The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - August 6, 1986 (81)DOWNTOM PARKING CGNTROLS AND RECCMMEMJATT.ONS RES. NO. 86-123 OC -45 (i) CC -48(a) OC -48 (K) CITY 00UNCiL A9 MING AUGUST 6, 1986 Notice thereof having been published according to law and an affidavit of publication, being on file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Reid called for the public hearing to consider the proposed changes in downtown parking zones. Council was apprised that City staff has been working with the United Downtown Yxprovement Conmittee (UDID) and the Lodi Downtown Business As-ociation (LDBA) for nearly a year on the downtown parking situation. Occupancy surveys were conducted in September, October and December of 1985. The main change in the parking controls is the elimination of sane permit only parking in the heavily used lots and the establishment of combined 2-hour/permit parking on the street. The matter was introduced by City Manager Peterson. Public Works Director Ronsko gave additional background information and responded to questions as were posed by the Council. Civil Engineer Richard Prima explained the study methodology and responded to questions as were posed by the Council. Council Member Pinkerton suggested the possibility of allowing downtown business owners to rent blocks of parking spots for their employees and reccmTended a quarterly rental. Speaking in favor of the proposed changes in the downtown parking zones were: a) Barbara McWilliams, Posers, 208 South School, Lodi, urged the Council to accept the proposal on a trial basis and then re -assess the program following a period of time. b) David Rice, 10 North School Street, Lodi, asked how the parking in the suggested block of rented parking spots would be regulated. c) Steve Parker, representing PG&E, expressed his company's concerns regarding double parking that occurs in front of their office at 12 West Pine Street, Lodi, and proposed that short term parking be implemented in the subject area. There being no other persons wishing to speak on the matter the public portion of the hearing was closed. Following discussion, on motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Olson, Reid second, Council adopted Resolution No. 86-123 adopting various parking controls and recamendations presented by Staff relating to downtown parking. Further, the Lodi Downtown Business Association and Staff were requested to continue to review other alternatives pertaining to downtown parking. CITY OF LO I COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT T0: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: July 30, 1986 SUBJECT: Downtown Parking RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt the parking controls and recommen ations shown on Exhibit A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: City staff has been working with the United Downtown Improvement ommittee UDID) and the Lodi Downtown Business Association (LDBA) for nearly a year or the downtown parking situation. Occupancy surveys were conducted in September, October and December of 1985. Recommendations were formulated and reviewed with interested parties in early 1986. The goal is to provide more parking for shoppers while accommodating the regular downtown parkers. The recommendations are summarized on Exhibit A and maps of existing and proposed parking controls are included in Exhibits B and C. Exhibit D is an inventory of the stalls in the area. The main change in the parking controls is the elimination of some permit only parking in the heavily used lots and the establishment of combined 2-hour/permit parking on street. A suggested sign for this control is shown in Exhibit E. Staff will make an oral presentation describing the changes. Notes from the various public meetings and other background information is attached in Exhibit F. \tack 1 onsko ubrks Director cc: Finance Director JLR/RCP/cag APPROVED: THOMAS A. PETERSON, City Manager FILE W0. Rxhibit B DY DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY JOLJ CITY OF LODI S EXIS=TING PARKING CONTROLS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STUDY AREA\ LOCKEFOR *,—LOT 5 ELM PINE LOT 4 LOT Der. B of A LOT Z.'w� OAK @ ,LOT2~ LOT WALNUT L P-2 ST. ST. —SP LOT 6/86 PARKING LOTS Lot 1 Walnut @ Cburch) Lot 2 ak Street) - Lot 4k @ Church Lot 5 IENe @@Churchi) Bof A SP SUBTOTALS TOTALS GRAND TOTALS - 32 �-• -� Exhibit D 34 DOWNTOWNPARKING STALL INVENTORY - Present and Proposed 91 34 99 New ' 34 786 BLOCK 47 741 57 PRESENT NUMBER - PROPOSED NUMBER All 2 Hr+ All 5 Hr 2 hr Permit Day 4 Hr 2 Hr Pe mit Permit Day Church - Lodi to Walnut - 14 - - 14 - Walnut to Oak 25 - 7 18 - - pak to Pine 22 - 13 - - Rine to Elm 22 - 16 6 - -Elm to Locust 20 - 20 - - _ Locust to Lockeford _ 21 _ School - Lodi to Walnut 31 - 31 P4 Oak 33 - - _ - pWalnut Pine 333 3p - to EIm Locust 30 - 22 - Elm to - Locust to Lockeford 22 21 - - 21 - - - - Sacramento - Lodi to Walnut 26 - - 26 - - - Walnut tq Oak 23 - 23 - - - Oak to Pine 46 - 46 - - - Pine to Elm 3927 12 - - Elm to Locust _34 _ 34 - Locust to Lockeford 24 - 24 - - Lodi Ave - Church to School - 9 - - 9 - School to .Sacramento - 17 - - 17 Walnut - Church to School 20 - 20 - - --School to Sacramento 23 - 11 12 Oak - Church to School 22 - 22 - - r` - School to Sacramento 23 - 23 - - s - Sacramento to SPPR - 13 - - 13 Pine - Church to School 21 - 21 - - - School to Sacramento 22 - 22 - - - Sacramento to SPPR 7 - 7 - Elm - Church to School 20 - 13 7 - - - School to Sacramento 29 - 29 - - Sacramento to SPPR 6 - 6 - - T Locust - Church to School 18 - 18 - - - School to Sacramento 20 - 20 - Sacramento to SPPR 7 - 7 - - SUBTOTALS 687 74 13 617 57 74 & _ PARKING LOTS Lot 1 Walnut @ Cburch) Lot 2 ak Street) - Lot 4k @ Church Lot 5 IENe @@Churchi) Bof A SP SUBTOTALS TOTALS GRAND TOTALS - 32 352 24 91- - 34 26 34 - 91 34 99 174 34 786 174 36 68 142 1136 32 323 _ 37 91- - 34 - - - 32 34 124 - 1.85 32 47 741 57 185 106 3 =- 2 HOUR PARKING AM TO 6 PM ALL DAY WITH ZONE e PERM I T EXCEPT SUNDAY AND HOL I DAYS A ZONE B PERM IT PARKING ONLY EXCEPT 5UNDAY AND HOLIDAYS -� Exhibit F � DOWNTOWN,.PARKING.STUDY... PUBLIC MEETING -41' March 4, 1986 - Tokay Players Theater 8 a.m., noon, 6 p.m. COMMENT 1. Need for more than 2 hour parking for: a) Customers at the following types of businesses: Beauty Salons Arts and Craft Shops Specialty Dress Shops b) Senior Citizens activities 2. Possibility of a multi-level parking lot located at Lot 5. 3. What is the possibility of leasing the lot owned by S.P. loca;;ed between Pine and Oak on Sacramento? 4. Need for parking enforcement improvements: a) Some areas enforced less than 2 hrs. and some areas enforced more than 2 hrs. b) The parking areas are not enforced on rainy days or during lunch hours. C) Employees are using the 2 -hour limit spaces by moving their cars. 5. Need for improvement at the S.P. lot, such as improved lighting, drainage and additional stalls. 6. Possibility of establishing a parking lot at the burned out building adjacent to the Beauty College on Elm St. 7. Possibility of excluding enforcement on - Saturdays on Church St. between Locust and Elm. 8. The Methodist Church located on the S.W. corner of Oak and Church has activities during the week and feel if the 2 -hour + permit is implemented on Church St. between Oak and Walnut that the parishioners would not have a parking area. RESPONSE a) Staff is recommending 5 hr. @ Lot 5 be changed to 4 hr, instead of permit; plus north side of Elm, Chu.•ch to School, 4 hr. instead of 2 hr. + permit. b) Continue present policy of honoring Sr Citizen & Club stickers in Lot 5 Very expensive ($7000 per space per "Quad Study") - Council decision Will be talking to County about joint project tied to their proposed court expansion. Rough cost to improve: $80,000 for approximately 80 stalls plus purchase or lease cost. a) All areas are enforced as equally as possible. b) Chalking cannot be done in rain. c) Moving from space to space is not illegal. The solution to this is employer pressure. Council decision. Very expensive and relatively few stalls gained. Council decision. Will suggest Council consider although will recommend changebekept to 1/2 block lengths minimum. Will probably get other requests. Potential problem, however it is questionable whether permit holders will fill that area. Will re-evaluate. t COMMENT RESPONSE 9. Need for special permits for the Sr. See 1. a} - - Citizens if the 5 -hour lot is converted to permit, and would tLey be an affordable price for Sr. Citizens. 10. Possibility of increasing the present Presently stickers are "oversold" 25% limit on number of permits sold to & businesses buying blocks of permits individual business if the number of are limited. The total number sold ,permit spaces increases. and the individual limits will be raised proportional to the number of additional permit stalls. 11. Want permits sold quarterly, or even semi-annually. 12. Possibility of designating spaces to businesses or employees. 13. Car dealers are buying permits for their cars and using Lot 5 as a storage. 14. Would like to have City lease the S.P. lot but implement all -day parking. City should not charge employees to park in an unsafe lot. (Beauty College workers cannot afford stickers and will continue using customers' spaces.) 15. Possibility of a sticker that can be used by more than one employee. Because of shifts, company has 10 employees working at one time (with no overlap) but 20 employees must buy permits. 16. Possibility of making the parking restrictions on Lot 5, four hours (1/2 section) and permit (1/2 section). 17. Would like a "Notice to Employers" article in the newspaper stating it is the obligation of employers to stop the parking abuse. 18. Possibility of short-term use permits if all of Lot 5 becomes permit. 19. Leave one row of Permit Parking in Lots 3 & 4 adjacent to Church St. 20. "Imbalance" of parking changes - more permit parking thus less 2 -hr parking north of Pine St. Approximate Attendance: 27 Owners/Managers 2 Employees 9 Interested Parties 38 Total The recommendation is for quarterly sales. Difficult to enforce and administer, requires special markings. Recommend Council adopt "No Overnite Parking" in all lots. Council decision. Problem with administration and compliance (permit switching); rela- tively small number of people affected See 1 a) Good LDBA project. Enforcement & compliance problem, - See 1 a). Staff recommends this be done or make the rows 2 Hr/Permit. - Changes were based on actual parking usage, no consideration to north or south of Pine. f' fr � DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY � PUBLIC MEETING 12 March^17,'19D6 — LDBA'QinnerMea / . ' COMMENT RESPONSE, l' Willing to pay more for a See Meeting #1, comment lZ � guaranteed par�ing place. In addition, blocks of "designated" � spaces would be Jess efficient in that � they would not be used continuously " � . (i.e." vacations, daysoff, etc.). ' / ' 2. Planning should be done for Good idea, additional lots/garages. ' - 3, What ° parking based Since the downtown area is in a - City requirements or industry special parking district, there are no � recommendations, City requirements for off-street park- ` ing. According to the I980 "Quad ' - Study" there are excess spaces in the � greater downtown area (Pleasant to ' � SPPR, alley N/Lncust to alley 5/Lodi) � ' but there is a deficiency in the core ' area. . � Other comments were similar to those expressed in Meeting #I � i . ' | Attendance: 53 owners, managers, employees and guests i / > ' -,� �^. April 1986 NOTES ON THE 1980 :"QUAD STUDY" The following notes and quotations are taken from the "Lodi Downtown Development Plan," 1580, prepared by Quad Consultants. This study led to the removal of parking meters and eventuallto the formation of the United Downtown Improvement District (UDID�. Much of the study is out of date due to changes in downtown parking and buildings. The following points are either background information or data that is still applicable. (Note that the study included the area between Pleasant and the SPRR, and the alley N/Locust to the alley S/Lodi.) PARKING 1. Violations of time zones result in a 20% loss of short-term parking. 2. There is a need for additional short-term (less than 2 hrs.) parking and unrestricted (all day) parking. 3. Based on unoccupied portions of buildings, there is a potential demand for 600 additional stalls. This was not included in the calculations. 4. "Shoppers in a community of Lodi's size will not, willingly, walk over one block from their car to a shopping destination. They prefer to park directly in front of their destination, on the street. If their shopping destination has an attractive rear entrance immediately adjacent to a parking lot, they will park in such a lot as a second choice. They prefer diagonal parking to parallel parking." 5. "Merchants and employees will generally not utilize, in a town of Lodi's size, parking facilities located over two blocks away from their place of employment, absent excessive cost or inconvenience for parking within that perimeter." 6. "There is a slight surplus of total parking spaces within the Study Area with respect to land use/building square footage. There is a total parking supply in the Study Area of 2,959 spaces vs. a 2,769 space calculated total demand, an excess of 190 total spaces. There are, however, as is typical of most downtowns, areas of concentrated unsatisfied parking demand, principally..." (blocks facing School Street). 7. "Approximately 50 percent of the total parking demand is for employee parking, and 50 percent for shopper/client parking." 8. Long term - See attached. , I I I I z yl Y 1 I �l DOWNTOWN INTERESTS AND THE CITY Continuing cooperation between the City and downtown property owners and businessmen is essential if downtown is to survive in the face of increasing suburban retail competition. The short-term committee structure which, has been thus far so effective in preparing the present downtown development programs must metamorphosize into a continuing downtown organization; present City staff and Council concerns with the solution of downtown problems must be a long-term commitment. In order for the City to deal effectively with downtown's problems on a long-term basis, there must be a downtown organization which represents - the majority of both businessmen and property owners in the core area. Such an organization is, for example, essential for the effective adminis- tration of AB 1693 funds; the City can most effectively contract with a downtown organization for controlled expenditure of such funds. A downtown organization may either be independent of other affilia- rons (a typicalarrangement in California cities where AB 1693 funds are available) , or may be affiliated with a Chamber of Commerce. Typically, AB 1693 funds are not sufficient to totally fund such an organization; voluntary contributions from downtown businessmen are also. required. The functions of a downtown organization may include promotion of the area, events sponsorship, downtown 'improvements maintenance, and perhaps most importantly, the maintenance of continuing liaison between the City and downtown regarding matters of mutual interest. Ti -EE CI*� _ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI. WILL BF 00NDUCT1NG A PUBLIC NEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOEM CHANGeS IN DOWNTOWN PARKING ZONES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that_ on Wednesday, August 61 1986 at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider proposed changes in the downtown parking zones which are being rec=Tended following the ccupletion of a downtown parking _ study. Information describing the recanrnzrdations, including ccmments from public meetings held on the subject and other miscellaneous material including maps and inventories, are on file in the office of the City Clerk arra can be viewed during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) If you are interested in further information, please contact the Public Works Department at City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, or call (209) 333-6706. All interested persons are invited to present their views on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or sameone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public -Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council. Alice M. 8617 City Clerk Dated: July 2, 1986 PROOF OF PUBLICA (2013.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Joaquin. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above- enu%d matter. I acre the principal clerk of the 1 printer of the Lodi News -Sentinel, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily, e:sept Sundays and holidays, in the City of Lodi, Californias County of San Joaquin, and which news- paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulat%a by the Superior Court, Department 3, of the Canty of San Joaquin, State of California, tinder the date of May 26th, 1953, Case Number 65M, that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed Dopy (set in type not smaller than non- pareil), has been published in each regular and catirit hone 4 said newspaper and not in any sup- plement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: Julylo, ......................... 86 an in the year 11......... I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true =0 correct. Dated t Lodi, Califon"this ..10th ... day of July ......... 2986.._. �... This space is ne County Clerk's Filing Stamp �r y �.LI�c CITY CLERK rf ; OF LO5! Proof of Publication of ---. •--.... .. .I....-.... ................ _PUBLIC,HEARING THE crit COUNCIL or TM ....: • . a" OF LORI WILL u CONDUCTI A PLIKIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED MANORS IN DOWNTOWN PARKING ZONES NOTICE IS HERERT' GrVEN that on Wednesday. August 6.1906 of the hour of 7:70 p.m., or as soon thenolter as the mLIter may be beard, the Lodi City Council will conduct o public hearing in the Council Chop, e . City Holl, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, Colifornlo, to consider proposed chonges in the downtown parking zonas %hich ore being rec- _ ammended following the completion of o do". •awn porking study. Information ZAbing ten mcommendotions. including comments from public meetings held on lite subject and other miscellaneous material in- cluding mops and inwmtories, we an fife in the of. Me of the City Clerk and con be ,ie -ad during regular business noun (Monday through friday. f1:00a.m. to S:00 -p.m.). 0 .you ore Interested in further Information, :. please contact the Public Works Deportment of Ci- ty Na11, 211 West Pine Street, or coli (204) 333- 6706. All Interested persons ore invited to •present their views on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the Mating scheduled herein and oral statements may be mode of wki h*OrRV- If you challenge the subject money in court you - may be limited to raising only those issuek you or someone else raised at the Publicorirq described in this notice or in written corm once delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to. the Publk Hearing 7order of " Lodi City Council Ala M. REtMCHE City Clerk Doted: July 2. 1986 July 10, 1906 •6717 r PROOF OF PUBLICATION RESOLUPION NO. 86-123 RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lodi does.hereby adopt various parking controls and recommendations relating to downtown parking as depicted on Exhibit "A" and "C" attached hereto and thereby made a part hereof. Dated: August 6, 1986 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 86-123 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held August 6, 1986 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Hinchman, Olson, Pinkerton, Snider, and Reid (Mayor) Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members'- None ALICE M. RE 4ME City Clerk 86-123 DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS CONVERT 2 -HOUR PARKING TO PERMIT PLUS 2 -HOUR PAkKING STREET LIMITS SACRAMENTO STREET PINE to ELM CHURCH STREET ALLEY S/ELM to ELM CHURCH STREET OAK TO PINE CHURCH STREET WALNUT to ALLEY N/WALNUT CHURCH STREET WALNUT to OAK WALNUT STREET SCHOOL to SACRAMENTO CONVERT 2 -HOUR PARKING TO ALL -DAY PARKING STREET LIMITS LOCKEFORD STREET SCHOOL to SACRAMEN',J LOCKEFORD STREET SACRAMENTO to RAILROAD TRACKS CONVERT ALL -DAY PARKING TO PERMIT PARKING LOT LOCATION SOUTHERN PACIFIC SE CORNER of SACRAMENTO/ELM CONVERT 2 & 5 -HOUR PARKING TO 4 -HOUR PARKING LOT LOCATION LOT 5 (5 -Hour) NORTH of ELM ELM STREET (2 -HOUR) CHURCH TO SCHOOL CONVERT PERMIT PARKING TO 2 -HOUR PARKING LOT LOCATION LOT 3 NE CORNER of CHURCH/OAK LOT 4 SE CORNER of CHURCH/PINE CONVERT ALL -DAY PARKING TO 2 -HOUR PARKING LOT LOCATION BANK OF AMERICA NORTH of OAK Exhi bi t A SIDE EAST WEST EAST EAST WEST `ORTH SIDE BOTH NORTH SIDE_ BOTH SIDE BOTH NORTH EAST EAST SIDE ALL (If Possible) See 5 below Additional Recommendations: 1. Improve public parking lot signing, including directional signing on School St. 2. Eliminate monthly permits and sell quarterly permits for $15.00 (prorate on sale, no refunds). 3. Distribute maps and information regarding permit lots to downtown businesses and employees. 4. Lockeford Street was studied but is not included in Downtown Parking Stall Inventory. 5. Conversion of the B of A lot to 2 Hour would require that the City lease the lot and convert it to Public Parking. The Bank has indicated they are not in favor of this, thus this change is not reflected in the stall inventory. _ F t. --h DI L C DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY CiTY OF LODI STUDY PROPOSED PARKING- CONTROLS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CID: • LOCKEFORD 1> "-! I LOT 5-� ELM cc —w L P, NE LOT 4 _Lr LOT —0 - I Ir. B of A LOT--:-- OAK 7 .LOT LOT -*WALNUT 7r STUDY AREA �L __j ;T. • N p6 ST. st --S P Sp LOT-- o w L E G E N D ALL DAY - PERMIT - 2 HR - 2HR+ PERMIT 4 H CITY COUNCIL FRED M. REID. Mayor CITY OF L O D I EVELYN M. OLSON Jl Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET DAVID M HINCHMAN CALL BOX 3006 JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1 91 0 JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634 July 9, 1986 TO: Downtown Business Owner, Employee, Interested Party SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Limits THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager AL�gE! 9 C:PJ �j t! ClerpkST� 19890 .JUtLD Ci tQrnt3�4 ALICE M. REIMCHE CITY CLERK CITY OF LODI Enclosed are recommendations for parking limit changes for the downtown area which will be discussed at the City Council meeting on Wednesday, August 6, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street. You are welcome to attend. If you wish to communicate with the City Council, please contact Alice Reimche, City Clerk, telephone 333-6700. If you have any questions about the item, please call Richard Prima or Paula Fernandez at 333-6706. Sincerely n Jack L. Ronsko Publ c Works Director Enc osures JLR/eeh DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY CITY OF LORI DOWNTOWN OLS E=R=0P0=SE=lD PARKING CONTROLS.... PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STUDY AREA) �� U L LOCKEFORD LOCUST — 7 T 1 5 ELM PINE meibamm.LOT4—I Bof A LOT_' OAK .LOT 2 LOT WALNUT a HST t ST. ST. SP 5 F ST. ITDOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY CY OF LODc CONTROLS XI_ EXISTING PARKING CONTROLS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT I . r--- - b mm LOT 4 LOT 3 B of A LOT-:;—',,,, • OAK LOT 2 LOT I WALNU' mma mm ST. ST. S P LOT L E G E N D ALL DAY - PERMIT 2 HR 5 HR ST. ZO O 6/86 m DOkttjO'4N PARKING STALL INVENTORY - Present and Proposed - New 13 - 11 BLOCK - PRESENT NUMBER 91 PROPOSED NUMBER 34 - 185 32 47 726 72 All - - 2, Hr+ l:l: All-- 34 99 174 5 5 Hr 2 hr Permit Day 4 Hr 2 Hr Permit Permit Day Y Church - Lodi to Walnut - 14 - - 14 - Walnut to Oak 25 - 7 18 - - Oak to Pine 22 - 13 9 - - Pine to Elm 22 - 16 6 - k - Elm to Locust 20 - 20 - - - Locust to Lockeford - 21 - - 21 School - Lodi to Walnut 31 - 31 - - - Walnut to Oak 31 - 31 - - - Oak to Pine 33 - 33 - - - Pine to Elm 30 - 30 - - - Elm to Locust 22 - 22 - - - Locust to Lockeford 21 - 21 - - Sacramento - Lodi to Walnut 26 - 2b - - Walnut to Oak 23 - 23 - - - Oak to Pine 46 - 46 - - Pine to Elm 39 - 12 27 - - Elm to Locust 34 - 34 - - - Locust to Lockeford 24 - 24 - - Lodi Ave - Church to School - 9 - - 9 - School to Sacramento - 17 - - 17 Walnut - Church to School 20 - 20 - - - School to Sacramento 23 - 11 12 - Oak - Church to School 22 - 22 - - - School to Sacramento 23 - 23 - - - Sacramento to SPPR - 13 - - 13 t, Pine - Church to School 21 - 21 - - - School to Sacramento 22 - 22 - -. - Sacramento to SPPR 7 - 7 - - Elm - Church to School 20 - 13 7 - - - School to Sacramento 29 - 29 - - - Sacramento to SPPR 6 - 6 - -: Locust - Church to School 18 - 18 - - - School to Sacramento 20 - 20 - - - Sacramento to SPPR 7 - 7 - - SUBTOTALS PARKING LOTS Lot 1 Walnut @ Church) Lot 2 Oak Street) Lot 4 ?4k @ Church] Lot ine @ Churc ) Lot 5 Elm @ Church SP f A SUBTOTALS TOTALS GRAND TOTALS 687 74 13 602 72 74 - 32 32 - 23 13 - 11 25 - 24 91 - 32 34 - 185 32 47 726 72 185 106 - - - 36 34 99 174 68 34 786 174 142 1136 June 1986 32 32 23 13 37 34 91 - 32 - - 36 34 124 - 185 32 47 726 72 185 106 3