordinate with affected utility companies in relocating utilities before construction.

The above Task 3 services will be provided for a Fixed Fee of $5,900.

Task 4: Potholing
4Creeks recommends potholing to identify and mitigate potential conflicts, specifically for the installation of the traffic signal foundations. The 4Creeks Team can perform the following services under the potholing task:
• Prepare potholing plan. The cost associated with this task includes 1 working day of utility potholing, estimated to be 6 to 8 potholes.
• Schedule meetings and site visits with parties involved. • Obtain encroachment permits from the City.
• Provide and implement a traffic control plan for a 1-day duration for shoulder closure only.
• Locate USA markings and coordinate with impacted utility companies to mark their facilities.
• Provide utility potholing to identify the location, depth, type, and number of affected utilities by means of hydro excavation.
• Show pothole information on civil plans, including USA markings and utility locations. • Coordinate with the survey crew in surveying USA markings and exposed utilities. • Prepare daily reports and provide documentation of the potholing process, including photos, estimated coordinates, measurements, and notes. • Backfill boring at HMA locations with cold patch material to match existing. Concrete areas to be restored with 2,500 psi Concrete Mix at 1.5x the existing thickness. Backfill methods per City standards or HMA can be provided upon request at an added cost for arterial roads.
• Document impacts to all utilities.

The above Task 4 services will be provided for a Fixed Fee of $24,100. This fixed fee cost includes one (1) 11-hour workday port to port. This fixed fee cost excludes added costs for locating CVIN lines and overnight work.

Task 5: Street Improvement and Traffic Signal PS&E
4Creeks will perform a field review of the existing conditions at the intersection, including adjacent land use, sight distance, roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and existing street lighting. 4Creeks will also obtain and review available record information, including the approved improvement plans for the adjacent Sequoia Marketplace development (City of Tulare, approved July 24, 2024), which fronts the northwest corner of the intersection along Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street.

The 4Creeks Team will complete plans, specifications, and an engineer's opinion of probable construction costs (PS&E) for a new, fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street for review/approval by the City. Plans and cost estimates will be provided at the 30%, 90%, and 100% final submittal stages. Specifications will be provided at the 90% and 100% submittal stages. It is anticipated that the City will provide a full review of the documents submitted at each stage of the project and will provide its comments to 4Creeks. The 4Creeks Team will address the City’s comments and revise the plans as appropriate and provide the City with responses to comments.

The following will be submitted with the 30%, 90%, and 100% submittals, or as noted below:
● Full-sized (22” x 34”) plans – electronic PDF file
● Specifications – electronic MS Word and PDF file (90% and 100% submittals) ● Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs – electronic PDF file ● 4Creeks' response to comments and tracking – electronic PDF (90% and 100% submittals)
● Electronic copy of plans in AutoCAD Civil 3D (submitted at 100% completion point only) After final comments are addressed, one (1) set of the following hard copies will also be submitted for the final, signed contract documents:
● Full-sized plans
● Specifications
● Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Construction Plans
4Creeks will submit construction plans that conform to current regulations and guidelines in accordance with City of Tulare's Standard Plans and Specifications, Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications, and applicable AASHTO geometric design guidelines. It is anticipated that the project improvements can be designed within the existing City right-of-way, or the City shall obtain the necessary right-of-way or easement areas.

Project plans will be prepared in AutoCAD Civil 3D on 22” x 34” size sheets. 4Creeks anticipates providing the following plan sheets for the project:
• Cover Sheet
• Topographic Survey/Demolition Plan
• Street Improvement Plan
• Signing and Pavement Delineation Plan
• Traffic Signal Plan
• Construction Detail Sheet
• City Standard Detail Sheet
Per the City’s request, 4Creeks will prepare design plans for the reconstruction/replacement of pavement within the project limits. Reconstruction/replacement of pavement is limited to the project intersection and just beyond the curb returns per the City's email dated August 19, 2026. This task includes associated grading, drainage, and striping revisions needed to tie the new pavement into the existing roadway and the adjacent Sequoia Marketplace frontage improvements.

As discussed with the City, it is anticipated crosswalks will be installed across all legs of the intersection. A total of 8 new directional ADA curb ramps is included in the design for the project Intersection.

Signing and pavement delineation plans will be prepared at 1" x 40' scale for the intersection and approaches to accommodate the new traffic signal, including pavement stripes, markings, legends, and signing revisions required because of the new signal installation.

Traffic signal plans will be prepared in 1" x 20' scale and shall include the following items, in addition to those shown on the base map:
● Signal phase diagram
● Mast arm poles, standards, and foundations
● Controller assembly, including battery backup system
● Service equipment enclosure
● Vehicle and pedestrian signal heads (LED indications) ● Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) and pushbuttons
● Vehicle and bicycle detection
● Intersection safety lighting
● Emergency vehicle preemption equipment
● ADA curb ramps at intersection legs
● Conduits and conductors/cables
● Equipment schedule
● Conduit schedule
● General and construction notes
● Special details, as needed

Specifications and Cost Estimate
4Creeks will prepare the project specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs for the project. The City shall provide 4Creeks with their current specifications and technical special provisions in MS Word. 4Creeks anticipates, and it is assumed, that the City will prepare the up-front, boilerplate specifications. 4Creeks shall prepare and provide the following:
• Short project description to be included in the project specifications • Special provisions, technical specifications, and needed appendices for the project specifications
• Engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs
• Bid item description, including measurement and payment for each item • Excel file showing itemized quantity breakdowns
Special provisions and technical specifications that are not covered by the City’s Standard Specifications will be prepared using Caltrans Standard Specifications and Special Provisions, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, manufacturer, or industry standard specifications for the specific items identified, or similar technical specifications of previous projects.

Task 5 Deliverables:
● Project plans — up to 3 submittals (PDF electronic copy) ● Project special provisions and technical specifications — up to 2 submittals (PDF electronic copy)
● Engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost — up to 3 submittals (PDF electronic copy)
The above Task 5 services will be provided for a Fixed Fee of $53,300.

Task 6: Signal Timing Plan
4Creeks will prepare an initial signal timing plan for the newly constructed, isolated traffic signal at the intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street in the City of Tulare. This plan will allow the City to place the traffic signal into operation. Tasks include:

Timing Calculations
4Creeks will develop an initial signal timing plan, including minimum green, yellow, and allred intervals; pedestrian walk and clearance intervals; and vehicle/pedestrian recall settings appropriate for an isolated traffic signal. Green splits will be assigned proportionally to demand, and cycle length will be determined based on the traffic volume data provided by the City as part of the traffic signal warrant study completed by Peters Engineering Group, dated July 28, 2026. It is assumed no new traffic counts will be taken.

Technical Memorandum
4Creeks will prepare a brief technical memorandum summarizing assumptions and methodologies. Recommended timing will be shown on a table formatted for input into the traffic signal controller. See attached example.

Task 6 Deliverables:
● Technical Memorandum (one electronic PDF)
● Traffic Signal Timing Table (one electronic PDF)
The above Task 6 services will be provided for a Fixed Fee of $3,400.

Task 7 Bidding Services Assistance
The 4Creeks Team will assist the City during the bidding phase of the project. Under this task, 4Creeks shall assist the City with the following, as requested:
• Attend pre-bid meeting, if held and requested by the City. • Respond to Requests for Information (RFIs) submitted by prospective bidders. • Prepare and issue clarifications and addenda to the bid documents, as necessary. • Develop supporting exhibits, sketches, or supplemental technical details to clarify design intent.
• Coordinate with City staff to ensure all clarifications and addenda are issued in accordance with City requirements and timelines.
• Provide technical support to City staff in evaluating contractor inquiries or alternate bid proposals, if any.

The above Task 7 services will be provided on a time and materials basis for an estimated fee of $5,600.

Task 8 Construction Support Service
The 4Creeks Team will provide construction phase support services to assist the City in achieving a successful construction outcome that aligns with the project's design intent and specifications. Upon written authorization from the City, 4Creeks shall provide the following construction support services as needed:
• Attend the pre-construction conference and periodic construction meetings, as requested by the City.
• Review contractor technical submittals (e.g., shop drawings, product data, and material certifications) for general conformance with the plans and specifications. • Respond to Requests for Information (RFIs) from the contractor or City during the construction phase.
• Provide limited design clarification or interpretation of the contract documents, as necessary.
• Assist the City with evaluating proposed changes, substitutions, or value engineering alternatives during construction.
• Prepare as-built record drawings in AutoCAD based on redline plans provided by the contractor. These drawings will reflect filled changes and deviations from original contract documents as reported by the contractor and confirmed by the City.

The above Task 8 services will be provided on a time and materials basis for an estimated fee of $8,300.

Assumptions
● The proposed traffic signal is assumed to be a new, fully actuated signal at the intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street. ● The curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA ramps, driveway approaches, and street lighting improvements shown on the approved Sequoia Marketplace improvement plans (City of Tulare, approved July 24, 2024) along the northwest corner of the intersection are assumed to be constructed by the developer and existing at the time of this design. 4Creeks will coordinate with the City to confirm construction status before finalizing the traffic signal design.
● The limits of pavement reconstruction/replacement are assumed to be limited to the project intersection and just beyond the curb returns per the City's email, dated August 19, 2026.
● The City will provide available record drawings, right-of-way information, and utility record information.
● Traffic volume data included in the traffic signal warrant study completed by Peters Engineering Group, dated July 28, 2026, will be used for the traffic signal timing task. ● Potholing includes one (1) 11-hour workday port to port. ● Up to 4 project meetings and up to 3 submittals are included in this scope of services.

Exclusions
● Traffic counts, traffic impact studies/analyses, and/or traffic signal warrant studies. ● Traffic signal interconnect and/or fiber optic system design. ● Traffic signal controller timing inputs, modifications, or field fine-tuning. ● Right-of-way engineering, acquisition, or easement documents. ● Overnight work.
● Added costs for locating CVIN lines during potholing. ● Geotechnical report and R-values.
● Landscape architecture services.
● Environmental documentation or permitting.
● Submittals to and/or reviews from agencies other than the City of Tulare. ● Meetings not about this project.
● Any work not specifically indicated in this scope of services.

Conditions of Proposal
● This proposal shall be valid for 60 days from the date of this letter, unless accepted by the City and work has commenced.
● This proposal assumes the work proposed herein will commence in 2026. ● In the event these assumptions are incorrect, 4Creeks reserves the right to a fee adjustment.
● The 4Creeks fee schedule is updated from time to time, and the most current version shall apply for all invoicing, including any time-and-materials tasks. 4Creeks shall be compensated for its services on a fixed-fee basis for the project, estimated per task as follows:

Phase Description Total
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT $6,650
2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY $8,350
3 UTILITY RESEARCH AND COORDINATION $5,900
4 POTHOLING $24,100
5 STREET IMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL PS&E $53,300
6 SIGNAL TIMING PLAN $3,400
7 BIDDING SERVICES ASSISTANCE $5,600
8 CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE $8,300
Total Tasks: $115,600
The City and 4Creeks mutually agree to the terms and conditions of this proposal, and upon execution by both parties, this proposal shall be approved, subject to all terms and conditions contained herein.

If this proposal is acceptable, please indicate your approval by signing below and returning a copy of the executed proposal so we may proceed. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal.

City of Tulare 4Creeks, Inc.

By: Dylan Chimienti
Senior Project Manager
By: Lisa M. Wallis-Dutra, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP1
Principal Civil/Traffic Engineer
Date: Date: 9/14/2026
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com Mr. Michael Miller July 28, 2026
City of Tulare
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, California 93274
Subject: Traffic Signal Warrant Study
Intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street Tulare, California
Dear Mr. Miller:

Introduction
This report presents the results of a traffic signal sign warrant analyses for the intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street in Tulare, California.

Traffic Signal Warrants
Chapter 4C of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices dated January 18, 2026 (CMUTCD) presents a discussion of traffic control needs studies and various criteria (traffic signal warrants) for determining the need for traffic signals. The CMUTCD states that an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.

The CMUTCD states that the investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 5, School Crossing
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
If one or more of the traffic signal warrants is met, signalization of the intersection may be appropriate. However, traffic signals likely should not be installed if none or few of the warrants are met since the installation of signals may increase delays on the previously uncontrolled major street and may contribute to an increase in accidents.

Traffic Signal Warrant Study July 28, 2026
Intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street, Tulare, California Page 2 Existing Intersection Configuration
The intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street is a four-legged intersection controlled by stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches of Nelder Grove Street. The eastbound and westbound legs currently consist of one travel lane in each direction; however, Bardsley Avenue is planned as a four-lane arterial. The northbound and southbound legs consist of one travel lane in each direction. The speed limit on Bardsley Avenue is 50 miles per hour (mph), the speed limit on Nelder Grove Street north of Bardsley Avenue is 35 mph, and the speed limit on Nelder Grove Street south of Bardsley Avenue is likely a prima facie 25 mph in the residential neighborhood. Parallel parking is prevented on the north, east, and west legs, but is allowed in the neighborhood to the south. Crosswalks are striped on the north, south, and east legs.

Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing 24-hour turning movement traffic volumes on each approach to the intersection were obtained by performing traffic counts on Tuesday, February 24, 2026. The counts were performed by the independent traffic counting firm of Metro Traffic Data, Inc. The traffic count data sheets are attached.

The traffic counts included bicycles and pedestrians. It is noted that a maximum of two pedestrians was observed crossing Bardsley Avenue in any one-hour period, and that a total of seven pedestrians crossed Bardsley Avenue in the 24-hour period counted.

Crash History
Collision records were obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the five-year period of 2020 through 2024. The results are summarized in Table 1. The SWITRS data sheets are attached. The crash history reveals that six crashes potentially correctable with traffic signals occurred during the five-year period reviewed, including three in a one-year period in 2024.

Table 1
Crash History: 2020 - 2024
Date of Collision Day of the
Week
Time of
Collision
Type of
Collision Severity Details Correctable?
January 23, 2020 Thursday 8:14 a.m. Broadside PDO SB through versus EB through Yes
April 27, 2020 Monday 9:57 a.m. Rear End PDO EB versus EB stopped No October 1, 2021 Friday 3:25 p.m. Head On PDO SB left versus EB through Yes October 20, 2021 Wednesday 6:59 a.m. Sideswipe PDO WB left versus EB through Yes January 11, 2023 Wednesday 3:29 p.m. Rear End PDO WB versus WB No March 15, 2023 Wednesday 9:33 p.m. Hit Object PDO WB through No March 19, 2024 Tuesday 8:11 a.m. Rear End PDO EB versus EB stopped No October 11, 2024 Friday 11:31 a.m. Broadside PDO EB versus NB Yes October 13, 2024 Sunday 1:13 p.m. Broadside PDO SB through versus EB through Yes
December 2, 2024 Monday 3:31 p.m. Broadside PDO WB versus SB Yes December 14, 2024 Saturday 1:23 p.m. Rear End PDO EB versus EB stopped No EB: eastbound WB: westbound NB: northbound SB: southbound PDO: Property damage only
Traffic Signal Warrant Study July 28, 2026
Intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street, Tulare, California Page 3 Level of Service and Delay
The Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition, (HCM) defines level of service (LOS) as, “A quantitative stratification of a performance measure or measures that represent quality of service, measured on an A-F scale, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions from the traveler’s perspective and LOS F the worst.” Automobile mode LOS characteristics are presented in Table 2 for unsignalized intersections and Table 3 for signalized intersections.

Table 2
Level of Service Characteristics for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)
A 0-10
B >10-15
C >15-25
D >25-35
E >35-50
F >50
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2022
Table 3
Level of Service Characteristics for Signalized Intersections Level of
Service Description Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)
A
Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. <10 B
Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is very short. >10-20
C
Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is favorable or cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures may appear. >20-35 D
Volume-to-capacity ratio is high but no greater than 1.0. Progression is ineffective or cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
>35-55
E
Volume-to-capacity ratio is high but no greater than 1.0. Progression is unfavorable and cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. >55-80 F
Volume-to-capacity ratio is greater than 1.0. Progression is very poor and cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. >80 Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2022 The intersection LOS was determined using the computer program Synchro 12, which is based on HCM procedures for calculating levels of service. Table 4 presents the results of the intersection analyses for the peak hours occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.

The HCM does not define an overall intersection LOS for two-way stop-controlled intersections; therefore, the average delay and LOS for the approach with the greatest delay is presented. The intersection analysis sheets are attached.

Traffic Signal Warrant Study July 28, 2026
Intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street, Tulare, California Page 4 Table 4
Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions
Intersection Approach Control Type
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour.

Delay
(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Bardsley / Nelder
Grove
Eastbound None
(Left turn must yield) 9.1 A 9.0 A
Westbound None
(Left turn must yield) 8.6 A 9.1 A
Northbound Stop sign 41.5 E 25.8 D
Southbound Stop sign 24.2 C 19.3 C
Warrant Study
The results of the traffic signal warrants analyses are attached and indicate that Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are satisfied. It may be presumed that, with completion of the shopping center located northwest of the intersection, traffic volumes will increase further.

Conclusions
The observed traffic volumes satisfy three traffic signal warrants in the existing condition at the intersection of Bardsley Avenue and Nelder Grove Street. It is recommended that the City of Tulare consider installation of traffic signals at the intersection.

Thank you for the opportunity to perform this study. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland, PE, TE
Attachments: Traffic Count Data Sheets
SWITRS Data Sheets
Intersection Analysis Sheets
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Sheets
Item #: 7.12
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: October 6, 2026
Department: Engineering Services - Engineering
Submitted by: Michael Winton, City Engineer
Agenda Title: NOC for Public Improvements Associated with the Paige Industrial Center

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Accept the required public works improvements for the Paige Industrial Center located on the south side of Paige Avenue west of I Street, authorize the City Engineer to sign the Notice of Completion (NOC), and direct the City Clerk to file the NOC with the Tulare County Recorder’s Office.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Infrastructure and Transportation

SUMMARY
As part of Site Plan Review Application No. SP22-053, a 542,570 s.f. logistics/distribution warehouse was approved on property located along the south side of Paige Avenue west of “I” Street. The Developer was CA Industrial Tulare, LLC. Under the conditions of project approval, the Developer was required to construct certain public improvements consisting of water main installation in Paige Avenue and Street improvements on both Paige Avenue and I Street. The Developer has completed construction of all required public works improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications for this project.

FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
One year following Council’s acceptance of the public works improvements, the City will assume responsibility for their ongoing maintenance.

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’s Notice of Completion template has been reviewed and approved as to form 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
A delay in the City accepting the improvements would extend the Developer’s responsibility for maintenance of public improvements completed, which could be cause for litigation.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Notice of Completion
Reviewed/Approved: MM
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Tulare

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Tulare
4 1 1 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274 -4257
P URSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6 10 3 ,
NO RECORDING FEE REQUIRED.

N O T I C E O F C O M P L E T I O N

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The City of Tulare, a Municipal Corporation, whose address is 411 East Kern Avenue, Tulare, California, 93274, is the owner of the real property, public works or structure hereinafter described.

2. The nature of the title of the stated owner is: In Fee.

3. On October 6th, 2026, a work of improvement on real property hereinafter described was completed by CA Industrial Tulare, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Developer of record, whose address is 448 North LaSalle Drive, Floor 2, Chicago, Illinois 60654.

4. The real property or public work or structure is described as follows:

Public Works Improvements for the Paige Industrial Center.

5. The public works improvements were accepted as complete by the City Council of the City of Tulare on October 6, 2026.

Dated: CITY OF TULARE
A Municipal Corporation,
By:

Michael Winton, City Engineer
VERIFICATION:

I am the City Engineer of the City of Tulare and am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the City.

I have read the foregoing Notice of Completion, know the contents thereof, and believe it to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ________________________ , 2026 at Tulare, California.

By: _________________________________
Michael Winton, City Engineer
Item #: 7.13
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: October 6, 2026
Department: Engineering Services - Engineering
Submitted by: Michael Winton, City Engineer
Agenda Title: Designating Stop Control at Various Intersections

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution designating stop control at various uncontrolled intersections located between Bardsley Avenue, Pleasant Avenue, Denair Street and E Street.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Infrastructure and Transportation

SUMMARY
Based upon the findings of a traffic study prepared by Peters Engineering Group of Clovis, CA, it is recommended that the following intersections be designated as stop intersections in accordance with the attached resolution:
• Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street,
• Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street,
• Elm Avenue and D Street,
• Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street,
• Alpine Avenue and C Street,
• Owens Avenue and Larkin Street,
• Owens Avenue and C Street,
• Owens Avenue and D Street,
• Pine Avenue and D Street, and
• Beaumont Avenue and Larkin Street.

The Engineering Division received a citizen request to install an all-way stop at the intersection of Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street. This intersection is a 4-legged intersection that currently does not have any stop control and relies on general right-of-way rules for uncontrolled intersections:
• At four-legged intersections, the first vehicle to reach the intersection has the right of way, except that vehicles making a turning movement shall yield to vehicles making a thru movement. • When vehicles arrive simultaneously at a four-legged intersection, vehicle on the right shall have the right of way.

The citizen request was forwarded to the City’s Transportation Management Team, which consists of representative from various City Departments involved in transportation and public safety. In reviewing the surrounding area, it was found that other intersections in the vicinity also lack stop control. These include the intersections of Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street, Elm Avenue and D Street, Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street, Alpine Avenue and C Street, Owens Avenue and Larkin Street, Owens Avenue and C Street, Owens Avenue and D Street, Pine Avenue and D Street, and Beaumont Avenue and Lamar Street. The uniform and consistent application of traffic control devices is critical to meet driver expectations and avoid confusion. For that reason, the Transportation Management Team recommended that these additional intersections also be considered for the installation of stop control.

Under their existing on-call services contract with the City, Peters Engineering Group of Clovis, CA was tasked with preparing a study to evaluate the subject intersections in accordance with the provisions and guidance of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CMUTCD).

Study Findings
None of the intersections studied met the criteria for all-way stop designation. However, it was noted that the installation of STOP signs on the minor streets at all 10 study intersections would be beneficial in addressing potential sight distance concerns. While installing a STOP sign on the minor street does not improve sight distance for vehicles stopped at the STOP sign, STOP signs can potentially improve visibility in the sense that vehicles on the major street (not required to stop) will likely be able to see a vehicle stopping on the side street and will be aware of its presence, whereas when both vehicles are approaching an unsignalized intersection without the intent to stop, neither may be able to see the other approaching. The installation of STOP signs also would provide clarification to drivers regarding the assignment of right of way at the intersections. Therefore, the study recommends that the City consider installing STOP signs on the minor street approaches of the subject intersections as follows:

1. The intersection of Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street to be designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Los Angeles Street being required to stop at Elm Avenue.

2. The intersection of Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street to be designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Santa Clara Street being required to stop at Elm Avenue.

3. The intersection of Elm Avenue and D Street to be designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with eastbound and westbound traffic on Elm Avenue being required to stop at “D” Street.

4. The intersection of Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street to be designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Larkin Street being required to stop at Alpine Avenue.

5. The intersection of Alpine Avenue and C Street to be designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on C Street being required to stop at Alpine Avenue.

6. The intersection of Owens Avenue and Larkin Street to be designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Larkin Street being required to stop at Owens Avenue.

7. The intersection of Owens Avenue and C Street to be designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on C Street being required to stop at Owens Avenue.

8. The intersection of Owens Avenue and D Street to be designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with eastbound and westbound traffic on Owens Avenue being required to stop at D Street.

9. The intersection of Pine Avenue and D Street to be designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with eastbound and westbound traffic on Pine Avenue being required to stop at D Street.

10. The intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Lamar Street to be designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Lamar Street being required to stop at Beaumont Avenue.

A copy of the main body of the study by Peters Engineering Group is attached.

FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
Funding is budgeted to cover the estimated $10,000 expense through the Street Department’s Maintenance Materials account.

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
Failure to implement the Engineering and Traffic Study findings could result in increased liability to the City with regard to future traffic collisions at the studied intersections.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Main body of Peters Engineering Group Traffic Study
Reviewed/Approved: MM
RESOLUTION 2026-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE AUTHORIZING THE

INSTALLATION OF STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF ELM AVENUE AND LOS

ANGELES STREET, ELM AVENUE AND SANTA CLARA STREET, ELM AVENUE AND D STREET,

ALPINE AVENUE AND LARKIN STREET, ALPINE AVENUE AND C STREET, OWENS AVENUE

AND LARKIN STREET, OWENS AVENUE AND C STREET, OWENS AVENUE AND D STREET,

PINE AVENUE AND D STREET, AND BEAUMONT AVENUE AND LARKIN STREET WHEREAS, the intersection of Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street is currently an uncontrolled intersection without any designated stop control; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tulare Engineering Division received a citizen request to designate the intersection of Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street as an all-way stop; and WHEREAS, the City of Tulare’s Transportation Management Team recommended that a traffic study be conducted to determine whether any stop designations were warranted or otherwise recommended for the intersection of Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street; and WHEREAS, at the recommendation of the City of Tulare’s Transportation Management Team, it was determined that the intersections of Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street, Elm Avenue and D Street, Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street, Alpine Avenue and C Street, Owens Avenue and Larkin Street, Owens Avenue and C Street, Owens Avenue and D Street, Pine Avenue and D Street, and Beaumont Avenue and Lamar Street should also be evaluated to maintain consistency in the application of stop control at intersections in the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, a traffic study was conducted on behalf of the City of Tulare by Peters Engineering Group of Clovis, California; and
WHEREAS, said traffic study determined that the requested installation of all-way stop control at the intersection of Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street did not meet any of the warrants established in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and WHEREAS, said traffic study did identify potential sight distance concerns at the intersections studied, and
WHEREAS, said traffic study concluded that the installation of stop control on the minor street approaches would provide clarification to drivers by assigning right of way and would be beneficial to traffic safety at all of the intersections studied; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police and City Engineer concur with the findings of said traffic study.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tulare, as follows:

Section 1. The Public Works Director of the City of Tulare, or their designee, is hereby authorized to install stop controls as follows:

1. The intersection of Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street is hereby designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Los Angeles Street being required to stop at Elm Avenue.

2. The intersection of Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street is hereby designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Santa Clara Street being required to stop at Elm Avenue.

Resolution 202X-XXX

3. The intersection of Elm Avenue and D Street is hereby designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with eastbound and westbound traffic on Elm Avenue being required to stop at D Street.

4. The intersection of Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street is hereby designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Larkin Street being required to stop at Alpine Avenue.

5. The intersection of Alpine Avenue and C Street is hereby designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on C Street being required to stop at Alpine Avenue.

6. The intersection of Owens Avenue and Larkin Street is hereby designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Larkin Street being required to stop at Owens Avenue.

7. The intersection of Owens Avenue and C Street is hereby designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on C Street being required to stop at Owens Avenue.

8. The intersection of Owens Avenue and D Street is hereby designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with eastbound and westbound traffic on Owens Avenue being required to stop at D Street.

9. The intersection of Pine Avenue and D Street is hereby designated as a two-way stop-controlled intersection with eastbound and westbound traffic on Pine Avenue being required to stop at D Street.

10. The intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Lamar Street is hereby designated as a two-way stopcontrolled intersection with northbound and southbound traffic on Lamar Street being required to stop at Beaumont Avenue.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tulare this 6th day of October 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Patrick Isherwood, President of the Council
and Ex-Officio Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Wilcox, City Clerk
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the Tulare City Council.
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com Mr. Michael Miller July 30, 2026
City of Tulare
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, California 93274
Subject: Traffic Engineering Study
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections
Tulare, California
Dear Mr. Miller:

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an evaluation of the need for STOP signs at the 10 intersections in Tulare, California listed below. Traffic counts and warrants for all-way stop control were performed at five of the intersections as indicated.

1. Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street (counts and all-way stop warrants)

2. Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street

3. Elm Avenue and D Street (counts and all-way stop warrants)

4. Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street (counts and all-way stop warrants)

5. Alpine Avenue and C Street (counts and all-way stop warrants)

6. Owens Avenue and Larkin Street

7. Owens Avenue and C Street

8. Owens Avenue and D Street (counts and all-way stop warrants)

9. Pine Avenue and D Street

10. Beaumont Avenue and Lamar Street

SIGNING FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AT INTERSECTIONS
Sections 2B.06 through 2B.21 of the State of California Department of Transportation California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices effective January 18, 2026 (CMUTCD) presents requirements and guidance relative to signing for right-of-way at intersections and for installation of STOP signs. For purposes of considering new installations of STOP signs (primarily two-way stop control), Sections 2B.06 through 2B.11 are the most applicable.

Sections 2B.12 through 2B.17 of the CMUTCD present criteria to assist the engineer in developing an opinion as to whether all-way stop control is justified at an intersection. Those sections are repeated below.

Traffic Engineering Study July 30, 2026
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections, Tulare, California Page 2 Section 2B.12 All-Way Stop Control
Support:
01 The provisions in the following sections describe warrants for the recommended engineering study to determine all-way stop control. Warrants are not a substitute for engineering judgment. The fact that a warrant for a particular traffic control device is met is not conclusive justification to install or not install all-way stop control. Because each intersection will have unique characteristics that affect its operational performance or safety, it is the engineering study for a given intersection that is ultimately the basis for a decision to install or not install all-way stop control. 02 All-way stop controls at intersections with substantially differing approach volumes can reduce the effectiveness of these devices for all roadway users.

Guidance:
03 The decision to establish all-way stop control at an unsignalized intersection should be based on an engineering study. The engineering study for all-way stop control should include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the intersection, the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following all-way stop control warrants:

A. All-Way Stop Control Warrant A: Crash Experience (see Section 2B.13) B. All-Way Stop Control Warrant B: Sight Distance (see Section 2B.14) C. All-Way Stop Control Warrant C: Transition to Signal Control or Transition to Yield Control at a Circular Intersection (see Section 2B.15)
D. All-Way Stop Control Warrant D: 8-Hour Volume (Vehicles, Pedestrians, Bicycles) (see Section 2B.16)
E. All-Way Stop Control Warrant E: Other Factors (see Section 2B.17) Option:
04 The decision to install all-way stop control on site roadways open to public travel may be based on engineering judgment.

Standard:
05 The satisfaction of an all-way stop control warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of all-way stop control at an unsignalized intersection.

Section 2B.13 All-Way Stop Control Warrant A: Crash Experience Option:
01 All-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that:

A. For a four-leg intersection, there are five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period or six or more reported crashes in a 36-month period that were of a type susceptible to correction by the installation of all-way stop control.

B. For a three-leg intersection, there are four or more reported crashes in a 12-month period or five or more reported crashes in a 36-month period that were of a type susceptible to correction by the installation of all-way stop control.

Traffic Engineering Study July 30, 2026
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections, Tulare, California Page 3 Section 2B.14 All-Way Stop Control Warrant B: Sight Distance Option:
01 All-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that sight distance on the minor-road approaches controlled by a STOP sign is not adequate for a vehicle to turn onto or cross the major (uncontrolled) road.

Support:
02 At such a location, a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop.

Section 2B.15 All-Way Stop Control Warrant C: Transition to Signal Control or Transition to Yield Control at a Circular Intersection
Option:
01 All-way stop control may be installed at locations where all-way stop control is an interim measure that can be installed to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of a traffic control signal (see Chapter 4C) at the intersection or for the installation of yield control at a circular intersection.

Section 2B.16 All-Way Stop Control Warrant D: 8-Hour Volume (Vehicles, Pedestrians, Bicycles)
Option:
01 All-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates:

A. The combined motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from the major- street approaches is at least 300 units per hour for each of any 8 hours of a typical day; and
B. The combined motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from the minor- street approaches is at least 200 units per hour for each of any of the same 8 hours. 02 If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants may be reduced to 70 percent of the values given in Items A and B in Paragraph 1 of this Section.

Section 2B.17 All-Way Stop Control Warrant E: Other Factors Option:
01 All-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that all- way stop control is needed due to other factors not addressed in the other all-way stop control warrants. Such other factors may include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. The need to control left-turn conflicts,
B. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where all-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection, or
C. Where pedestrian and/or bicyclist movements support the installation of all-way stop control.

Traffic Engineering Study July 30, 2026
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections, Tulare, California Page 4

EXISTING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS

1. Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street
The intersection of Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the south side of the southeast corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed by physical features, with the exception of a tree on the northeast corner that can block visibility for westbound vehicles looking north. In addition, vehicles parked near the intersection may create a visual obstruction.

2. Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street
The intersection of Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the north side of the northeast corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed by physical features, although a fence and utility pole on the southwest corner can block visibility for eastbound vehicles looking south. In addition, vehicles parked near the intersection may create a visual obstruction.

3. Elm Avenue and D Street
The intersection of Elm Avenue and D Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the south side of the southwest corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed by physical features, although some trees and vehicles parked near the intersection may create a visual obstruction.

4. Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street
The intersection of Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the east side of the southeast corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed Traffic Engineering Study July 30, 2026
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections, Tulare, California Page 5 by physical features, although vehicles parked near the intersection create a visual obstruction.

5. Alpine Avenue and C Street
The intersection of Alpine Avenue and C Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the north side of the northeast corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is potentially obscured by fences near all four corners of the intersection and by vehicles parked near the intersection.

6. Owens Avenue and Larkin Street
The intersection of Owens Avenue and Larkin Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the north side of the northeast corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed by physical features, with the exception of trees near the northwest corner that obstruct visibility for southbound vehicles looking west and for eastbound vehicles looking north. In addition, vehicles parked near the intersection create visual obstructions.

7. Owens Avenue and C Street
The intersection of Owens Avenue and C Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the north side of the northeast corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed by physical features (with the possible exception of two utility poles on the southwest corner), although vehicles parked near the intersection create a visual obstruction.

8. Owens Avenue and D Street
The intersection of Owens Avenue and D Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the south side of the southwest corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed by physical features, although vehicles parked near the intersection create a visual obstruction.

Traffic Engineering Study July 30, 2026
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections, Tulare, California Page 6

9. Pine Avenue and D Street
The intersection of Pine Avenue and D Street is a three-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection (although a mid-block crosswalk along the Santa Fe Trail is located approximately 80 feet north of the intersection). All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed (with the exception that a fire hydrant exists on the south side of the southwest corner). Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed by physical features, although vehicles parked near the intersection and overgrown weeds can create a visual obstruction.

10. Beaumont Avenue and Lamar Street
The intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Lamar Street is a four-legged intersection with no STOP signs, no YIELD signs, and no pavement markings. Crosswalks are not striped at the intersection. All approaches to the intersection consist of one lane. The area is residential and parallel parking is allowed. Speed limits are not posted in the area; therefore, a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) would apply unless sight distance is obstructed, in which case the prima facie speed limit is 15 mph. Sight distance is generally not obstructed by physical features, although vehicles parked near the intersection create a visual obstruction.

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing 24-hour traffic volumes on each approach to the following intersections were obtained on Wednesday, March 11, 2025:
x Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street
x Elm Avenue and D Street
x Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street
x Alpine Avenue and C Street
x Owens Avenue and D Street
The counts were performed by the independent traffic counting firm of Metro Traffic Data, Inc. The traffic count data sheets are attached.

CRASH HISTORY
Collision records available as of the date of this report were obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the years 2020 through 2024. The results are summarized in Tables 1 through 4 and the crash records are attached. There were no crashes reported at the intersection of Alpine Avenue and C Street.

Definitions for Tables 1 through 4:

NB: northbound SB: southbound EB: eastbound WB: westbound PDO: property damage only
Traffic Engineering Study July 30, 2026
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections, Tulare, California Page 7 Table 1
Crash History – Intersection of Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street: 2020 – 2024 Date of Collision Day of the
Week
Time of
Collision
Type of
Collision Details Correctable With Stop Signs?
May 6, 2020 Wednesday 1:31 p.m. Broadside Unknown cause, WB versus SB, Injury Possibly
Table 2
Crash History – Intersection of Elm Avenue and D Street: 2020 – 2024 Date of Collision Day of the
Week
Time of
Collision
Type of
Collision Details Correctable With Stop Signs?
January 16, 2022 Sunday 8:07 p.m. Broadside Unsafe speed, SB versus WB, PDO Possibly
October 21, 2022 Friday 8:28 p.m. Broadside Right of way, EB versus NB, PDO Possibly
November 14, 2024 Thursday 5:00 p.m. Broadside Right of way, EB versus NB, PDO Possibly
Table 3
Crash History – Intersection of Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street: 2020 – 2024 Date of Collision Day of the
Week
Time of
Collision
Type of
Collision Details Correctable With Stop Signs?
February 25, 2020 Tuesday 7:37 a.m. Broadside Uknown cause, WB versus SB, PDO Possibly
November 3, 2022 Thursday 7:57 a.m. Broadside Unsafe speed, WB versus SB, PDO Possibly
June 1, 2023 Thursday 8:15 a.m. Broadside Right of way, NB versus WB Possibly
Table 4
Crash History – Intersection of Owens Avenue and D Street: 2020 – 2024 Date of Collision Day of the
Week
Time of
Collision
Type of
Collision Details Correctable With Stop Signs?
July 9, 2020 Thursday 1:54 p.m. Broadside Unknown cause, SB versus EB, PDO Possibly
September 9, 2020 Wednesday 1:18 p.m. Broadside
Right of way, SB
bicycle at fault versus
auto, injury
No
November 4, 2021 Thursday 4:03 p.m. Broadside Unsafe speed, EB versus SB, PDO Possibly
February 11, 2022 Friday 5:52 p.m. Broadside Unknown cause, WB versus NB, PDO Possibly
The crash history reveals that there were no periods of time during which the number of crashes met the minimum criteria outlined in the CMUTCD for consideration of STOP sign Traffic Engineering Study July 30, 2026
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections, Tulare, California Page 8 installation. Therefore, there does not appear to be an existing condition that causes an excessive number of crashes at the study intersections warranting all-way stop control.

ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANT STUDY AND DISCUSSION
The existing traffic volumes at the five study intersections that were counted do not satisfy the warrants for installation of all-way stop control. Crash records also do not satisfy warrants for installation of all-way stop control. The all-way stop control warrant analysis sheets are attached.

DISCUSSION OF TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL
Installing a STOP sign on the minor street does not improve sight distance for vehicles stopped at the STOP sign. STOP signs can potentially improve visibility in the sense that vehicles on the major street (not required to stop) will likely be able to see a vehicle stopping on the side street and will be aware of its presence; whereas, when both vehicles are approaching an uncontrolled intersection without the intent to stop, neither may be able to see the other approaching. If STOP signs are desired by the City to further improve the operations of the intersections by assigning right of way, it is recommended that STOP signs be installed as follows:

1. Elm Avenue and Los Angeles Street: The counts suggest Elm Avenue is the major street. Install STOP signs on Los Angeles Street.

2. Elm Avenue and Santa Clara Street: Install STOP signs on Santa Clara Street.

3. Elm Avenue and D Street: The counts suggest D Street is the major street. Install STOP signs on Elm Ave.

4. Alpine Avenue and Larkin Street: The counts suggest Alpine Avenue is the major street. Install STOP signs on Larkin Street.

5. Alpine Avenue and C Street: The counts are nearly the same on each street; however, Alpine Avenue has more east-west pedestrians, so it is considered the major street.

Install STOP signs on C Street.

6. Owens Avenue and Larkin Street: Install STOP signs on Larkin Street.

7. Owens Avenue and C Street: Install STOP signs on C Street. Ensure that the tree on the northwest corner is trimmed to provide visibility of the STOP sign.

8. Owens Avenue and D Street: The counts suggest D Street is the major street. Install STOP signs on Owens Avenue.

9. Pine Avenue and D Street: Install STOP signs on Pine Avenue.

10. Beaumont Avenue and Lamar Street: Install STOP signs on Lamar Street.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The existing traffic volumes and crash history at the five study intersections counted do not satisfy warrants for all-way stop control.

Traffic Engineering Study July 30, 2026
Stop Sign Recommendations at Various Intersections, Tulare, California Page 9 Installation of STOP signs at all 10 study intersections as described above will assign right of way and could potentially improve visibility in the sense that vehicles on the major street (not required to stop) may be able to see a vehicle stopping on the side street and will be aware of its presence, whereas when both vehicles are approaching an uncontrolled intersection without the intent to stop, neither may be able to see the other approaching.

Thank you for the opportunity to perform this study. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland, PE, TE
Attachments: Traffic Count Data Sheets
SWITRS Crash Records
All-Way Stop Warrant Volumes
John Rowland, PE, T
Item #: 7.14
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: October 6, 2026
Department: Engineering Services - Project Management
Submitted by: Bryan Cahill, Project Manager
Agenda Title: Contract Award for Project EN0078 Bardsley at Morrison Sidewalk Improvements

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Authorize the City Manager to execute a task order with 4Creeks, Inc. in the amount of $75,293 for engineering design services for Project EN0078, Bardsley Avenue at Morrison Street Sidewalk Improvements; authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the contract amount, or $7,529.30; and approve the revised project sheet.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Infrastructure and Transportation

SUMMARY
Project EN0078, Bardsley Avenue at Morrison Street Sidewalk Improvements, will complete a gap in the pedestrian route along the north side of Bardsley Avenue near Mission Oak High School. The project includes approximately 375 feet of new curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements, along with driveway approaches, utility services, pavement improvements, and associated utility relocation work. These improvements will enhance pedestrian and traffic safety, improve ADA accessibility, and address potential liability concerns.

Right-of-way acquisition for the project is now complete following resolution of a necessity proceeding for one parcel and a probate settlement involving a neighboring parcel. With the necessary right-of-way secured, the project is ready to proceed into final design. Project EN0078 was approved by the City Council as part of the FY 2025 Capital Improvement Program.

Due to the City's current workload and limited staff capacity to complete the design in-house, consultant engineering services are needed to advance the project. The proposed scope includes supplemental topographic surveying, utility coordination, preparation of final plans, specifications and an engineer's estimate (PS&E), bidding assistance, and design support during construction.

In May 2026, the City issued a Request for Qualifications for multiple on-call consultant services, including civil engineering. Nineteen firms submitted qualifications for consideration. Following evaluation in accordance with the City's consultant selection procedures, six firms were recommended for inclusion on the City's list of pre-qualified civil engineering consultants, which the City Council approved on July 7, 2026.
4Creeks, Inc. is one of the City's pre-qualified civil engineering consultants and previously completed topographic surveying for the project. Based on its familiarity with the project and demonstrated qualifications, staff recommends issuing a task order to 4Creeks in the amount of $75,293 to complete the engineering design and related services necessary to advance the project toward construction.

FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
The $75,293 cost for engineering design services is included in the FY 2027 Capital Improvement Program for Project EN0078 and will be funded by the Gas Tax Fund (Fund 300). The revised project sheet reflects the updated design cost and associated project funding.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (C) of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.

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
Changing the task order will require additional coordination with the consultant to revise the scope and fee. Denying or tabling the item would delay final design and completion of improvements intended to address ADA compliance, pedestrian safety, and potential liability concerns.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 4Creeks Proposal

2. Revised Project Sheet
Reviewed/Approved: MM
July 29, 2026
Brian Cahill
Sr. Project Manager
City of Tulare
411 E. Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
Subject: Design Proposal - Bardsley Avenue Improvements, 4Creeks No. 240971 Dear Mr. Cahill,
We have prepared a scope of work and fee for the services to complete the plans, specifications, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs (PS&E) for the proposed Bardsley Avenue Improvements project along the frontages of properties at 3136 E. Bardsley Avenue and 3158 E. Bardsley Avenue. It is our understanding that the scope of work will generally include the following civil engineering improvements:
• Replacement of four (4) drive approaches.
• Approximately 375 LF of new sidewalk, curb, and gutter. It is our understanding that the proposed sidewalk, curb, and gutter will tie into the existing on either side of the properties at 3136 E. Bardsley Avenue, 3158 E. Bardsley Avenue, and 3000 E. Bardsley Avenue
• Provide new sanitary sewer and domestic water services at 3158 E. Bardsley Avenue. • Asphalt pavement along the frontage improvements.

Below you will find a breakdown of the tasks needed to complete this project, as well as the fee estimate and proposed project schedule.

Sincerely,

Elsa Mejia, PE #92473 Jason Watts, RCE #85594
Project Manager Principal Civil Engineer
TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
4Creeks will act as the prime consultant and will manage the design team’s progress throughout the life of the project. The purpose of the project management task is to organize the efforts of the project team, including the city, to keep the project on schedule and on budget. 4Creeks will:
• Manage project tasks and completion of work products. • Coordinate and manage the design team.
• Manage and update the project schedule in coordination with the city. • Schedule meetings in coordination with the city.
• Represent the 4Creeks team at project coordination meetings. • Prepare and distribute project coordination meeting minutes. • Respond to the city’s questions/correspondence.
• Coordinative consultant kick-off meeting.
• Implement and maintain quality control procedures across all disciplines involved in the project.
• Provide overall quality control of the contract documents. • Prepare and submit monthly invoices to the city.
4Creeks will coordinate, schedule, and participate in project meetings with the city and other appropriate agencies. We assume four (4) in-person or virtual meetings. This includes a project kick off meeting with the City and to review City comments after the 30%, 90%, and 100% submittals.

The above Task 1 services will be provided on a Fixed Fee basis for a fee of $8,600 Any additional items requested not specifically mentioned above will be billed as “extra” on a Time and Materials basis.

TASK 2: ADDITIONAL BARDSLEY AVENUE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Perform and prepare a topographic field survey across Bardsley Avenue, Tulare CA, for the frontage areas across APNs 172-040-085, 073. To accomplish this the following items will be provided.
• Perform Topographic field Survey shall include (but not limited to):
i. Observable Utility
ii. Building locations (as applicable)
iii. Paved/Parking areas
iv. Grass and landscaped areas
v. Curb and gutter
vi. Concrete/Sidewalk (pedestrian travel way routes for ADA compliance) vii. Tie into City of Tulare (or previous project) benchmark system viii. Tie in adjacent centerline or property line monuments for base line control of site (rotation)
• Prepare Topographic Survey Map
The above-described Task 2 services will be provided on a Time and Materials Basis for an estimated fee of $3,000. Any additional items requested, not specifically mentioned above will be billed as “extra” on a Time and Materials basis.

TASK 3: UTILITY COORDINATION SERVICES
The 4Creeks team will provide the following utility coordination services throughout the duration of the project:
• Utility Research:
i. Request and review all dry utility maps in the area. ii. Update CAD file as needed.
• Utility Application:
i. Submit improvement plans and applications to the respective utility companies.
ii. Coordinate relocations, removals, and/or upgrade services of existing utilities on the proposed project site that may be required prior to the start of construction.
• Utility Redlines:
i. Obtain on-site point-of-connection locations for the project, conduit requirements, and joint trench routes from the utility companies. ii. Obtain utility company designs on behalf of the client. iii. Plans obtained by the City show one (1) relocation. Any additional relocations will be billed as “extra” on a time and materials basis. • Utility Construction:
i. Work with the Contractor throughout the dry utility installation and heat-up phase.
ii. Coordinate and attend the joint utility meeting for the City, this meeting to be attended by all utility company representatives, Contractor, and others as directed by the client.
iii. Assist with the receipt of all utility company contracts, invoices and easements on behalf of the client. Follow-up with the City to ensure all documents and payments are in place prior to heat-up date.

The above-described Task 3 services will be provided on a Fixed Fee basis for a fee of $7,000.

We assume four (4) in-person or virtual meetings. Any additional items requested not specifically mentioned above will be billed as “extra” on a Time and Materials basis. This fee does not include any processing fees or items not specifically described above.

TASK 4: CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS
The 4Creeks team will prepare construction plans for review/approval by the City. Plans will be provided at the 30%, 90%, and 100% submittal stages. It is anticipated that the City will provide a full review of the plans submitted at each stage of the project and will provide their comments to 4Creeks. 4Creeks will address the comments and revise the plans as appropriate and provide the City with responses to comments.
4Creeks will submit construction plans that conform to current ADA standards and guidelines. 4Creeks anticipates providing the following plan sheets for the project:
• Cover Sheet
• General Notes and Legend
• Grading and Drainage Plan (Assumed 1”=20’ scale, 2 sheets) • Drive Approach Detail Sheets (Assumed 2 per page at 1”=5’, 2 sheets) • Construction and City Standard Details
4Creeks will provide one (1) electronic PDF file of full-size plans at each submittal stage. Plans will be on 22” x 34” size sheets.
4Creeks plans to hold one (1) meeting with the City at each of the following stages: 30%, 90%, and 100% plan submittal stages (3 meetings total).

The above-described Task 4 services will be provided on a Fixed Fee basis for a fee of $33,934. Any additional items requested not specifically mentioned above will be billed as “extra” on a Time and Materials basis. This fee does not include any processing fees or items not specifically described above.

TASK 5: COST ESTIMATE AND SPECIFICATIONS
4Creeks will provide an engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs based on the plans. 4Creeks will provide technical specifications, special provisions, and bid item descriptions to complete the project. 4Creeks will provide the City with an itemized excel quantity breakdown file. Our understanding is that the City will provide their typical front-end bid document in Word format, and 4Creeks will modify the information for this project. 4Creeks will provide engineer’s opinion of probably construction costs at the 30%, 90%, and 100% submittal stages. Specifications will be provided at the 90% and 100% submittal stages.

The above-described Task 5 services will be provided on a Fixed Fee basis for a fee of $10,425. Any additional items requested not specifically mentioned above will be billed as “extra” on a Time and Materials basis. This fee does not include any processing fees or items not specifically described above.

TASK 6: BIDDING PHASE SERVICES
4Creeks design team will provide the following assistance during the bidding phase:
• Attend and participate in a pre-bid meeting with the City and Contractors. • Maintain the Contractor plan holders list.
• Provide supplemental instructions and clarifications to bidders as necessary and produce addendums to modify the bid documents (plans and specifications) as required.
• Review bids received at the bid opening held by the City and provide a recommendation for award.

The above Task 6 services will be provided on a Time and Materials basis for an estimated fee of $4,532. Any additional items requested not specifically mentioned above will be billed as “extra” on a Time and Materials basis.

TASK 7: CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE
4Creeks design team will provide the following assistance during the construction phase:
• Attend and participate in the pre-construction meeting. • Respond to Requests for Information.
• Review technical submittals if requested by the City. • 4Creeks will Assist with change order review if requested by the City. • Issue contract document revisions as required.
• Prepare a set of record as-built plans in AutoCAD at project completion based in redlined plans provided by the City/Contractor.

The above Task 7 services will be provided on a Time and Materials basis for an estimated fee of $7,802. Any additional items requested not specifically mentioned above will be billed as “extra” on a Time and Materials basis.

FEE ESTIMATE
We have shown a summary of our fee estimate in the below table. We have also included our 4Creeks, Inc. Fee Schedule as part of this proposal as Exhibit A.

Note: Any additional items requested not specifically mentioned in the scope of services will be billed as “extra” on a Time and Materials basis. 4Creeks will obtain approval from the City prior to performing an “extra” work.

CITY OF TULARE RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Tulare shall provide the following:
• Draft set of front-end bid specifications in Word format. • Record drawings for the project area if available.
• Potholing as necessary to determine true utility locations.

EXCLUSIONS
• Any meetings requested by the City or any parties involved that are beyond what is provided in this scope of work.
• Right of way support and/or right of way acquisition services. It is assumed that Right of way has been completed for this project and there will be no preparation of plats and legals for Right of way acquisition.
• Permitting fees.
• Any work not specifically listed in this scope of work.

We are extremely excited to submit this proposal and look forward to developing a strong working relationship with the City. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to give us a call to discuss.

Proposal Summary
Task 1 - Project Management Fixed Fee $8,600
Task 2 – Additional Bardsley Avenue Survey Fixed Fee $3,000 Task 3 – Utility Coordination Services Fixed Fee $7,000 Task 4 – Construction Plans Fixed Fee $33,934
Task 5 – Cost Estimate and Specifications Fixed Fee $10,425 Task 6 – Bidding Phase Services Time and Materials $4,532 Task 7 – Construction Assistance Time and Materials $7,802 TOTAL PROJECT COST $75,293
1 of 1
Effective June 1, 2025
4Creeks, Inc. Fee Schedule – Professional
Fees are based on the median hourly pay rate for employees in each classification, plus, indirect costs, overhead, and profit. These rates are effective for one year from the contract execution date.

Classification Charges Per
Hour
Classification Charges Per
Hour
Architectural Services Planning Services
Associate Architect $160 Assistant Planner $108
Architect $185 Associate Planner $129
Senior Architect $221 Planner $149
Principal Architect $252 Senior Planner $180
Principal Planner $216
Civil Engineering Services
Assistant Engineer $149 Project Manager
Associate Engineer $165 Associate Project Manager $124
Engineer $180 Associate Project Manager - Design $149
Senior Engineer $215 Project Manager $149
Principal Engineer $252 Project Manager – Design $175
Senior Project Manager $196
Principal PM $275
GIS Services Public Outreach Coordination
GIS Technician $108 Associate Outreach Coordinator $108 GIS Analyst/Developer $124 Outreach Coordinator $129
GIS Manager $149
Drone Pilot $180 Software Engineering Services
Assistant Software Engineer $93
Expert Witness Associate Software Engineer $113
Expert Witness $309 Software Engineer $139
Senior Software Engineer $170
Land Surveying Services Structural Engineering Services Assistant Surveyor $124 Associate Structural Engineer $149 Associate Surveyor $155 Structural Engineer $170
Land Surveyor $175 Senior Structural Engineer $196
Senior Surveyor $200 Principal Structural Engineer $221 Principal Land Surveyor $235
Senior Survey Manager $165 Technical Services
1-Man, Survey Crew * $185 Project Technician I $98
2-Man, Survey Crew * $268 Project Technician II $113
3-Man, Survey Crew * $361 Project Technician III $129
Project Technician IV $144
1-Man, Survey Crew – Fresno/Tulare/Tuolumne $245
1-Man, Survey Crew – Kern/Kings $245 Utility Design Services Associate Utility Designer $129
2-Man, Survey Crew – Fresno/Tulare/Tuolumne $400 Utility Designer $160 2-Man, Survey Crew – Kern/Kings $400 Senior Utility Designer $201 2-Man, Survey Crew - Stanislaus $400
Water Consulting Services
3-Man, Survey Crew – Fresno/Tulare/Tuolumne $585 Associate Water Consultant $118 3-Man, Survey Crew – Kern/Kings $585 Water Consultant $144 Senior Water Consultant $175
Principal Water Consultant $215
Direct Charges
At cost plus fifteen percent (15%):
 Transportation and per-diem expenses (auto mileage @ current IRS rate, off-road charges $50.00/day)  Printing and reproduction: $0.03 per b/w copy, $0.12 per color copy, $0.80 per sq. ft. large printing  Equipment rentals, subcontractors, laboratory analyses *Prevailing wage rates are subject to change based on the DIR updates.

Design

EXHIBIT A
Morrison St

UPDATED PROJECT LIMITS
4CREEKS TO PROVIDE A FINISHED TOPO

SURVEY ACROSS THIS FRONTAGE AS

REQUESTED BY CITY OF TULARE
PROJECT MANAGER:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PURPOSE:

KEY POINTS:

PROJECT STATUS:

PROJECTED START DATE:

PROJECTED END DATE:

FUTURE M & O:
(Additional Cost & Department
Responsibility)
CRITERIA (1-8):

To Date Remaining Year 2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031 010 - Administrative $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 020 - Conceptual $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 030 - Preliminary Design/Plan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 040 - Environmental $32,908.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $32,908.76 $0.00 0206 - Right-of-Way $32,908.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $32,908.76 $0.00 050 - Final Design/Plan $5,835.09 $149.99 $5,000.00 $80,293.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $91,278.08 $0.00 0202 - Engineering/Survey $4,547.50 $0.00 $0.00 $75,293.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $79,840.50 $0.00 0996 - Project Management Time $1,031.71 $149.99 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,181.70 $0.00 0998 - Development Services Time $255.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $255.88 $0.00 060 - Right of Way/Property $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 070 - Construct/Implement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $201,171.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $201,171.44 $0.00 0200 - Professional Services
0202 - Engineering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0205 - Labor Compliance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 0224 - Surveyor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 0612 - Materials Testing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 0300 - Utilities $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 0700 - Construction/Labor & Materials Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $105,232.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $105,232.00 $0.00 0900 - City Staff Time $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,500.00 $0.00 0996 - Project Management Time $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,366.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,366.24 $0.00 0999 - Contingency $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,573.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,573.20 $0.00 080 - Closeout $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Costs: $38,743.85 $149.99 $105,000.00 $281,464.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $425,358.28 $0.00 To Date Remaining Year 2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031 300 - Gas Taxes Fund $38,743.85 $149.99 $105,000.00 $281,464.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $425,358.28 $0.00 400 - General CIP Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 Total Funding: $38,743.85 $149.99 $105,000.00 $296,464.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $440,358.28 $0.00 G/L #'s:

Notes:
400-100-500-000-000-5698
2026-2031 CIP.

Bryan Cahill
Traffic Safety Project on Bardsley Ave., at Morrison St. Includes ADA Concrete work. The project addresses a safety concern pertaining to the last remaining non-continuous section of sidewalk on the North side of Bardsley, East and West sides at Morrison St. Attached Exhibit.

Traffic Safety; Relief from potential liability concerns; Compliance to the American Disabilities Act.

Underway
7/1/2024
8/30/2027
N/A
Funding Sources Prior Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Future Fiscal Years
Total Unfunded
Unfunded
Criteria 7: Project addresses regulatory, safety, or environmental requirements that could threaten in whole or in part the City's ability to operate a core program or function at some future time if not replaced or repaired. (Capital)
District(s): 5
Costs Description Prior Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Future Fiscal Years
Total
(Capital)
2026 - 2031 CIP Transportation
PROJECT #: EN0078
Bardsley/Morrison St Swlk Impr at MOHS
95 Item #: 7.15
Consent
Staff Report
City Council
Date: October 6, 2026
Department: Finance
Submitted by: Melanie Gaboardi, Assistant Finance Director Agenda Title: Agreement for Audit Services with Price, Paige & Company

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve a one-year agreement with Price, Paige & Company for professional audit services for FY 2026, including the audit of the City's financial statements and Single Audit, in an amount not to exceed $121,000, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement and related documents.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Organizational Excellence

SUMMARY
On May 20, 2025, the City Council approved a one-year agreement with Price, Paige & Company for FY 2025 audit services. Although it is customary to conduct a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for multiyear engagements of three to five years for these services, an RFP has not been conducted due to staff turnover and workload associated with the financial system migration. This year's engagement will cost up to $121,000: $85,000 for standard audit services; $20,000 for additional requirements related to the financial system migration; and up to $16,000 for two additional major program reviews at $8,000 each.

Due to the complexity of establishing an audit relationship, staff recommends approval of this agreement for the FY 2026 audit. Finance staff intends to issue an RFP for audit services covering a three- to fiveyear period following completion of the financial system migration.

FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
Funding in the amount of $93,000 for audit services is included in the adopted FY 2027 budget. An additional appropriation of $28,000 is requested to fund the additional services required for the FY 2026 audit, for a total amount not to exceed $121,000.
100-100-102-105-120-5201, Auditing Services: $121,000

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 is engaging the same audit firm that performed the prior three audits. The initial engagement letter was reviewed by the City Attorney's Office, and no changes were required. The primary differences in this year's engagement are the audit fee and additional fees associated with the anticipated complexity of the City's financial system migration. Because the engagement letter is similar in form and substance to prior years, additional legal review is not required.

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
Delay or denial of this item may affect the City's ability to timely complete federal and state financial reporting requirements. Delayed issuance of the ACFR may also affect the City's credit rating, financing activities, and other matters that rely on timely audited financial statements.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Engagement Letter from Price, Paige & Company dated September 16, 2026 Reviewed/Approved: MM
September 16, 2026
Patrick Isherwood, Mayor
Mark Roberts, CFO
City of Tulare
411 E. Kern Avenue
Tulare, California 93274
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide for City of Tulare (the City) for the year ended June 30, 2026.

Audit Scope and Objectives
We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information, including the disclosures, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements, of the City as of and for the year ended June 30, 2026. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A), to supplement the City’s basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the City’s RSI in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS). These limited procedures will consist of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient appropriate evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. The following RSI is required by GAAP and will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited:
1) Management’s Discussion and Analysis
2) Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios – Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan
3) Schedule of Contributions – Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan 4) Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability – Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan
5) Schedule of Contributions – Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan 6) Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios – Single Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan 7) Schedule of Contributions – Single Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan 8) Schedule of Changes in the Net Other Post-Employment Benefits 9) Schedule of Other Postemployment Benefits Contributions 10) Budgetary Comparison Schedules – General Fund and Major Special Revenue Funds September 16, 2026

2026

TULARECY
We have also been engaged to report on supplementary information other than RSI that accompanies the City’s financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with GAAS, and we will provide an opinion on it in relation to the financial statements as a whole in a report combined with our auditor’s report on the financial statements. 1) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
2) Combining Schedules for Nonmajor Governmental Funds
3) Combining Schedules for Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds 4) Budgetary Comparison Schedules for Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds 5) Schedules for Nonmajor Capital Projects Fund
6) Budgetary Comparison Schedule for Nonmajor Capital Projects Fund 7) Combining Schedules for Internal Services Funds
8) Schedule of Expenditures by Department – Budgetary Level of Control – Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis) – General Fund
9) Budgetary Comparison Schedule for Measure I Sales Tax Revenues and Related Expenditures 10) Long-Term Debt Recorded in Private Purpose Trust Fund In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, we will read the following other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report. 1) Introductory Section
2) Statistical Section
The objectives of our audit are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions about whether your financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with GAAP, and report on the fairness of the supplementary information referred to in the second paragraph when considered in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements, including omissions, can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment of a reasonable user made based on the financial statements. The objectives also include reporting on:
 Internal control over financial reporting and compliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and award agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the financial statements in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
 Internal control over compliance related to major programs and an opinion (or disclaimer of opinion) on compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards that could have a direct and material effect on each major program in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance).

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements and Single Audit We will conduct our audit in accordance with GAAS; the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996; and the provisions of the Uniform Guidance, and will include tests of accounting records, a determination of major program(s) in accordance with Uniform Guidance, and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such opinions. As part of an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.

September 16, 2026

2026

TULARECY
We will evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management. We will also evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and determine whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the government or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the government. Because the determination of waste and abuse is subjective, Government Auditing Standards do not expect auditors to perform specific procedures to detect waste or abuse in financial audits nor do they expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting waste or abuse.

Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, combined with the inherent limitations of internal control, and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is an unavoidable risk that some material misstatements or noncompliance may not be detected by us, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements or on major programs. However, we will inform the appropriate level of management of any material errors, any fraudulent financial reporting, or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform the appropriate level of management of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. We will include such matters in the reports required for a Single Audit. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors.

We will also conclude, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the government’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, funding sources, creditors, and financial institutions. We will also request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement.

We have identified the following significant risks of material misstatement as part of our audit planning:
 Improper revenue recognition due to fraud
 Management override of controls
Our audit of financial statements does not relieve you of your responsibilities.

Audit Procedures—Internal Control
We will obtain an understanding of the government and its environment, including the system of internal control, sufficient to identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and to design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks and obtain evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinions. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentation, or the override of internal control. Tests of controls may be performed to test the effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and fraud that are material to the financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting from illegal acts and other noncompliance matters that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Our tests, if performed, will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on internal control and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.

As required by the Uniform Guidance, we will perform tests of controls over compliance to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of controls that we consider relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with compliance requirements applicable to each major federal award program. However, our tests will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on those controls and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to the Uniform Guidance.

An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. Accordingly, we will express no such opinion. However, during the audit, we will communicate to September 16, 2026

2026

TULARECY
management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional standards, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance.

Audit Procedures—Compliance
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the City’s compliance with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and agreements, including grant agreements. However, the objective of those procedures will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance, and we will not express such an opinion in our report on compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.

The Uniform Guidance requires that we also plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the auditee has complied with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards applicable to major programs. Our procedures will consist of tests of transactions and other applicable procedures described in the OMB Compliance Supplement for the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City’s major programs. For federal programs that are included in the Compliance Supplement, our compliance and internal control procedures will relate to the compliance requirements that the Compliance Supplement identifies as being subject to audit. The purpose of these procedures will be to express an opinion on the City’s compliance with requirements applicable to each of its major programs in our report on compliance issued pursuant to the Uniform Guidance.

Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements and Single Audit Our audit will be conducted on the basis that you acknowledge and understand your responsibility for (1) designing, implementing, establishing, and maintaining effective internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, including internal controls over federal awards, and for evaluating and monitoring ongoing activities to help ensure that appropriate goals and objectives are met; (2) following laws and regulations; (3) ensuring that there is reasonable assurance that government programs are administered in compliance with compliance requirements; and (4) ensuring that management and financial information is reliable and properly reported. Management is also responsible for implementing systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. You are also responsible for the selection and application of accounting principles; for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and all accompanying information in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; and for compliance with applicable laws and regulations (including federal statutes), rules, and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements (including award agreements). Your responsibilities also include identifying significant contractor relationships in which the contractor has responsibility for program compliance and for the accuracy and completeness of that information.

You are also responsible for making drafts of financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, all financial records, and related information available to us; for the accuracy and completeness of that information (including information from outside of the general and subsidiary ledgers); and for the evaluation of whether there are any conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the government’s ability to continue as a going concern for the 12 months after the financial statement date or shortly thereafter (for example, within an additional three months if currently known). You are also responsible for providing us with (1) access to all information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, such as records, documentation, identification of all related parties and all related-party relationships and transactions, and other matters; (2) access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and other information as needed to perform an audit under the Uniform Guidance; (3) additional information that we may request for the purpose of the audit; and (4) unrestricted access to persons within the government from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit evidence. At the conclusion of our audit, we will require certain written representations from you about the financial statements; schedule of expenditures of federal awards; federal award programs; compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; and related matters.

Your responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and confirming to us in the management representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements of each opinion unit taken as a whole.

You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud affecting the government involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud September 16, 2026

2026

TULARECY
affecting the government received in communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the government complies with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, and grants. You are also responsible for taking timely and appropriate steps to remedy fraud and noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that we report.

Additionally, as required by the Uniform Guidance, it is management’s responsibility to evaluate and monitor noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards; take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings; promptly follow up and take corrective action on reported audit findings; and prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings and a separate corrective action plan.

You are responsible for identifying all federal awards received and understanding and complying with the compliance requirements and for the preparation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (including notes and noncash assistance received, and COVID-19-related concepts, such as lost revenues, if applicable) in conformity with the Uniform Guidance. You agree to include our report on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in any document that contains, and indicates that we have reported on, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards that includes our report thereon. Your responsibilities include acknowledging to us in the written representation letter that (1) you are responsible for presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with the Uniform Guidance; (2) you believe the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, including its form and content, is stated fairly in accordance with the Uniform Guidance; (3) the methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period (or, if they have changed, the reasons for such changes); and (4) you have disclosed to us any significant assumptions or interpretations underlying the measurement or presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards.

You are also responsible for the preparation of the other supplementary information, which we have been engaged to report on, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). You agree to include our report on the supplementary information in any document that contains, and indicates that we have reported on, the supplementary information. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the supplementary information that includes our report thereon. Your responsibilities include acknowledging to us in the written representation letter that (1) you are responsible for presentation of the supplementary information in accordance with GAAP; (2) you believe the supplementary information, including its form and content, is fairly presented in accordance with GAAP; (3) the methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period (or, if they have changed, the reasons for such changes); and (4) you have disclosed to us any significant assumptions or interpretations underlying the measurement or presentation of the supplementary information.

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit findings and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying and providing report copies of previous financial audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies related to the objectives discussed in the Audit Scope and Objectives section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to us corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or studies. You are also responsible for providing management’s views on our current findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as your planned corrective actions for the report, and for the timing and format for providing that information.

Other Services
We will also assist in preparing the financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and related notes of the City in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and the Uniform Guidance based on information provided by you. These nonaudit services do not constitute an audit under Government Auditing Standards and such services will not be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. We will perform the services in accordance with applicable professional standards. We, in our sole professional judgment, reserve the right to refuse to perform any procedure or take any action that could be construed as assuming management responsibilities.

You agree to assume all management responsibilities for the financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and related notes, and any other nonaudit services we provide. You will be required to acknowledge in the management representation letter our assistance with all nonaudit services we provide and have accepted responsibility for them. Further, you agree to oversee the nonaudit services by designating an individual, preferably from senior management, with suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience; evaluate the adequacy and results of those services; and accept responsibility for them.

September 16, 2026

2026

TULARECY
Use of Technology, Including Artificial Intelligence Tools In providing professional services, we may use secure technology tools, including software applications and artificial intelligence-assisted tools, to support drafting, editing, proofreading, data organization, document management, and other engagement-related functions. We remain solely responsible for the professional judgment applied, the services performed, and the final work product delivered. We will maintain the confidentiality of your information in accordance with applicable professional standards and firm policies, and any third-party tools used in connection with this engagement will be subject to appropriate confidentiality and data protection measures.

Electronic Data Communication and Storage and Use of Third-Party Service Provider In the interest of facilitating our services to the entity, we may communicate by facsimile transmission, send data over the Internet, store electronic data via computer software applications hosted remotely on the Internet, or allow access to data through third-party vendors’ secured portals or clouds. Electronic data that is confidential to the entity may be transmitted or stored using these methods. We may use third-party service providers to store or transmit this data, such as providers of tax return preparation and document management software. In using these data communication and storage methods, our firm employs measures designed to maintain data security. We use reasonable efforts to keep such communications and data access secure in accordance with our obligations under applicable laws and professional standards. We also require all of our third-party vendors to do the same.

You recognize and accept that we have no control over the unauthorized interception or breach of any communications or data once it has been sent or has been subject to unauthorized access, notwithstanding all reasonable security measures employed by us or our third-party vendors, and consent to our use of these electronic devices and applications and submission of confidential client information to third-party service providers during this engagement.

With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial statements published electronically on your website, you understand that electronic sites are a means to distribute information and, therefore, we are not required to read the information contained in these sites or to consider the consistency of other information in the electronic site with the original document.

Engagement Administration, Fees, and Other
We understand that your employees will prepare all cash, accounts receivable, or other confirmations we request and will locate any documents selected by us for testing.

We will schedule the engagement based in part on deadlines, working conditions, and the availability of your key personnel. We will plan the engagement based on the assumption that your personnel will cooperate and provide assistance by performing tasks such as preparing requested schedules, retrieving supporting documents, and preparing confirmations. If, for whatever reason, your personnel are unavailable to provide the necessary assistance in a timely manner, it may substantially increase the work we have to do to complete the engagement within the established deadlines, resulting in an increase in fees over our original fee estimate.

At the conclusion of the engagement, we will complete the appropriate sections of the Data Collection Form that summarizes our audit findings. It is management’s responsibility to electronically submit the reporting package (including financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, summary schedule of prior audit findings, auditor’s reports, and corrective action plan) along with the Data Collection Form to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. We will coordinate with you the electronic submission and certification. The Data Collection Form and the reporting package must be submitted within the earlier of 30 calendar days after receipt of the auditor’s reports or nine months after the end of the audit period.

We will provide copies of our reports to the City; however, management is responsible for distribution of the reports and the financial statements. Unless restricted by law or regulation, or containing privileged and confidential information, copies of our reports are to be made available for public inspection.

The audit documentation for this engagement is the property of Price Paige & Company and constitutes confidential information. However, subject to applicable laws and regulations, audit documentation and appropriate individuals will be made available upon request and in a timely manner to your cognizant agency or its designee, a federal agency providing direct or indirect funding, or the U.S. Government Accountability Office for purposes of a quality review of the audit, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities. We will notify you of any such request. If requested, access to such audit documentation will be provided under the supervision of Price Paige & Company personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide copies of selected audit documentation to the aforementioned parties. These parties may intend, or decide, to distribute the copies or information contained therein to others, including other governmental agencies.

September 16, 2026

2026

TULARECY
The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of seven years after the report release date.

Suralink is used solely as a method of exchanging information and is not intended to store the City’s information. Upon completion of the engagement, data and other content will be removed from Suralink in accordance with Price Paige & Company’s policy.

Fausto Hinojosa, CPA, CFE is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement and signing the reports or authorizing another individual to sign them. To ensure that Price Paige & Company’s independence is not impaired under the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, you agree to inform the engagement partner before entering into any substantive employment discussions with any of our personnel.

Our fees for the June 30, 2026 audit with single audit for the City is $85,000. The fee estimate for the single audit is for one major program. If there are additional major programs, there will be an additional fee of $8,000 for each program.

Due to the implementation of the Tyler system and related control activity changes, an additional one-time fee of $20,000 will be included to account for the additional procedures necessary for the audit.

Our fee estimate is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you before we incur the additional costs. Our fees for these services will be billed at the hourly billing rates for the individual involved, plus out-of-pocket expenses. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our billing rates are reviewed annually and, where appropriate, adjusted for any increases due to inflation and other factors. We will issue a monthly billing statement for the work completed in that month. Payments for services are due when rendered and interim billings may be submitted as work progresses and expenses are incurred.

If any dispute pertaining to our work product arises among the parties hereto, the parties agree first to try in good faith to settle the dispute by mediation administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Rules for Professional Accounting and Related Services Disputes before resorting to litigation. The costs of any mediation proceeding shall be shared equally by all parties.

All work will be suspended if your account becomes 90 days past due. No work will be resumed until your account is fully paid. You acknowledge and agree that in the event we stop work or withdraw from this engagement as a result of your failure to pay on a timely basis for services rendered as required by this engagement letter, we shall not be liable for any damages that occur as a result of our ceasing to render services. Client and accountant both agree that any dispute over fees charged by the accountant to the client will be submitted for resolution by arbitration in accordance with the Rules for Professional Accounting and Related Services Disputes of the American Arbitration Association. Such arbitration shall be binding and final. IN AGREEING TO ARBITRATION, WE BOTH ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, IN THE

EVENT OF A DISPUTE OVER FEES CHARGED BY THE ACCOUNTANT, EACH OF US IS GIVING UP THE RIGHT

TO HAVE THE DISPUTE DECIDED IN A COURT OF LAW BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY AND INSTEAD WE ARE ACCEPTING THE USE OF ARBITRATION FOR RESOLUTION.

Reporting
We will issue written reports upon completion of our Single Audit which will also address other information in accordance with AU-C 720, The Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Other Information Included in Annual Reports. Our reports will be addressed to the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of City of Tulare. Circumstances may arise in which our report may differ from its expected form and content based on the results of our audit. Depending on the nature of these circumstances, it may be necessary for us to modify our opinions, add a separate section, or add an emphasis-of-matter or other-matter paragraph to our auditor’s report, or if necessary, withdraw from this engagement.

If our opinions are other than unmodified, we will discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or issue reports, or we may withdraw from this engagement.

The Government Auditing Standards report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters will state that (1) the purpose of the report is solely to describe the scope of testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance, and (2) the report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. The Uniform Guidance report on internal control over compliance will state that the purpose of the report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Both reports will state that the report is not suitable for any other purpose.

September 16, 2026

2026

TULARECY
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please return a signed copy to us at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,
Fausto Hinojosa, CPA, CFE
Price Paige & Company
- - - - -
RESPONSE:

This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Tulare.

Governance Signature Title Date
Management Signature Title Date
Item #: 8.1
Public Hearing
Staff Report
City Council
Date: October 6, 2026
Department: Community Development - Planning
Submitted by: Mario Anaya, Community Development Director Agenda Title: Historic-Cultural Landmark Nomination for the Frew House

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Pass-to-print an ordinance designating the Frew House, located at 260 E. Merritt Avenue, as a HistoricCultural Landmark and amending the City of Tulare Zoning Map to change the zoning designation from R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) to R-1-6(H) (Single-Family Residential with Historic Site and Historic Neighborhood Overlay), Zone Amendment No. 774.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Housing and Community Development

SUMMARY
This is a request by Caleb Byron to designate the Frew House as a City of Tulare Historic-Cultural Landmark and add it to the Local Register of Historic-Cultural Landmarks.

The Frew House is a two-story late Victorian-Colonial Revival home that was constructed in 1905-1907 as part of a new subdivision known as Crocker Oak Park. The house was later annexed into city limits in October of 1960. The House is also the last surviving house of the original Crocker Oak Park subdivision.

It was the home to James Harvey Frew who was an educator turned dairyman. Frew started as an educator in Nebraska who eventually started a dairy business in Iowa and later moved to Tulare after purchasing the Tulare Butter Company. The Frew family lived in the house from 1905 to 1919. In 1960 a second house was built east of the original house.

The project site is located at 260 East Merritt Avenue (170-032-035). The subject property is zoned R-1 -6 (Single-Family Residential), and the General Plan Designation is Low Density Residential.

Section 10.38 of the updated City of Tulare Zoning Ordinance includes standards to preserve, promote, and enhance the Historic-Cultural Landmarks and designated historic districts of the city for the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of the public. The purpose of the zone amendment would be to designate the Frew House as a local Historic-Cultural Landmark and apply the HistoricCultural Landmark Overlay Zone to the property.

Section 10.38 of the updated City of Tulare Zoning Ordinance includes standards to preserve, promote, and enhance the Historic-Cultural Landmarks and designated historic districts of the city for the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of the public. The purpose of the zone amendment would be to designate the Frew House as a local Historic-Cultural Landmark and apply the HistoricCultural Landmark Overlay Zone to the property.

Once a building, structure, object, site, or district is designated as a Historic-Cultural Landmark it will enable the Historic-Cultural Landmarks Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, to work with property owners and the community to protect and review changes to these local landmarks and districts which have a distinctive character or a special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this City, State, and nation. This would assist in implementing the Tulare General Plan’s goals and vision with respect to the following:
• To continue to safeguard the heritage of this city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts which reflect elements of the City’s historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.
• To continue to preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts.
• To continue to establish, stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development.

At its August 11, 2026, meeting, the City of Tulare Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend designation of the Frew House as a Historic-Cultural Landmarks due to architectural significance, as well as the important role this landmark and its namesake have played in the history and cultural heritage of Tulare.

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
Councilmember Mederos owns real property within 500 feet from the subject property.

LEGAL REVIEW
This item does not require legal review.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A notice of public hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and was published in The Visalia Times Delta & Tulare Advance Register on September 3, 2026, which is at least then 10 days prior to the public hearing. On, September 15, 2026, the City Council continued this item to October 6.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION

1. Approve with changes

2. Deny

3. Table
If an ordinance is not approved, the Frew House would not be designated as a local Tulare HistoricCultural Landmark.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Historic-Cultural Landmark Nomination Packet for the Frew House

2. Ordinance
Reviewed/Approved: MM

CITY OF TULARE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

HISTORIC-CULTURAL LANDMARKS
Landmark Name & Number: FREW HOUSE / No. 10
APN: 170-032-035
Address: 260 E. Merritt Avenue
Description: Two-story late Victorian home with partial front porch was built in a county subdivision tract known as Crocker Oak Park c. 1905-1907 and later annexed into the City of Tulare in 1963. A separate two-story structure was attached to the home’s original east side pre-1963 and converted into living space. The addition may have been the ranch property’s original tank house. An unattached carport/garage was added along with its own additions in the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s, and a swimming pool was installed in the backyard in 1992. In the late 1960s, a separate residence (268 E Merritt Ave) was built on the property, just east of the home.

Landmarks Present: Building Structure Object Site District Other__________________ Date Constructed: c. 1905-1907
Owner and City: Caleb & Hannah Byron/Tulare
Date Recorded:

Date Approved (For City Use Only):

Photograph
Attachments:

TULARE HISTORIC-CULTURAL LANDMARK NO. 10
FREW HOUSE (c. 1905-1907)
The Frew House is a unique two-story late Victorian residence which is the last surviving home from the original county tract known as Crocker Oak Park. It was the family home of J.H. Frew, one of the leading pioneers of Tulare’s creamery industry.

The two-story late Victorian home at 260 E. Merritt Avenue was built c. 1905-1907 for J.H. (James Harvey) Frew. At the time of its construction, the home was originally part of a new county subdivision tract north of the city of Tulare. In 1907, the Crocker Estate Company, which managed the vast amounts of California real estate holdings of railroad tycoon Charles Crocker, sold off and annexed 213-acres of Crocker lands adjacent to the northern city of limits of Tulare. The tract was named Crocker Oak Park and was bound to the north by present day Prosperity Avenue (County Road at the time), to the South at the city’s northern limits at Pleasant Avenue (County Road), to the East by current Gem Street and to the west by the SPRR tracks. A relatively small number of “farmlets” were part of the tract, most notably the opulent 41-acre mansion grounds of “The Oaks”, later known as “Merritt Manor.” The Frew home predates the construction of the Oaks mansion and is also the last surviving house of the original Crocker Oak Park subdivision. A 1908 Tulare Advance-Register newspaper article which describes some of the developments in the subdivision noted “Mr.

Frew’s handsome residence looms up conspicuously and is a structure that would grace any city.”
After the Hulett Merritt estate was dissolved in 1959 and the Merritt mansion was moved/torn down, the Merritt acreage in Crocker Oak Park was annexed into the city of Tulare in October of 1960. The county road which the Frew home fronted was subsequently renamed Merritt Avenue. Several years later, the remaining area of Crocker Oak Park just north of Merritt Avenue was annexed into the city in 1963. In November of that year, Tulare realtor Robert Sanders developed a new Tulare subdivision in that area, and the Frew home was absorbed into the new Colonial Estates. The subdivision is bound to the north by an area just south of Estate Drive, to the south by Merritt Avenue, to the east by M Street and to the west by Oaks Avenue (minus the southeast corner of Oaks & Merritt).

James Frew and his wife and three children lived at the residence from c. 1905-1919. Among other things at the ranch, Frew raised hogs, using the leftover buttermilk from his creamery to fatten them. In 1912, Frew’s 7-year old son Valen tragically died after falling 17-feet from the ladder of the ranch’s tank house. The young Frew remained unconscious for a week before succumbing to his injuries. By 1920, the family had moved into town to South O Street.

An addition was connected onto the home’s east side pre-1963. Incidentally, the addition does not share the same roof line as the original home, and most of the ground floor of the additional structure’s original western wall is separate, complete with windows which look out toward the original home’s eastern wall. It also does not have a basement, which the original house has. The addition seems most likely to have either been moved to that spot from another location from on or off the property, or was an existing structure at that spot, such as the aforementioned tank house and was converted into living space. An unattached carport/garage was added along with its own additions in the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s, and a swimming pool was installed in the backyard in 1992. In the late 1960s, a separate residence (268 E Merritt Ave) was built on the property, just east of the home.

The Frew residence has changed hands several times over its lifetime, including Harold and Elizabeth Evans, who had the home at the time of its annexation into the city and lived there for close to 20 years. The home’s current owners are Caleb and Hannah Byron, who purchased the home in May of 2025 after moving to Tulare from Modesto, CA.

James H. Frew was born in Iowa in 1862 and grew up on a farm in Nebraska after his family moved there when he was seven. Frew initially started out in life as a schoolteacher and principal for several schools throughout Nebraska. While living there, Frew married Lydia Houck in 1895, and their marriage bore a son, Myron in 1897 and a daughter, Bulah in 1899.

In 1900 the family moved to Iowa where Frew started in the dairy business, and in 1902 a second daughter, Alberta, was born. Frew eventually grew tired of their location in Iowa and decided to try his luck “out west,” moving the family to California and settling in Tulare in 1903 after purchasing the Tulare Butter Company.

The factory, located at the corner of Cross Avenue and J Street, had originally begun as an experimental skimming station in 1898 and was converted into the city’s first creamery in 1901. J.M. Estes, one of the original owners of the factory, stayed on in partnership with Frew for the first few months, until Frew bought out Estes’ interest in the operation and became sole owner. Five months after Frew began his operation, local area dairymen formed the Tulare Cooperative Creamery Association, precursor to DCCA (now Land O’ Lakes) and subsequently bought the plant from Frew, rather than trying to compete with him. Frew was retained as the manager for the new association until he left in November of that same year.

That same month, the Frew’s daughter Alberta died of sickness at 18 months old.

The following month, at the end of 1903 Frew, along with a former Butter Company coworker H.J. Barber, started a new creamery in the 100 block of North K Street. Initially named Tulare Butter, Company, it was renamed the Good Luck Creamery at the beginning of the new year. The creamery was operated by electricity and contained modern butter-making equipment, which could produce 1500 pounds of butter in a day. Frew’s Good Luck Creamery was the first in the area to ship sweet cream to the Los Angeles market and fetched higher prices than any other creamery in the area. In 1905, Frew expanded his family with the birth of his second son Valen, as well as his business interests, first investing in a wood yard in 1906, and then partnering with his previous creamery partner J.M. Estes in a land company in 1909.

In April of 1912 Frew expanded his interests in the creamery business and bought the Tipton Co-Operative Creamery. Later that same year, in September, in conjunction with an ongoing partnership with Charles McFarland, owner of the Jersey Dairy in Tulare, they formed the Tulare Sanitary Milk Company. As a result, Frew purchased what was left of the old Fair Oaks Creamery at the corner of South L Street and Inyo Avenue, expanded it and moved the Good Luck to that location. Along with its current creamery and milk productions, as part of the expansion, the new firm also took over the manufacturing business of the Tulare Ice Cream Company and began making and selling ‘Frew’s Ice Cream.’ Frew sold the creamery in 1920.

In 1921, Frew moved on to other ventures and purchased the Tulare Electric Hatchery business, which had begun the previous year as one of the first hatcheries in the San Joaquin Valley. Originally located on West Tulare Avenue in the Pratt Building (current Masonic Lodge building), Frew moved operations to J Street between Pine and Bush in 1922 and built a hatchery and cold storage plant there.

The following year, Frew sold his Tipton Creamery. In 1927, Frew, along with son-in-law W.E. McCallister Jr, started the Clover Leaf Confectionery inside the new Tulare Theater.

The confectionery was later sold in 1930 to Frew’s son Myron and Charles Ames. In 1932 the elder Frew returned to ice cream manufacturing, starting the new Tulare Ice Cream Company, along with partner Ray Gillman with a plant in Frew’s cold storage building on North J Street.

In 1943, James H. Shrew sold his electric hatchery and officially retired after 40 years as a businessman and entrepreneur in Tulare. He died three months later and is buried in the Tulare Cemetery. Along with his many business ventures, at various times throughout his life Shrew served as President of both the elementary and high school boards, a member of the Methodist Church board of trustees, notably when its sanctuary was built in 1913, and served on the City Board of Trustees (precursor to the Tulare City Council) from 1919-1920.

A 1933 Tulare Advance-Register newspaper article spotlighting Shrew as “’Sincere, honest, and conscientious,’ is the public’s estimate of him, and his endeavors in the industrial field have made history in which all Tulareans now voice pride and which stands as a lasting testimonial of his enterprise.”
--Compiled by Christopher Harrell, Tulare Historic-Cultural Landmark Advisory Committee, 2026

ORDINANCE 2026-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE
DESIGNATING THE FREW HOUSE, LOCATED AT 260 EAST MERRITT AVENUE, AS A HISTORIC

CULTURAL LANDMARK AND AMENDING THE CITY OF TULARE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1-6(H) (SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH HISTORIC SITE AND HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY), ZONE AMENDMENT NO. 774
WHEREAS, pursuant to Tulare Municipal Code Section 10.38.050, historic cultural landmarks are designated by ordinance and shown on the Official Zoning Map with the base zone district followed by the Historic Site and Historic Neighborhood Overlay Zone notation "(H)"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the property located at 260 East Merritt Avenue and commonly known as the Frew House satisfies the applicable criteria for designation as a historic cultural landmark pursuant to Tulare Municipal Code Section 10.38.040; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Tulare Municipal Code Section 10.86.030, the City Council finds that the proposed zone amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tulare General Plan and Title 10 of the Tulare Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed zone amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed zone amendment will maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City and that the anticipated use of the subject property is compatible with existing and future surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed zone amendment is exempt from Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Tulare as follows:

SECTION 1. The City of Tulare Zoning Map established pursuant to Tulare Municipal Code Section 10.06.040 is hereby amended to change the zoning designation of the property located at 260 East Merritt Avenue, Assessor's Parcel Number 170-032-035, from R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) to R-1-6(H) (Single-Family Residential with Historic Site and Historic Neighborhood Overlay), as shown on the map attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the other remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 15 of the Charter of the City of Tulare, it is ordered that a summary of this ordinance be published in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the City of Tulare for one day and that the ordinance be available in at least one public place at the City offices. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days from and after the date of its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tulare this XX day of XXXX 20XX, by the following vote:

ORDINANCE 2026-XX

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Patrick Isherwood, President of the Council
and Ex-Officio Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Wilcox, City Clerk
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the Tulare City Council.

Passed to Print:

Published:

Effective:

Item #: 8.2
Public Hearing
Staff Report
City Council
Date: October 6, 2026
Department: Community Development - Planning
Submitted by: Steven Sopp, Planning Manager
Agenda Title: General Plan Amendment No. 2026-03, Zone Amendment No. 773

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution approving and adopting General Plan Amendment No. 2026-03; and pass-to-print an ordinance amending the Zoning Map of the City being part of Section 10.06.040 of the Tulare Municipal Code (Zone Amendment No. 773).

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Economic Development

SUMMARY
The applicant, FTB AG2, LLC is requesting to adjust the general plan land use and zoning designations originally established for the Cartmill Crossings Master Plan and Annexation Project. The project is located on the northeast corner of Cartmill Avenue and SR-99.

On October 22, 2019, the City Council approved the Cartmill Crossings Project. The project included a request to annex into the City limits approximately 127-acres for a planned multi-use commercial and residential development as well as a General Plan Amendment, and Zone Amendment (Pre-zone). The project established five different land use designations, Regional Commercial, Low-Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, High-Density Residential, and Parks and Recreation, as well as corresponding zoning designations. The Project established a general layout of land uses but no specific site plan or uses were identified and it was anticipated that full buildout of the site would take roughly 20 years.

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project. The adopted EIR established mitigation measures, including the requirement for the applicant to “coordinate with the City on the necessary improvements for the future alignment of Akers Street so that it meets the City’s design standards for a major arterial roadway.”
Since approval of the Cartmill Crossings Project, the applicant has been working to market the property for future development and has been working to meet the mitigation measures adopted by the Project’s EIR. The applicant is proposing adjustments to the general plan land use and zoning designations (see attachments 1 and 2) in order to accommodate the future alignment of Akers Street and to make the project site more marketable for future development, based upon feedback the applicant received from perspective developers. The proposed changes constitute a minor redistribution of land uses for the project site and a refinement of the planned circulation network.

The Planning Commission reviewed the requested amendments and recommended approval 5-0 at is August 11, 2026, regular meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Addendum analyzing the proposed amendments was prepared to the existing Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Cartmill Crossings Project that was certified and adopted by City Council on October 22, 2019 (SCH# 2018111038) pursuant to provisions of Public Resources Code Sections 21000 to 21176, California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended.

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 and mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the subject property on September 24, 2026, which is at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION

1. Approve with changes

2. Deny

3. Table

ATTACHMENTS

1. Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Exhibit

2. Existing and Proposed Zoning Exhibit

3. Addendum to EIR for Cartmill Crossings Project

4. Resolution

5. Ordinance – Zone Amendment
Reviewed/Approved: MM

SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings
324 S Santa Fe, STE A
Visalia, CA
559.802.3052
[email protected]
www.4-creeks.com

EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
P4.0

PROPOSED GENERAL

PLAN LAND USE

EXISTING GENERAL

PLAN LAND USE
PREPARED BY:

LEGEND: LE

REGIONAL COMMERICIALPARKS & RECREATIONLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ITYHIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA:

TOTAL:

68.60 AC

7.00 AC

30.30 AC4.40 AC

7.70 AC126.80 AC
STREET RIGHT OF WAY 8.80 AC
LEGEND: LE

REGIONAL COMMERICIALPARKS & RECREATIONLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ITYHIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA:

TOTAL:

67.79 AC

7.06 AC

22.01 AC4.91 AC

6.00 AC
125.83 AC
STREET RIGHT OF WAY 18.07 AC 8.0

SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings
324 S Santa Fe, STE A
Visalia, CA
559.802.3052
[email protected]
www.4-creeks.com

EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING
P2.0
ʸˋʼˆˇʼˁʺˍ˂ˁʼˁʺ ˃˅˂˃˂ˆʸʷ ˍ˂ˁʼˁʺ
PREPARED BY:

LEGEND:

C-3 67.79 AC
PR 7.06 ACR-1-6 22.01 ACRM 4.91 ACRH-14 6.00 AC
AREA:

TOTAL: 125.83 AC
ROW 18.07 AC
LEGEND:

C-3 68.60 AC
PR 7.00 ACR-1-6 30.30 ACRM 4.40 ACRH-14 7.70 AC
AREA:

TOTAL: 126.80 AC
ROW 8.80 AC

CITY OF TULARE
411 East Kern Street
Tulare, CA 93274

CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Project Title:

Lead Agency:

Cartmill Crossings
City of Tulare
Contact: Steven Sopp, Principal Planner
411 East Kern Street
Tulare, CA 93274
(559) 684-4223
Project Applicant: FTB 4G2, LLC
Applicant Agent: 4Creeks, Inc.

Contact: Emileo Padilla Chavez
324 South Santa Fe Street
Visalia, CA 93292
(559) 802-3052

PROJECT BACKGROUND
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. It describes minor revisions to the Cartmill Crossings Project (proposed project) that was evaluated in June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The City of Tulare certified the EIR and approved the project in 2019.

The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate a revised site configuration that modifies the internal layout of land uses and circulation while retaining all previously approved acreages, land-use intensities, and overall development program. The City has determined that these modifications are within the scope of the certified EIR and that no further environmental review is required.

SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT
This Addendum addresses revisions to the conceptual site plan for the Cartmill Crossings Project located at the NWC of Cartmill Avenue and Highway 99. The revisions consist of a reconfigured internal street network and a redistribution of residential and commercial densities and the park/retention basin within the residential portion of the site. The project retains the same development acreage, with insignificant changes or reductions to land use Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
allocations as analyzed in the 2019 EIR.

The total amount of acres dedicated to residential development may experience an insignificant reduction once actual right of way dedication is determined.

The Applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Amendment to further delineate zoning designations to better facilitate future development on the site.

The modifications have been assessed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. This Addendum confirms that the revised configuration does not involve new significant environmental effects, does not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects, and does not require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

This document includes an introduction, a description of the revised project elements, an analysis of potential environmental impacts relative to the certified EIR, and a determination that no additional environmental review is required.

ADDENDUM REQUIREMENTS
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), which states that an addendum to a certified EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) provides that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following has occurred:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

This Addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the certified EIR in a manner that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible means of mitigating or avoiding such an effect.

The City of Tulare shall consider this Addendum together with the certified EIR as part of its review and approval of the revised project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Previous CEQA Documentation
The City of Tulare prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cartmill Crossings Project in June 2019 (SCH# 2018111038). The DEIR evaluated a 125.83-acre mixed-use development consisting of approximately 67.79 acres of commercial uses, 32,92 acres of residential uses (22.01 acres low-density, 4.91 acres medium-density, and 6 acres high-density), and 7.06 acres of parkland, together with associated 18.07 acres for circulation, infrastructure, and utility improvements. The approved project included General Plan Amendment, pre-zoning, and annexation.

The original conceptual site plan (Figure 2-4 of the DEIR) placed the low-density residential area in the northeastern portion of the site, with medium-density residential to the west, highdensity residential to the southeast, and the park northeast of the high-density residential area.

Collector A followed a curved alignment.

Figure 2-4 of the DEIR
Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Revised Project Elements
The revised project retains the same total acreage and land-use allocations as the project analyzed in the EIR. The only changes are to the internal configuration of the residential area and the alignment of Collector A, as described below:
• The proposed extension of Akers Street will retain the same design as previously approved.
• Collector A will be designed to extend due north, perpendicular to Akers Street, rather than following the previously curved alignment. Collectors B and C will retain their previously approved designs.
• The Park and Basin Area will be relocated to the northeast corner of the site, east of Collector A.
• High-density residential development will be located directly south of the Park area and east of Collector A.
• Medium-density residential development will be located directly south of the highdensity residential area and east of Collector A. • Low-density residential development will extend from the western edge of the site to Collector A (rather than from the eastern edge to Collector B, as shown in the original conceptual plan).
• These revisions constitute a minor redistribution of approved land uses within the project site and a refinement of the internal circulation network. The acreages associated with the previous EIR and the refined acreages are contained in the table below.

Per the table provided above, the proposed es
within su onformanc the previo
Zoning Original CAD, with ROW added New CAD, with ROW added % diff Overall 125.826 acres 125.826 acres 0.0%
Commercial 81.312 acres 79.815 acres -1.84%
Low-density 25.952 acres 25.946 acres <0.1%
Medium-density 5.286 acres 5.291 acres <0.1%
High-density 4.980 acres 6.478 acres +30%
Parkland 8.296 acres 8.296 acres
Per the table provided above, the proposed zoning acreages are within substantial conformance when compared to the previous EIR zoning acreages. The reduction in the overall commercial acreage benefits the overall project site by adding the removed acreage into the high-density residential acreage. With these changes, the project still meets the original intent of the previously provided EIR.

0.0%
Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report

ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Aesthetics
Section 3.1 of the 2019 EIR analyzed the visual conditions of the Cartmill Crossings Project site and surrounding area. The site is located in a predominantly agricultural and rural setting immediately north of the City of Tulare, adjacent to State Route 99 and Cartmill Avenue. The Revised Project involves only minor modifications to the internal site configuration and circulation layout while retaining the same overall development footprint, land-use acreages, building intensities, and maximum building heights as analyzed in the EIR.

The Revised Project would not substantially impact a scenic vista or damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. No State-designated scenic highways are located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Distant views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains may be available under clear conditions from portions of the site; however, these views are not considered significant scenic vistas in the context of the EIR, and the internal reconfiguration of land uses would not obstruct or substantially alter any such views.

The relocation of the park and retention basin to the northeast corner of the site, the realignment of Collector A to a perpendicular configuration, and the redistribution of residential densities would result in a slightly different internal arrangement of buildings, landscaping, and open space. These changes would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The overall conversion of agricultural land to urban development remains the same as analyzed in the EIR, and the visual transition from open farmland to a mixed-use neighborhood would be comparable in scale and intensity.

Exterior lighting associated with the residential, commercial, and park areas would be installed in accordance with the City of Tulare’s lighting standards and the mitigation measures identified in the EIR (Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-3, or equivalent measures adopted in the EIR). These measures require shielding and downward direction of light fixtures to minimize light trespass and glare onto adjacent properties. The Revised Project does not introduce any new sources of lighting beyond those already analyzed, nor does it increase the overall amount of lighting. Any minor adjustments to the location of lighting along the reconfigured Collector A or within the relocated park area would be reviewed by City staff during final design to ensure compliance with applicable standards. No new significant light or glare impacts would occur.

The changes to the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant impacts to aesthetics would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Section 3.2 of the 2019 EIR analyzed the impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. The EIR determined that the Project would result in the conversion of approximately 120 acres of farmland (including Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance) to nonagricultural use. This impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. No forestry resources exist on or adjacent to the Project site.

The Revised Project retains the identical development footprint and total acreage as the project analyzed in the EIR. The internal reconfiguration of residential densities and the relocation of the park and retention basin do not alter the total area of farmland to be converted, nor do they change the Project’s conflict with existing agricultural zoning or any Williamson Act contracts (none of which apply to the site). The Revised Project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land beyond what was already evaluated and determined to be significant and unavoidable in the EIR.

No new impacts to agricultural or forest resources would occur as a result of the Revised Project. The significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR remains unchanged in both magnitude and significance.

Air Quality
Section 3.3 of the 2019 EIR analyzed the air quality impacts of the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR evaluated both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions associated with the full development program, including residential, commercial, and park uses. All emissions were determined to be less than significant with implementation of the required mitigation measures and compliance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) rules, including the Indirect Source Review (ISR) Rule.

The Revised Project involves only minor modifications to the internal site configuration and circulation layout while retaining the same total development acreage, land-use allocations, building intensities, and overall trip generation as analyzed in the EIR. Consequently, total construction emissions and long-term operational emissions (including criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants) remain unchanged from those evaluated in the EIR.

The re-alignment of Collector A and the redistribution of residential densities and the park/retention basin within the site would not increase the amount of ground disturbance, construction equipment activity, or fugitive dust beyond what was already analyzed. Any minor changes in localized traffic circulation patterns resulting from the revised street alignment are expected to be negligible and would not result in a measurable increase in vehicle emissions or idling. The project will continue to comply with all SJVAPCD requirements, including the ISR Rule, and will implement the air quality mitigation measures identified in the EIR (including Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, or equivalent measures adopted therein).

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
the 2019 EIR. No new significant air quality impacts would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Biological Resources
Section 3.4 of the 2019 EIR analyzed the impacts to biological resources associated with the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR determined that the project site consists of highly disturbed agricultural land with limited biological value. Potential impacts to special-status species (such as nesting birds and burrowing mammals) and the implementation of standard avoidance and minimization measures were addressed through Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 (or equivalent measures adopted in the EIR). All impacts were reduced to less than significant levels. The EIR also concluded that the project would not impact riparian habitats, wetlands, wildlife corridors, or other sensitive natural communities.

The Revised Project consists of minor internal reconfiguration of land uses and circulation within the same 120-acre development footprint analyzed in the EIR. The relocation of the park and retention basin and the re-alignment of Collector A would occur entirely within areas previously identified as disturbed agricultural land. No new areas of native habitat, riparian vegetation, wetlands, or wildlife corridors would be affected. The potential for impacts to special-status species remains the same as analyzed in the EIR, and the same mitigation measures would continue to apply.

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new impacts to biological resources would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Cultural Resources
Section 3.5 of the 2019 EIR analyzed the impacts to cultural resources associated with the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR identified the potential for encountering previously unidentified archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources during ground-disturbing activities. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 were identified to address inadvertent discoveries and reduce impacts to less than significant levels. No known significant cultural resources were identified on the project site.

The Revised Project involves only minor modifications to the internal layout of the site. All ground-disturbing activities associated with the reconfigured residential areas, relocated park and retention basin, and re-aligned Collector A would occur within the same overall development footprint previously analyzed in the EIR. The potential to encounter unidentified cultural or paleontological resources therefore remains unchanged.

The Revised Project would continue to implement the cultural resource mitigation measures identified in the EIR. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur relative to those identified in the Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
2019 EIR. No new impacts to cultural resources would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Energy
Section 6.5 of the 2019 EIR analyzed the energy impacts associated with the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR evaluated energy consumption during both construction and long-term operations and concluded that the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, nor would it conflict with applicable state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. All impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The Revised Project involves only minor modifications to the internal site configuration and circulation layout while retaining the identical development program, acreages, building intensities, and overall energy demand as analyzed in the EIR. The re-alignment of Collector A and the redistribution of residential densities and the park/retention basin would not increase the total amount of energy required for construction or long-term operations. Any minor changes in the location of buildings, parking areas, or lighting fixtures within the site would not result in a measurable increase in energy consumption.

The Revised Project would continue to implement the energy conservation measures and design features identified in the EIR, including compliance with the California Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant impacts to energy resources would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Geology and Soils
Section 3.6 of the 2019 EIR analyzed the geological, seismic, and soil conditions of the Cartmill Crossings Project site. The EIR determined that the site is located in a region with low to moderate seismic risk and that potential impacts related to ground shaking, liquefaction, expansive soils, and soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of standard engineering practices and compliance with the California Building Code. No significant geological or soil constraints were identified that would preclude development.

The Revised Project consists of minor internal reconfiguration of land uses and circulation within the same 120-acre development footprint previously analyzed in the EIR. All construction activities, including grading, excavation, and paving associated with the re-aligned Collector A, relocated park and retention basin, and redistributed residential areas, would occur within areas already evaluated for geological and soil conditions. The inherent geological and seismic setting of the site remains unchanged.

Any soil disturbance resulting from the Revised Project would be temporary and would be managed through the same erosion control measures, grading standards, and geotechnical Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
recommendations identified in the EIR. The Revised Project would not introduce new areas of disturbance or alter the overall extent of grading beyond what was previously analyzed. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant impacts related to geology or soils would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section 3.7 of the 2019 EIR analyzed the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR quantified both construction and operational GHG emissions and determined that the project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, nor would it conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. All impacts were found to be less than significant.

The Revised Project retains the same total development acreage, with insignificant changes or reductions to land-use allocations.
as the project analyzed in the 2019 EIR. Consequently, total construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions remain unchanged. The internal reconfiguration of the site, including the re-alignment of Collector A and the relocation of the park and residential densities, would not result in any measurable increase in vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, or other sources of GHG emissions.

The Revised Project would continue to implement all GHG reduction measures and design features identified in the EIR, including compliance with applicable state and local regulations.

No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 3.8 of the 2019 EIR analyzed impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials for the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR determined that the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. All impacts were found to be less than significant.

The Revised Project consists of minor internal reconfiguration of land uses and circulation within the same 120-acre development footprint analyzed in the EIR. All construction activities would occur on land previously used for agriculture and already evaluated for hazardous materials conditions in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix E of the EIR). No Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
new areas of potential contamination would be disturbed, and the project would continue to implement the same best management practices and regulatory compliance measures identified in the EIR.

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 3.9 of the 2019 EIR analyzed impacts to hydrology and water quality for the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR determined that the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, or result in significant impacts related to flooding, erosion, or siltation. A retention basin was included in the project design to manage stormwater, and all impacts were reduced to less than significant levels through project design and compliance with applicable regulations.

The Revised Project involves only minor internal reconfiguration, including relocation of the park and retention basin to the northeast corner of the site. The overall amount of impervious surface, total drainage area, and stormwater management approach remain consistent with the project analyzed in the EIR. The relocated retention basin would continue to provide the same function of detaining and treating stormwater prior to discharge. The project would continue to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction and comply with all requirements of the Tulare Metropolitan Flood Control District and the City of Tulare.

The Revised Project would not result in significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No significant new impacts on hydrology or water quality would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Land Use and Planning
Section 3.10 of the 2019 EIR analyzed land use and planning impacts for the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR concluded that the project would be consistent with the City of Tulare General Plan, applicable zoning, and all relevant land use policies, and would not result in significant land use conflicts or division of an established community.

The Revised Project consists of minor adjustments to the internal layout of residential and commercial areas, the park, and Collector A within the same 120-acre site and the same land use designations analyzed in the EIR. The project would continue to implement the General Plan Amendment, pre-zoning, and annexation approvals previously analyzed. No changes to the overall land use program or intensity are proposed.

Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
The Revised Project would not result in significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant land use or planning impacts would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Noise
Section 3.11 of the 2019 EIR analyzed potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Cartmill Crossings Project. The EIR determined that construction noise would be temporary and less than significant with implementation of standard best management practices, and that operational noise (including traffic and stationary sources) would not exceed applicable thresholds.

The Revised Project consists of minor internal site reconfiguration. Construction activities would occur within the same overall footprint and during the same hours previously analyzed. The realignment of Collector A and relocation of land uses would not result in any measurable increase in traffic noise or stationary noise sources beyond what was evaluated in the EIR.

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant noise impacts would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Population and Housing
Section 3.12 of the 2019 EIR analyzed impacts to population and housing. The EIR concluded that the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, displace existing housing or people, or require construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The Revised Project involves only internal reconfiguration of land uses within the approved development program. The Revised Project retains the same total development acreage, with insignificant changes or reductions to land-use allocations as analyzed in the 2019 EIR.

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new impacts to population or housing would occur.

Public Services
Section 3.13 of the 2019 EIR analyzed impacts to public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, and other governmental facilities. The EIR determined that the project would not require the construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios or response times.

The Revised Project consists of minor internal reconfiguration, including relocation of the park within the same site. The overall demand for public services remains unchanged from the Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
project analyzed in the EIR. The relocated park would continue to serve the same recreational function.

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant impacts to public services would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Recreation
Section 3.14 of the 2019 EIR analyzed impacts to recreation. The EIR determined that the project would provide adequate park and recreational facilities to serve the new population and would not result in significant adverse impacts to existing recreational facilities.

The Revised Project involves relocation of the seven-acre park and retention basin to the northeast corner of the site while maintaining the same total acreage of parkland. No reduction in recreational facilities or increase in demand beyond what was analyzed would occur.

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant recreation impacts would occur.

Transportation/Traffic
Section 3.15 of the 2019 EIR analyzed transportation and traffic impacts. The EIR included a detailed traffic study (Appendix G) and concluded that the project, with identified improvements, would not result in significant impacts to intersection or roadway operations under level of service (LOS) metrics then in effect.

After the certification of the EIR, California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) established vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary performance metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA, replacing LOS. A comprehensive VMT Analysis and Mitigation Report, dated July 2, 2026, was prepared for the Project (for the revised site configuration analyzed in this Addendum) by 4Creeks, Inc. The analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Tulare's Implementing Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds in CEQA Analysis Required by SB 743 guidance, dated June 2020.

Project Screening
The Project was evaluated against the City's screening criteria. The Project is expected to generate approximately 27,841 average daily trips and therefore does not screen out on the basis of low trip generation. The Project is not located within 0.5 miles of an existing major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor. It does not consist of affordable housing or qualify as locally serving retail under the applicable definitions for screening. Map-based screening by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ #2782) indicates an average trip distance of 9.94 miles, Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
representing a 13.4% reduction from the regional average of 11.48 miles. However, this does not meet the City's 15% reduction target threshold. Accordingly, a detailed VMT analysis is required.

VMT Analysis
VMT was quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) methodology, consistent with the air quality analysis prepared for the Project DEIR (referenced in Appendix B of the VMT Report). The unmitigated annual VMT for the Project is 51,927,768. The mitigated annual VMT (after application of project design features and applicable measures from the DEIR) is 23,152,395. Based on this analysis, the Project has a potentially significant impact on regional VMT prior to mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
In accordance with the City of Tulare SB 743 Implementation Guidance and the County of Tulare SB 743 Guidelines, when a project results in an increase in VMT above adopted thresholds, feasible mitigation measures or alternatives must be identified to reduce the impact. The preferred method of VMT mitigation in the County is the provision of transportation improvements that facilitate travel by walking, bicycling, or transit. The cost of VMT mitigation is assessed at $20 per average daily trip generated by the project. The VMT Mitigation Fee is calculated as follows:

VMT Mitigation Fee = Average Daily Trip Rate × $20 = 27,841 × $20 = $556,820 Projects that mitigate through payment of the VMT fee can be presumed to achieve at least a 1% reduction in VMT for CEQA reporting purposes and to result in a less-than-significant impact on regional VMT. The fee shall be paid with the issuance of building permits for each parcel, with proceeds directed to a VMT mitigation bank to be established by the City.

In addition to the fee, 4Creeks recommends a multi-faceted approach including implementation of all feasible project-level mitigation measures. Recommended on-site facility improvements to reduce net VMT include:
• Provide adequate lighting for sidewalks and crosswalks, especially at locations where conflict with vehicle traffic is expected.
• Provide benches and trash cans throughout the project site to encourage walkability. • Provide bike racks near building entrances.
• Provide sidewalk connectivity between buildings that creates the shortest path of travel. • Provide bike storage for employees and consider offering showers and changing areas. • Consider coordination with area transit providers to create a new bus stop along an existing route, including potential construction of a bus shelter, trash can, and lighting. • Implement a Travel Demand Management (TDM) program for employees at the proposed retail area, which may include subsidizing transit passes, facilitating ridesharing and vanpools, and providing on-site amenities for bicycle commuting.

Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mitigation for the proposed project has been established in the amount of $556,820. Table 1 represents the total mitigation fee obligation calculated to offset the project's estimated VMT impacts pursuant to CEQA and the applicable local VMT mitigation program.

The subject project will incorporate a range of on-site and frontage improvements that are eligible to be credited against the mitigation fee obligation. These improvements are anticipated to satisfy nearly all, if not-the-entirety, of the required $556,820 in mitigation fees.

Based on preliminary cost estimates, the anticipated construction and implementation costs of these project improvements are expected to equal or exceed the $556,820 mitigation fee amount. Accordingly, the project's contribution toward VMT mitigation will be satisfied, in whole or substantial part, through direct implementation of these improvements rather than through payment of fees alone.

The VMT impact and associated mitigation measures (fee and project-level design/TDM measures) are attributable to the overall development program and are not caused by or materially altered by the minor revisions to the internal site configuration and circulation layout. With implementation of the identified mitigation, the Project's VMT impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Section 3.16 of the 2019 EIR analyzed impacts to tribal cultural resources. The EIR concluded that potential impacts would be less than significant. Consultation under AB 52 was conducted, and no responses requiring additional measures were received.

The Revised Project involves only internal site reconfiguration within the same development footprint previously surveyed and analyzed. The potential to encounter tribal cultural resources remains unchanged.

The Revised Project would continue to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3.

No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new impacts to tribal cultural resources would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Utilities and Service Systems
Section 3.13 of the 2019 EIR analyzed impacts on utilities and service systems, including water supply, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste. The EIR concluded that the project would not result in significant impacts to these systems, with adequate capacity available to serve the development.

Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
The Revised Project involves only minor internal reconfiguration. Total water demand, wastewater generation, and solid waste production remain unchanged from the project analyzed in the EIR. The relocated retention basin would continue to provide the same stormwater management function. All utility infrastructure would be installed within the same overall development footprint.

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new significant impacts to utilities and service systems would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Wildfire
Section 6.4 (and related discussion in Section 3.8) of the 2019 EIR analyzed wildfire impacts. The EIR determined that the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and that development of the site would not introduce uses or materials that would significantly increase wildfire risk.

The Revised Project consists of minor internal reconfiguration within the same urbanizing agricultural site. No changes to the overall land use pattern or introduction of new wildfireprone uses would occur.

The Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2019 EIR. No new wildfire impacts would occur.

CONCLUSION
Based on the evaluation provided above and in accordance with the criteria outlined in the "Addendum Requirements" section, implementing the Revised Project would not meet any of the conditions that would necessitate the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Thus, this Addendum satisfies the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164.

The Revised Project consists of minor modifications to the internal site configuration and circulation layout of the Cartmill Crossings Project while retaining the same total development acreage, land use allocations, building intensities, and overall environmental effects as analyzed in the 2019 Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). These changes would not introduce new significant environmental effects, substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects, or demonstrate that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible would be feasible. The proposed revisions would not alter the findings in the 2019 Final EIR.

A VMT Analysis and Mitigation Report prepared in July 2026 confirms that, while the Project results in a potentially significant VMT impact under current CEQA standards (SB 743), implementation of feasible mitigation measures, including payment of a VMT Mitigation Fee of $556,820 and project-level multimodal design and TDM measures, would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. These measures are attributable to the overall approved Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
development program and are not triggered by the minor internal revisions. With these measures, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on regional VMT.

In addition, no change has occurred with respect to the circumstances surrounding the proposed Project that would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than identified in the 2019 Final EIR, and no new information has become available that shows that the Project would cause significant environmental effects not already analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum to the 2019 Final EIR.

SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Supplemental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to support the CEQA Addendum to the June 2019 certified EIR for the Cartmill Crossings Project.

It provides the new VMT mitigation measures identified in the July 2, 2026 VMT Analysis and Mitigation Report and incorporated into the Addendum.

All mitigation measures adopted as part of the certified 2019 EIR remain in full effect. Those measures shall continue to be implemented, monitored, and reported in accordance with the protocols established in the certified EIR and its associated MMRP. This Supplemental MMRP does not replace or supersede the 2019 MMRP, it supplements it with the additional VMT-related requirements necessary to reduce the project’s transportation impact to a less than significant level under current CEQA standards (SB 743).

Mitigation Measure ImplementationTiming Responsible for Implementation
TRA-5: VMT Mitigation Fee: Pay a total VMT Mitigation
Fee of $556,820 (calculated as 27,841 average daily
trips × $20 per trip) to the City of Tulare VMT Mitigation Bank. Payment shall be made on a proportional basis
with the issuance of building permits for each parcel or development phase.

Prior to issuance of each building
permit (or as agreed in an
approved phasing plan)
Project Applicant /
Developer
TRA-6: Project-Level Multimodal Design and Site
Improvements: Implement the following on-site
features to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit
use:
• Adequate lighting for sidewalks and crosswalks
(especially at vehicle conflict points)
• Benches and trash receptacles throughout the site
• Bicycle racks near building entrances
• Continuous sidewalk connectivity providing
shortest practical paths of travel
• Secure bicycle storage for employees; consider
showers/changing facilities where feasible•
Coordination with transit providers for new bus
stop (shelter, lighting, trash) if feasible.

Prior to Certificate of Occupancy for
applicable buildings
Project Applicant /
Developer
Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
TRA-7: Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program
for Retail / Commercial Employees: Implement a TDM
program for employees of commercial/retail uses that
may include: subsidized transit passes, facilitation of ridesharing and vanpools, and on-site amenities
supporting bicycle commuting.

Prior to first commercial Certificate
of Occupancy; ongoing during
operation
Project Applicant /
Developer (or
subsequent
property owner /
tenants)
Cartmill Crossings
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Attachment A: VMT Analysis and
Mitigation Report (July 2, 2026)
Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis and Mitigation Report Vesta (Cartmill Crossing) Development
Tulare, CA
July 16, 2026
Prepared By:
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S. Santa Fe Street, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Lisa Wallis-Dutra, RCE 71262, TR 1888, PTOE, RSP1
Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
Introduction
This report presents a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for the proposed Vesta (Cartmill Crossing) Development (Project) in the City of Tulare. The analysis was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis requirements. This analysis was prepared in conjunction with the City of Tulare’s Implementing Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds in CEQA Analysis Required by SB 743 guidance, dated June 2020.

Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) replaced level of service (LOS) for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the new performance measure used in CEQA transportation analysis. Land development projects are compared to various screening criteria and significance thresholds to determine if the level of VMT for the given project would be deemed to have significant impacts.

Project Information
The Project (APNs 149-230-010, 149-230-019, 149-230-020, and 149-230-021) consists of a total acreage of 125.83 acres with existing and proposed zoning designated as C-3, PR, R-1-6, RM, and RH-14. The City of Tulare General Plan designates the proposed land use for this area as Regional Commercial, Parks & Recreation, LDR, MDR, and HDR. Access to the site is anticipated via Akers Street and two collector roads (Collector A and Collector B). The proposed zoning exhibit of the Project is shown on Figure 1.

The CEQA Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was put together to evaluate a revised site configuration that modified the internal layout of land uses and circulation, while retaining all previously approved acreages, land-use intensities, and the overall development program. The City has determined that these modifications are within the scope of the certified EIR and that no further environmental review is required.

The Addendum addresses minor revisions to the conceptual site plan for the Project. The revisions consist of reconfigurations to the internal street network and a redistribution of residential densities within the residential portion of the site. All other aspects of the Project remain unchanged from the original project concept analyzed in the DEIR. The modifications have been assessed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions of the internal configuration of the residential area and alignment of Collector A constitute a minor redistribution of approved land uses and no changes are proposed to the overall development program, density, unit count, commercial acreage, park acreage, or any off-site improvements previously analyzed in the DEIR.
2 MAY 2026

CARTMILL CROSSING

PROPOSED ZONING EXHIBIT
ENTITLEMENTS REQUIRED:
- SITE PLAN REVIEW
SITE INFORMATION:

APN: 149-230-010, 149-230-019, 149-230-020, 149-230-021 GROSS AREA: ± 125.83 AC
FLOOD ZONE: X
JURISDICTION: CITY OF TULARE
EXISTING ZONING: C-3, PR, R-1-6, RM, RH-14
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, PARKS &

RECREATION, LDR, MDR, HDR
EXISTING USE: VACANT
PROJECT INFORMATION:

PROPOSED ZONING: C-3, PR, R-1-6, RM, RH-14
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, PARKS &

RECREATION, LDR, MDR, HDR
PROPOSED USE: RETAIL, PARKS, LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM & HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL
LEGEND:

AREA:

C-3 67.79 AC
PR 7.06 AC
R-1-6 22.01 AC
RM 4.91 AC
RH-14 6.00 AC
STREET ROW 18.07 AC
TOTAL: 125.83 AC

PROJECT SITE

CARTMILL AVE

VICINITY MAP
NTS
CITYOF
TULARE
PREPARED BY:
324S Santa Fe, STEA
Visalia, CA
559.802.3052
[email protected]
www.4-creeks.com

SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings

PROPOSED ZONING EXHIBIT
P1.0

AKERS ST

COLLECTOR A
Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
Project Screening
The Project was evaluated based on guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and implementation guidelines and the City of Tulare’s SB 743 Implementation guidance. The OPR technical advisory suggests that VMT analysis is not needed for projects that meet certain criteria. The City of Tulare SB 743 Implementation Guidance notes that the following types of projects typically screen out from requiring a detailed VMT analysis:
• Projects that generate less than 110 trips per day.
• Projects within 0.5-mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor.
• Affordable housing projects.
• Transit/bike/pedestrian enhancement projects and street safety projects. • Schools, parks, public facility, or public safety facilities. • Locally serving retail.
• Map-based screening by traffic analysis zone (TAZ).

The Project is expected to generate an estimated 28,000 daily trips, so it cannot be excluded based on daily trips. The Project is not located within 0.5-mile of a major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor. The Project does not consist of affordable housing, nor does it fall into the criterion of transit/bike/pedestrian enhancement or public facility improvement.

Projects that are categorized as local-serving retail can be screened out under the presumption that those projects create less-than-significant impacts. The OPR and Caltrans define “locally-serving retail” as commercial development that primarily meets the daily convenience and shopping needs of a localized population, replacing longer trips with shorter, more localized ones. This criterion relies on square footage and service-area, which is not clearly lined out in the City of Tulare’s SB 743 Implementation Guidance. However, engineering judgement indicates that the Project, with its 68.6 acres of commercial uses as well as low-, medium-, and high-density residential, does not meet this definition and therefore does not screen-out based on this criteria.

The Project is located within TAZ #2782 in the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) regional model. The County average trip distance in miles traveled is 11.48 miles. The average trip distance of TAZ #2782 is 9.94 miles, according to Figure 1 in the City of Tulare’s SB 743 Implementation Guidance – see Appendix A. This average trip distance represents a

13.4% reduction from the regional average, but it does not meet the City’s 15% reduction target goal from the regional average. The Project does not meet this or any other screening criteria and therefore requires a detailed VMT analysis. The Project has a potentially significant impact on regional VMT.
4 Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
Analysis
The City of Tulare SB 743 Implementation Guidance mandates that projects that do not meet the screen-out criteria are required to provide analysis of project VMT. One of the acceptable VMT quantification methods is using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to estimate VMT for a project based on the number of vehicle trips generated by the type of land use and multiplying by the average miles per trip. This is the analysis method that was used for this Project. The CalEEMod analysis that was conducted for the Air Quality Analysis for the Project DEIR was referenced for this portion of the VMT analysis – see Appendix B.

The unmitigated annual VMT for the project, using the CalEEMod analysis included in the DEIR, is 51,927,768. The mitigated annual VMT for the Project is 23,152,395. The vehicle trips were adjusted to closely match the traffic study included in the DEIR and were estimated at 27,841 average daily trips. The Project has a significant impact on regional VMT.

Mitigation
The City of Tulare SB 743 Implementation Guidance indicates that if a project results in an increase in VMT above the thresholds adopted by the City, the project must identify feasible mitigations or alternatives that could substantially reduce the project’s significant environmental impacts. Per the City’s Guidelines, VMT mitigation techniques fall into the following categories: location design and urban form, public works/transportation infrastructure improvements, transit upgrades, and transportation demand management.

The County of Tulare SB 743 Guidelines (June 2020) state that the preferred method of VMT mitigation in the county is for project applicants to provide transportation improvements that facilitate travel by walking, bicycling, or transit. Per the County Guidelines, the cost of VMT mitigation should be assessed at $20 per average daily trip generated by the project. The CalEEMod report included in the DEIR (see Appendix B) lists the average weekday daily trip rate for the project as 27,841 trips. It is recommended that the VMT mitigation fee be assessed by zoning classification as shown in Table 1 in accordance with the equation below.

VMT Mitigation Fee = Average Daily Trip Rate x $20 Per Trip 5 Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
Table 1: VMT Mitigation Fee by Zone
Projects that mitigate according to the VMT fee can be presumed to be a 1% reduction in VMT for reporting purposes and that the project will have a less-than-significant impact on regional VMT. 4Creeks recommends that a multi-faceted approach be utilized to mitigate Project-related VMT impacts, namely:
• Pay an impact fee with the building permit issuance of each parcel to the City, to be placed in a VMT mitigation bank to be created at a later date. • Take into account the mitigation fees paid to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which are based in part on VMT generated by the Project. • Implement all feasible Project-level mitigation measures.

Project-Level Mitigation Strategies
4Creeks recommends implementation of multiple measures that take advantage of the Project’s location to encourage the use of transit and other non-automobile modes by employees and customers. Preferred mitigation measures can be categorized as site and frontage design improvements that facilitate multimodal transportation and the consideration to implement a travel demand management (TDM) program for employees at the proposed retail area. A TDM program may include measures for subsidizing transit passes, facilitating ride sharing and vanpools, and/or providing on-site amenities for bicycle commuting, such as secured storage, showers, and changing areas.

On-site facility improvement opportunities would help reduce the net increase in VMT. The following improvements are recommended for further consideration:
• Provide adequate lighting for sidewalk and crosswalks, especially at locations where conflict with vehicle traffic is expected.
• Provide benches and trash cans throughout the project site to encourage walkability. • Provide bike racks near entrances.
• Provide sidewalk connectivity between buildings that create the shortest path of travel.
6 Zoning VMT Mitigation Fee
RH-14 (High-Density Multiple Family
Residential)
PR (Park) $1,860.00
RM (Medium-Density Multiple Family
Residential)
$5,900.00
C-3 (Retail) $497,160.00
R-1-6 (Low-Density Single Family
Residential)
Total VMT Mitigation Fee
$26,840.00
$25,060.00
$556,820.00
Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
• Provide bike storage for employees, and consider offering showers and changing areas.
• Consider coordination with area transit to create a new bus stop along an existing route. Consider construction of a new bus shelter, trash can, and lighting.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mitigation for the proposed project has been established in the amount of $556,820. Table 1 represents the total mitigation fee obligation calculated to offset the project's estimated VMT impacts pursuant to CEQA and the applicable local VMT mitigation program.

The subject project will incorporate a range of on-site and frontage improvements that are eligible to be credited against the mitigation fee obligation. These improvements are anticipated to satisfy nearly all, if not-the-entirety, of the required $556,820 in mitigation fees.

Based on preliminary cost estimates, the anticipated construction and implementation costs of these project improvements are expected to equal or exceed the $556,820 mitigation fee amount. Accordingly, the project's contribution toward VMT mitigation will be satisfied, in whole or substantial part, through direct implementation of these improvements rather than through payment of fees alone.

Summary and Conclusion
With implementation of project-level mitigation strategies via the VMT Mitigation Fee assessed for the Project, the Project can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on regional VMT
7 Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
Appendix A
City of Tulare SB 743 Implementation Guidance
Implementing Vehicle Miles
Traveled Thresholdsin CEQA
Analysis Required by SB 743
Community & Economic Development Department
To: Traci Myers, Director – Community & Economic Development Department Michael Miller, P.E. – City Engineer
From: Mario Anaya, Principal Planner
Re: Proposed Process and Thresholds for Assessing Vehicle Miles Traveled for Development Projects Starting July 1, 2020
Date: June 26, 2020
Senate Bill 743
California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013. It required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts of a proposed project under CEQA. The primary goals of SB 743 are:
• Combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and particulates from mobile (automobile) sources.
• Encourage and help streamline infill development and a diversity of uses instead of typical suburban sprawl development patterns.
• Promote multi-modal transportation networks.
• Eliminate the use of LOS impacts under CEQA as barriers used to stop or delay development of infill residential, commercial, and office projects in congested, though economically vibrant, infill areas.

OPR has decided on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the preferred metric to evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA, which will be mandatory and replace LOS starting July 1, 2020. Transportation and land use planning research shows that VMT used as a performance metric is a much better measure of the true environmental impacts, including secondary impacts such as GHG and AQ impacts, on the transportation system as a whole, and on a City’s increasing costs of maintaining infrastructure for sprawl development.

Project Screening
Many agencies use screening thresholds to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. OPR’s technical advisory suggests that VMT analysis is not needed for the following project types:

City of Tulare 411 E. Kern Avenue, Tulare CA 93274

1. Projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day

2. Projects within a ½ mile of an existing major transit stop1 or an existing stop along a high
quality transit corridor2
.

3. Affordable housing projects in infill locations

4. Locally serving retail

5. Transit projects, bike projects, pedestrian enhancements, livability enhancements, and street safety improvement projects.

6. Map-based screening – Residential and office projects can be considered to result in lessthan-significant impacts on VMT if they are located within low VMT areas on a map or maps generated for cities or regions using VMT data modeling.

In these cases, project-generated VMT is presumed to be a less-than-significant impact under CEQA and no further detailed VMT analysis is needed. Projects that do not meet the above screening criteria are required to provide analysis of VMT, by using several acceptable VMT quantification models presented in a focused traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer or through using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to estimate VMT for a project based on the number of vehicle trips generated by the type of land use and multiplying them by the average miles per trip.

Assessing Significance of Project VMT Based on VMT Thresholds OPR recommends a threshold of significance of 15% below existing regional VMT per capita (for residential projects) or VMT per employee (for office projects). Thresholds developed by lead agencies for these projects and other types of projects should demonstrate at least 15% below average regional VMT per capita or employee from existing conditions when evaluating a project under CEQA. If a lead agency decides to use a different threshold than the 15% recommended by OPR it should do so by providing substantial evidence to support the use of a different threshold.

VMT Mitigation
When a lead agency identifies a significant impact, it must identify feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially reduce that impact. Additionally, CEQA requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) identify feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts. When a project results in increases in VMT above the thresholds adopted by a lead agency, it must identify feasible mitigation or alternatives that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts. VMT mitigation techniques fall into the following four main categories:
1 Pub. Resources Code, §21064.3 (“Major transit stop means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). 2 Pub. Resources Code, §21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).

City of Tulare 411 E. Kern Avenue, Tulare CA 93274

1. Location Design and Urban Form

2. Public Works/Transportation Infrastructure Improvements

3. Transit Upgrades

4. Transportation Demand Management
The selection of particular mitigation measures and alternatives are left to the discretion of the lead agency, and mitigation measures may vary, depending on the proposed project and significant impacts, if any. Although it is well understood what factors and measures can reduce VMT, data is not readily available to quantify these reductions. Quantifying VMT reduction strategies will be a key area of study moving forward, so that they can be used as defensible mitigation measures.

Recommended Screening Criteria & Thresholds for the City of Tulare After reviewing OPR Guidance and examples from jurisdictions throughout the state, including new draft proposals, I’m recommending the City use map-based screening for residential and office/industrial projects, with travel forecasting data from Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), and apply the recommendations for VMT thresholds as shown in Table 1 below. The basis for this recommendation is based on the likely scenario that the City’s VMT average is almost always lower than the countywide average, given the higher percentage of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses compared to the whole of the county, including most of the unincorporated areas. Using the countywide average as the region of comparison also captures many of the trips in between our city and others, as well as unincorporated areas. This screening criteria and the proposed thresholds are supported by TCAG’s travel data modeling for the region, and correctly achieves the spirit of SB 743 in encouraging regional growth in areas with low VMT or that demonstrate at least a 15% reduction in VMT from the regional average.

Figure 1 shows the existing average trip distance by traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in TCAG’s regional model. The County average trip distance in miles traveled is 11.48 miles. Areas shown in green are areas with average trip distance in miles below 9.76 miles, representing the 15% reduction from the regional average of 11.48 miles. TAZs shown in yellow/maize represent areas in the City below the regional average, but not meeting the 15% reduction target from the regional average. TAZs shown in red represent areas in the City where the average trip distance is higher than the regional average. The map can be used as a screening threshold for residential and office/industrial to show areas that are already achieving the thresholds indicated in Table 1.

Generally, if a project is located in the areas shown in green, it is likely meeting the thresholds in Table 1, unless there are specific project characteristics that would result in an overall increase in VMT, rather than redistribution of vehicle trips. Ultimately, the thresholds in Table 1 should be used to guide the type of analysis required, depending on the project type.

This memorandum is intended to provide a basic approach for the City to use in evaluating development projects under the new mandated VMT criteria to determine significant impacts under CEQA.

City of Tulare 411 E. Kern Avenue, Tulare CA 93274
Table 1: Thresholds by Project Type for the City of Tulare Project Type Recommended Thresholds
Projects that generate < 110 trips per day Screened Out of Detailed VMT Analysis Projects within a ½ mile of an existing major
transit stop or an existing stop along a high
quality transit corridor
Screened Out of Detailed VMT Analysis
Affordable Housing Projects in Infill
Locations
Screened Out of Detailed VMT Analysis
Transit projects, bike projects, pedestrian
enhancements, livability enhancements, and
street safety improvement projects.

Screened Out of Detailed VMT Analysis
Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facility or
Public Safety Facility
Screened Out, unless it results in net
increase in VMT
Locally Serving Retail Screened Out, unless it results in net increase in VMT
Regional Commercial or Retail Attracting
Trips from Throughout the Region
Any net increase in total VMT
General Residential 15% below existing regional average trip length per TAZ
Office/Industrial Projects 15% below existing regional average trip length per TAZ
Mixed-Use Projects Apply Corresponding Threshold to Each Type of Use, Unless One Use Dominates,
Then Consider the Dominant Use Threshold
Redevelopment Projects Any net increase in total VMT Over Existing
City of Tulare 411 E. Kern Avenue, Tulare CA 93274
Figure 1: Tulare_15% Reduced VMT Threshold by TAZ Compared to Regional Average Source: Tulare County Association of Governments, 2020.

City of Tulare 411 E. Kern Avenue, Tulare CA 93274
Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
This page intentionally left blank.

Vesta (Cartmill Crossing)
VMT Analysis and Mitigation
Appendix B
Cartmill Crossing CalEEMod Report
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3
Tulare County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 7.00 Acre 7.00 304,920.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 170.00 Dwelling Unit 7.70 170,000.00 486 Condo/Townhouse 40.00 Dwelling Unit 4.40 40,000.00 114
Single Family Housing 132.00 Dwelling Unit 30.30 237,600.00 378 Regional Shopping Center 806.40 1000sqft 68.60 806,400.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Operational Year
51 2029
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
[PR]
[RH-14]
[RM]
[R-1-6]
[C-3]
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual Project Characteristics -
Land Use - According to project description and site map Construction Phase - Operational Run only
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Woodstoves - X
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation - Paint VOC based on Behr's MSDS. Landscape is an approved APCD assumption Fleet Mix - Changes to Default Fleet Mix to acount for HHD Trucks being less than default Vehicle Trips - Adjusted to match Traffic Study
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorV alue
150 100
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialInteriorV alue
150 47
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValu e
150 100
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintResidentialInteriorValu e
150 47
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 120.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 310.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3,100.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.08 0.02
tblFleetMix HHD 0.08 0.02
tblFleetMix HHD 0.08 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual tblFleetMix HHD 0.08 3.4400e-004
tblFleetMix HHD 0.08 0.02
tblFleetMix LDA 0.57 0.51
tblFleetMix LDA 0.57 0.51
tblFleetMix LDA 0.57 0.51
tblFleetMix LDA 0.57 0.61
tblFleetMix LDA 0.57 0.51
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.03 0.22
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.03 0.22
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.03 0.22
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.03 0.03
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.03 0.22
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.17
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.17
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.17
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.20
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.17
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 8.0000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 8.0000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 8.0000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 0.01
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 8.0000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD2 3.6510e-003 1.0000e-003
tblFleetMix LHD2 3.6510e-003 1.0000e-003
tblFleetMix LHD2 3.6510e-003 1.0000e-003
tblFleetMix LHD2 3.6510e-003 3.9580e-003
tblFleetMix LHD2 3.6510e-003 1.0000e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual tblFleetMix MCY 3.8850e-003 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 3.8850e-003 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 3.8850e-003 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 3.8850e-003 4.2120e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 3.8850e-003 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.10 0.06
tblFleetMix MDV 0.10 0.06
tblFleetMix MDV 0.10 0.06
tblFleetMix MDV 0.10 0.11
tblFleetMix MDV 0.10 0.06
tblFleetMix MH 4.8600e-004 2.8000e-003
tblFleetMix MH 4.8600e-004 2.8000e-003
tblFleetMix MH 4.8600e-004 2.8000e-003
tblFleetMix MH 4.8600e-004 5.2700e-004
tblFleetMix MH 4.8600e-004 2.8000e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 7.4000e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 7.4000e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 7.4000e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.02
tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 7.4000e-003
tblFleetMix OBUS 1.7750e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 1.7750e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 1.7750e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 1.7750e-003 1.9240e-003
tblFleetMix OBUS 1.7750e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.9400e-004 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.9400e-004 9.0000e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual tblFleetMix SBUS 9.9400e-004 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.9400e-004 1.0780e-003
tblFleetMix SBUS 9.9400e-004 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.0180e-003 4.4000e-003
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.0180e-003 4.4000e-003
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.0180e-003 4.4000e-003
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.0180e-003 1.1040e-003
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.0180e-003 4.4000e-003
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 775.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.47 7.70
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.50 4.40
tblLandUse LotAcreage 42.86 30.30
tblLandUse LotAcreage 18.51 68.60
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 7.37
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 13.29
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 5.67 7.37
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 30.83
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 10.17
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 7.37
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 13.29
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.84 7.37
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 30.83
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 10.17
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 7.37
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 13.29
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 7.37
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 30.83
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 10.17
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.00 7.70
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.00 4.40
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.00 30.30
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.00 7.70
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.00 4.40
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.00 30.30

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2038 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2038 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Highest
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 6.8371 0.2852 10.4461 0.0266 1.3046 1.3046 1.3046 1.3046 171.4115 152.3195 323.7310 0.8082 2.7200e003344.7445 Energy 0.0802 0.7105 0.4776 4.3700e0030.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0000 3,328.228 8 3,328.228
8 0.1298 0.0383 3,342.875
9 Mobile 4.6467 11.4547 44.2292 0.1571 19.3702 0.1168 19.4870 5.1845 0.1083 5.2928 0.0000 14,356.68 98 14,356.68
98 0.4309 0.0000 14,367.46
18 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 219.2302 0.0000 219.2302 12.9561 0.0000 543.1336 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.0195 189.1725 215.1920 2.6810 0.0649 301.5491 Total 11.5639 12.4505 55.1530 0.1880 19.3702 1.4768 20.8470 5.1845 1.4683 6.6528 416.6612 18,026.41 07 18,443.07
19 17.0060 0.1059 18,899.76
49 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.3701 0.0291 2.5261 1.3000e0040.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 4.1250 4.1250 3.9500e0030.0000 4.2238 Energy 0.0802 0.7105 0.4776 4.3700e0030.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0000 3,328.228 8 3,328.228
8 0.1298 0.0383 3,342.875
9 Mobile 4.0491 8.2180 26.3931 0.0745 8.6363 0.0649 8.7012 2.3115 0.0601 2.3716 0.0000 6,796.299 5 6,796.299
5 0.2402 0.0000 6,802.304
8 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 219.2302 0.0000 219.2302 12.9561 0.0000 543.1336 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.0195 189.1725 215.1920 2.6810 0.0649 301.5491 Total 9.4994 8.9576 29.3968 0.0790 8.6363 0.1343 8.7706 2.3115 0.1295 2.4410 245.2497 10,317.82 58 10,563.07
56 16.0111 0.1031 10,994.08
73 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

17.85 28.05 46.70 58.00 55.41 90.91 57.93 55.41 91.18 63.31 41.14 42.76 42.73 5.85 2.57 41.83

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2024 12/31/2023 5 0 2 Grading Grading 6/15/2024 6/14/2024 5 0
3 Building Construction Building Construction 8/23/2025 8/22/2025 5 0 4 Paving Paving 7/11/2037 7/10/2037 5 0
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/15/2038 5/14/2038 5 0 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 775
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 906,390; Residential Outdoor: 302,130; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,209,600; Non-Residential Outdoor: 403,200; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 585.00 219.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 117.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.3 Grading - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.3 Grading - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.3 Grading - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.5 Paving - 2037
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.5 Paving - 2037
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.5 Paving - 2037
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2038
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2038
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2038
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Diversity
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 4.0491 8.2180 26.3931 0.0745 8.6363 0.0649 8.7012 2.3115 0.0601 2.3716 0.0000 6,796.299 5 6,796.299
5 0.2402 0.0000 6,802.304
8 Unmitigated 4.6467 11.4547 44.2292 0.1571 19.3702 0.1168 19.4870 5.1845 0.1083 5.2928 0.0000 14,356.68 98 14,356.68
98 0.4309 0.0000 14,367.46
18 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,252.90 1,252.90 1252.90 3,531,592 1,574,587 City Park 93.00 93.00 93.00 198,546 88,523
Condo/Townhouse 294.80 294.80 294.80 830,963 370,491
Regional Shopping Center 24,858.09 24,858.09 24858.09 43,583,803 19,432,174 Single Family Housing 1,342.04 1,342.04 1342.04 3,782,865 1,686,620 Total 27,840.83 27,840.83 27,840.83 51,927,768 23,152,395

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 7.30 7.50 38.40 22.60 39.00 86 11 3 City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Condo/Townhouse 10.80 7.30 7.50 38.40 22.60 39.00 86 11 3 Regional Shopping Center 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 38.40 22.60 39.00 86 11 3 [PR]
[RH-14]
[RM]
[R-1-6]
[C-3]
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.513400 0.221200 0.168800 0.058700 0.000800 0.001000 0.007400 0.018100 0.000000 0.004400 0.002500 0.000900 0.002800 City Park 0.513400 0.221200 0.168800 0.058700 0.000800 0.001000 0.007400 0.018100 0.000000 0.004400 0.002500 0.000900 0.002800 Condo/Townhouse 0.513400 0.221200 0.168800 0.058700 0.000800 0.001000 0.007400 0.018100 0.000000 0.004400 0.002500 0.000900 0.002800 Regional Shopping Center 0.614082 0.032276 0.195879 0.110911 0.012803 0.003958 0.020903 0.000344 0.001924 0.001104 0.004212 0.001078 0.000527 Single Family Housing 0.513400 0.221200 0.168800 0.058700 0.000800 0.001000 0.007400 0.018100 0.000000 0.004400 0.002500 0.000900 0.002800

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,534.788
5 2,534.788
5 0.1146 0.0237 2,544.720
5 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,534.788
5 2,534.788
5 0.1146 0.0237 2,544.720
5 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0802 0.7105 0.4776 4.3700e003

0.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0000 793.4404 793.4404 0.0152 0.0146 798.1554 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0802 0.7105 0.4776 4.3700e0030.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0000 793.4404 793.4404 0.0152 0.0146 798.1554 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

2.07024e
+006

0.0112 0.0954 0.0406 6.1000e004

7.7100e0037.7100e0037.7100e0037.7100e003

0.0000 110.4757 110.4757 2.1200e003

2.0300e003
111.1322
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Condo/Townhous
e
718623 3.8700e0030.0331 0.0141 2.1000e004

2.6800e0032.6800e0032.6800e0032.6800e003

0.0000 38.3485 38.3485 7.4000e004

7.0000e004

38.5764
Regional
Shopping Center

8.62848e
+006

0.0465 0.4230 0.3553 2.5400e0030.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0000 460.4486 460.4486 8.8300e003

8.4400e003
463.1848
Single Family
Housing

3.45117e
+006

0.0186 0.1590 0.0677 1.0200e003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 184.1677 184.1677 3.5300e003

3.3800e003
185.2621
Total 0.0802 0.7105 0.4776 4.3800e0030.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0000 793.4404 793.4404 0.0152 0.0146 798.1554 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

2.07024e
+006

0.0112 0.0954 0.0406 6.1000e004

7.7100e0037.7100e0037.7100e0037.7100e003

0.0000 110.4757 110.4757 2.1200e003

2.0300e003
111.1322
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Condo/Townhous
e
718623 3.8700e0030.0331 0.0141 2.1000e004

2.6800e0032.6800e0032.6800e0032.6800e003

0.0000 38.3485 38.3485 7.4000e004

7.0000e004

38.5764
Regional
Shopping Center

8.62848e
+006

0.0465 0.4230 0.3553 2.5400e0030.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0000 460.4486 460.4486 8.8300e003

8.4400e003
463.1848
Single Family
Housing

3.45117e
+006

0.0186 0.1590 0.0677 1.0200e003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 184.1677 184.1677 3.5300e003

3.3800e003
185.2621
Total 0.0802 0.7105 0.4776 4.3800e0030.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0554 0.0000 793.4404 793.4404 0.0152 0.0146 798.1554 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
764363 222.3618 0.0101 2.0800e003223.2331
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Condo/Townhous
e
220324 64.0948 2.9000e003

6.0000e004

64.3459
Regional
Shopping Center

6.57216e
+006
1,911.916
7 0.0865 0.0179 1,919.408
2 Single Family
Housing

1.15642e
+006
336.4152 0.0152 3.1500e003
337.7333
Total 2,534.788
5 0.1146 0.0237 2,544.720
5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
764363 222.3618 0.0101 2.0800e003223.2331
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Condo/Townhous
e
220324 64.0948 2.9000e003

6.0000e004

64.3459
Regional
Shopping Center

6.57216e
+006
1,911.916
7 0.0865 0.0179 1,919.408
2 Single Family
Housing

1.15642e
+006
336.4152 0.0152 3.1500e003
337.7333
Total 2,534.788
5 0.1146 0.0237 2,544.720
5 6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
Use Electric Lawnmower
Use Electric Leafblower
Use Electric Chainsaw
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.3701 0.0291 2.5261 1.3000e0040.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 4.1250 4.1250 3.9500e0030.0000 4.2238 Unmitigated 6.8371 0.2852 10.4461 0.0266 1.3046 1.3046 1.3046 1.3046 171.4115 152.3195 323.7310 0.8082 2.7200e003344.7445

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.9808 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.9004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.8791 0.2559 7.9017 0.0264 1.2905 1.2905 1.2905 1.2905 171.4115 148.1569 319.5684 0.8042 2.7200e003340.4817 Landscaping 0.0769 0.0293 2.5444 1.3000e0040.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 4.1626 4.1626 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2628 Total 6.8371 0.2852 10.4461 0.0266 1.3046 1.3046 1.3046 1.3046 171.4115 152.3195 323.7310 0.8082 2.7200e003344.7445 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.3939 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.9004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0758 0.0291 2.5261 1.3000e0040.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 4.1250 4.1250 3.9500e0030.0000 4.2238 Total 5.3701 0.0291 2.5261 1.3000e0040.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 4.1250 4.1250 3.9500e0030.0000 4.2238

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 215.1920 2.6810 0.0649 301.5491
Unmitigated 215.1920 2.6810 0.0649 301.5491

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

11.0762 /

6.98281

28.0591 0.3620 8.7500e00339.7177
City Park 0 /

8.34037

8.4921 3.8000e004

8.0000e005

8.5254
Condo/Townhous
e

2.60616 /

1.64301

6.6021 0.0852 2.0600e0039.3454
Regional
Shopping Center

59.7321 /

36.61 150.2517 1.9523 0.0472 213.1210
Single Family
Housing

8.60033 /

5.42195

21.7870 0.2811 6.8000e00330.8397
Total 215.1920 2.6810 0.0649 301.5491
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

11.0762 /

6.98281

28.0591 0.3620 8.7500e00339.7177
City Park 0 /

8.34037

8.4921 3.8000e004

8.0000e005

8.5254
Condo/Townhous
e

2.60616 /

1.64301

6.6021 0.0852 2.0600e0039.3454
Regional
Shopping Center

59.7321 /

36.61 150.2517 1.9523 0.0472 213.1210
Single Family
Housing

8.60033 /

5.42195

21.7870 0.2811 6.8000e003

30.8397
Total 215.1920 2.6810 0.0649 301.5491

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 219.2302 12.9561 0.0000 543.1336
Unmitigated 219.2302 12.9561 0.0000 543.1336

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

78.2 15.8739 0.9381 0.0000 39.3269
City Park 0.6 0.1218 7.2000e0030.0000 0.3017
Condo/Townhous
e

18.4 3.7350 0.2207 0.0000 9.2534
Regional
Shopping Center
846.72 171.8765 10.1576 0.0000 425.8168
Single Family
Housing
136.08 27.6230 1.6325 0.0000 68.4348
Total 219.2302 12.9561 0.0000 543.1336
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

78.2 15.8739 0.9381 0.0000 39.3269
City Park 0.6 0.1218 7.2000e0030.0000 0.3017
Condo/Townhous
e

18.4 3.7350 0.2207 0.0000 9.2534
Regional
Shopping Center
846.72 171.8765 10.1576 0.0000 425.8168
Single Family
Housing
136.08 27.6230 1.6325 0.0000 68.4348
Total 219.2302 12.9561 0.0000 543.1336

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 33 Date: 11/17/2018 8:36 AM QK Cartmill Crossing AQIA - Phase 1-3 - Tulare County, Annual User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation
RESOLUTION 2026-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE
APPROVING AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2026-03 WHEREAS, at the October 6, 2026 regular City Council meeting, the Tulare City Council held a public hearing to consider amending the City of Tulare General Plan by adjusting the existing General Plan land use designations originally established for the Cartmill Crossings Master Plan located on the north side of Cartmill Avenue, east of SR-99; and
WHEREAS, the Tulare City Council determined that the proposed amendment is in the public interest; and,
WHEREAS, the Tulare City Council determined that the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the General Plan and implementation programs which may be affected; and, WHEREAS, the Tulare City Council determined that the proposed amendment’s impacts have been adequately assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; and,
WHEREAS, the Tulare City Council determined that the proposed amendment has been proposed in accordance with the applicable provisions of he California Government Code and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tulare, as follows:

Section 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2026-03 is hereby approved and adopted and will be reflected on the General Plan Land Use Map.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tulare this 6th day of October 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Patrick Isherwood, President of the Council
and Ex-Officio Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Wilcox, City Clerk
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the Tulare City Council.

ORDINANCE 2026-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY BEING A PART OF SECTION 10.06.040 OF SAID CODE, ZONE AMENDMENT NO. 773
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare finds that this application is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Title prescribed in Section 10.02.020 of the Tulare City Code; and, WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare finds that this zone change is in conformance with the adopted General Plan for the City of Tulare; and,
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare finds that the request will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City; and, WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare finds that the Addendum to the existing Environmental Impact Report for the Cartmill Crossings Project (SCH# 2018111038) analyzing the proposed amendments was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Tulare as follows:

SECTION 1. The Zoning Map of the City of Tulare as referred to in Section 10.06.040 of the City Code of the City of Tulare, and as enacted, being made a part of the Zoning title of said Code of Section

10.06.040, thereof a property portion of said map, being attached hereto, is hereby amended as follows:

REZONING approximately 127-acres by adjusting the zoning designations originally established for the Cartmill Crossings Master Plan by adjusting the existing C-3 (Retail Commercial), R-1-6 (Single-family Residential, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area), RM (Medium Density Residential, RH-14 (High Density Residential) and PR (Parks and Recreation) zoning designations.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the other remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 15 of the Charter of the City of Tulare, it is ordered that a summary of this ordinance be issued in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the City of Tulare for one day and that the ordinance be available in at least one public place at the City offices. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days from and after the date of its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tulare this 6th day of October 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Patrick Isherwood, President of the Council
and Ex-Officio Mayor
ATTEST:

ORDINANCE 2026-XX