In addition to the 2012 Water Master Plan, and the implementation of the 2012 IMFP, the City has adopted a 2020 Urban Water Management. These documents and fee programs are used by the Public Works and Engineering Departments for operations and maintenance of the distribution system and water storage facilities as well as development of capital improvement projects.
The majority of the water mains in the Specific Plan Study area are six- and eight- inch diameter potable water mains. Some streets such as Stockton Street, School Street, Lockeford Street, and Oak Street, and an alley have ten-inch diameter mains and Walnut Street has a twelve-inch diameter main. Pleasant Street has predominantly six- and eight-inch diameter mains, however, there is a localized four-inch diameter water main as well. It should be noted that the north- south trending streets have longer distances of water mains than the east-west trending streets. Some of the alleys in Specific Plan study area have four- and six- inch potable water mains. Services can be connected to these mains to serve the existing development. The average daily demand for residential development is 200 gallons per capita per day, commercial development is 2,750 gallons per capita per day, and industrial development is 2,200 gallons per capita per day.
Proposed developments are required to analyze their project to ensure adequate potable water flow as well as fire flow (as discussed on the next page).
Water pressure within the Specific Plan area typically ranges from approximately 50-60 psi. Proposed developments should be designed to accommodate a minimum pressure of 45 psi in accordance with City standards. 425
08 | Support Systems
8-4
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Water for fire protection purposes (firewater) is served through publicly owned and operated and private hydrants located throughout the Specific Plan area. Hydrants are located on every major street in the Specific Plan area. The City’s standard for minimum pressure is 20 psi at the service point or fire hydrant under the worst-case scenario of either maximum daily demand plus fire flow or peak hour demand. There is adequate fire flow within the potable water system to serve occupancy loads now and in the future.
The adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies city- wide projects funded by the City’s Water Fund. The CIP does not identify projects within the Specific Plan area as of the preparation of this document which includes a water main replacement.
8.2.2 Non-Potable Water
In 2008, the City adopted a Recycled Water Master Plan which was later complemented in 2018 by a Non-Potable Water Study as part of a longer- term planning document. The Master Plan designated that treatment of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WSWPCF), located at 12751 Thornton Road approximately seven miles southwest of the Specific Plan boundary, would be utilized as a method to handle the projected water demand through 2035. As part of the 2018 Study, two 1,000 gallon per minute pump stations, related facilities, and approximately 5,740 lineal feet of distribution mains are needed to supply non-potable water.
At the present time, non-potable water pipelines and related facilities are not located within the Specific Plan area. As such, the adopted Capital Improvement Program does not identify proposed recycled water improvements in the Specific Plan area.
Non-potable water (recycled water) is not suitable for public consumption as it does not meet drinking water standards. Non-potable water is typically used for landscape irrigation. At the time of plan adoption, however, the infrastructure required to deliver non potable water from the WSWPCF to the City’s customers and users was not constructed. Instead, the City proposed using WID-purchased water to serve the non-potable water needs such as landscape irrigation purposes as to not rely on potable water.
Also, new development projects were conditioned to build ultimate infrastructure, such as ‘purple pipe’, to service their non-potable project needs and the development projects were not paying into the IMFP since the development project built the infrastructure. Once enough non-potable distribution system infrastructure is built and a facility to convey this water can occur, the implementation and use of non- potable water will be possible. Although the potable water system can be utilized for landscape irrigation purposes for build out, the future implementation of recycled water will reduce the burden and demand of potable water usage and therefore allow for an increased available potable water supply for consumption.
8.3 WASTEWATER SERVICES
The Specific Plan area is serviced by typical, subsurface sanitary sewer pipelines for handling wastewater services. The sewer mains are owned by the City of Lodi which provides routine maintenance in compliance with the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.
Overall, the City of Lodi’s wastewater system currently consists of approximately 191 miles of collection system pipelines ranging from 4- to 42-inches in diameter where 6-inches diameter is the prevailing size serving approximately 25,000 customers. The City also relies on five lift stations located along the northern city boundary to facilitate wastewater flow operations. Ultimate discharge facilities include an outfall pipeline system consisting of six larger diameter pipelines (or trunklines) that connect with the collection system located south, west and east of the project boundary which ultimately flows southwest to the City’s WSWPCF (described above) approximately seven miles from the Specific Plan boundary. Treated wastewater needs to satisfy federal and State standards for environmental considerations.
The pipelines in the study area are the oldest in the City (over 80 years old) and generally consist of clay pipe materials. Within the study area there are variable sizes in mains that range as low as 4 and 6 inches in diameter up to 18 inches in diameter in Sacramento Street. The Softball Complex is serviced with a 16-inch diameter main.
426
08 | Support Systems
8-5
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
A solid and complete maintenance program is integral to the success of the longevity and performance of the sewer, especially in the study area where grease from dining establishments can cause additional distress on the sewer. The maintenance program should be implemented and monitored along with capital improvement projects for upgrades. Also, the City continues to upgrade these older pipes with a plastic liner to seal cracks in pipes and pipe joints for proper, safe, and efficient effluent delivery.
The adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program identifies city-wide projects funded by the City’s Wastewater Fund. The City also utilizes the Wastewater Fee to offset costs associated with upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant facility. No specific improvements are identified within the Specific Plan area as of the preparation of this document.
8.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Stormwater management is handled by typical, subsurface stormwater collection structures collecting stormwater from sheet-flow within the roadway and alley network, and the rail line corridor modifies drainage patterns and collection strategy.
The Lodi Master Plan for the Development of Storm Water Collection and Disposal Facilities was adopted in 1963 and later updated in 2012 as the 2012 Storm Drain Master Plan which added additional Drainage areas as the City had grown following the 2010 General Plan. The Specific Plan area is within the original 1963 Master Plan area, but the 2012 Master Plan refined the added areas taking into account the 1963 Master Plan, additional development, and enhanced drainage calculation modeling.
Under the 1963 Master Plan, storm drainage facilities included a network of conveyance pipelines and pump stations with storage basins located throughout the city. Basins are connected with drainage areas so that ultimately, via gravity flow, stormwater runoff reaches various pump stations with ultimate disposal to the Mokelumne River or Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). The Public Works Department maintains all 128 miles of storm drains, including pump stations and outlet structures.
The Specific Plan area is split into two Storm Drain Planning Areas, primarily lying within B-1 Basin Drainage Area south of Lockeford Street and the H-Basin Drainage Area located essentially north of Lockeford Street along the northerly boundary of the Specific Plan area.
Area B is comprised of subareas B-1 and B-2 where B-1 specifically serves the Specific Plan area. Subarea B-1 extends northerly from Tokay Street (south of the study area below Lodi Avenue) to Elm Street. There is a detention basin in Vineyard Park on Tokay Street east of Mills Avenue to handle storage (Natural groundwater recharge) and discharge. Area H is generally bounded by the limits of the developments bordering the Mokelumne River on the north (north of the study area) and CCT Telecomm in the east (northeast of the study area), Lockeford Street on the south and Lower Sacramento Road on the west. Area H discharges storm water by gravity flow and four pump stations located outside the study area. Depending on planned development and drainage patterns in the Specific Plan area, interim facilities may be required to be installed should the area be absent of permanent master planned facilities such as pipelines and basins or should existing facilities not have adequate capacity. Pipeline sizes in the study area range from 10 inches to 36 inches in diameter.
8.4.1 Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Agreement
In 1993, the City entered into a 40-year Storm Drainage and Discharge Agreement with the WID to allow stormwater discharge into the WID canal. This is accomplished by managed pump station discharges into the canal that limits the combined flow rate of 160 cubic feet per second and shall not exceed 60 cfs from any one discharge for canal capacity purposes. It should be noted that ultimate compliance of all stormwater flow to the canal is governed by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and small municipal storm sewer system, also known as the MS4 permit, under the City’s purview. Further, the adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program identifies city-wide projects which include annual funding programmed for unidentified storm drain system improvements.
427
08 | Support Systems
8-6
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
8.5 DRY UTILITIES
In 1910, a privately owned electric company providing electrical services transferred to the City of Lodi and the Lodi Electric Utility was created. It is unique for a city to provide its own electrical service provider to its residents.
The electrical and gas service provider in the region, however, is Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E). Being a municipally-owned utility, Lodi Electric is not- for-profit and all surpluses are placed back into utility operations and city funds. The utility is entirely rate-supported and uses no taxpayer money for operations or capital improvements. All departmental expenses and capital outlays are reflected in the rates customers pay.
Natural gas services are provided by PG & E. Other dry utilities such as cable, fiber optic, and telephone exist within the Specific Plan area that service the community for communication purposes.
In terms of related dry utilities, such as signal interconnect, the City’s traffic engineering division within the Public Works Department manages traffic signal operations. Lodi Avenue contains signal interconnect between Mills Avenue (west of Specific Plan area) and Central Avenue (east of the Specific Plan area). This provides for an opportunity for additional or expanded interconnect infrastructure along Church Street to City Hall for the development of a Traffic Management Center (TMC). The TMC is a centralized location that provides the ability to operate signalization remotely to control traffic operations along its corridors for efficient signal operations for motorists.
8.5.1 Telecommunications
AT&T and Comcast provide telecommunications, cable, and internet services in the Specific Plan area. Two (2) unknown buried fiber optic transmission lines trend parallel along the east and west sides of the rail corridor, which also pass beneath public roads at all the rail crossings, as well. These carriers are expected to meet current and future demands of land uses.
8.5.2 Cable Service
AT&T and Comcast cable Spectrum provide telecommunications, cable, and internet services in the Specific Plan area. Two (2) unknown buried fiber optic transmission lines trend parallel along the east and west sides of the rail corridor, which also pass beneath public roads at all the rail crossings, as well. These carriers are expected to meet current and future demands of land uses.
8.5.3 Energy (Electricity and Natural Gas)
Electricity Service
The Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) provides electricity service in the Specific Plan Area. Existing transmission and distribution are adequate to meet and the current and future demands of the proposed land uses.
The Lodi City Council is the governing body that sets rates and is responsible for Lodi Electric’s operations rather than the California Public Utilities Commission which is responsible for governing investor- owned utilities such as PG&E.
As the City has grown, the IMFP encompassed an electric utility fee as a part of the fee structuring for new development. This fee component facilitates the electrical service all future development in the City. As part of the 2012 IMFP and later for the 2017 addition of the 230 kilovolt invertie system, the Lodi Electric Utility studied electrical load growth that is needed for new development and determined that new facilities would be required to meet this growth for capacity purposes. These improvements included but were not limited to extensions of several overhead line feeds and an underground line feed, but adding capacity at the Industrial Substation, and related upgrades for the distribution system.
428
08 | Support Systems
8-7
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Chapter 12.24 of Title 12-Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places in the Lodi Municipal Code outlines provisions for underground districts. Article 5-Subdivisions within the Title 17-Development Code also contains specific codified criteria and provisions for undergrounding a specific development project. Additionally, City of Lodi staff may require a project to underground utilities as a condition of approval by exercising Municipal Code provisions and the City Council, by Resolution, may adopt an underground district.
Currently, the Specific Plan area does not have an underground utility district but may in the future should City Council deem it necessary. It is the desire of the City to underground overhead lines within the Specific Plan area.
Natural Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG & E) generates, transmits, and distributes natural gas to both residential and commercial customers to the Project Area. PG & E has confirmed that there are facilities in the area and service would be provided in accordance with PG & E’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made on a project-by-project basis. Additionally, according to PG & E, there is currently a high-pressure gas main replacement project scheduled for 2027 on Church Street with some of the work being done on parts of Locust Street, Elm Street, Pine Street, Oak Street, and Walnut Street, and partly along Lodi Avenue.
Petroleum Transmission Pipelines
Kinder Morgan, an energy infrastructure company, operates a 10-inch diameter petroleum pipeline along the west side of the rail corridor. This pipeline also passes beneath public streets that cross the rail corridor. The specific contents of the pipeline are unknown and most likely used for transmission purposes for various entities outside the City of Lodi.
8.6 SOLID WASTE
The City currently contracts solid waste collection and disposal services with Waste Management as a form of a franchise hauler. This includes recycling and periodic special collection events for the community, such as holiday tree disposal, e-waste drop-off events, and household hazardous waste events.
As of January 1, 2022, State Law (SB 1383) went into effect requiring local collection agencies to reduce organic waste methane emissions which result from organic waste deposited at landfills for a seventy-five percent reduction by 2025 (as of the preparation of this document).
This organic waste includes food waste, green waste, and paper products that decompose and release methane gas into the atmosphere.
Currently food waste, also known as organic waste, can be placed in specialized smaller containers that are much simpler to handle within a residence or business and then further disposed of in the green trash cans with the green lids. All other solid waste containers for residential and commercial customers also use green cans with black lids (for all other forms of solid waste) and green cans with blue lids (recycled materials). The City website contains detailed information on collection dates and general solid waste operations. The current franchise hauler is expected to adequately serve the Specific Plan area, and the City can amend the franchise agreement over time and during negotiations with potentially new franchise haulers to adequately serve the area. 429
08 | Support Systems
8-8
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
8.7 COMMUNITY SERVICES
The majority of the Lodi public and essential facilities complexes are located within the Specific Plan boundary and in close proximity of each other near the western boundary along Pine, Church, and Elm Streets. The Lodi City Hall is located at 221 West Pine Street adjacent to the Carnegie Forum.
The Police Department and Fire Department manage public safety in Lodi, and the Fire Department is the lead entity on emergency preparedness and planning. The City has recently completed an updated Safety Element to the General Plan which provides goals and policies for emergency management.
The Emergency Management section of the Safety Element (adopted December 2024) highlights public safety departments, emergency planning, evacuation routes and safety standards, single-access evacuation analysis, and emergency evacuation capacity analysis. Additional descriptions of other facilities related to community services are provided in the subsequent sections.
8.7.1 Library
The Lodi Public Library is located at 201 West Locust Street, adjacent to the western Specific Plan boundary. As with most public libraries, there is a Library Board of Trustees comprised of five members that serve a three-year term and meet the second Monday of each month at the Carnegie Forum located at 305 West Pine Street to the west of City Hall. The library hosts multiple community events throughout the year as published on a periodic calendar, utilizes the interlibrary loan program for books from other libraries, and provides public meeting rooms. The library offers a variety of services including a computer learning center, summer reading program, and homework assistance programs.
8.7.2 Schools
The Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) offices are located approximately 1.5 miles to the southeast outside the Specific Plan area at 1305 East Vine Street. The District provides elementary, K-8, middle, high school and alternative learning facilities and education services to approximately 27,000 students spanning a 350 square mile area including Lodi, Stockton, unincorporated areas region wide. LUSD does not have any public schools within the Specific Plan boundary. St.
Anne’s Catholic Church and School, a private school, is located at 215 West Walnut Street on the southwestern boundary of the Specific Plan Area.
8.7.3 Police
The Police Department is located within the Specific Plan at 215 West Elm Street. The Lodi Police Department is responsible for providing general law enforcement to the City and enforcing the local, state, and federal laws within five districts. The Specific Plan boundary is served within both the Heritage and Central Districts of those five districts.
The Police Department is organized into two divisions, Operations and Support Services, and accommodates a total of approximately 80 officers, over 50 additional administrative and part-time staff, and related equipment. The station is adequate to accommodate a projected city-wide build-out population of approximately 70,000 residents.
The Operations Division responds to general calls for service within their patrol, traffic, parks, school resources, community service officers and general community partnerships. The Support Services Division consists of Animal Services, Records, Dispatch/Jail, Investigations, and Office of Professional Standards.
430
08 | Support Systems
8-9
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
8.7.4 Fire/Emergency Services
The Lodi Fire Department provides fire protection services to the City using four fire stations, and Fire Station 1 is located within the Specific Plan boundary at 210 West Elm Street. The Fire Department has approximately 60 personnel. It was determined that the proposed project area will not require any physical changes to Station 1 or new fire facilities to ensure adequate service to the project area with future developments through 2035 and as detailed further in the Environmental Documentation. The City has an Insurance Services Office (ISO) rate of Class 3 which means that the Fire Department stations are strategically placed and they have adequate personnel, equipment, and related resources to serve its residents and community pursuant to the findings of the adopted Strategic Plan from December 2024. Typical response times are anticipated to be four (4) minutes with the addition of new apparatus and related equipment.
The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is located within the Police Department facility at 215 West Elm Street, and it serves as the hub for the City’s overall emergency operations and for ensuring that the public are informed, prepared and can recover from natural, technological, and/or acts of terrorism. Some of these hazards include fires, flooding, earthquakes, hazardous waste and pipeline spills and/or leaks, and general acts of terrorism. The EOC is also used as a training facility for conducting regular employee training to handle emergency preparedness, response, and recovery operations.
8.7.5 Parks and Recreation
The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department (PRCS) is located at 230 West Elm Street in a separate building north of City Hall.
Although this key department is a part of the City’s core services, the actual staff is not located directly at the City Hall building. The PRCS operates and maintains parks and recreational facilities, and host community recreational programs, activities, and special events. The City also has a Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Commission that meets monthly at the Carnegie Forum. Members of the Commission are volunteers that are appointed by the City Council.
Overall, the City maintains a total of 278 acres of public parks and multi-purpose drainage basins for storm drainage and water quality management. The Specific Plan area contains three parks with existing recreational facilities: Chapman Field (Armory Park), Hale Park, and the Softball Complex. The 6.5-acre Softball Complex is located adjacent to the railroad corridor and accessed from Stockton Street and consists of two diamonds, field lights, picnic facilities, and restrooms near the north project boundary. Armory Park is approximately 4.8 acres and consists of one baseball/softball diamond, field lights, and restrooms.
Hale Park is approximately 3.2 acres and is bounded by Locust Street, Elm Street, Washington Street, and Stockton Street and consists of a basketball court, playground, picnic amenities, and restrooms. As projects are developed within the Specific Plan area, they will need to comply with City of Lodi park requirements.
431
Chapter 9: Road Map
Implementation
432
09 | Road Map
9-1
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Chapter 9: Road Map
Implementation
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Successful implementation of the Downtown Lodi Specific Plan requires a well-orchestrated interplay between City policy changes and private sector investment response. While market demand will exist for private investment over the next two decades, the Specific Plan analysis indicates that some financial incentives will be necessary to induce near-term action. These incentives can come from the City of Lodi or from collective action by property owners. This chapter outlines the implementation program for the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan area. Components include:
• An overview of the ways the Specific Plan can attract economic investment and public improvements. • A review of the City’s roles and tools for creating the conditions for attracting private investment in the Specific Plan area – City’s role and tools. • A summary of key implementation initiatives and priorities such as formation of a Property Based Business Improvement District (PBID). • Specific Plan recommendations presented in a table format providing a clear listing of the actions needed for implementation with responsible party, suggested timing, and potential funding sources.
Please note within this section there are numerous strategies and other entries that are universally applicable to many different communities. The way in which they are ultimately adapted to Lodi will be somewhat unique, however, which will depend on numerous specific conditions including for example available resources, the interrelationship of various programs, preferences of the applicable stakeholder groups, and other considerations. 433
09 | Road Map
9-2
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
9.2 PROVIDING PUBLIC BENEFIT AND
ATTRACTING PRIVATE INVESTMENT
An effective specific plan typically involves both the public and private sectors. Whereas development of the land uses envisioned for a plan area is often “kick started” by various public sector initiatives, the ultimate goal of this type of planning effort is to attract desired private investment. Broadly speaking, there are two major ways that a municipality can facilitate private development:
1. By creating a “conducive development environment” that is consistent with prevailing market demand for various land uses. This may include the following types of actions or policies:
◦ Zoning, design guidelines, etc. that are responsive to market needs at the individual establishment level, while maintaining the overall character of the Specific Plan area that preserves and enhances its general marketability;
◦ Information about the concepts, intent, etc. of the Specific Plan area to prospective investors/tenants;
◦ Streamlined permitting and entitlement processes (i.e., minimizing the need for discretionary approval processes, environmental impact analysis, etc.);
◦ Area-wide infrastructure investments, including parking facilities and street improvements;
◦ Area-wide “amenity” investments, including landscape and streetscape improvements;
◦ Marketing programs to enhance the area’s identity and recognition among consumers; and
◦ Clearinghouse roles (e.g., coordination of funding resources and dissemination of information related to investment in the Specific Plan area).
2. By providing focused development support to Specific Plan area businesses, property owners, and key development projects. This can involve the following types of initiatives:
◦ Financially structuring shared infrastructure improvements that increase the productivity of the area, in ways that are advantageous to development;
◦ Investing in specific infrastructure improvements in the Specific Plan Area; and
◦ Providing loans and/or grants for various business and property improvement purposes such as building façade renovations.
9.3 CREATING THE CONDITIONS FOR
ATTRACTING PRIVATE INVESTMENT - CITY’S
ROLE AND TOOLS
Zoning
From an economic perspective, a successful Specific Plan needs to include zoning and an approval processes that is attractive to the developers while still ensuring quality and context sensitive development that is responsive to community desires. The following strategies included within this Specific Plan included:
1. Allowable densities that are high enough to facilitate market-driven redevelopment of selected parcels given the relatively high land values in the Specific Plan Area.
2. Specific Plan densities that are consistent with the General Plan. In the case of this Specific Plan, a Density Transfer Program is included to address this need.
3. Zoning that allows flexibility to develop desirable land uses for which the future market is uncertain. The development standards and allowable uses contained within Chapter 5 strive to accomplish this. 434
09 | Road Map
9-3
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Streamlined Permitting and Entitlement
A key advantage to adopting a Specific Plan is that it provides a vehicle for expedited approval of development proposals that are consistent with the community vision established by the Specific Plan. Developers consistently cite this type of provision as a key factor in selecting the communities where they will pursue projects. In this regard, it is essential that the adopted Specific Plan remove to the maximum degree possible the need for discretionary approvals for projects that fall within the development “envelope” established by the Specific Plan. Previous program-level environmental compliance documentation for components of the Specific Plan will provide a significant incentive in this regard.
Management of Entitlements
The structure of the Specific Plan helps maximize attractiveness of the area for development and other investment by aligning development potential and desired improvements with “given” entitlements, thereby minimizing the need for property owners/developers to seek additional entitlements.
At the same time, Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan provides the regulatory framework and design guidelines to create tailored requirements for the Specific Plan area. Setting clear development frameworks and minimizing the need for additional entitlements also gives the area a marketing advantage. Any future adjustments to entitlement conditions can adhere to the spirit of keeping the development process as streamlined as possible.
Tools to Encourage Redevelopment
For appropriate properties, the City could have programs in place to encourage rehabilitation and creative use/reuse of commercial sites, such as dedicated grant/loan programs using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or other funds. Within the Specific Plan area, existing commercial uses are frequently found located in small individual properties and/or spaces that may be somewhat inefficient in terms of their relationship to the street and to parking, and their overall adaptability to various uses. However, these kinds of conditions also lend the area a character that is somewhat unique within the overall trade area. These spaces can be attractive to creative entrepreneurs in all fields of endeavor.
Marketing Partnerships
The City could implement the marketing options discussed below, and other branding and information compilation activities, in careful coordination with the Lodi Chamber of Commerce, Visit Lodi, and any other appropriate development partners.
Branding
As a starting point for future marketing initiatives for the Specific Plan area, the City should conduct a branding exercise or similar process by which to designate the Specific Plan area with a marketing-friendly theme and name. Branding efforts should be coordinated with physical placemaking and wayfinding improvements described in Chapter 6. 435
09 | Road Map
9-4
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Marketing and Other Information-Compilation
Options
The City could undertake, or support through partnership with appropriate entities, any or all of the following options:
1. Develop materials for, and/or conduct workshops around the theme of, “why developing/occupying the Specific Plan area is good business.” Companion materials for living in the area could also be produced. Topics within these materials include: descriptions of how the Specific Plan area is value-planned, general and specific ways in which the City functions as a key partner in developing the Specific Plan area, benefits potentially available to developers, businesses, etc. from sources in addition to the City, and advantages to various uses from a market point of view.
2. Produce a high-quality newsletter devoted to the Specific Plan area, issued on a regular schedule, that contains information of interest to both the property owners, businesses, and residents, and to outsiders, including people who are not familiar with the area and may have an interest in investing in it.
3. Produce an annual report of development activity in the Specific Plan area, including development-related data such as absorption, occupancy, mix of business types, noteworthy development news, etc. The content and format of such a report can be modeled on those produced periodically by real estate brokerage firms. This kind of information could also serve as one focus of compiling monitoring/evaluation information.
9.4 KEY IMPLEMENTATION INITIATIVES AND
PRIORITIES
Shaped by extensive community engagement and informed by economic and market analyses for the Specific Plan, several key implementation initiatives and priorities have been identified and are described below.
Encourage the Creation of Property Based
Business Improvement District
A Property Based Business Improvement District (PBID) is a property owner funded organization that has enhanced downtown retail and restaurant sales and property values over time in other communities.
The organizations that currently market Lodi include the Winegrape Commission, Visit Lodi (conference and visitor bureau) and the Lodi Chamber of Commerce. However, these are citywide or regionwide organizations and none are specifically focused on the downtown.
Downtown Lodi’s property and business owners have formed the Downtown Business Alliance with the goal of improving their downtown.
The Business Alliance is currently funded through voluntary member contributions, and the leaders of the Alliance would like to develop a more sustainable stream of revenue to stage events, market downtown and make improvements. The Business Alliance has indicated interest in forming a PBID and the City has contributed start up funding.
The City’s role will be to provide administrative oversight and legal structure. Typically, once formed no on-going City financial support is expected. However, the City has the option to provide financial support to encourage District formation.
436
09 | Road Map
9-5
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
A PBID is a benefit assessment district that is enabled by state legislation. PBIDs are geographically defined business areas in which private property owners gather together to gain legal standing and generate revenue to achieve the common goal of improving the area. All types of businesses and some residential zones can be included within this type of district, including retail commercial, professional office, finance institutions, and higher density residential. The PBID can perform a number of activities designed to supplement City services, such as marketing district businesses and activities, promotion of public events, enhanced street and sidewalk cleaning, graffiti removal, promotion of tourism, sanitation, retail retention and recruitment. Physical improvements such as benches, kiosks, pedestrian shelters, signs, lighting, restrooms, trash receptacles, planting area, fountains, plazas, and public art are often also funded by PBIDs.
The key steps in the formation of a PBID include:
• The creation of a steering committee for the PBID formation to delineate downtown’s needs and the district’s objectives.
• Conduct a feasibility study to establish the boundaries of the District, the amount of annual funding necessary to achieve its objectives, the assessment formula (property size, frontage, building square footage, use, etc.) and the governing structure.
• Conduct property owners’ vote to initiate District formation with a majority vote. • If a majority of the property owners vote in favor of the initiative, a petition in support of forming a PBID is submitted to the City Clerk. • The City Council reviews the petition and if acceptable adopts a Resolution of Intent to form a PBID.
• A second property owner’s vote is necessary after the assessment amounts by individual property have been established and mailed to each property owner in the District.
• A PBID is formed if a majority of properties, weighted by the amount of proposed assessment, votes in favor of the District.
• If the vote is successful, the City Council adopts a Resolution of District Formation. • The assessments are placed on the county’s property tax rolls and collected through the property tax bill.
• PBIDs in California are typically formed for up to ten years, after which a renewal process similar to the original formation is required.
437
09 | Road Map
9-6
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Refine Marketing Targets
Lodi’s historic marketing efforts have emphasized the cities in the Central Valley, like Sacramento, Stockton and Fresno, because of cultural similarities and the travel convenience provided by SR-99 and I-5. However, over the past 20 or 30 years, Silicon Valley has experienced unparalleled population, employment and income growth.
Greater marketing emphasis should target the east-west connection to the south-eastern part of the Bay Area that has benefitted substantially from the prosperity generated by Silicon Valley and is yet more distant from the renowned wine-growing regions of Napa and Sonoma Counties.
Cities like Fremont, Pleasanton, Sunnyvale and San Jose and are high income communities within 90 to 120 minutes of Lodi. Their visitor market potential has yet to be fully exploited.
Stimulate Multi-Family Housing Development
Additional housing in the downtown is essential to achieving a vibrant, mixed-use environment. Multifamily development provides needed housing for individuals and families, supports local businesses, accommodates future employees, and increases “eyes on the street,” contributing to enhanced safety and security.
Despite these benefits, a substantial number of downtown parcels remain vacant or underutilized, reflecting long-standing market barriers to infill and adaptive reuse. Property ownership patterns, small or irregular parcel configurations, aging or obsolete structures, and elevated redevelopment costs have limited private investment, particularly when compared to greenfield development at the urban edge.
Real estate developers consistently report that it is less costly and less risky to build on suburban greenfield land than to redevelop in downtown or older industrial areas east of the railroad tracks.
In west-side suburban locations, raw land may cost as little as six dollars per square foot. By contrast, redevelopment of downtown and eastside industrial sites typically requires acquisition of land and existing improvements, business relocation assistance, environmental remediation where applicable, and demolition of obsolete structures.
Demolition costs alone can exceed the cost of raw land in outlying areas, creating a significant feasibility gap.
438
09 | Road Map
9-7
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
To better understand these constraints, the City has
undertaken a focused evaluation of potential catalyst sites within the Downtown Specific Plan area and Economic
Analysis prepared by the Land Econ Group that can be
found in Appendix A.2. This analysis examined site-
specific conditions, construction costs, achievable rents, and financing feasibility. The findings confirm that, under current market conditions, many downtown multifamily
projects are not financially viable without targeted
incentives, regulatory flexibility, or catalytic public investment, particularly on vacant and underutilized
parcels intended to absorb higher densities.
Accordingly, if the City is to achieve its General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan objectives for meaningful
residential growth downtown, strategic financial and
regulatory incentives will be necessary to stimulate initial pioneering projects. These early investments are intended to reduce market risk, demonstrate feasibility, and
create momentum for subsequent private development,
ultimately leading to reinvestment of underutilized sites and a more complete, active, and economically resilient downtown.
Role of the Density Transfer Program in
Advancing Feasible Development
To address the documented feasibility challenges
associated with vacant and underutilized downtown
sites, the City will utilize the Downtown Density Transfer Program as a targeted implementation tool. The program
allows residential density to be strategically shifted
from constrained or underperforming parcels to sites
better positioned to accommodate development, while
maintaining the overall development capacity assumed in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
439
09 | Road Map
9-8
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
By enabling density transfers within the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) designation—where allowable residential densities range from 8 to 35 dwelling units per acre—the program provides flexibility to increase development intensity on viable catalyst sites without exceeding adopted maximums. This flexibility directly responds to the City’s pro forma analysis prepared by the Economic Development Group, which demonstrated that additional units are often necessary to close feasibility gaps created by land assembly, demolition, relocation, and construction costs on downtown infill sites.
The Density Transfer Program is particularly intended to facilitate redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels, support adaptive reuse of older buildings, and incentivize early pioneering projects that establish market confidence. When paired with appropriate deed restrictions and environmental consistency review, density transfers ensure that unused or unrealized development potential is preserved and redeployed in a manner that advances downtown revitalization goals, housing production, and long-term economic sustainability—without increasing overall impacts or undermining General Plan consistency.
To accelerate near term Specific Plan success, suggested strategies include:
• For the first 200 units in the downtown to actually proceed to construction, waive all development impact fees. This reduces project cost by three to five percent to enhance feasibility and provides an incentive to early movers or pioneers.
• Invest in infrastructure and amenities such as new street trees, utilities undergrounding and the renovation of parks such as Hale Park. • Ensure there are areas outside the downtown for the relocation of older industrial and automobile related uses.
• Permit densities up to 50 units per acre (currently allowed by DMU zoning). • Ensure parking standards in the downtown are not geared for suburban development. Depending upon the bedroom mix, a minimum requirement of 0.8 to 1.5 spaces per unit would be appropriate. Developers have the option to build more if the market dictates.
• For downtown multi-family development projects that meet Specific Plan criteria, permit streamline approvals to reduce process time and carrying costs.
440
09 | Road Map
9-9
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Hotel Development
One of the City’s top objectives of the Specific Plan effort is to gain a hotel in the downtown. Wine country hotels tend to be well under 100 rooms, as part of the wine country charm is intimacy of scale. For example, Hotel Healdsburg has 57 rooms, Mattei’s Tavern has 67 rooms, and the Appellation Lodi - Wine and Roses Resort and Spa has only 66 rooms. Cities that have encouraged hotel development downtown have employed both the carrot and stick approaches.
Case Study: San Jose Restricted Hotel Development Outside the Downtown
During the 1990s and 2000s, the City of San Jose and its Redevelopment Agency had the goal of making its downtown the urban center of Silicon Valley. The City invested in a major convention center in its struggling downtown but was unable to attract the critical mass of hotel rooms essential for convention center success. In response to this challenge the City adopted a policy of not approving hotel developments outside the downtown until a critical mass of 1,000 rooms was achieved in the downtown. This policy was not a formal ordinance but an administrative practice implemented through the planning approval process. The City held firm even though a few hotels that would have been built in suburban San Jose moved into neighboring cities. Over time Downtown San Jose was able to attract a Fairmont, a Marriott and a Hilton either adjacent to or very near its convention center; and the policy of not approving suburban hotel development was removed. With the market established, several additional hotels have since been constructed in Downtown San Jose.
Short-Term Incentives for Hotel Development
While long-term market conditions support hotel development in Downtown Lodi, near-term feasibility challenges remain. A catalytic hotel—ideally located along School Street within immediate proximity to downtown restaurants, retail, and wine-tourism amenities—would significantly advance Downtown’s economic vitality. To address early market barriers while protecting the City’s fiscal interests, the following framework is recommended for consideration by Land Econ Group:
Performance-Based Financial Participation Framework
The City may consider case-by-case financial participation for an initial downtown hotel project, subject to the following conditions:
• Economic Benefit Analysis Requirement
Any request for City participation shall be supported by an independent economic benefit study evaluating projected fiscal and economic returns to the City over a minimum five-year period. The analysis shall quantify anticipated Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) generation, sales tax lift, employment impacts, and broader downtown economic activity. • Discretionary Authority to Waive or Defer Fees
Based on the results of the economic benefit analysis, the City may, at its discretion, consider waiver or deferral (in whole or in part) of:
– Development impact fees
– Other applicable municipal fees
– TOT obligations during a defined stabilization period Any fee deferral program shall include a repayment structure and time horizon defined by the City.
• Development Agreement Required
Any financial participation shall be formalized through aDevelopment Agreement, ensuring enforceable performancestandards, construction timelines, minimum project scope, andclawback provisions if agreed- upon benchmarks are not met.
For example, waiver of impact fees may amount to four or five percent of project cost. If we assume 80 rooms costing $350,000 per room, the project cost would total $28 million. At four percent, the fee waiver would amount to a development incentive of $1.12 million. The payback from the City’s transient occupancy tax collection on this new hotel would require three to four years assuming an average room rate of $250 per night, 70 percent the current six percent room tax rate. Of course, the City continues to collect the room tax from this hotel in future years and from other hotels induced into the downtown due to the success of this first hotel. 441
09 | Road Map
9-10
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Grant Funding
To continue funding improvements in the downtown area, the city will pursue grant opportunities. The following are several potential sources, though additional options may become available over time.
BUILD Grant
The BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development) discretionary grant program provides an opportunity for the Department of Transportation to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. The program name was recently updated and renamed in early 2025 from the RAISE (Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity) grant program. These grants have been targeted for areas of persistent poverty and historically disadvantaged; however, with the new administration the future funding for this and other similar programs are highly uncertain. Because of the loss of commuter rail service, a case could be made for the eastside of downtown to qualify for such a grant to reconstruct streets and other public infrastructure. As indicated in Table 9.1, the eastside of downtown Lodi has a household income percentage that is more than twice that of either the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County. This area also has substantially lower household incomes and much higher minority percentages.
Table 9.1: Income Data for the Eastside of Downtown Lodi Eastside of
Downtown
City of
Lodi
San
Joaquin
County
Population 2025 717 67,195 814,353
Percent Household in Poverty 27.7% 12.2% 12.4%
Percent Hispanic Origin 71.4% 41.8% 43.0%
Percent Asian 10.4% 10.6% 20.2%
Average Household Income $85,377 $112,994 $121,231
Median Household Income $53,159 $86,214 $92,100
Source: ESRI
A few successful RAISE grant awards to municipalities are summarized below to illustrate possible examples for Lodi:
• The City of Phoenix received a $10.2 million grant to add 3.3 miles of ADA compliant sidewalks and roadway improvements between Downtown Phoenix and its International Airport.
• The City of Hartford received $19 million to construct streetscape improvements employing a complete streets approach in an area of persistent poverty.
• The City of Brockton, Massachusetts received $7.8 million to design and reconstruct 5.2 miles of roadway on approximately 20 streets in downtown Brockton. The City of Brockton replaced traffic signals, converted one-way roadways to two-way, replaced water and sewer lines, replaced storm water systems, and installed 5-miles of fiber optics within the project limits.
Transformative Climate Communities Program (TCC)
The Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program is a California- wide, place-based grant program administered by the Strategic Growth Council that provides planning and implementation funding for disadvantaged or historically under-resourced communities. In a notable example, the City of Stockton leveraged a $170,000 TCC planning grant followed by approximately $35 million in implementation funding through the Stockton Rising initiative to deliver coordinated corridor improvements, rooftop solar, household energy and water efficiency upgrades, urban greening and park investment, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, transit access, local food distribution, and workforce training in the green economy.
The eastside of Lodi’s Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) area overlaps substantially with the City’s adopted Environmental Justice Element and SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities, as shown in Figure 9.1.
This area also qualifies as a Priority Population under the California Climate Investments Priority Populations Mapping Tool (Version 4.0) and CalEnviroScreen. As such, the DTSP establishes a clearly defined, eligible geographic focus for a future TCC application. 442
09 | Road Map
9-11
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
The DTSP proposes corridor-scale investments along Main Street that directly advance TCC program objectives, including:
• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through mode shift, complete streets design, and improved access to transit and active transportation • Improved public health outcomes through shaded streetscapes, urban greening, heat-island reduction, and enhanced pedestrian safety • Increased access to economic opportunity by improving connectivity to downtown jobs, services, workforce centers, and locally owned businesses • Meaningful, place-based benefits to Environmental Justice communities through targeted reinvestment in historically under-resourced neighborhoods
The DTSP’s integrated land-use, mobility, streetscape, and public-realm strategies reflect the multi-benefit, outcome-driven approach required under TCC guidelines. Concentrating implementation along the Main Street corridor provides a scalable, implementation-ready framework that enables the City to clearly demonstrate measurable outcomes related to emissions reduction, safety, access, health, and community connectivity— key evaluation criteria under TCC.
To strengthen a future TCC application, the City anticipates partnering with a coalition of community-based organizations and public agencies with demonstrated expertise aligned to TCC priorities. Potential partners include, but are not limited to: Tree Lodi for urban greening and tree-canopy expansion; LOEL Senior Center’s gardening program in coordination with the UC Cooperative Extension San Joaquin Master Gardeners for local food production and distribution; GRID Alternatives for renewable energy deployment and clean-energy workforce training in environmental justice communities; Catholic Charities of California’s Central Valley region for workforce development and job-readiness programs; the San Joaquin County Lodi WorkNet Center, recently relocated to the Main Street corridor, for employment and training services; Reimagined Housing on Main Street, operating transitional housing in City-owned space in partnership with San Joaquin County; and the Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin – Lodi Family Resource Center, also located on the Main Street corridor, which provides employment, training, and family-support services.
To ensure accountability, effectiveness, and competitiveness for TCC funding, the City will track a clear set of quantifiable, equity-focused performance metrics aligned with Strategic Growth Council and CARB expectations. Primary metrics will document greenhouse gas reductions, including reductions in vehicle miles traveled, increased transit and active transportation usage, energy efficiency gains, renewable energy generation, and fuel displacement associated with downtown infill development and corridor improvements. Supporting land-use and mobility metrics will track delivery of affordable housing near transit, activation of vacant and underutilized sites, expansion of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and deployment of electric vehicle charging, with benefits disaggregated to confirm that priority populations directly experience the outcomes of investment.
Figure 9.1: Lodi SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
443
09 | Road Map
9-12
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
The City will also monitor co-benefit and implementation metrics reflecting broader community outcomes, including improvements to public health and climate resilience (tree-canopy expansion, reduced heat exposure, improved air quality, and access to green infrastructure), local economic impacts (job creation, workforce training participation, and support for small and disadvantaged businesses), and community engagement (ongoing participation by residents and community-based organizations). Tools such as PurpleAir sensors may be deployed to provide hyper-local, real-time air- quality data to support transparency and outcome tracking.
The City has initiated early coordination with the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) to discuss eligibility, regional alignment, and application strategy for a future TCC submission. Adoption of the DTSP establishes a clear policy framework, geographic focus, and implementation strategy—demonstrating readiness to advance a competitive TCC application supported by adopted plans, identified partners, and measurable community benefit.
With maximum TCC awards of up to $24 million and a projected application window in Fall 2026, the DTSP positions the City to pursue TCC funding as an implementation-ready platform that advances state climate, equity, workforce, and community-driven investment goals.
Community Resilience Centers (CRC)
The Community Resilience Centers (CRC) Program is a state-administered grant program that funds the planning, retrofit, or construction of neighborhood-level resilience centers, along with associated services and programs. CRC grants range from approximately $100,000 for planning up to $10 million for implementation, and prioritize communities facing disproportionate climate, environmental, and public-health burdens.
A CRC-funded resilience center located within or adjacent to downtown Lodi could provide critical resources during climate-related emergencies such as extreme heat, poor air quality, drought, or power outages, while also serving as a year-round hub for community services. Eligible activities include clean-air and cooling facilities, emergency sheltering, water access, renewable energy and backup power, workforce development, and community-based resilience programming.
Although the City’s Access Center is located just outside the formal DTSP boundary, it is directly adjacent to the downtown area and serves residents, workers, and vulnerable populations within the DTSP geographic area. Given its proximity, service population, and existing community-serving function, the Access Center represents a strong candidate for CRC funding and would likely be eligible under program guidelines, particularly where benefits demonstrably accrue to Environmental Justice and priority populations within the downtown and eastside areas.
Because CRC encourages the adaptive reuse and enhancement of existing community-serving facilities—such as community centers, libraries, schools, and service hubs—the City could leverage the DTSP as a policy and implementation framework to integrate resilience infrastructure at the Access Center with broader downtown revitalization, public- health, and equity objectives. This approach would strengthen climate readiness, improve emergency response capacity, and expand essential services for downtown-adjacent neighborhoods while aligning with CRC’s equity-driven, place-based investment goals.
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a state- and federally funded grant program dedicated to improving pedestrian, bicycle, and other non-motorized transportation infrastructure, with a strong emphasis on safety, equity, public health, and greenhouse-gas reduction. Eligible improvements include sidewalks, protected bike lanes, crossings, ADA curb ramps, pedestrian lighting, traffic-calming measures, and Safe Routes to School projects. Unlike broader climate or community-development grants, ATP funding is primarily focused on hardscape transportation infrastructure, rather than landscaping or soft-cost programming.
ATP funds are awarded through both a statewide competitive process and a regional competitive process administered by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). A prerequisite for eligibility for SJCOG’s regional ATP funds is submission of an application to the statewide ATP program, reinforcing the importance of coordinated, well-scoped project development.
444
09 | Road Map
9-13
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Within the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), ATP funding would be strategically targeted first toward the Main Street corridor, where sidewalk upgrades, pedestrian crossings, ADA improvements, bicycle facilities, and safety enhancements are most critical to supporting downtown mobility, access, and revitalization. Because no single grant source is sufficient to fund all DTSP improvements, ATP is intended to complement other funding programs—such as TCC, AHSC, and Measure K—by focusing on discrete blocks or segments of hardscape improvements that advance a complete-streets framework. When layered with other funding sources, ATP investments along Main Street can play a critical role in delivering a safer, more walkable, and multimodal downtown core.
Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC)
A state-level grant and loan program that supports the development of affordable housing integrated with sustainable transportation and connectivity investments. With over $4 billion committed statewide, AHSC has enabled more than 20,000 affordable homes, paired with bike/ped infrastructure, transit-oriented amenities, and reduced vehicle dependence.
For Lodi, an AHSC-supported downtown development could combine affordable housing, walkable or bike-friendly streets, safe pedestrian access, and transit connectivity — supporting the DTSP’s goals for equity, sustainability, livability, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
EPA Brownfields Program
A federal initiative that provides grants, loans, and technical assistance to help communities assess, clean up, and reuse formerly contaminated or underused properties. Funding ranges from environmental assessments and planning (up to $500,000) to cleanup and remediation grants, as well as revolving loan funds that support multi-site cleanup efforts over time.
The City of Lodi has previously applied for and successfully received Brownfields funding for site assessments, helping to evaluate environmental conditions on underutilized properties and reduce uncertainty associated with redevelopment. Building on this foundation, the City intends to pursue future Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Grants to address legacy contamination, unlock infill redevelopment opportunities, and reduce environmental and financial barriers to reinvestment.
By addressing contamination risks and improving site readiness, Brownfields funding can facilitate the conversion of idle or blighted downtown properties into affordable housing, mixed-use development, public open space, commercial corridors, or other community-serving uses. Within the DTSP area—particularly where former industrial or commercial uses are present—the Brownfields Program offers a strategic tool to advance infill development, support environmental justice, and leverage private investment while improving public health and safety.
Measure K
San Joaquin County’s half-cent transportation sales tax, renewed by voters in 2006 through 2041, provides a stable, locally controlled revenue stream for roadway maintenance, transit, roadway safety, and bike/pedestrian infrastructure. Over its life, Measure K is projected to generate nearly $2.7 billion. For downtown Lodi, Measure K can help support a multimodal transportation network, fund sidewalk and street-safety upgrades, enable transit service enhancements, and facilitate smart-growth and downtown revitalization efforts — all while complementing state and federal grant funding. By integrating Measure K-funded investments with the DTSP’s long-range vision, the city can leverage local resources to create a safer, more connected, and transit- ready downtown that supports equity, access, and economic vitality.
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)
A component of California Climate Investments, LCTOP provides funding for transit service enhancements, fare-reduction programs, and first-/last-mile improvements that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. LCTOP emphasizes equity by prioritizing investments that benefit disadvantaged communities and improve access to jobs, services, and downtown destinations. For Lodi’s Downtown Specific Plan, LCTOP offers a practical funding tool to strengthen transit access, improve affordability, and ensure that downtown infrastructure investments are supported by reliable, accessible service. When paired with complementary grant programs, LCTOP helps translate long- range planning goals into daily mobility options that support economic vitality, sustainability, and inclusive access.
445
09 | Road Map
9-14
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
National Park Service / State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Federal and state preservation programs administered through the National Park Service and California’s State Historic Preservation Office provide planning assistance, technical guidance, and grant funding to identify, protect, and reuse historic and cultural resources. These programs support historic surveys, National Register nominations, preservation ordinances, rehabilitation planning, and education initiatives. For the Downtown Specific Plan, NPS/SHPO resources can help formalize recognition of downtown historic assets, enable adaptive reuse, and leverage additional incentives such as historic tax credits and complementary grant funding.
Integrating preservation planning into downtown implementation ensures that revitalization reinforces local identity, supports sustainability goals, and attracts long-term investment.
Mills Act — Incentivizing Historic Preservation through Property Tax Abatement
The Mills Act is a state-authorized property tax incentive program (California Government Code Sections 50280–50290) that enables cities to enter into voluntary contracts with owners of qualified historic properties. In exchange for a commitment to rehabilitate, restore, and maintain a designated historic resource in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, participating property owners receive a reduction in property taxes based on a restricted use valuation.
For downtown areas with older building stock, the Mills Act is widely used as a preservation and reinvestment tool, helping to offset the higher costs associated with seismic upgrades, code compliance, adaptive reuse, and long-term maintenance of historic structures. The program is particularly effective for commercial buildings, mixed-use properties, and historic downtown storefronts, where reinvestment costs can otherwise discourage rehabilitation.
Within the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) area, the Mills Act could support preservation of historic and culturally significant buildings while encouraging adaptive reuse, reinvestment, and continued occupancy. By reducing ongoing operating costs, the program can help property owners direct capital toward building rehabilitation, façade improvements, and interior upgrades that support downtown revitalization without compromising historic integrity.
Implementation of a local Mills Act program would allow the City to strategically target eligible historic resources, establish annual caps on the number of contracts or fiscal exposure, and align preservation incentives with DTSP goals related to economic vitality, cultural heritage, sustainability, and environmental reuse of existing structures. When paired with complementary funding sources—such as Brownfields grants, active transportation improvements, and place-based economic development programs—the Mills Act can function as a low-cost but high-impact tool to advance historic preservation as an integral component of downtown implementation.
CDFI & State Small Business / Economic Development
Programs
California administers a range of financing and support programs through GO-Biz, IBank, and the Small Business Development Center network that can help implement the Downtown Specific Plan. These programs provide low-interest loans, loan guarantees, tax credits, and technical assistance to support small businesses, adaptive reuse, and place-based revitalization—particularly in underserved or disadvantaged areas. When coordinated with infrastructure, housing, and mobility investments, these tools can strengthen downtown economic vitality, support local entrepreneurs and legacy businesses, and bridge market gaps that often slow reinvestment. Leveraging these programs ensures that downtown revitalization translates into active storefronts, job creation, and long-term community benefit.
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs)
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) are a post- redevelopment financing mechanism authorized under California law (Government Code Section 53398 et seq.) that allow cities to fund public infrastructure and facilities through tax-increment financing.
EIFDs capture the growth in property tax revenues (excluding school shares) within a defined district boundary and reinvest that increment into infrastructure that supports development, revitalization, and economic activity.
446
09 | Road Map
9-15
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
EIFDs may fund a wide range of public improvements relevant to downtown revitalization, including streets and utilities, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, parking structures, transit-supportive facilities, brownfield remediation, public spaces, and affordable housing (if adopted as part of the district’s financing plan). Formation of an EIFD does not require voter approval; however, participating taxing entities must voluntarily opt in, and any issuance of bonds requires 55-percent voter approval.
For the Downtown Specific Plan, EIFDs offer a flexible, locally controlled tool to help finance major infrastructure investments and long-term reinvestment without relying solely on one-time grants. When targeted carefully, an EIFD can support phased downtown implementation, leverage private development, and provide a sustainable funding mechanism aligned with infill and smart-growth objectives.
Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG)
The Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) Program, administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), provides capital funding to support infrastructure improvements necessary to facilitate infill housing development. Unlike AHSC, which requires a housing sponsor at the time of application, IIG can be pursued by cities proactively to prepare sites and corridors for future housing investment.
Eligible infrastructure includes:
• Streets, sidewalks, and ADA improvements
• Water, sewer, and storm drainage upgrades
• Streetscape and public-realm improvements that directly support housing feasibility
• Utility relocation and site-serving infrastructure
For the DTSP, IIG is particularly relevant because:
• Housing is a core DTSP pillar, and many downtown housing sites are constrained by aging or undersized infrastructure.
• IIG can be used to reduce development costs upfront, making infill and mixed-use housing projects more financially feasible.
• Corridor-scale infrastructure investments (e.g., Main Street and adjacent residential blocks) can be sequenced ahead of private development, positioning downtown sites for market-rate, affordable, and mixed- income housing.
IIG can function as a bridge program, setting the stage for later AHSC, TCC, or private housing investment.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) — Targeted
Downtown Use
While not new, CDBG remains a reliable funding source when strategically targeted. For downtowns, CDBG can support:
• ADA improvements
• Public-facility upgrades
• Façade improvement programs
• Small-business assistance tied to place-based revitalization Used selectively, CDBG can fill gaps that larger capital grants cannot, especially for people-focused improvements.
Statewide Park Development & Urban Greening (OPR/ SGC/
CNRA)
Beyond CRC and TCC, several state programs support urban greening and park-adjacent infrastructure that complement downtown revitalization:
• Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (OPR)
• Urban Greening Program (Strategic Growth Council / CNRA) These programs fund:
• Pocket parks and small urban open spaces
• Tree canopy expansion and heat-mitigation infrastructure • Green stormwater infrastructure
• Community-serving open space in park-poor neighborhoods For DTSP purposes, these grants can:
• Complement hardscape-focused ATP funding
• Support urban greening components layered into Main Street and adjacent corridors
• Strengthen equity and EJ findings by addressing heat exposure and access to open space
447
09 | Road Map
9-16
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Electrification & Infrastructure Incentives
Purpose and Policy Context
Strategic electrification investments are a core component of Downtown revitalization, climate resilience, and equitable access to clean transportation.
The City of Lodi, through the Lodi Electric Utility Department (LEU), supports these objectives by offering incentives that reduce barriers to electric vehicle (EV) adoption and by coordinating infrastructure planning to ensure sufficient electrical capacity in priority corridors and neighborhoods, including the Main Street corridor and designated disadvantaged community (DAC) areas.
EV Infrastructure Incentives
LEU currently offers financial incentives to support residential, commercial, and multifamily EV charging infrastructure, including rebates for Level 2 and DC fast charging equipment, with enhanced incentives for income-qualified customers. These incentives are intended to lower up-front installation costs and encourage early deployment of charging infrastructure in highly visible, high-use locations such as Downtown commercial corridors, public parking facilities, mixed-use developments, and multifamily housing. Targeting EV charger installations along Main Street and within DAC areas supports equitable access to clean mobility options while reinforcing Downtown as a destination for residents, workers, and visitors.
Grid Readiness and Undergrounding Coordination
While LEU’s incentive programs primarily focus on EV chargers and vehicle adoption, successful implementation of Downtown electrification requires coordinated utility planning and capital investment. The City will work with LEU to prioritize electrical system upgrades, service capacity improvements, and—where feasible—undergrounding of overhead utilities in conjunction with roadway, streetscape, or redevelopment projects along Main Street and in DAC areas. Aligning utility improvements with private development, capital improvement projects, and grant-funded infrastructure initiatives will reduce long-term maintenance costs, improve streetscape aesthetics, enhance safety and reliability, and support higher- intensity infill development envisioned in the Downtown Specific Plan.
Implementation and Funding Strategy
Implementation will emphasize a “make-ready” approach that pairs LEU incentives with state and regional funding programs that prioritize equity and emissions reductions, such as CALeVIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), Transformative Climate Communities (TCC), and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants. LEU incentives will be leveraged as a local match or cost-offset where eligible, particularly for projects located within DAC boundaries.
The City will track EV charger deployment, electrical capacity upgrades, and participation in incentive programs to ensure investments are aligned with Downtown revitalization goals, climate action targets, and equity objectives.
448
09 | Road Map
9-17
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
9.5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
The vision and goals presented in the Specific Plan are supported by the following Implementation Action Plan. The Implementation Action Plan provides a summary of Specific Plan recommendations and is presented in a table format providing a clear listing of the major actions needed for implementation.
The table also identifies the responsible agency or party, suggested timing of the actions, and a list of potential funding sources to assist in implementing each action.
It should be noted that all actions listed in Table 9.2 below must be authorized and initiated by the City Council and/or Community Development Department by policy decision. Implementation of the actions identified in this Plan will occur over time and is contingent upon a range of factors, including the availability of financial resources, staff capacity, and organizational priorities. Many actions will also depend on the interest, participation, and investment of private partners, community organizations, and other public or institutional stakeholders. As such, successful implementation will require ongoing coordination, collaboration, and shared commitment among multiple partners to advance the Plan’s vision.
Table 9.2 Implementation Action Plan
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
REGULATORY ACTIONS
R-1 Adoption of Specific Plan: Adoption of the Specific Plan is the catalyst for Downtown Lodi and the recommended land uses, development standards, zoning code updates, and other proactive policies designed to spur economic investment and visual enhancement of the area.
Near Term CD General Fund
R-2 Objective Design Standards: Amend Sections 17.22.050 - Downtown mixed use design guidelines. Section D. Design Guidelines and 17.18.050 - Residential design guidelines Section F. Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design to integrate Objective Design Standards.
Near Term CD General Fund
449
09 | Road Map
9-18
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
PROGRAMS, STUDIES, AND INITIATIVES
P-1 Branding and Marketing: Brand and market the downtown with a unique logo and/or themed sign program to promote image and attract investment. Focus on Silicon Valley.
Near Term CD, Chamber, ED, V Assessment District (e.g., PBID), General Fund
P-2 Gateway and Wayfinding Program: Prepare a wayfinding directional sign program which includes updating the directional kiosks and banners to provide visual navigation to parking facilities and key destinations throughout the Specific Plan area.
Near Term CD, PW Assessment District (e.g., PBID),
General Fund, CIP
P-3 Railroad Quiet Zone: Quiet Zone Study and work with UPRR for railroad easement and acquisition and implement rail crossing improvements
Mid-Term CD, PW Grant funding/City owned sites/sales
P-4 Downtown Shuttle Service: Upon relocation of passenger rail service to the west side of the City, establish a transit or shuttle connection between the new train station and downtown.
Long Term CD, ED, PW Assessment District (e.g. PBID),
General Fund, User Fees, Grants
P-5 Parking Management Plan: Review recommended parking strategies for the Specific Plan area and determine appropriate on‐ and off‐street parking strategies for implementation.
Evaluate effectiveness existing shared parking and in-lieu fee program, a future parking structure, and the elimination of on-street parking near the railroad approaches.
Mid-Term CD, PW General Fund
P-6 Parklets Program: Prepare a Parklets Program which provides clear design criteria to ensure cohesive, safe, and attractive installations that align with City operations and building codes requirements.
Near Term CD, PRCS, PW General Fund
450
09 | Road Map
9-19
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
P-7 Truck Route Study: Prepare a Truck Route Study to investigate the purpose and use of the existing Truck Route on Stockton Street. Depending on the findings of the existing conditions analysis of that study, should relocation of the Truck Route be a desired next step of analysis, the study should investigate the feasibility of that relocation.
Mid-Term CD, PW General Fund
P-8 Traffic Impact Study for Street Closures: Perform a traffic impact study to analyze the potential future long-term permanent closure to vehicles: Sacramento Street, between Pine and Elm Streets, and Locust Street, between Main and Sacramento Streets.
Near Term CD, PW Grant Funding/Transportation Grants
P-9 Traffic Impact Study for Railroad Crossing Improvements: Evaluate the impacts of median installation and access modifications at railroad crossings.
Mid-Term PW Grant Funding/Transportation Grants
P-10 Traffic Impact Study for Bicycle Boulevard: Perform a traffic impact study to analyze the potential future bicycle boulevard on Locust Street.
Near Term CD, PW General Fund
P-11 PBID: Encourage the formation of a Property Owner / Business Improvement District. Near Term CD, F, ED Downtown Property Assessments P-12 Development Transfer Program: Implement a Development Transfer Program within the Specific Plan area.
Near Term CD General Fund, Development
Application Fees
P-13 Property/Business Owner Outreach: Establish ongoing interface with property and business owners to facilitate business retention/expansion and to maximize support for assessment-based funding.
Near Term CD, Chamber, ED General Fund
P-14 Grant Funding: Pursue federal, state and regional funding sources for infrastructure and planning.
Near Term CD, F, PW, R, LEU General Fund
451
09 | Road Map
9-20
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
P-15 Impact Fees: Update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) and Parking In-Lieu Fee schedules for the Specific Plan area.
Mid-Term CD, F, PW, LEU, PRCS General Fund
P-16 Incentives: Define targeted incentives for housing, retail/restaurant, and mixed-use development (throughout Downtown with special focus on key "catalyst" sites).
Near Term CD, F, ED, PW General Fund, Development
Standards, Development Agreements
P-17 Trash and Recycling Program: Consolidate and conceal trash and recycling receptacles in alleyways and consider garbage collection multiple times a day and distributing free recycling bins.
Mid-Term CD, PW General Fund
P-18 Sewer and Infrastructure Maintenance Program: A maintenance program should be implemented and monitored along with capital improvement projects for upgrades to infrastructure.
Mid-Term CD, PW General Fund
P-19 Special Events: Program special events and festivals with activities for all ages, support for the arts with a variety of creative art focused events and initiatives, and programming for multicultural events and activities throughout the downtown.
Near Term CD, Chamber, ED Assessment District (e.g. PBID), General Fund, User Fees
P-20 Public Art Programs: Develop programs like utility box art and featuring artwork by local artists in public spaces.
Near Term AC, PRCS
P-21 Temporary School Street Closures: Plan for and conduct occasional/periodic temporary street closures to vehicles along School Street for special events and farmer’s market.
Near Term CD, Chamber, ED, PW Assessment District (e.g. PBID), General Fund, User Fees
P-22 Railroad Signal Analysis: Conduct a detailed signal analysis to optimize timing, visibility, and coordination with railroad warning systems.
Mid-Term CD, PW General Fund
452
09 | Road Map
9-21
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
P-23 Street Light Analysis: Evaluate lighting conditions and provide a plan for increasing illumination where necessary for nighttime safety.
Near Term CD, LEU, PW General Fund
P-24 Underground Utility District: Adopt the Specific Plan area as an underground utility district.
Mid-Term CD, LEU, PW General Fund
P-25 Property Development Studies: Provide property development studies to assess how proposed improvements align with surrounding land use, access, and future growth.
Near Term CD, ED, PW, LEU Assessment District (e.g. PBID), General Fund
P-26 Tenant Recruitment: Focus marketing outreach on recruitment of unique restaurants and small-scale retail in Downtown.
Mid-Term ED Assessment District (e.g. PBID),
General Fund
P-27 Historic Preservation Ordinance: Write and adopt a historic preservation ordinance with assistance from the Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee (SPARC).
Near Term CD, SPARC CD
P-28 Fire Assessment Program: Targeted program to inspect and evaluate existing buildings with the primary goals of protecting life and reducing potential damage to public and private property.
Near Term FD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
I-1 Gateway Monuments and Additional Wayfinding (Chapter 6, Section 6.2): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for wayfinding signage, existing gateway monument enhancements, new secondary gateway monuments, and themed banners on light poles.
Near Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID)
453
09 | Road Map
9-22
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
I-2 Main Street Near-Term Improvements (Chapter 7, Section 7.6.1): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for the mid-term configuration with parallel parking and a separated bikeway on the street.
Near Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
CDBG (HUD), Grants, CEQA Mitigations
I-3 Main Street Improvements (Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for temporary Main Street improvements between Elm Street to Walnut Street and food truck vendor areas on railroad parcels.
Mid-Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
CDBG (HUD), Grants, CEQA Mitigations
I-4 Main Street Long-Term Improvements (Chapter 7, Sections 7.4.1 and 7.6.1): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for the long-term alignment with angled parking and relocated bike route with the development of a multi-use trail.
Long Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
CDBG (HUD), Grants, CEQA Mitigations
I-5 Multi-Use Trail Improvements (Chapter 7, Sections 7.4.1): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for a multi-use trail along the railroad.
Long Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID),
CFD, Active Transportation
Program- California Transportation
Commission, Transformative Climate
Communities (Strategic Growth
Council), Grants, CEQA Mitigations
454
09 | Road Map
9-23
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
I-6 Hale Park Improvements (Chapter 4, Section 4.3.5): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for Hale Park enhancements.
Mid-Term PW, CD, PRCS General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants, CEQA Mitigations
I-7 Hale Park Promenade Improvements (Chapter 4, Section 4.3.4): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for promenade enhancements.
Mid-Term PRCS, LEU General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants, CEQA Mitigations
I-8 Street Light Improvements (Chapter 6, Section 6,3.3) Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for a consistent globe street light and increased electrical outlets and bracket hangers, and string lights and/or twinkle lights.
Near Term PW, CD, LEU General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
CDBG (HUD), Grants, CEQA Mitigations
I-9 Underground Overhead Utilities (Chapter 8, Section 8.5.3): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development and Lodi Electric Utility to underground utilities.
Mid-Term PW, CD, LEU General Fund, CIP, Development
Impact Fees, Lodi Electric Utility
Funds, Grants
I-10 Traffic Calming Measures: (Chapter7, Section 7.5) Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for traffic calming on segments of Main Street, West Elm Street and North School Street.
Mid-Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants, CEQA Mitigations
455
09 | Road Map
9-24
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
I-11 Lockeford Street Improvements (Chapter 7, Sections 7.4.2 and 7.6.4): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for road diet and implement portions of the Rail Spur multi-use trail.
Long Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants, CEQA Mitigations
I-12 Locust Street Improvements (Chapter 7, Sections 7.5 and 7.6.5): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for bicycle boulevard and future street closure.
Mid-Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants, CEQA Mitigations
I-13 Lodi Avenue Bike Route Improvements (Chapter 7, Section 7.5): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for Class III bike route improvements.
Long Term PW, CD, PRCS General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants
I-14 Stockton Street Bike Lane Improvements (Chapter 7, Section 7.5): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for Class II bike lanes improvements north of Lockeford Street, and south of Lodi Avenue.
Long Term PW, CD, Chamber, R General Fund, CIP, Development Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants
I-15 Downtown Placemaking and Streetscape Improvements (Chapter 6, Section 6.3 and Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, and Chapter 7, Section 7.5): Pedestrian amenities, decorative accent lighting, public art, decorative paving, landscaping, and irrigation improvements.
Mid-Term PW, CD, LEU, PRCS General Fund, CIP, Development Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants, Grants
456
09 | Road Map
9-25
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
I-16 Sidewalk Improvements (Chapter 7, Section 7.3): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for improving sidewalk gaps.
Mid-Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
CDBG, Grants
I-17 Alleyway Improvements (Chapter 6, Section 6.5.3): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for alleyway enhancements.
Mid-Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants
I-18 Paseo Improvements (Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for paseo enhancements.
Near Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants
I-19 Plaza and Public Restroom Improvements (Chapter 6, Section 6.5): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development for outdoor plaza spaces and public restrooms.
Mid-Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants
I-20 Railroad Crossing Improvements (Chapter 7, Section 7.2): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development and UPRR for railroad crossing improvements and security fencing along the tracks.
Long Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Grants
457
09 | Road Map
9-26
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Near Term =
One to Three
Years
Mid-Term =
Four to Seven
Years
Long Term =
Over Eight Years
AC = Arts Commission, CD = Community Development,
Chamber = Chamber of Commerce, CI = Community Improvement, ED = Economic Development, F = Finance Department,
FD = Lodi Fire Department, LEU = Lodi Electric Utility, PRCS = Parks Recreation & Cultural Services, PW = Public Works, R= Parks and Recreation, SPARC = Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, V = Visit Lodi
TIMING RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL
FUNDING SOURCES
I-21 Pedestrian Bridge over Railroad (Chapter 7, Section 7.3): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development and UPRR for pedestrian bridge at Elm Street.
Long Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID),
CFD, Active Transportation Program,
Grants
I-22 Crosswalk Improvements and Intersection Beautification (Chapter 7, Section 7.3):
Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans for bulb outs and enhanced crosswalks downtown at mid-block and key intersections.
Mid-Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Transportation Development Act,
Grants
I-23 Improvements to Existing Parking Structure (Chapter 7, Section 7.8.1): Survey, design development, and improvement plans related to Public Works entry/exit upgrades including gates, cameras, and automated systems for future parking enhancements.
Near Term PW, CD, F
I-24 Bus Shelter and Transit Stop Improvements (Chapter 3, Section D): Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans.
Long Term PW, CD General Fund, CIP, Development
Standards, Development Agreements,
Assessment District (e.g., PBID), CFD,
Transportation Development Act,
Grants
458
Chapter 10: Logistics
Administration
459
10 | Logistics
10-1
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
Chapter 10: Logistics
Administration
10.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes specific plan authority, the administrative procedures required for amendments and/or modifications to the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan, and processing requirements.
460
10 | Logistics
10-2
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
10.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AUTHORITY AND ADOPTION
All specific plans must comply with California Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457. These provisions require that a specific plan be consistent with the adopted General Plan for the jurisdiction in which the specific plan area is located. In turn, all subsequent development proposals, such as tentative subdivision maps, site plans, improvement plans, and all public works projects, must be consistent with the adopted specific plan.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance. Specific plans adopted by ordinance effectively become a set of zoning regulations that provide specific direction to the type and intensity of uses permitted and may also define design expectations and standards. The Lodi Downtown Specific Plan is a regulatory document adopted by ordinance. In any instance where the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan conflicts with the requirements of the Lodi Development Code, the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan provisions shall take precedence. Where the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan is silent on a topic, the Development Code requirements remain in effect.
10.3 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
The Lodi Downtown Specific Plan may need to be revised over time to accommodate modifications in the City’s needs or changing economic conditions. California Government Code Section 65453 states that a specific plan “may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.” Amendments to the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan may be proposed as long as the proposed amendments are compatible and consistent with the purpose and goals of the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan and the Lodi General Plan. This section explains the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan amendment processes and approval procedures.
10.3.1 Amendment Process
Amendments to the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan may be initiated by a developer, an individual, or by the City. Proposed amendments to the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan must be Accompanied by all applicable City application forms, required City fees, and information listed below documenting the proposed amendment:
• A detailed explanation that describes and confirms that the proposed amendment is compatible and consistent with the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan guiding principles and vision.
• Detailed information to document the proposed change. This information should include revised text and revised diagrams, where relevant, depicting the requested amendment.
• A significant amount of forethought and resources were invested in the preparation of the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore, any amendment proposal must clearly document the need for any changes.
To this end, the applicant should indicate the economic, social, and technical issues that generate the need for the proposed amendment.
City staff shall review all of the application materials listed above for completeness. If the application is determined complete, and determined to be a “major amendment,” city staff shall then schedule any required hearing(s) and provide a staff report for presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff may also request further clarification of application materials, if deemed necessary. The staff report will analyze the proposed amendment to ensure consistency with the Lodi General Plan. It will also be determined whether there is a need to amend the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan as supported by the conclusions of the application materials and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
461
10 | Logistics
10-3
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
10.3.2 Amendment Approval
Findings
Approval procedures shall ensure that proposed amendments are compatible and consistent with the objectives and vision of the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan and the Lodi General Plan. Amendments may be approved only if all of the following findings are made:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan;
B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Lodi General Plan; C. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and, D. The proposed amendment ensures development of desirable character which will be harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.
Determination of Minor and Major Amendments
The Community Development Director is responsible for making the determination as to whether an amendment is “minor” (administrative) or “major” (requires review by Planning Commission and City Council) within 30 days of any submittal of a request to amend the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan. The Community Development Director may authorize or deny a minor amendment. Whereas a major amendment must be processed as a Specific Plan Amendment with review by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Minor amendments must be determined to be in substantial conformance with the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan and do not include any of the changes described for major amendments. Where the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan requires or allows for a determination by the Community Development Director, it is not to be considered a minor amendment and as such no application or fee is required.
Major amendments are those that require resolutions or ordinances from the Planning Commission and City Council. Examples of major amendments include the following:
• The introduction of a new land use category not contemplated in the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan.
• Changes in the Specific Plan zoning district designation from that shown in the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan.
• Significant changes to the circulation system.
• Changes or additions to the development standards or design guidelines which would materially alter the stated intent of the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan.
• Any changes (not able to be mitigated) that would result in new significant adverse environmental impacts not previously considered in the CEQA compliance documentation for the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan.
Appeals
Appeals on decisions rendered by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission may be filed with the Community Development Department and considered by the City’s legislative bodies pursuant to Chapter 17.70 (Appeals) of the Lodi Development Code.
462
10 | Logistics
10-4
Public Hearing Draft: 3/31/26
10.4 SPECIFIC PLAN ADMINISTRATION
10.4.1 Interpretation
The Community Development Director has been assigned the responsibility and authority to interpret the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan. Whenever the Community Development Director makes an official interpretation of this Specific Plan, the interpretation shall be made in writing explaining the interpretation and the general circumstances surrounding the need for the interpretation. Pursuant to Lodi Development Code Section 17.02.020 (Rules of Interpretation), any interpretation by the Community Development Director may be appealed. The Community Development Director may refer interpretation of the Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for a decision at a public meeting.
10.4.2 Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Specific Plan document or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted these requirements and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase or portion or any future amendments or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
10.4.3 Administration Process
All development applications within the Specific Plan area shall follow established City procedures such as those for zone variances, conditional use permits, development permits and subdivisions. All development applications within the Specific Plan area will be evaluated for compliance with Specific Plan regulations and guidelines. Appeals are regulated pursuant to compliance with Chapter 17.70 (Appeals) of the Lodi Development Code.
10.4.4 Allowable Land Uses
Allowable land uses are referenced in Chapter 5, The Built Environment, and are listed within Section 17.22.030 (Mixed Use Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of the Lodi Development Code.
A land use that is not listed in Table 2-8 Mixed Use – Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements is not allowed except where the Community Development Director may find that a use may be permitted due to its consistency with the purpose and intent of the zoning district and similarity to other uses listed in compliance with Section 17.02.020 (Rules of Interpretation) of the Lodi Development Code.
10.4.5 Nonconformity
Chapter 17.68 (Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Parcels) of the Lodi Development Code shall be used for any nonconforming uses, structures or parcels within the Specific Plan area. Land uses and structures existing as of the adoption date of the Lodi Downtown Specific Plan may continue to remain in accordance with the Lodi Development Code (Chapter 17.68).
463
LODI DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
APPENDICIES JANUARY 28, 2026
464
LODI DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL STUDIES
A.1 Mobility Analysis
• Downtown Specific Plan Existing Conditions Summary
• Downtown Specific Plan Roadway Modifications Operational Analysis A.2 Economic Analysis
• Economics and Market Report for Downtown Lodi Specific Plan • Evaluation of Financial Feasibility of Prototype Development Projects in Lodi A.3 Historical Analysis
• Historical Resource Inventory
A.4 Railroad Coordination
• Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Evaluation Memorandum APPENDIX B: OUTREACH SUMMARIES
B.1 Key Community Outreach Results
• Steering Committee 1 Slido Poll Results
• Workshop 1 and Steering Committee 2 Summary
• Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Online Questionnaire Results 465
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL STUDIES
Appendix A.1: Mobility Analysis
Contents
• Downtown Specific Plan Existing Conditions Summary
• Downtown Specific Plan Roadway Modifications Operational Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The mobility subconsultant analyzed the parking conditions and mobility options within, and connecting to, the Downtown through a review of existing parking and transportation information. Recommendations from this analysis was used to inform the Specific Plan, including both operational strategies and potential policy changes. 466
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
March 6, 2025
Ms. Debbie Jewell
RRM Design
3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Downtown Specific Plan Existing Conditions Summary
Dear Ms. Jewell;
As part of the ongoing Downtown S pecific Plan effort, W-Trans has prepared an existing conditions summary for the study area in the City of Lodi. The purpose of this letter is to document the current conditions and key factors that will inform the development of the Downtown Specific Plan transportation components.
Background Information
Setting
Downtown Lodi is a mixed-use district made up of commercial developments, restaurants, offices, residences, and public land uses. The City of Lodi Downtown Specific Plan project covers an area generally defined as bounded by Lodi Avenue to the south, Lockeford Street to the north, Pleasant Avenue to the w est, and Washington Street to the east. It is situated west of the Golden State Highway (SR-99) and is bisected by the Union Pacific Railroad tracks located between Sacramento Street and Main Street. The Lodi General Plan, 20 10, outlines guiding policies that would “ promote downtown as the center of tourism, business, social, and civic life by directing high intensity office uses, government, and entertainment uses to locate downtown .” The transportation infrastructure within D owntown has been evaluated in several regional planning documents , including the City of Lodi’s Downtown Development Standards & Guidelines , 1997; the City of Lodi Downtown Lodi Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines , 2007; the City of Lodi Eastside Mobility and Access Plan , 2006; and the City of Lodi Bicycle Master Plan , 2012. These documents describe policies, improvements, and goals that seek to create a dynamic and well -connected downtown by enhancing tr ansportation infrastructure, supporting mixed-use development, and fostering a thriving environment for Lodi residents and visitors .
Transportation Equity
Part of the effort that remains critical to this vision includes addressing the challenges faced by certain communities within the City. The City of Lodi’s Environmental Justice Element Public Review Draft, 2024, classifies several census tracts within the City of Lodi as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities based on CalEPA criteria.
Within the project area, the area east of the railway includes Census Tracts 45.01 and 45.02, which are both identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities. Residents within these communities face limited access to services, economic opportunities, and safe transportation, exacerbating social and health disparities. The railroad right-of-way may contribute to a poor environment for locals due to separation from the rest of the City and noise and pollution generated by trains.
This is supported by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2022 5-year Estimates, 2022, wherein the census blocks that comprise the communities to the west and east of the railways vary in many categories such as percentage of high school graduates and average income. In regard to transportation, the west side (Census Tract
42.04) has a slightly higher rate of households with no vehicle at all at 14.2 percent compared to the east side’s (Census Tract 45.02) ten percent. However, when comparing one, two, or more vehicle ownership by household, the east side has a higher rate of only a single vehicle per household at 41.1 percent to the west side’s 27.1 percent.
Additionally, for employed residents there was a difference in mode use when commuting to work , with 69.0 percent of workers living east of the tracks driving alone to work, while 74.4 percent of workers living on the west side drive alone to work.
467
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 2 March 6, 2025
Taken together, the census data shows that the two neighborhoods have a similar proportion of zero- vehicle households but an unequal number of vehicles available to households with vehicles.
Roadways
The downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods follow a grid pattern with streets running in a north- south or east-west orientation. The area to be included in the Downtown Specific Plan include s roads that are classified in the General Plan by street hierarchy. Street hierarchy refers to the organization of streets based on their function and traffic capacity, with major roads (such as arterials and collectors) designed to accommodate higher volumes of traffic and local streets providing direct access to properties and neighborhoods. A map of the roadway system in the City of Lodi from the General Plan is enclosed.
Highways
SR-99 is a freeway located approximately one -half mile east of the downtown’s eastern boundary of Washington Street. It runs north-south and connects Lodi to the surrounding Central Valley communities, such as the Cities of Sacramento and Stockton in addition to providing regional access to the rest of the Central Valley. SR-12 is an east- west arterial located in the south part of the City . The route passes through Lodi, connect ing the Sonoma and Napa Valleys in the North Bay Area with the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta and the Sierra Foothills to the east.
Arterials
The study area includes four roadways that are classified as minor arterials by the General Plan. Lodi Avenue and Lockeford Street run east -west and provide connection s to the residential neighborhoods west and east of the Downtown area and to/from SR-99. Church Street ( classified as a minor arterial from Lodi Avenue to Lockeford Street only) and Stockton Street are oriented north-south and provide connection s to the residential, industrial, and commercial corridor on Kettleman Lane (SR-12). As mentioned in the General Plan, in anticipation of new developments, the City of Lodi intends to increase capacity on several arterials , including widening Lockeford Street to four lanes. As of November 2024, this has not been completed.
Truck routes are designated on certain arterials throughout Lodi. Near downtown, the only designated truck route is Stockton Street along the eastern Plan area boundary.
Collectors
The downtown area includes two roads classified as collectors. West Elm Street and West Pine Street run east-west through the Downtown area, connecting the Downtown with residential communities to the east and west.
Local Roads
All other roads in the study area are classified as local road s, smaller roads with one travel lane in each direction that provide access to local destinations.
Traffic Volumes
The City of Lodi’s Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume Map , 2023, is enclosed and shows daily traffic volumes for significant roadways within City boundaries, including the D owntown area. Volumes are based on weekday counts. Major roads such as Lodi Avenue, Church Street, and Lockeford Street have higher volumes consistent with their classification as minor arterials ; Lodi Avenue has an ADT of approximately 11, 600 vehicles per day, Church Street averages 10 ,940 vehicles per day, and Lockeford Street has an average of 8,300 vehicles per day.
Other roads within Downtown such as Pine Street and Sacramento Street have lower volumes per day with averages ranging from 2,580 vehicles to 5,140 vehicles per day. 468
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 3 March 6, 2025
Parking
Parking plays a critical role in a downtown’s mobility and potential economic success as p arking is used by residents and visitors who frequent D owntown, whether for work, shopping, or recreational purposes.
Throughout the Downtown area, parking can be found both on -street and off -street, with public parking lots owned and operated by the City of Lodi and in private lots owned and operated by local businesses.
According to the enclosed City of Lodi’s Downtown Parking Map, 2023, m ost o n-street parking within the downtown is time-restricted. Approximately half of the on -street parking supply has a limit of 90 minutes, primarily on Sacramento Street and School Street. The rest of the supply is a mixture of 30-minute, three-hour, and four-hour parking. Many spaces withing Downtown are marked exclusively for users with a “B Permit.” Downtown parking permits are available through the City of Lodi Finance Department .
The off-street parking supply includes a three-level parking garage owned and operated by the Lodi Transit Administration (LTA) at 3 North Sacramento Street. It offers 330 parking spaces , including EV charging space for transit-users, residents, and other travelers. Daily parking is offered for free on a first-come first-served basis. Long- term parking over 72 hours i s also free for a maximum of two consecutive weeks with submittance of an online form or contacting the LTA. Parking surveys conducted in 2015 found average occupancies in the garage to be approximately 21 percent; recent observations suggest that the garage remains underutilized in 2024.
The garage , in particular , provides an opportunity for more efficient use of parking in downtown. By shifting existing parking to the underutilized garage, the burden of providing on-site parking within downtown would be reduced for new developments.
There are four other Downtown lots operated by the City on Church Street between Pine Street and Walnut Street.
Additionally, the Lodi Transit Center has its own dedicated parking lot. It is understood that the City has identified the potential to construct additional parking structures in the future, with one potential structure to be located on the east side of City Hall in an existing surface lot, and another smaller potential structure at the existing parking lot on the northeast corner of Church Street/Walnut Street.
Collisions
A heat map of collisions in and around the study area was obtained using the University of California, Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). TIMS uses data from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to generate a map of collision hotspots. The data includes collisions for a ten-year period between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2023. Plate 1 depicts the heat map for downtown Lodi.
469
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 4 March 6, 2025
Plate 1 Collision Heat Map (Source: https://tims.berkeley.edu) As shown in Plate 1, there are several hotspots in the project area including North Church Street/West Lodi Avenue and North Sacramento Street/Lockeford Street. TIMS classifies collision by severity, type of collision, and p rimary collision factor (PCF). Approximately two-thirds of collisions within the City were reported as resulting in minor or no injuries . Collisions resulting in visible injuries comprised 27 percent of collisions, severe injuries were eight percent of crashes, and fatalities constituted two percent of all collisions . The majority of collisions were either broadside (35 percent) or rear -end in nature (28 percent). The remaining collisions include those with stationary objects or pedestrians, sideswipes, head -on collisions, overturned vehicles, and other unclassified collisions. No one PCF emerged as a predominant factor contributing to collisions , though the most common PCFs included automobile right -of-way violations, unsafe speeds, driving under the influence/while intoxicated (DUI/DWI), improper turning, or running a red light or stop sign.
Pedestrian Circulation
The Downtown area has mostly continuous pedestrian access. In general, there is a network of sidewalks , crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps that provide adequate access for pedestrians within the Specific Plan area. However, there are major gaps in sidewalk connectivity along some streets in the project area, including the entirety of the west side of North Main Street and the south side of Locust Street from the railroad tracks to North Main Street. Additionally, pedestrians cannot cross the tracks on either Oak Street or Walnut Street and must instead walk farther to either Pine Street or Lodi Avenue. 470
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 5 March 6, 2025
Additional pedestrian features include street lighting, kiosks, and benches. The downtown area west of the railway includes pedestrian oriented shops and buildings , benches, outdoor seating, and other amenities that create a comfortable walking experience. The side of downtown east of the Union Pacific tracks generally lacks these amenities. According to TIMS, there were 27 collisions involving pedestrians in the downtown area during the ten- year period from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Major roadways such as Lodi Avenue and Lockeford Street appear to have more collisions, potentially due to higher speed limits and increased volumes of vehicles.
Bicycle Circulation
There are several bicycle facilities that connect to downtown and traverse it. The City of Lodi’s Bicycle Master Plan, 2023, includes a map of the existing bicycle network and proposed additions ; a copy is enclosed. Currently, the downtown area has bicycle lanes on Elm Street, Stockton Street, Pine Street, and Church Street. Designated bike routes are available on Lockeford Stret, Elm Street, Lodi Avenue. Proposed future bicycle facilities within the project area include the addition of bicycle lanes on Walnut Street and designating a bicycle route on Sacramento Street. Bicycle racks are sparsely available for most destinations. According to TIMS, in the ten-year study period there were 20 collisions involving bicyclists in the downtown area. As with pedestrian collisions, several bicycle collisions occurred on major roadways such as Lodi Avenue and Lockeford Street.
Transit Circulation
The San Joaquin Regional Transit District ( San Joaquin RTD), South County Transit (SC T), and City of Lodi ’s GrapeLine provide transit service to and from D owntown. The Lodi Transit Station in Downtown on South Sacramento Street between West Oak Street and West Pine Street serves as a key hub for both local and regional bus service, with buses stopping regularly for convenient connections throughout the area. It also functions as a train station, with Amtrak providing passenger service via the San Joaquins . The Lodi Transit Station is fully integrated into the surrounding transportation network, offering easy access for both pedestrians and transit riders, and includes benches, shelter, and bicycle racks. All GrapeLine routes stop at the Transit Station and other stops within the d owntown area , which are equipped with sign s providing route information. Most stops also have benches and/or a shelter. All stops are integrated into the surrounding sidewalk network. Transit choices in the downtown area are described in Table 1.
471
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 6 March 6, 2025
Table 1 – Transit Routes
Transit Agency
Route
Service Destinations
Days of
Operation
Time Frequency
SJRTD
Route 93 Weekdays 6:03 a.m-6:50 p.m. 8 buses Stockton
SCT
Highway 99
Express
Weekdays
Saturdays
5:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m.
8:45 a.m. – 3:45 p.m.
60 min
120 min
Galt City Hall
Elk Grove CRC
South Sacramento
GrapeLine
Route 1 Weekdays 6:30 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. 60 min Turner Rd, North Lodi, Lake Lodi, Woodlake Plaza, East Lodi, S Lower Sacramento Rd,
Walmart Shopping Center/Sunwest Plaza
Route 2 Weekdays 6:30 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. 60 min East Lodi, Central Ave, Southwest Lodi, Kettleman Ln, Walmart Shopping
Center/Sunwest Plaza
Route 3 Weekdays 6:30 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. 60 min Central Lodi, Lockeford St, Mill Ave, Ham Ln, Lodi Memorial Hospital, Southwest Lodi,
Walmart Shopping Center/Sunwest Plaza,
Route 4 Weekdays 6:30 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. 60 min Central Lodi, Lodi Memorial Hospital, Southeast Lodi, Hutchin St, Century Blvd
Route 5 Weekdays 6:30 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. 60 min East Lodi, DMV, Southeast Lodi, Cherokee Ln Route 2/22 Saturdays
Sundays
7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
7:30a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
60 min
60 min
East Lodi, Central Ave, Southwest Lodi,
Kettleman Ln, Walmart Shopping
Center/Sunwest Plaza
Route 1/30 Saturdays
Sundays
7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
7:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
60 min
60 min
Turner Rd, North Lodi, Lake Lodi, Woodlake
Plaza, East Lodi, S Lower Sacramento Rd,
Walmart Shopping Center/Sunwest Plaza
Route 5/31 Saturdays
Sundays
7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
7:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
60 min
60 min
East Lodi, DMV, Southeast Lodi, Cherokee Ln
Route 34 Saturdays
Sundays
7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
7:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
60 min
60 min
Central Lodi, Lockeford St, Mill Ave, Ham Ln,
Lodi Memorial Hospital, Southwest Lodi,
Walmart Shopping Center/Sunwest Plaza,
Express Route 1 Weekdays 6:55 a.m. – 7:50 a.m.
2:49 p.m. – 3:56 p.m.
3 a.m. buses
4 p.m. buses
East Lodi, Central Lodi, West Lodi
Express Route 2 Weekdays 6:53 a.m. – 8:08 a.m.
2:53 p.m. – 4:29 p.m.
4 a.m. buses
4 p.m. buses
Central Lodi, East, Lodi, Central St, Ham Ln,
Central Ave, Kettleman Ln
472
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 7 March 6, 2025
Table 1 – Transit Routes
Transit Agency
Route
Service Destinations
Days of
Operation
Time Frequency
Express Route 6A Weekdays 7:15 a.m. – 8:13 a.m. 30 min Central Lodi, East Lodi, Central St, Ham Ln, Central Ave, Harney Ln
Express Route 6P Weekdays 3:00 p.m. – 4:29 p.m. 60 min Central Lodi, East Lodi, Central St, Ham Ln, Central Ave, Harney Ln
Amtrak
San Joaquin Daily 7:04 a.m.
10:44 p.m.
1 SB train
1 NB train
Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield
Sources: San Joaquin RTD https://sanjoaquinrtd.com/, South County Transit http://sctlink.com/, Schedules & Maps | Lodi, CA https://www.lodi.gov/508/Schedules-Maps
Two bicycles can be carried on most SJRTD, SCT, and Grape Line buses. Bike rack space is on a first -come, first- served basis. ADA VineLine, the GrapeL ine paratransit service, is available for those who are unable to use the transit system due to physical or mental disability. It is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within the City of Lodi.
Plate 2 shows a map of the transit services available in downtown Lodi. 473
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 8 March 6, 2025
P
late 2 Downtown Lodi Weekday Transit Circulation Map
474
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 9 March 6, 2025
Rail Freight
In addition to accommodating passenger rail service, the UPRR corridor through downtown Lodi is a busy freight rail corridor. Approximately 1 4 freight trains per day traverse the downtown area. Freight trains have noticeable effects on circulation, temporarily disrupting auto, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit east-west circulation, along with negative effects related to noise and diesel exhaust.
Constraints
One notable constraint to circulation in the study area is the railroad , which divides the D owntown area . This impacts not only noise and pollution levels but creates a barrier effect for all modes of transportation by limiting east-west connections.
The width of the somewhat barren and treeless railroad right -of-way also disrupts the walking environment, potentially causing many pedestrians to turn around rather than continue walking along the corridor, particularly during hot months. The planned r elocation of passenger rail to outside the C ity would present additional challenges. Residents, workers, and visitors would no longer have the convenience of accessing trains at the centrally-located Lodi Transit Station and would have to reach the relocated station west of Lodi by some other means. Further, while passenger trains directly serving downtown would cease, f reight trains would still operate on the Union Pacific tracks. Noise, pollution, and traffic disruptions caused by trains would still be a prevailing issue.
Perceptions about the parking supply can lead to frustration for some users. Currently, Downtown Lodi has ample parking available, though perhaps not always as close to destinations as some users would prefer. Finding parking may also be an issue; w ayfinding in the downtown to both parking facilities and key destinations could be improved. Bus stops can also be difficult to notice when they are not accompanied by shelters and/or benches.
The current bus stop signs can be especially difficult to distinguish from other traffic sign s.
Collision hotspots in downtown Lodi, especially at intersections like North Church Street/West Lodi Avenue and North Sacramento Street/Lockeford Street, pose notable safety concerns. The high volume of vehicles, combined with limited pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, may increase the risk of crashes, particularly for vulnerable users.
The current roadway network, particularly on arterials like Lodi Avenue and Lockeford Street, is designed primarily for vehicle throughput, and may not support the evolving demands of a denser, more mixed -use environment.
The existing infrastructure could lead to increased congestion, longer travel times, and conflicts between different modes of transportation as the area becomes more active.
Opportunities
The City of Lodi’s existing grid system provides a well-established framework for transit and connectivity. It offers multiple routes and clear navigation for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There is opportunity to redesign the downtown roadway environment to enhance accessibility and safety for all users and to support future growth.
The grid system may support strategies such as prioritizing alternative modes by closing off blocks or segments of roads to vehicular traffic, or alternatively, prioritizing different travel modes on different streets.
The existing parking structure is underutilized and presents a significant opportunity to the D owntown.
Accommodation of onsite parking at both residential and commercial developments can be a substantial cost burden and can even make development on smaller sites infeasible. Provision of larger shared parking facilities in a mixed-use urban environment is both cost-effective and efficient, particularly where uses with opposing peaks in parking demand are present, such as employment and entertainment -related uses. The Downtown’s well - 475
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 10 March 6, 2025
developed street grid with robust on -street parking supplies is similarly efficient at accommodating short -term parking demand for a variety of different uses.
Adding a Class I multipurpose trail parallel to a railroad spur near Lockeford Street (or potentially replacing it completely) as proposed in the Lodi Greenline Trail Feasibility Study , 2022, would create a safer, more pleasant walking and cycling environment between the downtown area and Lodi Lake and Woodbridge. As redevelopment occurs between the UPRR tracks and Main Street, there may be further opportunities to incorporate an off -street trail or path to strengthen north-south connectivity for walkers and bicyclists.
There may also be potential to further develop the Downtown bicycle network by implementing enhanced bicycle infrastructure within existing rights-of-way on one or more of the east-west roads. Several streets are also potential candidates for implementation of pedestrian enhancements , including segments of West Elm Street and North School Street in western Downtown. To the east of the UPRR tracks, the Main Street corridor is an opportunity for full reconstruction and is an optimal corridor to prioritize pedestrian improvements and circulation. Implementing traffic calming measures such as raised crosswalks and curb extensions on these downtown streets may reduce vehicle speeds and enhance safety, and additionally address collisions in these areas.
The Downtown area is generally well-served by transit. Potential pedestrian amenities to further enhance the attractiveness of transit use include the addition of benches and shelter to all stops within the Downtown area.
Upon relocation of passenger rail service to the west side of the City, an opportunity exists to establish a new convenient transit or shuttle connection between the new train station and downtown.
Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gab
riel Ramos, EIT
Assistant Engineer
Ke
vin Carstens, PE (Civil, Traffic)
Traffic Engineer
Za
chary Matley, AICP
Principal
JZM/krc-gr/LOD003.L1
Enclosures: 2010 General Plan Roadway System Map, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume Map, Lodi Downtown Parking Map, City of Lodi Bicycle Master Plan
476
Source: City of Lodi 2010 General Plan
477
Source: City of Lodi Public Works, 2024
478
Source: City of Lodi Public Works, 2024
479
Source: City of Lodi Public Works, 2024
480
481
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
January 26, 2026
Ms. Debbie Jewell
RRM Design
3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Downtown Specific Plan Roadway Modifications Operational Analysis Dear Ms. Jewell;
As part of the ongoing Downtown Specific Plan effort, W-Trans has prepared an operational analysis of the study area in the City of Lodi. The purpose of this letter is to document the operations of 15 study intersections in Downtown Lodi and what operational effects there may be with the proposed Lockeford Street Road Diet, Locust Street Closure, Sacramento Street Closure, and combinations of these roadway modifications.
Existing Conditions
Study Area
The following intersections were selected for operational analysis in conjunction with City of Lodi staff. Plate 1 shows the location of these intersections within the Downtown Specific Plan area.
1. Lockeford Street/Pleasant Avenue
2. Lockeford Street/Church Street
3. Lockeford Street/Sacramento Street
4. Lockeford Street/Main Street
5. Lockeford Street/Stockton Street
6. Locust Street/Sacramento Street
7. Locust Street/Main Street
8. Elm Street/Church Street
9. Elm Street/Sacramento Street
10. Elm Street/Main Street
11. Pine Street/Church Street
12. Pine Street/Sacramento Street
13. Lodi Avenue/School Street
14. Lodi Avenue/Sacramento Street
15. Lodi Avenue/Stockton Street
Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest volumes on the local transportation network and therefore worst-case intersection operations. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound commute.
482
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 2 January 26, 2026
Plate 1 Downtown Specific Plan Study Area
483
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 3 January 26, 2026
Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation. The study intersections were analyzed using the signalized and unsignalized intersection meth odologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Seventh Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2022.
The General Plan, City of Lodi, August 2009, lists Policy T-P12 which states that a standard of LOS E applies during peak hour congestion on all streets under the City’s jurisdiction for the purpose of design review and environmental assessment. However, Policy T-P10 specifically exempts the Downtown area from LOS standards, where the Downtown is defined as the area with “Downtown Mixed-Use” zoning. This area is generally coterminal with the Specific Plan boundary, and includes all 15 study intersections.
Operational Analysis
Intersection operation was evaluated based on existing traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods.
Volume data was collected on December 3, 2024, and April 29, 2025, while local schools were in session. Under existing conditions, all intersections have accep table overall operations of LOS A or LOS B , and the minor approaches for two -way stop -controlled intersections are operating at LOS C or better. A summary of the intersection Level of Service calculations is contained in Table 1, and copies of the calculations are enclosed. 484
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 4 January 26, 2026
Table 1 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
Control AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Lockeford St/Pleasant Ave TWSC 1.2 1.4
Northbound Approach 14.0 B 11.5 B
Southbound Approach 13.9 B 15.0 C
2. Lockeford St/Church St Signal 6.8 A 7.2 A
3. Lockeford St/Sacramento St Signal 5.2 A 6.4 A
4. Lockeford St/Main St TWSC 0.7 0.6
Northbound Approach 20.4 C 15.5 C
Southbound Approach 15.9 C 15.0 C
5. Lockeford St/Stockton St Signal 18.5 B 12.3 B
6. Locust St/Sacramento St TWSC 4.3 3.7
Eastbound Approach 9.8 A 10.2 B
Westbound Approach 9.4 A 10.4 B
7. Locust St/Main St TWSC 2.3 4.2
Northbound Approach 9.2 A 9.4 A
Southbound Approach 9.3 A 9.3 A
8. Elm St/Church St Signal 6.3 A 6.7 A
9. Elm St/Sacramento St AWSC 7.7 A 7.8 A
10. Elm St/Main St TWSC 1.8 2.2
Northbound Approach 9.9 A 10.0 B
Southbound Approach 10.0 B 9.9 A
11. Pine St/Church St Signal 5.7 A 6.1 A
12. Pine St/Sacramento St Signal 5.8 A 7.2 A
13. Lodi Ave/School St Signal 3.4 A 6.4 A
14. Lodi Ave/Sacramento St Signal 5.1 A 5.6 A
15. Lodi Ave/Stockton St Signal 11.7 B 13.7 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; LOS = Level of Service; TWSC = two-way stop control; AWSC = all-way stop control
Roadway Modifications
Lockeford Street Road Diet
Lockeford Street is a two-lane road for most of its 2.7-mile alignment between North Guild Avenue and North Mills Avenue, but widens to four lanes for the one- third of a mile between North Church Street and North California Street. Average Daily Traffic data from 2023 provided by the City indicates that this four-lane segment has a lower volume of 7,850 vehicles per day than the adjacent two- lane segment between North Church Street and North Stockton Street which has 8,840 vehicles per day, or the two- lane segment between North Stockton Street and 485
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 5 January 26, 2026
North Cherokee Lane with 8,450 vehicles per day. Therefore, there is potential to reduce this stretch to two lanes to better align the segment with the remainder of the Lockeford Street alignment, provide a traffic calming benefit, and enable the excess right-of-way to be used for bicycle infrastructure, bioretention basins, landscaping, parking, turn lanes, or other such uses.
The portion of this segment between North Church Street and North Pleasant Avenue is within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Therefore, these intersections were evaluated with a potential four- to-two lane road diet in place. Conservatively, turn lanes were not included in the analysis though would result in improved operations if implemented. As shown in Table 2, converting Lockeford Street to two lanes would slightly increase delays at these intersections while retaining LOS C or better operation.
Table 2 – Lockeford Road Diet Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
Control Existing Existing with Lockeford Road Diet
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Lockeford St/Pleasant Ave TWSC 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4
Northbound Approach 14.0 B 11.5 B 16.5 C 13.1 B
Southbound Approach 13.9 B 15.0 C 17.4 C 17.5 C
2. Lockeford St/Church St Signal 6.8 A 7.2 A 6.9 A 7.3 A Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; LOS = Level of Service; TWSC = two-way stop control Locust Street Closure
During the February 2025 design charrette for this project, one idea brainstormed among community members and the project team was to designate Locust Street as a bicycle boulevard to provide connectivity between North Main Street and areas west of the railroad tracks on a facility that is separate from the busier streets of Lockeford Street or Lodi Avenue. A key design principle of bicycle boulevards is discouraging vehicular traffic from traveling along the corridor with intermittent vehicle blockades that permit bicyclists to pass through. In other words, while all local access would be preserved, a driver seeking to traverse the Downtown east to west or vice versa would need to do so on Lockeford Street or Elm Street whereas a bicyclist could use Locust Street.
To achieve this goal, consideration was given to severing through vehicle access on Locust Street across the railroad tracks. Local access to parcels adjacent to Locust Street would be retained as would bicycle and pedestrian access across the tracks, but vehicles would no longer be able to cross the tracks on Locust Street. This would have the added benefit of removing one vehicle crossing from a potential future quiet zone conversion, where enhanced railroad crossing design features would enable trains to pass through Downtown without needing to sound their horns except in the case of an emergency.
With access on Locust Street between North Sacramento Street and North Main Street severed, vehicular traffic would need to route north to Lockeford Street or south to Elm Street to cross the railroad tracks. Based on traffic counts obtained on Locust Street, this would affect around 20 to 35 vehicles in each direction during each peak hour. For comparison, around 400 to 500 vehicles cross the railroad tracks on Lockeford Street in each direction during each peak hour, as do 500 to 700 vehicles per direction per peak hour on Lodi Avenue.
The operational results at the study intersections that would be most likely to be affected by this closure are shown in Table 3. The change in delays would be relatively minor, including some locations where delay would decrease slightly, but overall operations would remain at LOS C or better. It is noted that with this configuration, Locust 486
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 6 January 26, 2026
Street/Main Street was assessed as being converted to all -way stop control to avoid having a T -intersection with stop controls on the through legs and free flow conditions on the terminating leg.
Table 3 – Locust Street Closure Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
Control Existing Existing with Locust Street
Closure
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
3. Lockeford St/Sacramento St Signal 5.2 A 6.4 A 5.6 A 6.6 A
4. Lockeford St/Main St TWSC 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7
Northbound Approach 20.4 C 15.5 C 20.4 C 16.5 C
Southbound Approach 15.9 C 15.0 C 16.0 C 15.1 C
6. Locust St/Sacramento St TWSC 4.3 3.7 3.4 3.0
Eastbound Approach 9.8 A 10.2 B 9.7 A 10.1 B
Westbound Approach 9.4 A 10.4 B - - - -
7. Locust St/Main St TWSC 2.3 4.2
Northbound Approach 9.2 A 9.4 A
Southbound Approach 9.3 A 9.3 A
AWSC 7.3 A 7.2 A
9. Elm St/Sacramento St AWSC 7.7 A 7.8 A 7.8 A 7.8 A
10. Elm St/Main St TWSC 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.0
Northbound Approach 9.9 A 10.0 B 10.0 B 10.1 B
Southbound Approach 10.0 B 9.9 A 9.5 A 9.6 A
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; LOS = Level of Service; TWSC = two-way stop control; AWSC = all-way stop control
Sacramento Street Closure
Another street closure discussed at the February 2025 design charrette focuses on the block of Sacramento Street between Pine Street and Elm Street. Currently, there are no businesses that directly front this block other than an office adjacent to the Pine Street/Sacramento Street intersection, and the World of Wonders Science Museum. It is understood that the Museum is desiring to expand across the street and would be in favor of this closure to provide additional plaza space between the existing Museum and expanded facilities. It is noted that the adjacent parking garage has access from Pine Street and Elm Street, but critically does not take direct vehicular access from Sacramento Street so would be unaffected by the closure.
Similar to the potential Locust Street Closure, the Sacramento Street Closure was operationally evaluated for the effects of diverting traffic to adjacent streets. This would include around 30 to 40 vehicles in each direction during the a.m. peak hour and 80 to 120 vehicles in each direction during the p.m. peak hour. As shown in Table 4 , operations would remain at LOS A or LOS B with these changes. 487 Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 7 January 26, 2026
Table 4 – Sacramento Street Closure Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
Control Existing Existing with Sacramento Street
Closure
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
8. Elm St/Church St Signal 6.3 A 6.7 A 6.4 A 7.0 A
9. Elm St/Sacramento St AWSC 7.7 A 7.8 A 7.9 A 8.0 A
10. Elm St/Main St TWSC 1.8 2.2 1.7 2.0
Northbound Approach 9.9 A 10.0 B 10.1 B 10.4 B
Southbound Approach 10.0 B 9.9 A 10.1 B 10.3 B
11. Pine St/Church St Signal 5.7 A 6.1 A 6.1 A 7.0 A
12. Pine St/Sacramento St Signal 5.8 A 7.2 A 6.7 A 7.8 A Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; LOS = Level of Service; TWSC = two-way stop control; AWSC = all-way stop control
Combination of Roadway Modifications
An additional scenario was assessed with the Lockeford Road Diet, Locust Street Closure, and Sacramento Street Closure combined to evaluate the effect of implementing all three roadway modification scenarios. The results of this combination scenario is presented in Table 5 though it is noted that only Elm Street/Sacramento Street and Elm Street/Main Street would have effects from both the Locust Street Closure and Sacramento Street Closure, while all other intersections would be affected by at most one roadway modification scenario. Lockeford Street/ Stockton Street and the three Lodi Avenue intersections would not be affected by any of the potential scenarios, so are provided for informational purposes only.
488
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 8 January 26, 2026
Table 5 – Combination of Roadway Modifications Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
Control Existing Existing with Combination of
Roadway Modifications
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Lockeford St/Pleasant Ave TWSC 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4
Northbound Approach 14.0 B 11.5 B 16.5 C 13.1 B
Southbound Approach 13.9 B 15.0 C 17.4 C 17.5 C
2. Lockeford St/Church St Signal 6.8 A 7.2 A 6.9 A 7.3 A
3. Lockeford St/Sacramento St Signal 5.2 A 6.4 A 5.6 A 6.6 A
4. Lockeford St/Main St TWSC 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7
Northbound Approach 20.4 C 15.5 C 20.4 C 16.5 C
Southbound Approach 15.9 C 15.0 C 16.0 C 15.1 C
5. Lockeford St/Stockton St Signal 18.5 B 12.3 B 18.5 B 12.3 B
6. Locust St/Sacramento St TWSC 4.3 3.7 3.4 3.0
Eastbound Approach 9.8 A 10.2 B 9.7 A 10.1 B
Westbound Approach 9.4 A 10.4 B - - - -
7. Locust St/Main St TWSC 2.3 4.2
Northbound Approach 9.2 A 9.4 A
Southbound Approach 9.3 A 9.3 A
AWSC 7.3 A 7.2 A
8. Elm St/Church St Signal 6.3 A 6.7 A 6.4 A 7.0 A
9. Elm St/Sacramento St AWSC 7.7 A 7.8 A 7.9 A 8.1 A
10. Elm St/Main St TWSC 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.6
Northbound Approach 9.9 A 10.0 B 10.2 B 10.6 B
Southbound Approach 10.0 B 9.9 A 9.5 A 9.8 A
11. Pine St/Church St Signal 5.7 A 6.1 A 6.1 A 7.0 A
12. Pine St/Sacramento St Signal 5.8 A 7.2 A 6.7 A 7.8 A
13. Lodi Ave/School St Signal 3.4 A 6.4 A 3.4 A 6.4 A
14. Lodi Ave/Sacramento St Signal 5.1 A 5.6 A 5.1 A 5.6 A
15. Lodi Ave/Stockton St Signal 11.7 B 13.7 B 11.7 B 13.7 B Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; LOS = Level of Service; TWSC = two-way stop control; AWSC = all-way stop control
Conclusions
• All 15 intersections evaluated are operating at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 489
Ms. Debbie Jewell Page 9 January 26, 2026
• LOS C or better operation would be retained with implementation of the Lockeford Road Diet, Locust Street Closure, Sacramento Street Closure, or all three roadway modifications.
Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
K
evin Carstens, PE (Civil, Traffic)
Senior Traffic Engineer
Z
achary Matley, AICP
Principal
JZM/krc/LOD003.L2
Enclosures: LOS Calculation Worksheets
490
HCM 7th TWSC
1: N Pleasant Ave & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 439 0 0 397 12 4 1 8 16 0 35
Future Vol, veh/h 20 439 0 0 397 12 4 1 8 16 0 35
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 5 5 0 9 505909
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length -------- 0---
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 24 516 0 0 467 14 5 1 9 19 0 41
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 490 0 - - - 0 806 1054 267 798 1047 259 Stage 1 ------ 5 6 4 5 6 4- 4 8 3 4 8 3-
Stage 2 ------ 2 4 3 4 9 0- 3 1 5 5 6 4-
Critical Hdwy 4.14 ----- 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 ----- 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1069 - 0 0 - - 273 225 731 277 227 740 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 478 507 - 534 551 -
Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 739 547 - 671 507 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1060 ----- 2 4 9 2 1 7 7 2 5 2 6 0 2 1 9 7 2 8 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 2 4 9 2 1 7- 2 6 0 2 1 9-
Stage 1 ------ 4 6 6 4 9 4- 5 2 9 5 4 6-
Stage 2 ------ 6 9 2 5 4 2- 6 3 8 4 9 4-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.56 0 13.97 13.87
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 242 725 157 - - - 465
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 0.013 0.022 - - - 0.129
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 20.3 10 8.5 0.2 - - 13.9
HCM Lane LOS C B A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0.1 - - - 0.4
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Church St & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 39 401 38 46 339 14 33 64 45 41 125 47 Future Volume (veh/h) 39 401 38 46 339 14 33 64 45 41 125 47 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 472 40 54 399 12 39 75 42 48 147 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 579 881 743 526 851 26 407 226 126 452 303 64 Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 972 1870 1577 886 1806 54 1205 1115 624 1273 1497 316 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 472 40 54 0 411 39 0 117 48 0 178 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 972 1870 1577 886 0 1860 1205 0 1740 1273 0 1813 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 4.8 0.4 1.2 0.0 4.0 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.9 0.0 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 4.8 0.4 6.1 0.0 4.0 3.1 0.0 1.6 2.5 0.0 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 579 881 743 526 0 876 407 0 352 452 0 367 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.54 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.47 0.10 0.00 0.33 0.11 0.00 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1232 2137 1801 1122 0 2125 1522 0 1962 1648 0 2071 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.5 5.0 3.9 7.2 0.0 4.8 10.9 0.0 9.2 10.2 0.0 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 6.6 5.8 3.9 7.3 0.0 5.4 10.9 0.0 9.4 10.3 0.0 9.9 LnGrp LOS A A A A A B A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 558 465 156 226
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.7 5.6 9.8 10.0
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 16.9 10.1 16.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.2 * 4.6 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 30.8 * 31 30.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 7.0 4.5 8.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 5.0 0.7 4.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.8
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 491
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: N Sacramento St & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 438 9 13 359 21 14 14 11 18 19 21 Future Volume (veh/h) 17 438 9 13 359 21 14 14 11 18 19 21 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 515 11 15 422 21 16 16 11 21 22 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 623 909 19 564 880 44 269 66 44 278 71 32
Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 947 1824 39 877 1767 88 594 623 419 643 673 306 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 0 526 15 0 443 43 0 0 53 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 947 0 1863 877 0 1855 1636 0 0 1622 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.3 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 4.7 5.0 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.05 0.37 0.26 0.40 0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 623 0 928 564 0 924 379 0 0 381 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.57 0.03 0.00 0.48 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1351 0 2362 1253 0 2382 1968 0 0 1924 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.3 0.0 4.2 6.0 0.0 4.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 5.4 0.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 4.5 9.9 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 546 458 43 53
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.0 4.6 9.9 9.9
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.5 7.4 16.5 7.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.9 * 4.6 * 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 26.1 * 31 * 27
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 2.7 7.0 2.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.2 0.1 4.2 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.2
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 7th TWSC
4: N Main St & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 417 7 11 412 7 3 4 2 4 2 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 417 7 11 412 7 3 4 2 4 2 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 3 0 3 2 0 2
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 90 - - - ----- 6 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 491 8 13 485 8 4 5 2 5 2 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 495 0 0 502 0 0 1032 1038 497 1036 1042 494 Stage 1 ------ 5 1 7 5 1 7- 5 1 7 5 1 7-
Stage 2 ------ 5 1 5 5 2 1- 5 1 9 5 2 5-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1069 - - 1063 - - 211 231 573 210 230 575 Stage 1 ------ 5 4 1 5 3 4- 5 4 1 5 3 4-
Stage 2 ------ 5 4 3 5 3 2- 5 4 0 5 2 9-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1067 - - 1059 - - 197 222 570 197 221 573 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 1 9 7 2 2 2- 1 9 7 2 2 1-
Stage 1 ------ 5 3 1 5 2 4- 5 3 1 5 2 4-
Stage 2 ------ 5 1 9 5 2 2- 5 2 3 5 2 0-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.19 0.22 20.35 15.85
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 245 1067 - - 1059 - - 204 573
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.011 - - 0.012 - - 0.035 0.021 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 20.4 8.4 - - 8.4 - - 23.2 11.4
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 0.1
492
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Stockton St & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 364 56 14 300 18 55 135 19 16 140 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 48 364 56 14 300 18 55 135 19 16 140 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 428 46 16 353 15 65 159 8 19 165 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 72 579 490 27 505 21 109 222 629 79 478 642
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1779 76 59 545 1548 18 1177 1581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 428 46 16 0 368 224 0 8 184 0 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1855 605 0 1548 1194 0 1581 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 11.3 1.1 0.5 0.0 9.7 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 11.3 1.1 0.5 0.0 9.7 21.9 0.0 0.2 21.1 0.0 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.29 1.00 0.10 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 579 490 27 0 527 330 0 629 557 0 642 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.74 0.09 0.59 0.00 0.70 0.68 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 486 1392 1179 486 0 1367 586 0 876 827 0 883 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.1 17.0 13.5 26.9 0.0 17.6 13.3 0.0 9.7 11.4 0.0 9.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 2.7 0.1 7.6 0.0 2.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 4.7 0.4 0.3 0.0 4.0 1.9 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.6 19.7 13.6 34.5 0.0 20.0 16.8 0.0 9.8 11.9 0.0 9.9 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 530 384 232 212
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.5 20.6 16.5 11.6
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 22.8 28.9 6.3 21.4 28.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 5.5 * 5.3 4.0 5.5 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 * 41 * 31 15.0 40.5 30.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 13.3 23.9 3.7 11.7 23.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 1.0 0.0 3.4 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.5
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 7th TWSC
6: N Sacramento St & Locust St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 21 1 1 15 10 4 24 6 7 36 5
Future Vol, veh/h 2 21 1 1 15 10 4 24 6 7 36 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 3 10 0 10 3 0 10 10 0 3
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 23 1 1 16 11 4 26 7 8 39 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 113 111 55 124 111 49 48 0 0 43 0 0 Stage 1 60 60 - 48 48 - ------
Stage 2 53 51 - 76 63 - ------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 864 779 1012 850 779 1019 1560 - - 1566 - - Stage 1 951 845 - 965 855 - ------
Stage 2 960 852 - 933 843 - ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 820 763 1000 802 764 1000 1555 - - 1551 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 820 763 - 802 764 - ------
Stage 1 944 838 - 953 844 - ------
Stage 2 919 842 - 894 836 - ------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.81 9.43 0.86 1.07
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 204 - - 775 842 256 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - 0.034 0.034 0.005 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.3 0 - 9.8 9.4 7.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - A A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
493
HCM 7th TWSC
7: N Main St & Locust St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 30 5 0 25 1 063371
Future Vol, veh/h 0 30 5 0 25 1 063371
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 1 1 0 2 101202
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 35 6 0 29 1 074481
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 33 0 0 42 0 0 75 72 41 73 74 34
Stage 1 ------ 3 9 3 9- 3 2 3 2-
Stage 2 ------ 3 6 3 3- 4 1 4 2-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1579 - - 1567 - - 915 819 1030 918 816 1039 Stage 1 ------ 9 7 6 8 6 2- 9 8 4 8 6 8-
Stage 2 ------ 9 8 0 8 6 8- 9 7 4 8 6 0-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1576 - - 1565 - - 902 816 1027 903 814 1035 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 9 0 2 8 1 6- 9 0 3 8 1 4-
Stage 1 ------ 9 7 5 8 6 1- 9 8 2 8 6 7-
Stage 2 ------ 9 6 8 8 6 6- 9 6 1 8 5 9-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 9.16 9.28
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 876 1576 - - 1565 - - 854
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 ------ 0.015
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.2 0 - - 0 - - 9.3
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: Church St & W Elm St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 119 34 8 75 4 29 138 16 6 190 26 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 119 34 8 75 4 29 138 16 6 190 26 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 140 19 9 88 4 34 162 15 7 224 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 207 270 36 216 290 13 617 556 52 673 550 57
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 81 1516 201 110 1633 72 1129 1682 156 1202 1663 171 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 0 0 101 0 0 34 0 177 7 0 247
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1797 0 0 1814 0 0 1129 0 1837 1202 0 1834 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.0 2.1 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.04 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.09
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 512 0 0 519 0 0 617 0 608 673 0 607 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2366 0 0 2364 0 0 1991 0 2845 2137 0 2841 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 4.9 5.5 0.0 5.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 5.3 5.5 0.0 5.8 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 170 101 211 254
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 7.2 5.5 5.8
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 11.7 8.2 11.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 5.1 4.7 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.3 30.9 24.3 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 4.1 2.9 4.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.1 0.3 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.3
HCM 7th LOS A
494
HCM 7th AWSC
9: N Sacramento St & W Elm St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 71 4 5 81 9 5 27 3 7 23 9
Future Vol, veh/h 2 71 4 5 81 9 5 27 3 7 23 9
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 2 82 5 6 93 10 6 31 3 8 26 10
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.7 7.8 7.6 7.6
HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 14% 3% 5% 18%
Vol Thru, % 77% 92% 85% 59%
Vol Right, % 9% 5% 9% 23%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 35 77 95 39
LT Vol 5 2 5 7
Through Vol 27 71 81 23
RT Vol 3 4 9 9
Lane Flow Rate 40 89 109 45
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.049 0.102 0.124 0.054
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.394 4.14 4.104 4.311
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 819 855 864 836
Service Time 2.396 2.217 2.177 2.312
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 0.104 0.126 0.054
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.6
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2
HCM 7th TWSC
10: N Main St & W Elm St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 73 1 2 87 3 1 11 8 0 8 4
Future Vol, veh/h 5 73 1 2 87 3 1 11 8 0 8 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 0 3 4 0 7 3 0 4 7 0 6
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 6 85 1 2 101 3 1 13 9 0 9 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 112 0 0 90 0 0 218 217 96 224 216 116 Stage 1 ------ 1 0 1 1 0 1- 1 1 5 1 1 5-
Stage 2 ------ 1 1 6 1 1 6- 1 1 0 1 0 2-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1478 - - 1505 - - 739 681 960 731 682 936 Stage 1 ------ 9 0 5 8 1 1- 8 9 0 8 0 1-
Stage 2 ------ 8 8 8 7 9 9- 8 9 5 8 1 1-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1468 - - 1499 - - 714 670 950 697 671 925 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 7 1 4 6 7 0- 6 9 7 6 7 1-
Stage 1 ------ 8 9 8 8 0 5- 8 8 3 7 9 4-
Stage 2 ------ 8 6 7 7 9 3- 8 6 3 8 0 5-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.47 0.16 9.87 9.97
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 762 114 - - 39 - - 738
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 0.004 - - 0.002 - - 0.019
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.9 7.5 0 - 7.4 0 - 10
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
495
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: Church St & W Pine St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 67 12 21 74 10 6 156 20 20 201 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 67 12 21 74 10 6 156 20 20 201 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19 79 7 25 87 12 7 184 20 24 236 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 267 265 22 277 244 31 659 575 63 691 620 26
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 229 1400 116 262 1292 167 1128 1652 180 1171 1779 75 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 105 0 0 124 0 0 7 0 204 24 0 246
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1746 0 0 1721 0 0 1128 0 1831 1171 0 1854 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.0 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 1.8 0.0 1.9 Prop In Lane 0.18 0.07 0.20 0.10 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 553 0 0 553 0 0 659 0 638 691 0 646 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.32 0.03 0.00 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2539 0 0 2516 0 0 2092 0 2965 2155 0 2963 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 4.5 5.2 0.0 4.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 6.9 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 5.0 5.2 0.0 5.2 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 105 124 211 270
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.9 7.0 5.0 5.2
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 11.2 7.8 11.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.2 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.8 30.4 25.8 * 31
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 3.9 3.1 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 2.2 0.9 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.7
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: S Sacramento St/N Sacramento St & W Pine St 07/03/2025 Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 81 6 23 120 11 5 30 23 7 28 3
Future Volume (veh/h) 3 81 6 23 120 11 5 30 23 7 28 3
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.96 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 90 7 26 133 11 6 33 20 8 31 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 116 1006 76 209 899 68 130 131 73 154 190 11 Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 10 1698 129 146 1519 115 99 1008 568 203 1468 86 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 0 0 170 0 0 59 0 0 41 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1837 0 0 1780 0 0 1675 0 0 1757 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.03 0.07 0.15 0.06 0.10 0.34 0.20 0.05
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1198 0 0 1177 0 0 334 0 0 355 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1482 0 0 1448 0 0 1111 0 0 1157 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 100 170 59 41
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.0 3.1 13.3 13.1
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 24.7 9.1 24.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.3 25.3 20.3 25.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 2.8 2.7 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.8
HCM 7th LOS A
496
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
13: S School St & W Lodi Ave 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 518 5 15 501 15 6 5 25 5 3 15 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 518 5 15 501 15 6 5 25 5 3 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 609 6 18 589 18 760646
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 653 2066 20 650 2016 62 269 69 0 225 38 51
Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 812 3605 36 806 3517 107 811 790 0 548 432 588 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 300 315 18 297 310 13 0 0 16 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 812 1777 1864 806 1777 1848 1601 0 0 1568 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 2.4 2.4 0.3 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.06 0.54 0.00 0.37 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 653 1018 1068 650 1018 1059 338 0 0 314 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1062 1912 2006 1055 1912 1989 1912 0 0 1867 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.8 3.1 3.1 11.7 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.8 3.2 3.2 11.8 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAAAAAB B
Approach Vol, veh/h 667 625 13 16
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.2 11.8 11.8
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.9 7.0 20.9 7.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 4.6 4.9 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.1 30.4 30.1 30.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 2.2 4.8 2.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 0.0 4.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 3.4
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
14: S Sacramento St & W Lodi Ave/E Lodi Ave 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 512 9 14 508 24 7 14 21 30 7 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 28 512 9 14 508 24 7 14 21 30 7 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 602 11 16 598 27 8 16 23 35 8 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 570 1670 31 576 1618 73 193 71 93 453 82 113 Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 798 3570 65 807 3458 156 223 612 801 1354 703 967 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 300 313 16 307 318 47 0 0 35 0 19 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 798 1777 1858 807 1777 1837 1637 0 0 1354 0 1670 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 2.7 2.7 0.3 2.8 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.08 0.17 0.49 1.00 0.58
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 570 831 869 576 831 860 358 0 0 453 0 195 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1163 2152 2251 1176 2152 2225 2022 0 0 1844 0 1910 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.5 4.3 4.3 5.3 4.3 4.3 10.1 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 10.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 5.5 4.7 4.7 5.3 4.7 4.7 10.2 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 10.1 LnGrp LOS AAAAAAB B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 646 641 47 54
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.7 4.7 10.2 10.1
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 8.0 17.2 8.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.6 28.9 30.6 28.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 2.5 5.1 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.9 0.1 5.9 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.1
HCM 7th LOS A
497
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
15: Stockton St & E Lodi Ave 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 411 69 24 455 7 75 143 25 29 102 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 411 69 24 455 7 75 143 25 29 102 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 484 67 28 535 4 88 168 22 34 120 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 81 1172 161 48 1284 10 381 363 48 348 333 72 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3134 432 1781 3614 27 1241 1617 212 1192 1485 322 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 273 278 28 263 276 88 0 190 34 0 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1789 1781 1777 1865 1241 0 1829 1192 0 1807 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 4.4 4.4 0.6 4.3 4.3 2.5 0.0 3.5 1.0 0.0 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 4.4 4.4 0.6 4.3 4.3 5.1 0.0 3.5 4.4 0.0 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 664 669 48 631 662 381 0 410 348 0 405 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.41 0.41 0.58 0.42 0.42 0.23 0.00 0.46 0.10 0.00 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1178 1623 1635 1178 1637 1718 1075 0 1433 1024 0 1430 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.0 8.9 8.9 18.5 9.4 9.4 14.7 0.0 12.9 14.8 0.0 12.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.4 0.9 0.9 4.1 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 1.4 1.4 0.3 1.4 1.5 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.5 9.8 9.8 22.6 10.3 10.3 15.0 0.0 13.7 14.9 0.0 13.1 LnGrp LOS C A A C B B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 605 567 278 180
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.8 10.9 14.1 13.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.6 19.3 13.5 6.4 18.5 13.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.6 * 4.9 * 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.4 35.1 30.1 25.4 * 35 * 30 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.6 6.4 7.1 3.1 6.3 6.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.9 1.4 0.1 6.7 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.7
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 7th TWSC
1: N Pleasant Ave & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 336 0 0 421 35 6 1 17 22 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 30 336 0 0 421 35 6 1 17 22 0 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 9 8 0 8 9 0 8 8 0 9
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length -------- 0---
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 92 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 31 346 0 0 458 36 6 1 18 23 0 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 503 0 - - - 0 646 911 181 728 893 265 Stage 1 ------ 4 0 8 4 0 8- 4 8 5 4 8 5-
Stage 2 ------ 2 3 8 5 0 3- 2 4 4 4 0 8-
Critical Hdwy 4.14 ----- 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 ----- 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1058 - 0 0 - - 357 273 830 311 279 733 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 591 595 - 532 550 -
Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 744 540 - 738 595 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1049 ----- 3 3 2 2 6 2 8 2 4 2 8 9 2 6 8 7 2 1 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 3 3 2 2 6 2- 2 8 9 2 6 8-
Stage 1 ------ 5 7 2 5 7 6- 5 2 8 5 4 5-
Stage 2 ------ 7 1 7 5 3 5- 6 9 3 5 7 6-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.92 0 11.52 14.98
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 320 824 295 - - - 404
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 0.021 0.029 - - - 0.107
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 16.5 9.5 8.5 0.2 - - 15
HCM Lane LOS C A A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - - 0.4
498
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Church St & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 304 79 53 385 44 54 123 78 47 133 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 304 79 53 385 44 54 123 78 47 133 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 317 70 55 401 37 56 128 58 49 139 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 502 809 667 575 727 67 480 300 136 450 406 50 Arrive On Green 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 949 1870 1543 994 1682 155 1225 1204 545 1188 1630 199 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 317 70 55 0 438 56 0 186 49 0 156 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 949 1870 1543 994 0 1837 1225 0 1749 1188 0 1830 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 3.2 0.7 1.1 0.0 4.9 1.1 0.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 3.2 0.7 4.3 0.0 4.9 3.0 0.0 2.5 3.5 0.0 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 502 809 667 575 0 795 480 0 435 450 0 455 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.39 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.55 0.12 0.00 0.43 0.11 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1149 2085 1720 1253 0 2048 1522 0 1924 1479 0 2040 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.9 5.4 4.7 6.8 0.0 5.8 9.8 0.0 8.7 10.2 0.0 8.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.0 5.8 4.8 6.9 0.0 6.7 9.8 0.0 9.0 10.2 0.0 8.7 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 414 493 242 205
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.8 6.7 9.2 9.1
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 16.2 11.5 16.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.2 * 4.6 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 30.8 * 31 30.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 7.5 5.5 6.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 3.3 0.6 4.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.2
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: N Sacramento St & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 385 16 32 431 31 20 37 28 23 44 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 28 385 16 32 431 31 20 37 28 23 44 33 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 414 17 34 463 24 22 40 25 25 47 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 521 836 34 561 825 43 214 160 84 224 183 59
Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 906 1781 73 953 1759 91 263 902 470 300 1026 332 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 0 431 34 0 487 87 0 0 90 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 906 0 1855 953 0 1850 1635 0 0 1658 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 0.0 4.3 0.7 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 0.0 4.3 5.0 0.0 5.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.05 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 521 0 870 561 0 868 458 0 0 466 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.00 0.50 0.06 0.00 0.56 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1118 0 2094 1205 0 2116 1749 0 0 1731 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.2 0.0 4.9 6.7 0.0 5.1 9.6 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.3 0.0 5.6 6.7 0.0 6.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 461 521 87 90
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.7 6.0 9.6 9.7
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 9.7 17.2 9.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.9 * 4.6 * 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 26.1 * 31 * 27
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 3.2 7.1 3.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 0.3 4.9 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.4
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 499
HCM 7th TWSC
4: N Main St & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 399 4 7 425 2 359327
Future Vol, veh/h 2 399 4 7 425 2 359327
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 5 5 0 3 505303
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 90 - - - ----- 6 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 2 438 4 8 467 2 3 5 10 3 2 8
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 472 0 0 448 0 0 936 935 448 937 939 476 Stage 1 ------ 4 4 8 4 4 8- 4 8 7 4 8 7-
Stage 2 ------ 4 8 9 4 8 8- 4 5 1 4 5 2-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1090 - - 1112 - - 245 265 610 245 264 589 Stage 1 ------ 5 9 0 5 7 3- 5 6 2 5 5 1-
Stage 2 ------ 5 6 1 5 5 0- 5 8 8 5 7 0-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1087 - - 1107 - - 235 260 605 231 259 584 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 2 3 5 2 6 0- 2 3 1 2 5 9-
Stage 1 ------ 5 8 6 5 6 9- 5 5 5 5 4 4-
Stage 2 ------ 5 4 3 5 4 3- 5 6 9 5 6 6-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.04 0.13 15.47 15
HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 363 1087 - - 1107 - - 242 584
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.002 - - 0.007 - - 0.023 0.013 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 15.5 8.3 - - 8.3 - - 20.3 11.2
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Stockton St & W Lockeford St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 356 48 18 368 31 83 113 42 16 107 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 356 48 18 368 31 83 113 42 16 107 25 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 383 34 19 396 24 89 122 26 17 115 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 56 689 570 34 620 38 244 240 362 129 394 353 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1546 1781 1742 106 488 1044 1578 103 1715 1539 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 383 34 19 0 420 211 0 26 132 0 13 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1546 1781 0 1848 1532 0 1578 1818 0 1539 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 6.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 7.3 2.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 6.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 7.3 4.8 0.0 0.5 2.3 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.42 1.00 0.13 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 56 689 570 34 0 657 484 0 362 523 0 353 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.56 0.06 0.56 0.00 0.64 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.25 0.00 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 691 1980 1637 691 0 1936 1377 0 1270 1514 0 1223 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.5 9.7 7.9 18.8 0.0 10.4 13.3 0.0 11.7 12.3 0.0 11.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 1.0 0.1 5.2 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 2.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 22.3 10.7 7.9 24.0 0.0 11.9 14.1 0.0 11.8 12.7 0.0 11.6 LnGrp LOS C B A C B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 451 439 237 145
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.4 12.4 13.9 12.6
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 19.7 14.2 5.2 19.2 14.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 5.5 * 5.3 4.0 5.5 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 * 41 * 31 15.0 40.5 30.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 8.3 6.8 2.7 9.3 4.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.9 1.9 0.0 4.1 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 500
HCM 7th TWSC
6: N Sacramento St & W Locust St/ Locust St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 14 16 3 13 6 19 60 5 9 54 15
Future Vol, veh/h 9 14 16 3 13 6 19 60 5 9 54 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 16 0 11 10 0 15 11 0 10 15 0 16
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 10 15 18 3 14 7 21 66 5 10 59 16
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 234 232 95 223 237 100 92 0 0 86 0 0 Stage 1 103 103 - 125 125 - ------
Stage 2 131 128 - 98 112 - ------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 720 668 962 732 664 956 1503 - - 1510 - - Stage 1 902 810 - 878 792 - ------
Stage 2 873 790 - 909 803 - ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 664 635 938 670 630 928 1480 - - 1488 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 664 635 - 670 630 - ------
Stage 1 883 792 - 853 769 - ------
Stage 2 825 767 - 859 785 - ------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.16 10.35 1.69 0.86
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 401 - - 740 697 199 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - 0.058 0.035 0.007 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 10.2 10.4 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.1 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
7: N Main St & Locust St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 29 0 2 12 3 3 12 0 2 14 3
Future Vol, veh/h 0 29 0 2 12 3 3 12 0 2 14 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 2 3 0 6 2 0 3 6 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 33 0 2 14 3 3 14 0 2 16 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 23 0 0 36 0 0 68 64 42 72 62 27
Stage 1 ------ 3 6 3 6- 2 6 2 6-
Stage 2 ------ 3 1 2 8- 4 6 3 6-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1592 - - 1574 - - 925 827 1028 919 828 1049 Stage 1 ------ 9 7 9 8 6 5- 9 9 1 8 7 3-
Stage 2 ------ 9 8 5 8 7 2- 9 6 7 8 6 5-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1583 - - 1570 - - 896 818 1019 892 820 1038 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 8 9 6 8 1 8- 8 9 2 8 2 0-
Stage 1 ------ 9 7 6 8 6 2- 9 8 4 8 6 7-
Stage 2 ------ 9 5 8 8 6 6- 9 4 7 8 6 2-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0.86 9.41 9.32
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 833 1583 - - 204 - - 856
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - - 0.001 - - 0.026
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.4 0 - - 7.3 0 - 9.3
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
501
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: Church St & W Elm St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 81 37 22 67 41 57 228 36 26 226 17 Future Volume (veh/h) 27 81 37 22 67 41 57 228 36 26 226 17 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.94 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 84 19 23 70 24 59 238 34 27 235 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 233 278 56 224 259 78 597 578 83 578 630 40
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 221 1233 247 193 1147 346 1119 1591 227 1098 1735 111 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 131 0 0 117 0 0 59 0 272 27 0 250
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 0 0 1686 0 0 1119 0 1819 1098 0 1846 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.0 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.7 3.1 0.0 2.4 Prop In Lane 0.21 0.15 0.20 0.21 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 567 0 0 561 0 0 597 0 661 578 0 670 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.41 0.05 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1869 0 0 1853 0 0 1642 0 2358 1602 0 2393 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 5.7 6.8 0.0 5.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.8 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 6.3 6.9 0.0 6.1 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 131 117 331 277
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 7.7 6.4 6.2
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 13.8 10.1 13.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 5.1 4.7 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.3 30.9 24.3 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 5.1 3.3 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.3 0.4 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.7
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th AWSC
9: N Sacramento St & W Elm St/E Elm St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 58 14 9 47 10 13 63 5 11 56 18
Future Vol, veh/h 8 58 14 9 47 10 13 63 5 11 56 18
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 59 14 9 47 10 13 64 5 11 57 18
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.8 7.7 7.8 7.7
HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 16% 10% 14% 13%
Vol Thru, % 78% 73% 71% 66%
Vol Right, % 6% 18% 15% 21%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 81 80 66 85
LT Vol 13 8 9 11
Through Vol 63 58 47 56
RT Vol 5 14 10 18
Lane Flow Rate 82 81 67 86
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.099 0.096 0.08 0.101
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.352 4.299 4.335 4.253
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 826 837 829 846
Service Time 2.361 2.308 2.345 2.263
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.099 0.097 0.081 0.102
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
502
HCM 7th TWSC
10: N Main St & E Elm St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 63 6 4 58 2 1 10 3 3 11 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 63 6 4 58 2 1 10 3 3 11 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 10 12 0 7 10 0 12 7 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 3 72 7 5 66 2 1 11 3 3 13 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 75 0 0 90 0 0 185 178 99 179 180 84 Stage 1 ------ 9 4 9 4- 8 3 8 3-
Stage 2 ------ 9 1 8 4- 9 6 9 7-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1524 - - 1505 - - 776 716 957 783 714 975 Stage 1 ------ 9 1 3 8 1 7- 9 2 5 8 2 6-
Stage 2 ------ 9 1 6 8 2 5- 9 1 1 8 1 5-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1514 - - 1487 - - 738 699 935 749 697 959 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 7 3 8 6 9 9- 7 4 9 6 9 7-
Stage 1 ------ 9 0 0 8 0 6- 9 1 6 8 1 8-
Stage 2 ------ 8 8 6 8 1 7- 8 8 2 8 0 3-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.31 0.46 9.96 9.93
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 742 74 - - 112 - - 751
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 0.002 - - 0.003 - - 0.027
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10 7.4 0 - 7.4 0 - 9.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: Church St & W Pine St 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 68 15 33 85 33 19 256 38 26 248 15 Future Volume (veh/h) 24 68 15 33 85 33 19 256 38 26 248 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 25 71 11 34 89 18 20 267 34 27 258 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 262 279 38 269 262 47 629 603 77 602 659 31
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 254 1283 176 278 1206 217 1105 1619 206 1074 1770 82 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 107 0 0 141 0 0 20 0 301 27 0 270
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1712 0 0 1701 0 0 1105 0 1826 1074 0 1853 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.4 0.0 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.7 3.1 0.0 2.3 Prop In Lane 0.23 0.10 0.24 0.13 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 579 0 0 578 0 0 629 0 679 602 0 690 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2207 0 0 2204 0 0 1805 0 2622 1726 0 2627 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.1 6.2 0.0 4.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.2 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.7 6.3 0.0 5.5 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 107 141 321 297
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.2 7.4 5.7 5.5
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 12.6 8.9 12.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.2 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.8 30.4 25.8 * 31
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 5.1 3.4 4.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 2.5 1.1 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.1
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 503
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: S Sacramento St/N Sacramento St & W Pine St 07/03/2025 Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 12 95 19 36 155 26 7 51 49 17 69 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 12 95 19 36 155 26 7 51 49 17 69 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.96 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 99 16 38 161 26 7 53 36 18 72 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 150 857 129 217 789 116 121 154 99 145 188 55 Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 65 1493 225 167 1375 202 62 988 630 164 1201 349 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 127 0 0 225 0 0 96 0 0 113 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1782 0 0 1744 0 0 1680 0 0 1714 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.37 0.16 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1136 0 0 1122 0 0 374 0 0 388 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1398 0 0 1378 0 0 1079 0 0 1099 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 127 225 96 113
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.4 3.6 13.3 13.4
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 24.7 10.1 24.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.3 25.3 20.3 25.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 3.1 4.0 4.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.2
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
13: S School St & W Lodi Ave 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 510 11 36 578 36 6 21 41 40 22 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 510 11 36 578 36 6 21 41 40 22 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 526 8 37 596 32 6 22 13 41 23 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 507 1711 26 551 1636 88 145 260 131 233 133 161 Arrive On Green 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 796 3583 54 868 3424 184 92 1086 547 360 555 672 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 261 273 37 309 319 41 0 0 111 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 796 1777 1860 868 1777 1831 1725 0 0 1587 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 3.0 3.0 0.9 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 3.0 3.0 3.9 3.7 3.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.10 0.15 0.32 0.37 0.42
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 507 849 889 551 849 875 536 0 0 527 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 839 1591 1666 913 1591 1640 1643 0 0 1536 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.6 5.4 5.4 6.6 5.6 5.6 9.9 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.7 5.6 5.6 6.6 5.8 5.8 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAAAAAB B
Approach Vol, veh/h 624 665 41 111
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.9 5.9 10.0 10.6
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 12.7 21.0 12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 4.6 4.9 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.1 30.4 30.1 30.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 3.8 5.9 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.9 0.6 4.3 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.4
HCM 7th LOS A
504
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
14: S Sacramento St & W Lodi Ave/E Lodi Ave 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 550 5 22 597 43 4 24 22 67 32 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 550 5 22 597 43 4 24 22 67 32 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 567 5 23 615 41 4 25 12 69 33 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 544 1666 15 582 1558 104 168 146 67 467 116 109 Arrive On Green 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 776 3609 32 838 3374 225 113 1111 506 1363 878 825 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 279 293 23 323 333 41 0 0 69 0 64 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 776 1777 1864 838 1777 1822 1730 0 0 1363 0 1703 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 2.6 2.6 0.5 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.12 0.10 0.29 1.00 0.48
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 544 820 860 582 820 841 381 0 0 467 0 224 V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.39 0.40 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1105 2106 2209 1188 2106 2160 2069 0 0 1813 0 1906 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.9 4.4 4.4 5.4 4.6 4.6 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 10.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 6.0 4.8 4.8 5.5 5.0 5.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 10.4 LnGrp LOS AAAAAAB B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 609 679 41 133
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.8 5.0 10.0 10.3
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.3 8.5 17.3 8.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.6 28.9 30.6 28.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 3.0 5.1 2.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.5 0.3 6.4 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.6
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
15: Stockton St & E Lodi Ave 07/03/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 69 475 80 42 518 27 63 235 42 30 187 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 69 475 80 42 518 27 63 235 42 30 187 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 495 69 44 540 23 66 245 32 31 195 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 95 1114 155 67 1183 50 361 448 59 327 425 78 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3123 433 1781 3468 147 1145 1616 211 1098 1530 283 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 281 283 44 276 287 66 0 277 31 0 231 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1779 1781 1777 1838 1145 0 1827 1098 0 1813 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 5.3 5.3 1.1 5.3 5.3 2.2 0.0 5.7 1.1 0.0 4.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 5.3 5.3 1.1 5.3 5.3 6.9 0.0 5.7 6.8 0.0 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 95 634 635 67 606 627 361 0 507 327 0 503 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.44 0.45 0.65 0.46 0.46 0.18 0.00 0.55 0.09 0.00 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1033 1424 1426 1033 1437 1486 831 0 1256 785 0 1259 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.5 10.8 10.8 20.9 11.3 11.3 16.0 0.0 13.5 16.5 0.0 13.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 1.0 1.1 3.9 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 1.8 1.9 0.5 1.9 2.0 0.5 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.0 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 25.1 11.9 11.9 24.8 12.5 12.4 16.2 0.0 14.4 16.7 0.0 13.8 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 636 607 343 262
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.4 13.3 14.8 14.1
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.3 20.5 17.0 6.9 19.9 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.6 * 4.9 * 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.4 35.1 30.1 25.4 * 35 * 30 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.1 7.3 8.9 3.7 7.3 8.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.1 1.9 0.1 7.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.7
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 505
HCM 7th TWSC
1: N Pleasant Ave & W Lockeford St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Lockeford Road Diet Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 439 0 0 397 12 4 1 8 16 0 35
Future Vol, veh/h 20 439 0 0 397 12 4 1 8 16 0 35
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 5 5 0 9 505909
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 0 ------- 0---
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 24 516 0 0 467 14 5 1 9 19 0 41
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 490 0 - - - 0 1040 1054 525 1056 1047 492 Stage 1 ------ 5 6 4 5 6 4- 4 8 3 4 8 3-
Stage 2 ------ 4 7 6 4 9 0- 5 7 3 5 6 4-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 ----- 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 ----- 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1073 - 0 0 - - 209 226 552 203 228 577 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 511 509 - 565 553 -
Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 570 549 - 504 509 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1064 ----- 1 8 7 2 1 9 5 4 7 1 9 1 2 2 1 5 6 7 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 1 8 7 2 1 9- 1 9 1 2 2 1-
Stage 1 ------ 4 9 9 4 9 7- 5 6 0 5 4 8-
Stage 2 ------ 5 2 4 5 4 4- 4 8 0 4 9 7-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.37 0 16.52 17.39
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 193 547 1064 - - - 350
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0.017 0.022 - - - 0.171
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 24.2 11.7 8.5 - - - 17.4
HCM Lane LOS C B A - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - - 0.6
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Church St & W Lockeford St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Lockeford Road Diet Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 39 401 38 46 339 14 33 64 45 41 125 47 Future Volume (veh/h) 39 401 38 46 339 14 33 64 45 41 125 47 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 472 40 54 399 12 39 75 42 48 147 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 171 784 63 736 896 27 384 222 124 429 298 63 Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 72 1581 128 886 1806 54 1204 1115 624 1273 1497 316 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 558 0 0 54 0 411 39 0 117 48 0 178 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1780 0 0 886 0 1860 1204 0 1740 1273 0 1813 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.1 3.4 0.0 1.7 2.6 0.0 2.5 Prop In Lane 0.08 0.07 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1018 0 0 736 0 923 384 0 347 429 0 361 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.45 0.10 0.00 0.34 0.11 0.00 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1997 0 0 1241 0 1984 1412 0 1831 1533 0 1933 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.3 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 4.7 11.8 0.0 9.9 11.1 0.0 10.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 5.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 5.2 11.8 0.0 10.1 11.1 0.0 10.7 LnGrp LOS A A A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 558 465 156 226
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.9 5.0 10.6 10.7
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 18.5 10.4 18.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.2 * 4.6 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 30.8 * 31 30.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 8.3 4.6 6.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 5.5 0.7 4.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.9
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 506
HCM 7th TWSC
1: N Pleasant Ave & W Lockeford St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Lockeford Road Diet Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 336 0 0 421 35 6 1 17 22 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 30 336 0 0 421 35 6 1 17 22 0 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 9 8 0 8 908809
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 0 ------- 0---
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 92 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 31 346 0 0 458 36 6 1 18 23 0 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 503 0 - - - 0 875 911 354 901 893 494 Stage 1 ------ 4 0 8 4 0 8- 4 8 5 4 8 5-
Stage 2 ------ 4 6 7 5 0 3- 4 1 7 4 0 8-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 ----- 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 ----- 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1062 - 0 0 - - 270 274 689 259 281 576 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 620 597 - 564 552 -
Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 576 542 - 613 597 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1053 ----- 2 5 0 2 6 4 6 8 4 2 4 0 2 7 0 5 6 6 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 2 5 0 2 6 4- 2 4 0 2 7 0-
Stage 1 ------ 6 0 2 5 7 9- 5 5 9 5 4 7-
Stage 2 ------ 5 5 1 5 3 7- 5 7 5 5 7 9-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.7 0 13.11 17.52
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 252 684 1053 - - - 331
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 0.026 0.029 - - - 0.131
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 19.7 10.4 8.5 - - - 17.5
HCM Lane LOS C B A - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - - 0.4
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Church St & W Lockeford St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Lockeford Road Diet Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 304 79 53 385 44 54 123 78 47 133 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 304 79 53 385 44 54 123 78 47 133 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 317 70 55 401 37 56 128 58 49 139 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 160 611 129 768 727 67 479 300 136 450 405 50 Arrive On Green 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 49 1413 298 994 1682 155 1220 1204 545 1188 1627 199 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 414 0 0 55 0 438 56 0 186 49 0 156 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1760 0 0 994 0 1837 1220 0 1749 1188 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.1 0.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 3.0 0.0 2.5 3.5 0.0 1.9 Prop In Lane 0.07 0.17 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 900 0 0 768 0 794 479 0 435 450 0 455 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.55 0.12 0.00 0.43 0.11 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2061 0 0 1446 0 2048 1518 0 1924 1479 0 2036 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 5.8 9.8 0.0 8.7 10.2 0.0 8.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 6.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 6.7 9.8 0.0 9.0 10.2 0.0 8.7 LnGrp LOS A A A A A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 414 493 242 205
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.3 6.5 9.2 9.1
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 16.2 11.5 16.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.2 * 4.6 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 30.8 * 31 30.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 6.7 5.5 6.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 3.9 0.6 4.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.3
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 507
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: N Sacramento St & W Lockeford St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 438 9 13 359 21 14 14 38 18 19 21 Future Volume (veh/h) 17 438 9 13 359 21 14 14 38 18 19 21 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 515 11 15 422 21 16 16 43 21 22 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 608 898 19 549 870 43 213 48 112 274 92 38
Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 947 1824 39 877 1767 88 294 392 921 575 756 310 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 0 526 15 0 443 75 0 0 53 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 947 0 1863 877 0 1855 1607 0 0 1641 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 4.9 0.3 0.0 3.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.0 4.9 5.2 0.0 3.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.05 0.21 0.57 0.40 0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 608 0 918 549 0 913 372 0 0 403 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.57 0.03 0.00 0.49 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1312 0 2303 1216 0 2323 1892 0 0 1863 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.6 0.0 4.4 6.3 0.0 4.2 9.9 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 5.6 0.0 5.2 6.3 0.0 4.7 10.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 546 458 75 53
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.2 4.8 10.0 9.8
Approach LOS A A B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.7 7.9 16.7 7.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.9 * 4.6 * 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 26.1 * 31 * 27
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 2.7 7.2 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.2 0.1 4.2 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.6
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 7th TWSC
4: N Main St & W Lockeford St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 417 34 11 412 7 3 4 2 4 2 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 417 34 11 412 7 3 4 2 4 2 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 3 0 3 2 0 2
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 90 - - - ----- 6 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 491 40 13 485 8 4 5 2 5 2 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 495 0 0 534 0 0 1032 1038 497 1036 1074 494 Stage 1 ------ 5 1 7 5 1 7- 5 1 7 5 1 7-
Stage 2 ------ 5 1 5 5 2 1- 5 1 9 5 5 7-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1069 - - 1034 - - 211 231 573 210 220 575 Stage 1 ------ 5 4 1 5 3 4- 5 4 1 5 3 4-
Stage 2 ------ 5 4 3 5 3 2- 5 4 0 5 1 2-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1067 - - 1031 - - 197 222 570 197 212 573 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 1 9 7 2 2 2- 1 9 7 2 1 2-
Stage 1 ------ 5 3 1 5 2 4- 5 3 1 5 2 4-
Stage 2 ------ 5 1 9 5 2 1- 5 2 3 5 0 3-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.18 0.22 20.37 15.95
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 245 1067 - - 1031 - - 202 573
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.011 - - 0.013 - - 0.035 0.021 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 20.4 8.4 - - 8.5 - - 23.5 11.4
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 0.1
508
HCM 7th TWSC
6: N Sacramento St & Locust St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 0 1 0 0 0 30 30 0 0 43 5
Future Vol, veh/h 23 0 1 0 0 0 30 30 0 0 43 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 3 10 0 10 3 0 10 10 0 3
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 25 0 1 0 0 0 33 33 0 0 47 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 160 160 62 165 163 53 55 0 0 43 0 0 Stage 1 52 52 - 108 108 - ------
Stage 2 108 108 - 57 55 - ------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 805 732 1002 800 729 1015 1550 - - 1566 - - Stage 1 960 851 - 898 806 - ------
Stage 2 898 806 - 955 849 - ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 778 707 990 767 705 996 1545 - - 1551 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 778 707 - 767 705 - ------
Stage 1 957 849 - 870 781 - ------
Stage 2 870 781 - 945 846 - ------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.74 0 3.69 0
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 900 - - 785 - 1551 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - 0.033 - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - 9.7 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A - A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 - 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC
7: N Main St & Locust St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 7
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 25 0 1 0 6 10 30 8 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 25 0 1 0 6 10 30 8 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 29 0 1 0 7 12 35 9 0
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 0 7.4 6.7 7.4
HCM LOS - A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 0% 96% 79%
Vol Thru, % 38% 100% 0% 21%
Vol Right, % 63% 0% 4% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 16 0 26 38
LT Vol 0 0 25 30
Through Vol 6008
RT Vol 10 0 1 0
Lane Flow Rate 19 0 31 45
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.019 0 0.036 0.052
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.646 4.068 4.214 4.16
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 980 0 849 862
Service Time 1.674 2.104 2.241 2.179
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0 0.037 0.052
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.4
HCM Lane LOS A N A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0 0.1 0.2
509
HCM 7th AWSC
9: N Sacramento St & W Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 71 4 5 81 35 5 27 3 14 23 9
Future Vol, veh/h 2 71 4 5 81 35 5 27 3 14 23 9
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 2 82 5 6 93 40 6 31 3 16 26 10
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7
HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 14% 3% 4% 30%
Vol Thru, % 77% 92% 67% 50%
Vol Right, % 9% 5% 29% 20%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 35 77 121 46
LT Vol 5 2 5 14
Through Vol 27 71 81 23
RT Vol 3 4 35 9
Lane Flow Rate 40 89 139 53
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.05 0.103 0.154 0.065
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.464 4.177 3.999 4.417
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 807 845 883 816
Service Time 2.466 2.268 2.083 2.418
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 0.105 0.157 0.065
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.7
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2
HCM 7th TWSC
10: N Main St & W Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 73 1 2 87 3 1 11 8 0 8 30
Future Vol, veh/h 12 73 1 2 87 3 1 11 8 0 8 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 0 3 4 0 7 3 0 4 7 0 6
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 85 1 2 101 3 1 13 9 0 9 35
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 112 0 0 90 0 0 234 234 96 241 233 116 Stage 1 ------ 1 1 7 1 1 7- 1 1 5 1 1 5-
Stage 2 ------ 1 1 6 1 1 6- 1 2 6 1 1 8-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1478 - - 1505 - - 721 667 960 713 668 936 Stage 1 ------ 8 8 7 7 9 8- 8 9 0 8 0 1-
Stage 2 ------ 8 8 8 7 9 9- 8 7 8 7 9 8-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1468 - - 1499 - - 670 652 950 676 653 925 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 6 7 0 6 5 2- 6 7 6 6 5 3-
Stage 1 ------ 8 7 5 7 8 8- 8 8 3 7 9 4-
Stage 2 ------ 8 3 8 7 9 3- 8 4 1 7 8 7-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.04 0.16 9.98 9.47
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 747 250 - - 39 - - 850
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 0.01 - - 0.002 - - 0.052
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10 7.5 0 - 7.4 0 - 9.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2
510
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: N Sacramento St & W Lockeford St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 385 16 35 431 31 20 37 47 23 44 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 28 385 16 35 431 31 20 37 47 23 44 33 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 414 17 38 463 24 22 40 46 25 47 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 517 834 34 557 823 43 197 131 125 223 188 60 Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 906 1781 73 953 1759 91 205 716 684 293 1031 331 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 0 431 38 0 487 108 0 0 90 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 906 0 1855 953 0 1850 1605 0 0 1655 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 0.0 4.4 5.2 0.0 5.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.05 0.20 0.43 0.28 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 517 0 868 557 0 866 452 0 0 471 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.00 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.56 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1106 0 2074 1191 0 2096 1707 0 0 1707 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.3 0.0 5.0 6.8 0.0 5.2 9.7 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.4 0.0 5.6 6.9 0.0 6.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 461 525 108 90
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.8 6.1 9.8 9.6
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.3 9.9 17.3 9.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.9 * 4.6 * 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 26.1 * 31 * 27
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 3.2 7.2 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 0.3 4.9 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.6
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 7th TWSC
4: N Main St & W Lockeford St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 399 23 7 425 2 6 5 9 3 2 7
Future Vol, veh/h 2 399 23 7 425 2 6 5 9 3 2 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 5 5 0 3 5 0 5 3 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 90 - - - ----- 6 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 438 25 8 467 2 7 5 10 3 2 8
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 472 0 0 469 0 0 936 935 448 937 960 476 Stage 1 ------ 4 4 8 4 4 8- 4 8 7 4 8 7-
Stage 2 ------ 4 8 9 4 8 8- 4 5 1 4 7 3-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1090 - - 1093 - - 245 265 610 245 257 589 Stage 1 ------ 5 9 0 5 7 3- 5 6 2 5 5 1-
Stage 2 ------ 5 6 1 5 5 0- 5 8 8 5 5 8-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1087 - - 1088 - - 235 260 605 231 252 584 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 2 3 5 2 6 0- 2 3 1 2 5 2-
Stage 1 ------ 5 8 6 5 6 9- 5 5 5 5 4 4-
Stage 2 ------ 5 4 3 5 4 3- 5 6 9 5 5 4-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.04 0.13 16.5 15.07
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 335 1087 - - 1088 - - 239 584
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.066 0.002 - - 0.007 - - 0.023 0.013 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 16.5 8.3 - - 8.3 - - 20.4 11.2
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 0
511
HCM 7th TWSC
6: N Sacramento St & W Locust St/ Locust St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 0 16 0 0 0 34 65 0 0 63 18
Future Vol, veh/h 23 0 16 0 0 0 34 65 0 0 63 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 16 0 11 10 0 15 11 0 10 15 0 16
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 25 0 18 0 0 0 37 71 0 0 69 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 257 256 106 241 266 102 105 0 0 86 0 0 Stage 1 95 95 - 161 161 - ------
Stage 2 162 161 - 80 105 - ------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - ------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 696 648 948 713 640 953 1486 - - 1510 - - Stage 1 912 816 - 841 765 - ------
Stage 2 840 765 - 928 808 - ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 657 612 924 664 604 925 1464 - - 1488 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 657 612 - 664 604 - ------
Stage 1 898 804 - 807 734 - ------
Stage 2 805 734 - 901 796 - ------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.13 0 2.58 0
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 618 - - 745 - 1488 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - 0.058 - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 10.1 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.2 - 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC
7: N Main St & Locust St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 7
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 14 0 3 0 15 9 21 17 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 14 0 3 0 15 9 21 17 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 16 0 3 0 17 10 24 20 0
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 0 7.2 6.9 7.3
HCM LOS - A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 0% 82% 55%
Vol Thru, % 63% 100% 0% 45%
Vol Right, % 38% 0% 18% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 24 0 17 38
LT Vol 0 0 14 21
Through Vol 15 0 0 17
R T V o l 9030
Lane Flow Rate 28 0 20 44
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.029 0 0.022 0.05
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.775 4.073 4.117 4.099
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 949 0 869 876
Service Time 1.794 2.107 2.146 2.112
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0 0.023 0.05
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.3
HCM Lane LOS A N A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0 0.1 0.2
512
HCM 7th AWSC
9: N Sacramento St & W Elm St/E Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 58 14 9 47 25 13 63 5 20 56 18
Future Vol, veh/h 8 58 14 9 47 25 13 63 5 20 56 18
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 8 59 14 9 47 25 13 64 5 20 57 18
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.8 7.7 7.9 7.9
HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 16% 10% 11% 21%
Vol Thru, % 78% 73% 58% 60%
Vol Right, % 6% 18% 31% 19%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 81 80 81 94
LT Vol 13 8 9 20
Through Vol 63 58 47 56
RT Vol 5 14 25 18
Lane Flow Rate 82 81 82 95
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.1 0.097 0.097 0.114
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.396 4.337 4.259 4.315
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 817 828 844 834
Service Time 2.409 2.351 2.273 2.328
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.1 0.098 0.097 0.114
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.9
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
HCM 7th TWSC
10: N Main St & E Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Locust Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 63 6 4 58 2 1 10 3 3 11 19
Future Vol, veh/h 12 63 6 4 58 2 1 10 3 3 11 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 10 12 0 7 10 0 12 7 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 72 7 5 66 2 1 11 3 3 13 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 75 0 0 90 0 0 206 199 99 200 201 84 Stage 1 ------ 1 1 4 1 1 4- 8 3 8 3-
Stage 2 ------ 9 1 8 4- 1 1 7 1 1 8-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1524 - - 1505 - - 752 697 957 759 695 975 Stage 1 ------ 8 9 1 8 0 1- 9 2 5 8 2 6-
Stage 2 ------ 9 1 6 8 2 5- 8 8 8 7 9 8-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1514 - - 1487 - - 698 676 935 721 674 959 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 6 9 8 6 7 6- 7 2 1 6 7 4-
Stage 1 ------ 8 7 2 7 8 4- 9 1 6 8 1 8-
Stage 2 ------ 8 7 0 8 1 7- 8 5 4 7 8 2-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.1 0.46 10.11 9.61
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 720 262 - - 112 - - 819
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 0.009 - - 0.003 - - 0.046
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.1 7.4 0 - 7.4 0 - 9.6
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
513
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: Church St & W Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 119 34 13 75 4 29 138 57 6 190 26 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 119 34 13 75 4 29 138 57 6 190 26 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 140 19 15 88 4 34 162 63 7 224 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 202 271 36 233 276 12 622 432 168 634 566 58 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 79 1518 201 177 1546 67 1129 1271 494 1152 1663 171 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 0 0 107 0 0 34 0 225 7 0 247
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1798 0 0 1790 0 0 1129 0 1765 1152 0 1834 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.0 2.1 0.0 2.1 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.04 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.09
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 509 0 0 521 0 0 622 0 601 634 0 624 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.37 0.01 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2318 0 0 2276 0 0 1950 0 2678 1989 0 2782 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 5.1 5.9 0.0 5.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 5.6 5.9 0.0 5.7 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 170 107 259 254
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 7.4 5.7 5.7
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 12.0 8.3 12.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 5.1 4.7 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.3 30.9 24.3 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 4.1 3.0 4.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.2 0.3 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.4
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th AWSC
9: N Sacramento St & W Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 75 0 0 86 12 0 0 0 30 0 9
Future Vol, veh/h 43 75 0 0 86 12 0 0 0 30 0 9
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 49 86 0 0 99 14 0 0 0 34 0 10
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8 7.7 0 7.8
HCM LOS A A - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 36% 0% 77%
Vol Thru, % 100% 64% 88% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 12% 23%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 118 98 39
LT Vol 0 43 0 30
Through Vol 0 75 86 0
RT Vol 0 0 12 9
Lane Flow Rate 0 136 113 45
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.157 0.126 0.056
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.528 4.171 4.042 4.489
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 854 879 802
Service Time 2.53 2.225 2.105 2.489
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.159 0.129 0.056
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.5 8 7.7 7.8
HCM Lane LOS N A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.6 0.4 0.2
514
HCM 7th TWSC
10: N Main St & W Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 73 28 2 87 3 4 11 8 0 8 4
Future Vol, veh/h 5 73 28 2 87 3 4 11 8 0 8 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 0 3 4 0 7 304706
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 6 85 33 2 101 3 5 13 9 0 9 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 112 0 0 121 0 0 233 233 112 224 248 116 Stage 1 ------ 1 1 7 1 1 7- 1 1 5 1 1 5-
Stage 2 ------ 1 1 6 1 1 6- 1 1 0 1 3 3-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1478 - - 1466 - - 721 667 941 731 655 936 Stage 1 ------ 8 8 8 7 9 9- 8 9 0 8 0 1-
Stage 2 ------ 8 8 8 7 9 9- 8 9 5 7 8 6-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1468 - - 1460 - - 697 656 931 696 644 925 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 6 9 7 6 5 6- 6 9 6 6 4 4-
Stage 1 ------ 8 8 1 7 9 3- 8 8 3 7 9 4-
Stage 2 ------ 8 6 7 7 9 3- 8 6 3 7 8 0-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.35 0.16 10.05 10.12
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 740 80 - - 39 - - 717
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.036 0.004 - - 0.002 - - 0.019
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10 7.5 0 - 7.5 0 - 10.1
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: Church St & W Pine St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 67 12 21 74 51 6 156 20 25 201 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 67 12 21 74 51 6 156 20 25 201 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19 79 7 25 87 60 7 184 20 29 236 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 251 339 27 237 220 137 616 555 60 647 598 25 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 185 1445 116 152 937 583 1128 1652 180 1171 1779 75 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 105 0 0 172 0 0 7 0 204 29 0 246
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1746 0 0 1672 0 0 1128 0 1831 1171 0 1854 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.0 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.7 2.1 0.0 2.1 Prop In Lane 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.35 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 617 0 0 593 0 0 616 0 615 647 0 623 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.33 0.04 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2344 0 0 2271 0 0 1933 0 2754 1992 0 2752 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 5.1 5.9 0.0 5.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 6.5 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 5.5 5.9 0.0 5.8 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 105 172 211 275
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.5 7.0 5.5 5.8
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 11.5 9.0 11.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.2 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.8 30.4 25.8 * 31
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 4.1 3.7 4.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 2.3 1.3 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.1
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 515
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: S Sacramento St/N Sacramento St & W Pine St 07/07/2025 Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 84 11 50 131 0 35 0 23 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 84 11 50 131 0 35 0 23 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 1.00 0.94 0.92 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 93 12 56 146 -1 39 0 20 0 0 -1
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 0 978 126 267 556 0 272 11 52 0 0 585
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1616 209 347 1373 -9 830 99 476 0 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 105 0 0 0 5 90000 - 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1824 0 0 0 1405 0 0 0 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.11 0.28 0.00 0.66 0.34 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 1104 0 0 0 336 0 0 0 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 1397 0 0 0 1029 0 0 0 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 105 0 59 -1
Approach Delay, s/veh 2.7 0.0 13.7 0.0
Approach LOS A B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 24.7 8.3 24.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.3 25.3 20.3 25.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.8 0.0 0.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.7
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: Church St & W Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 81 37 31 67 41 57 228 113 26 226 17 Future Volume (veh/h) 27 81 37 31 67 41 57 228 113 26 226 17 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.94 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 84 19 32 70 24 59 238 114 27 235 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 220 273 55 235 240 70 618 465 223 529 684 44 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 218 1236 247 260 1084 316 1120 1178 564 1022 1735 111 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 131 0 0 126 0 0 59 0 352 27 0 250
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1701 0 0 1660 0 0 1120 0 1743 1022 0 1846 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.9 0.5 0.0 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.9 4.4 0.0 2.4 Prop In Lane 0.21 0.15 0.25 0.19 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 547 0 0 544 0 0 618 0 687 529 0 728 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.51 0.05 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1749 0 0 1711 0 0 1535 0 2114 1366 0 2239 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 5.9 7.5 0.0 5.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.4 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 6.7 7.6 0.0 5.8 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 131 126 411 277
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 8.4 6.7 6.0
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 15.1 10.3 15.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 5.1 4.7 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.3 30.9 24.3 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 6.4 3.5 5.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.3 0.4 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.0
HCM 7th LOS A
516
HCM 7th AWSC
9: N Sacramento St & W Elm St/E Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 85 72 0 0 56 22 0 0 0 67 0 18
Future Vol, veh/h 85 72 0 0 56 22 0 0 0 67 0 18
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 86 73 0 0 57 22 0 0 0 68 0 18
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh8.3 7.6 0 8
HCM LOS A A - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 54% 0% 79%
Vol Thru, % 100% 46% 72% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 28% 21%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 157 78 85
LT Vol 0 85 0 67
Through Vol 0 72 56 0
RT Vol 0 0 22 18
Lane Flow Rate 0 159 79 86
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.187 0.091 0.107
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.563 4.253 4.139 4.491
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 833 871 802
Service Time 2.571 2.334 2.139 2.496
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.191 0.091 0.107
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 8.3 7.6 8
HCM Lane LOS N A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.7 0.3 0.4
HCM 7th TWSC
10: N Main St & E Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 63 76 4 58 2 13 10 3 3 11 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 63 76 4 58 2 13 10 3 3 11 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 10 12 0 7 10 0 12 7 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 72 86 5 66 2 15 11 3 3 13 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 75 0 0 170 0 0 225 218 139 179 260 84 Stage 1 ------ 1 3 4 1 3 4- 8 3 8 3-
Stage 2 ------ 9 1 8 4- 9 6 1 7 7-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1524 - - 1407 - - 731 680 909 783 645 975 Stage 1 ------ 8 7 0 7 8 6- 9 2 5 8 2 6-
Stage 2 ------ 9 1 6 8 2 5- 9 1 1 7 5 3-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1514 - - 1391 - - 694 664 889 748 629 959 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 6 9 4 6 6 4- 7 4 8 6 2 9-
Stage 1 ------ 8 5 8 7 7 5- 9 1 6 8 1 8-
Stage 2 ------ 8 8 6 8 1 7- 8 8 1 7 4 2-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.16 0.47 10.37 10.29
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 699 34 - - 112 - - 702
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 0.002 - - 0.003 - - 0.029
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.4 7.4 0 - 7.6 0 - 10.3
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
517
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: Church St & W Pine St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 68 15 33 85 110 19 256 38 35 248 15 Future Volume (veh/h) 24 68 15 33 85 110 19 256 38 35 248 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 25 71 11 34 89 99 20 267 34 36 258 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 238 383 50 210 222 211 566 577 74 540 631 29 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 201 1341 177 142 777 740 1105 1619 206 1074 1770 82 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 107 0 0 222 0 0 20 0 301 36 0 270
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1718 0 0 1659 0 0 1105 0 1825 1074 0 1853 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.1 0.7 0.0 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.1 3.8 0.0 2.7 Prop In Lane 0.23 0.10 0.15 0.45 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 671 0 0 642 0 0 566 0 651 540 0 661 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.46 0.07 0.00 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1907 0 0 1878 0 0 1556 0 2288 1485 0 2292 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.7 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 6.1 7.5 0.0 6.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 6.8 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 6.8 7.6 0.0 6.5 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 107 222 321 306
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.8 7.7 6.8 6.7
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 13.4 11.2 13.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.2 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.8 30.4 25.8 * 31
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 5.8 4.6 5.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 2.5 1.9 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.0
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: S Sacramento St/N Sacramento St & W Pine St 07/07/2025 Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Sacramento Closure Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 107 28 106 181 0 58 0 49 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 107 28 106 181 0 58 0 49 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.93 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 111 25 110 189 -1 60 0 36 0 0 -8 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 872 196 317 462 0 275 11 67 0 0 585
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1466 330 483 1148 -5 803 84 532 0 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 136 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 -8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1796 0 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.18 0.37 0.00 0.62 0.37 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 1068 0 0 0 353 0 0 0 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 1351 0 0 0 1018 0 0 0 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 136 0 96 -8
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.0 0.0 13.9 0.0
Approach LOS A B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 24.7 8.9 24.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.3 25.3 20.3 25.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 3.1 0.0 0.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.8
HCM 7th LOS A
518
HCM 7th AWSC
9: N Sacramento St & W Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Both Closures Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 75 0 0 86 38 0 0 0 37 0 9
Future Vol, veh/h 43 75 0 0 86 38 0 0 0 37 0 9
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 49 86 0 0 99 44 0 0 0 43 0 10
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh8.1 7.8 0 7.9
HCM LOS A A - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 36% 0% 80%
Vol Thru, % 100% 64% 69% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 31% 20%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 118 124 46
LT Vol 0 43 0 37
Through Vol 0 75 86 0
RT Vol 0 0 38 9
Lane Flow Rate 0 136 143 53
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.159 0.156 0.067
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.599 4.208 3.946 4.576
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 845 898 787
Service Time 2.601 2.274 2.019 2.576
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.161 0.159 0.067
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 8.1 7.8 7.9
HCM Lane LOS N A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.6 0.6 0.2
HCM 7th TWSC
10: N Main St & W Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing AM with Both Closures Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 73 28 2 87 3 4 11 8 0 8 30
Future Vol, veh/h 12 73 28 2 87 3 4 11 8 0 8 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 0 3 4 0 7 3 0 4 7 0 6
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 85 33 2 101 3 5 13 9 0 9 35
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 112 0 0 121 0 0 250 249 112 241 264 116 Stage 1 ------ 1 3 3 1 3 3- 1 1 5 1 1 5-
Stage 2 ------ 1 1 6 1 1 6- 1 2 6 1 4 9-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1478 - - 1466 - - 704 653 941 713 641 936 Stage 1 ------ 8 7 0 7 8 6- 8 9 0 8 0 1-
Stage 2 ------ 8 8 8 7 9 9- 8 7 8 7 7 4-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1468 - - 1460 - - 653 639 931 675 627 925 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 6 5 3 6 3 9- 6 7 5 6 2 7-
Stage 1 ------ 8 5 8 7 7 5- 8 8 3 7 9 4-
Stage 2 ------ 8 3 8 7 9 3- 8 4 0 7 6 3-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.79 0.16 10.19 9.52
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 720 181 - - 39 - - 841
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 0.01 - - 0.002 - - 0.053
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.2 7.5 0 - 7.5 0 - 9.5
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2
519
HCM 7th AWSC
9: N Sacramento St & W Elm St/E Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Both Closures Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.1
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 85 72 0 0 56 37 0 0 0 76 0 18
Future Vol, veh/h 85 72 0 0 56 37 0 0 0 76 0 18
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 86 73 0 0 57 37 0 0 0 77 0 18
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh8.4 7.6 0 8.2
HCM LOS A A - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 54% 0% 81%
Vol Thru, % 100% 46% 60% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 40% 19%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 157 93 94
LT Vol 0 85 0 76
Through Vol 0 72 56 0
RT Vol 0 0 37 18
Lane Flow Rate 0 159 94 95
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.189 0.107 0.12
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.609 4.281 4.09 4.54
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 825 880 794
Service Time 2.618 2.374 2.098 2.545
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.193 0.107 0.12
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 8.4 7.6 8.2
HCM Lane LOS N A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.7 0.4 0.4
HCM 7th TWSC
10: N Main St & E Elm St 07/07/2025
Downtown Lodi Specific Plan - Existing PM with Both Closures Synchro 12 Report W-Trans Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 63 76 4 58 2 13 10 3 3 11 19
Future Vol, veh/h 12 63 76 4 58 2 13 10 3 3 11 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 10 12 0 7 10 0 12 7 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 72 86 5 66 2 15 11 3 3 13 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 75 0 0 170 0 0 245 238 139 200 280 84 Stage 1 ------ 1 5 4 1 5 4- 8 3 8 3-
Stage 2 ------ 9 1 8 4- 1 1 7 1 9 7-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1524 - - 1407 - - 708 663 909 759 628 975 Stage 1 ------ 8 4 8 7 7 0- 9 2 5 8 2 6-
Stage 2 ------ 9 1 6 8 2 5- 8 8 8 7 3 8-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1514 - - 1391 - - 655 642 889 720 608 959 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ 6 5 5 6 4 2- 7 2 0 6 0 8-
Stage 1 ------ 8 3 0 7 5 4- 9 1 6 8 1 8-
Stage 2 ------ 8 7 0 8 1 7- 8 5 3 7 2 2-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.59 0.47 10.62 9.82
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 670 129 - - 112 - - 785
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.009 - - 0.003 - - 0.048
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.6 7.4 0 - 7.6 0 - 9.8
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2
520
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL STUDIES
Appendix A.2: Economic Analysis
Contents
• Economics and Market Report for Downtown Lodi Specific Plan • Evaluation of Financial Feasibility of Prototype Development Projects in Lodi
INTRODUCTION
The economic subconsultant prepared a real estate market analysis for the Downtown that served to inform the Specific Plan and to provide essential input for the financial feasibility analyses.
As part of this economic analysis, the project team selected six priority sites for financial feasibility examination. Conceptual prototype designs and development programs were prepared for these six priority sites to test project feasibility and refine the initial design concepts, and to estimate development project residual land value.
The prototypes were developed for priority sites within the Specific Plan but they are provided to be applied to fit other parcels capable of supporting the development program with similar characteristics such as parcel size, frontage exposure, and building footprint area. 521
0 ECONOMICS AND MARKET REPORT FOR DOWNTOWN LODI SPECIFIC PLAN Prepared for: City of Lodi RRM Design Submitted by:
Date: February 20, 2025
522
1 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. 1 Index of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Index of Figures ................................................................................................................................... 2 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 5 Experience of Other California Towns with Wine Tourism ...................................................................... 5 Summary of Downtown Lodi Market Forecasts ...................................................................................... 5 III. CASE STUDIES OF WINE TOURISM TOWNS IN CALIFORNIA ....................................................... 6 Healdsburg ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Paso Robles .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Los Olivos ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Sebastopol ............................................................................................................................................. 15 IV. LODI’S REAL ESTATE MARKET TRENDS ........................................................................................ 20 Lodi History ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Current Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 20 The Hotel Market ................................................................................................................................... 21 Multi-Family Market Trends .................................................................................................................. 24 523
2 Index of Tables Table 1: Summary of Citywide and Downtown Lodi Market Demand – 20 Year Forecast .......................... 5 Table 2: Comparison of Lodi to Other Wine Tourism Cities in California .................................................. 21 Table 3: Current Inventory of Hotels in Lodi .............................................................................................. 22 Table 4: Trend in Lodi Hotel Market Performance – Properties within Four Miles of Downtown ............ 23 Table 5: Multi Family Market Trends in Lodi – Properties within Four Miles of Downtown and in Projects of 25+ Units ............................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6: Retail Market Trends in Lodi – within Four Miles of Downtown ................................................. 26 Table 7: Downtown Lodi Retail Market Trend ........................................................................................... 27 Table 8: Office Market in Lodi – within Four Miles of Downtown ............................................................. 28 Table 9: Lodi Downtown Office Market Trend .......................................................................................... 28 Index of Figures Figure 1: Downtown Lodi Specific Plan Area ............................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Historic Healdsburg Plaza ............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Downtown Healdsburg Shops ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: The Mill District Development ...................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Downtown Paso Robles Shops .................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Rebuilt Historic Paso Robles Inn ................................................................................................. 11 Figure 9: Los Olivos Tasting Room & Wine Shop ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 10: Historic Mattei’s Tavern in Los Olivos ....................................................................................... 13 Figure 11: Tasting Rooms Along Grand Avenue in Los Olivos .................................................................... 15 Figure 12: The Barlow ................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 13: Coworking Space at the Livery on Main in Sebastopol ............................................................. 18 524
3 I. INTRODUCTION This real estate market and financial feasibility report serves the dual purpose of informing the creation of the Downtown Lodi Specific Plan by the RRM Design team and providing market data and professional opinions for the development community going forward. The private real estate development sector will have an important role to play in implementing this Specific Plan. This market report has two key components: • First, it reviews four case studies of pivotal development project or public investments or policies that transformed towns like Healdsburg, Paso Robles, Los Olivos and Sebastopol into more vibrant wine tourism destinations. • Second, it examines the city of Lodi and Downtown Lodi real estate market trends and forecasts forward for the next 20 years. The Specific Plan area is illustrated in Figure 1 below. The market demand forecast includes hotel development, multi-family housing, retail and office development. • Third, informed by the market analysis and the (This section is not included in this draft.) While this market report is LEG’s primary contribution to the Specific Plan, our responsibilities include three additional work products: 1) a memorandum summarizing interviews with four developers active in or near Lodi (submitted on November 25, 20240), 2) a joint RRM/LEG evaluation of site opportunities and a development feasibility analysis of those sites, and 3) another memorandum discussing implementation issues and strategies from an economics perspective. 525
4 Figure 1: Downtown Lodi Specific Plan Area
526
5 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Experience of Other California Towns with Wine Tourism Lodi is a considerably larger than the well patronized wine tourism towns like St. Helena, Yountville, Healdsburg, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Los Olivos and Paso Robles. Maintaining a small-town scale in Downtown Lodi is a key lesson from the case studies. A second key lesson is the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings that add charm and uniqueness. Quality restaurants to complement the interest in wine is a key third lesson. A central public space or plaza, like Sonoma Plaza or Healdsburg Plaza, is another important lesson. A well organized and spirited downtown association can be very helpful. Perhaps the most important lesson is the development of a high-quality wine country hotel in the downtown. The development of the Hotel Healdsburg and the major reinvestment in the Inn at Mattei’s Tavern in Los Olivos were highly instrumental in upgrading those towns into upscale wine country destinations. Summary of Downtown Lodi Market Forecasts We have made two sets of market forecasts for the next two decades. The low forecast assumes that the California economy will experience at least one recession during the forecast period and the high forecast assumes steady moderate growth for California and San Joaquin County. Both forecasts assume that the current weak demand for wine grapes will not persist and demand will rebound within one or two years. In the short term, local wine tourism is not closely correlated to wine grape demand because much of the local grape production is sold to major global corporations. A summary of our forecast is presented in Table 1 below. Table 1: Summary of Citywide and Downtown Lodi Market Demand – 20 Year Forecast Since the primary objective of this market study is to inform the Downtown Lodi Specific Plan, LEG recommends that the zoning capacity of the new Specific Plan exceed the market forecast by at least three folds, if it is the City’s objective to attract rather than to constrain development. The excess zoning capacity provides developers with choice in selecting sites and more flexibility in negotiating with land owners. This ample capacity is an important key to plan implementation in addition to investment in public infrastructure and amenities. The environmental analysis of the Plan should consider the market forecast rather than simply the Plan or zoning capacity.
Land Use Type Low High Low High Comment on Downtown Market Hotel Demand (Units) 700 1,000 120 200 Should encourage boutique hotels downtown Multi- Family Housing (Units)1,400 2,000 200 400 Does not include below market housing Retail & Restaurant Space (Sq Ft)1,000,000 1,200,000 80,000 120,000 Food, beverage and specialty shops Office/Lab Space (Sq Ft)100,000 200,000 25,000 40,000 Upper floor of mixed use buildings Source: Land Econ Group
City of Lodi Downtown Lodi
527
6 III. CASE STUDIES OF WINE TOURISM TOWNS IN CALIFORNIA The following four case studies highlight examples of downtown or near downtown development projects and investments that helped to transform towns like Healdsburg, Paso Robles, Los Olivos and Sebastopol into wine country destinations. Healdsburg Healdsburg is located at the northern end of Sonoma Valley. In addition to being a renowned wine destination, the reputation of Healdsburg is one of fine dining, luxury accommodations and spas, and boutique shopping. Healdsburg’s pedestrian friendly downtown provides charm and attraction for visitors, all centered around Healdsburg Plaza as the focal point for downtown. The town prioritized preserving and beautifying the Plaza, which was a central square dating back to the late 19th century. The Plaza serves as a gathering place surrounded by shopping, restaurants, tasting rooms and galleries, and over time has been enhanced with lush landscaping, shaded seating areas, creating a welcoming space for the community to gather. It is also used as a space to host events such as farmers’ markets, holiday festivals, and outdoor concerts, drawing foot traffic and fostering community. With the Plaza as a focal point historic buildings surrounding the plaza were redeveloped into modern spaces to serve as boutique retails shops, tasting rooms, restaurants and art galleries with a local artisan focus. Figure 2: Historic Healdsburg Plaza
528
7 Luxury Downtown Anchors Healdsburg has long been home to boutique hotels like Hotel Healdsburg, Harmon Guest House and Duchamp Hotel, which offer high-end lodging for wine tourists. Hotel Healdsburg was built by the Piazza Hotel group, an independent and boutique hotel developer and operator founded in 2001. A luxury hotel anchoring the Plaza was discussed by city council since the 1980s, but the building was only completed in 2001. At the time, the community was heavily split between those that felt that introducing luxury lodging would compromise the local community’s character and quality of life in exchange for tourist dollars. Others saw that it was a viable path to build on the city’s historic character and enhance the visitor experience. The development of Hotel Healdsburg was instrumental in transforming the image of the town from a working-class community to an upscale wine country destination. In addition, Healdsburg promoted its downtown as a hub for tasting rooms, making wine accessible to visitors without requiring vineyard tours. By pulling tourists out of cars and onto the sidewalks in downtown, tourists are encouraged to linger and walk along the charming historic downtown streets lined with boutique shopping and dining options. To further enhance the downtown experience the city strategically located parking lots and garages outside the main downtown area and invested in bike-friendly features such as bike lanes and bike rental programs. Creating a calm pedestrian-and-bicycle environment allowing visitors to take their time strolling between attractions. Residents also benefit from a livable, community-oriented downtown that balances tourism with local needs. Healdsburg took an early gambit on a specific approach to luxury tourism in the 1990s and has successfully attracted a critical mass of rarified fine hotels and restaurants that appeal to the preferences of tourists that are spending top dollar. Several wineries, including Jordan Vineyard & Winery, Ridge Vineyards and Ferrari-Carano, all invested in luxurious tasking rooms and curated wine experiences to try to set apart their offerings from those of other wineries in the valley. Healdsburg wineries host the Sonoma County Barrel Auction, an annual event exclusively for trade and media where Sonoma County winemakers prepare rare and exclusive wines that they may only make once, and then auction off. 529
8 Figure 3: Downtown Healdsburg Shops
The Mill District An ambitious mixed-use product sited on a former lumber mill, the Mill District incorporates luxury residences, boutique retail, dining and open spaces mere blocks away from Healdsburg Plaza. The new community master plan and design concepts reflect the structure of the town with mid-rise flats and townhouses interwoven with courtyards and green spaces, giving new and usable spaces to the downtown in a way that minimizes impacts to the existing character. The total project development cost is estimated at $500 million. Sales at the Mill District have already exceeded $90 million, with the first construction phase, Canopy, already completed. The first phase, which is now 70 percent sold, includes 43 luxury residences spread across three buildings, all designed by world-renowned architects. The Mill District is entirely integrated, and includes some resident-exclusive amenities, such as The Poolhouse, a private social, health and wellness facility, but also publicly accessible green spaces and park land. The Mill District will also include a 53-room luxury hotel owned and operated by Replay and Mayacama, one of North America's most coveted private golf clubs and wine communities, expected to begin construction in spring 2025. 530
9 Figure 4: The Mill District Development
Paso Robles Paso Robles is located on the Salina River north of San Luis Obispo. Originally known for its hot springs, the Blackburn brothers purchased the land grant in 1857. Soon after the first hotels were built and featured hot spring bath houses. While the first vineyards in the area were established by priests of the mission, commercial winemaking was introduced in the Paso Robles region in 1882. The first winery was built within a few years, and the development of viticulture took off through successive waves of development and innovation. The region acquired an American Viticultural Area (AVA) designation in 1983, which subsequently gave rise to eleven separate appellations in the Paso Robles Valley, highlighting the diverse terroirs and microclimates. This designation has given a tailwind to the renown of wines in the area. Investments to upgrade Highway 46 in 2022, a primary route connecting Paso Robles to the Central Coast, San Francisco and Los Angeles, has facilitated the wine industry and tourism growth, streamlined wine distribution logistics and made it easier for visitors to travel to Paso Robles. Strong Downtown AssociaLon Paso Robles consciously cultivated a unique downtown that leveraged its history of hot springs and incorporated additional visitor attractions such as boutique shopping, fine dining and wine bars and tasting rooms. A key initiative was the establishment of the Paso Robles Downtown Main Street Association in 1988. This nonprofit organization brought together business owners, property owners, and citizen volunteers dedicated to the preservation, restoration, and promotion of the downtown area. 531
10 The work of the Association has managed to maintain low vacancy rates, foster community spirit, and attract visitors to the downtown. The Association’s impact has been such that it has earned an accreditation from the Main Street America program. Examples of projects that have been spearheaded by the Association include the restoration of historic buildings and landmarks, including the renovation of the historic bandstand and the return of sulfur baths to downtown. These projects have preserved the unique historical value of the area while enhancing its appeal to visitors. The Downtown Association also spearheaded programs such as the Painted Art Wine Barrel Beautification Project which deployed 100 artistically designed wine barrel planters throughout downtown, adding aesthetic value and celebrating the region's wine heritage. Targeted grants for facade improvement offered financial support to help business owners restore storefronts and maintain historic architecture. Having a coordinated approach and funding for small businesses and developers provides a greater ability to preserve cultural heritage. Figure 5: Downtown Paso Robles Shops PromoLng Wine and the Arts After Paso Robles was designated as an AVA in 1983, direct efforts were made to develop an identity distinct from the Napa and Sonoma valley AVAs. This took several avenues, including wine tourism campaigns to promote Paso Robles as a destination for wine enthusiasts, and larger events like the Paso Robles Wine Festival and the Harvest Wine Weekend. 532
11 These events promote Paso Robles as a wine destination, but the city goes further, using the wineries as venues to showcase the community’s vibrant cultural scene. This includes hosting festivals, art walks, laser displays and live music performances at vineyards to attract diverse visitors, including those who may not directly be wine tourists. The Paso Robles Inn Paso Robles Inn is a reconstruction of the historic inn and thermal springs facility located in downtown. The original inn, dating from the 1800s, was brick construction in a Spanish Colonial style derived from a massive Spanish land grant. The inn was originally not on the railroad, but on the El Camino Trail. It had thermal hot springs with restorative properties and was seen as a spa and resort destination. Unfortunately, the original hotel burned to the ground in the first half of the 20th century and was rebuilt in homage to the original but to a significantly lesser degree of grandiosity and splendor. While the hotel may not have the cachet and stature of the original, the effort made to retain historical elements, such as by reusing bricks from the original hotel, give it a claim to authenticity that still resonates with tourists and guests. Figure 6: Rebuilt Historic Paso Robles Inn Carnegie Library The Carnegie Foundation donated $10,000 to build a Carnegie Library in downtown Paso Robles, and the historical building functioned as a library until the 1990s. At that time the city took the wise decision of having the historical society purchase the building, which has since been turned into a museum. The 533
12 Carnegie library is a nod to the long-term view that the city has taken on historical preservation, and the benefits that accrue from maintaining these historic buildings. Paso Robles Event Center Located about a mile north of downtown is the Paso Robles Event Center. First opened in 1946 the entertainment complex has been expanded and upgraded multiple times. In 2020 the Paso Robles Event Center was awarded $1.4 million to improve the facilities. The venue hosts a variety of functions year-round including major events like the annual Flower Show, circuses, rodeos and high-profile concerts at the 14,600-seat outdoor arena. Los Olivos Los Olivos is an unincorporated community in the Santa Ynez Valley of Santa Barbara County. In 2016, the Los Olivos District was designated as an American Viticultural Area (AVA), recognizing its unique terroir and enhancing its reputation in the wine industry. Los Olivos has the advantage of a healthy stock of preserved historic buildings, which allows wine-related commercial uses to blend Los Olivos' rich heritage with modern wine culture. For example, the Los Olivos Tasting Room & Wine Shop, which holds the distinction of being California's first independent tasting room, operates in a 19th-century general store, maintaining the town's historical charm. Figure 7: Los Olivos Tasting Room & Wine Shop Los Olivos has concentrated its wine tourism scene into a proliferation of tasting rooms along Grand Avenue. The street alone hosts over 30 tasting rooms within a five-block area, offering visitors a diverse 534
13 selection of wines in a compact, walkable setting. This concentration enhances the town's appeal as a convenient and immersive wine-tasting destination. This five-block area also encompasses most of the historic downtown, meaning that the integration of the urban core and the city as a wine destination is nearly complete. The town rose to prominence with the 2004 film "Sideways," set in the Santa Ynez Valley. Following the film’s release, the region experienced a staggering 20 percent increase in visitors, and local establishments featured in the film reported significant increases in business. Indeed, even today itineraries to visit Los Olivos identify restaurants and sites from the movie. The growth of Los Olivos as a destination can be charted in its hospitality and culinary experiences. MaVei’s Tavern Los Olivos has a prominent food and beverage scene, with Michelin-recognized restaurants and luxury accommodations available for visitors. Los Olivos is 35 miles from Santa Barbara via the windy San Marcos Pass (Highway 154) and 54 miles via Highway 101, making Los Olivos one of several destinations for wine and culinary tourism in Santa Barbara County. However, because its primary market is the Los Angeles basin, having accommodations and dining options in the city itself is crucial for economic and financial vitality. Figure 8: Historic Mattei’s Tavern in Los Olivos
535
14 Mattei’s Tavern is pivotal in this development. The tavern dates to the 1800s when Swiss immigrant Felix Mattei learned about the Pacific Coast Railroad plans and purchased land directly adjacent to what he surmised would be a future station for Los Olivos. When the only other hotel in town burned down, Mattei had a monopoly, and travelers would visit the area for its bucolic charm and local comfort. With a major recent renovation and acquisition into the Auberge Resort family, Mattei’s Tavern has increased its profile as a culinary destination; and the resort is now the premiere lodging facility in the San Ynez Valley with visitation from the Hollywood set. While there are only a small number of hotel accommodations Los Olivos, those available are luxury boutiques, such as the Inn at Mattei’s Tavern and Fess Parker Wine Country Inn. Additionally, Los Olivos hosts several annual events, such as the Jazz & Olive Festival in June, "Day in the Country" in October, and an "Olde Fashioned Christmas" in December, which draw significant crowds and boost tourism. Los Olivos has created a compact and coherent destination by leveraging charming spots of history, legacy buildings, and a focus on high standards in the accouterments of tourism. The Santa Ynez Valley AVA produces quality wine, although it may not yet have the acclaim of the Northern California wine growing regions. However, by concentrating the touristic attraction of the wine industry along Grand Avenue, fostering a group of attractive and high-end restaurants, and preserving historical buildings as a unique piece of its cultural heritage, Los Olivos has managed to build a sustainable wine-focused destination. 536
15 Figure 9: Tasting Rooms Along Grand Avenue in Los Olivos Sebastopol Sebastopol is located in Sonoma County, on the Santa Rosa plain between the eponymous city and Bodega Bay on the California Coast. The town was incorporated in 1902 but had a longer history dating back to the 1800s. The area first rose to prominence as the apple capital of Northern California, with the local Gravenstein apples having allegedly been planted by the Russian fur traders in the 19th century that congregated at Fort Ross. While apples and grapes were both key crops in Northern California at the turn of the 20th century, prohibition devastated the commercial viability of vineyards, leading to a surge in industry surrounding the local Gravenstein apples. As times changes, however, and the California wine boom of the mid-1990s took flight, agricultural entrepreneurs like John Balletto and the Halleck family began uprooting apple orchards and planting vineyards. Recognition of the high-quality grape cultivation in this area laid the groundwork for Sebastopol's wine industry. Sebastopol’s vineyards fall under the renowned Russian River Valley American Viticultural Area. While large, this AVA is prominent and has provided tailwinds to vineyard expansion. The city of Sebastopol itself is small, with a resident population of under 10,000 people per the latest US Census and an area of less than two square miles. Nonetheless it has become a tourist destination among the already-crowded wine towns in Sonoma County. Sebastopol’s downtown revitalization can be characterized by several significant projects undertaken in the last decade:
537
16 The Barlow Market District The Barlow is a 12-acre outdoor market district located outside of the downtown. The entire area used to be an industrial site built by the Barlow family in Sebastopol in the 1930s. The family recognized the value of industrial canning and apple processing for an area that already had over 11,000 acres of apple orchards. The need for apple processing has long since disappeared, but the property found new life when the historical industrial buildings were used as the framework on which to create a heritage themed mixed-use center to promote food, beverage, local wine, beer, and spirits, as well as local arts and crafts. Figure 10: The Barlow The Barlow was acquired by real estate developer Aldridge Development in 2005, with a goal of creating a revitalized commercial destination. Working with the city, local architects, designers, and potential business partners meant that it took seven years for the plan to finally break ground, expanding the area from seven older industrial buildings to a campus of eighteen buildings, designed in reference and homage to the existing small-town aesthetic of Sebastopol. Key aspects of the Barlow’s success are: • Providing an easily walkable area with a pleasant, leafy environment a short distance from the historic downtown. • Tasting rooms for local wineries, breweries, and distilleries to attract tourists that are interested in the local wine trade and related merchandise. 538
17 • A curated roster of local restaurants, and food and drink purveyors, covering a spectrum of price points, to provide destinations within the campus to allow visitors to extend their stay. • Local art galleries, ceramics-makers, boutiques, and handicraft sellers provide commercial interest to complement the food and wine scene. Notably, providing a curated mix of vendors and experiences that involve the local wine scene, but that are not exclusive to that scene, have played a significant part in retaining interest in the Barlow as a destination. The Livery on Main The Beale Group sought to develop a site on Sebastopol’s Main Street that originally housed an 1890s livery (in recent years, less romantically, as a Round Table Pizza). The Beale Group, which consists of a real estate investment group, a construction company, and an architecture and design firm, as well as a food-and-beverage focused public benefit corporation, purchased the building with the intent to develop a 22,000 square-foot modern food hall on Main Street, called The Livery on Main. The timing of the reconstruction, in early 2022, proved to be a challenge, and the project has not yet reached fruition. The Beale Group has invested in a neighboring property, previously Michelin-starred restaurant K&L Bistro, which while successful was not able to remain open after the pandemic. The new restaurant opened in that space, Goldfinch, has been well-received. At the same time the building behind the Livery has been developed by the Beale Group into a coworking space. However, the Livery itself lost its funding weeks away from breaking ground and has been suspended due to high interest costs. 539
18 Figure 11: Coworking Space at the Livery on Main in Sebastopol Hotel Sebastopol Piazza Hotels sought to develop a new 66-room boutique hotel located just two blocks from the Livery, and two blocks from The Barlow. It is remarkable that Sebastopol itself does not have any boutique or targeted lodging for tourists, with most opting to stay in Santa Rosa or other cities in the area. The initiative began in 2015 with early site reconnaissance and feasibility planning, with community focus groups over the following two years and finally construction document submission in 2018. Feedback from the city was received in fall 2019, shortly before the Kincade wildfire. With the pandemic following directly on the heels of the wildfire, the project was finally able to pull construction permits in 2022. However, they have been unable to secure funding, and the project remains in limbo. Lessons may be gleaned from how Sebastopol managed to find a tourism niche against considerable headwinds. For such a small city, it is difficult to balance growth and development with preserving small-town historic charm as witnessed by the protracted period required to complete the Barlow redevelopment. The result vindicated that ensuring the project had the support of all relevant stakeholders was time well spent. At the same time, Sebastopol does not have a large stock of good-quality historical buildings on which it can provide a quaint, old-town quality to attract tourists. It is notable that the main tourist destination, the Barlow, is not in downtown, and needed to be meticulously redeveloped. By contrast, the effort to develop the Livery has been stalled despite its location in the center of the downtown, and its comparatively modest size. 540
19 Notably, there is no single concentration of wine tasting rooms such as are common in other towns in Napa and Sonoma counties. The two tasting rooms in the Barlow are the only ones within a short distance of downtown, and the majority of other tasting rooms are situated out in the surrounding vineyards. 541
20 IV. LODI’S REAL ESTATE MARKET TRENDS Lodi History In 1869 the Central Pacific Railroad was establishing a new route and local property owners offered a 160-acre site as an incentive to build a station in town. The City of Lodi was incorporated in 1906 and a number of significant buildings were constructed in that era. Lodi is now best known for wine grape production. In recent years, the Lodi Appellation has become highly respected for both its old vine Zinfandel and its focus on sustainability. The winegrape grower formed a Lodi Winegrape Commission in 1991 funded by a self-imposed tax; and the commission’s functions include marketing, education and research on issues like sustainability and pest management. Wine Enthusiast magazine awarded Lodi “2015 Wine Region of the Year.” Lodi’s population grew from under 3,000 in 1910 to 57,000 by 2000. The 2020 Census counted 66,348 residents. The city has continued to grow although at a more modest pace; the estimated population in 2023 was 67,679. Although deeply rooted in Central Valley agriculture, Lodi’s economy is now well diversified with the top six employers being Pacific Coast Producers (an agricultural cooperative that specialize in canning fruits and tomatoes for private brands), Lodi Unified School District, Cepheid (a provider of molecular diagnostic testing solutions), Blue Shield of California, Adventist Health Lodi Memorial Hospital and the City of Lodi. Current Demographics A cross-sectional comparison of Lodi to a number of the other well-known wine tourism cities in California reveals some interesting contrasts. First, Lodi is a much larger city than wine towns like Healdsburg, Sonoma, Sebastopol and St. Helena. These well-known wine destination towns have a fraction of the population of Lodi but have significantly higher incomes and home values (Table 2). These smaller wine towns also have high retail sales per capita indicating considerable wine and restaurant sales to visitors. These smaller wine towns have done well over the past decades as the California wine industry expanded and prospered in a global context. However, Lodi being a larger city with a more diversified economy is in better position to weather any sustained downturn in the California wine industry which is currently struggling with low wine grape demand. 542
21 Table 2: Comparison of Lodi to Other Wine Tourism Cities in California The Hotel Market Because overnight visitors tend to spend much more at their destination than day visitors, the overnight lodging sector is an important economic development instrument for the city and the downtown. As the case studies in the previous section demonstrated, luxury hotel development along with high end restaurants have been instrumental in the success of a number of wine tourism destinations. Lodi currently has 15 hotels that total 899 rooms, and they range in size from the 20-room Budet Inn built in 1982 to the 101 room Hampton Inn and Suites. A closer examination of the inventory (Table 3) indicates that 35 percent of the rooms are in older economy properties built over 30 years ago. These properties would not appeal to most wine tourists and would have difficulty competing against larger national chain hotels. Since 2019 as the economy recovered from the Covid pandemic, several larger national chain hotels have been constructed. These include the Candlewood Suites (95 rooms), Fairfield Inn (72 rooms), the Residence Inn (83 rooms) and Tru by Hilton (81 rooms) all constructed in west suburbs of the city. Of all of the hotel properties in Lodi, only the Wine and Roses Hotel of 66 rooms can be considered a wine tourism hotel. It was built in 1984, renovated in 2009, has ample ground, 4,000 square feet of meeting facilities and command the highest room rates in town. With the wine related tourism market source expected to be dominated by the San Francisco Bay Area, particularly the East Bay and South Bay because of proximity, size of population and high household incomes, it is not at all surprising that the new hotel construction and the upscale wine tourism hotel are on the westside of Lodi closest to the Bay Area.
Paso
Lodi Napa City RoblesHealdsburgSonomaSebastopolSt. Helena Population Estimate 7.1.202367,679 77,492 31,134 11,137 10,619 7,380 5,272 Percentage Hispanic 39.5% 40.8% 33.7% 27.8% 15.9% 15.7% 23.1% Households 22,841 29,443 12,005 4,838 5,338 3,258 2,466 Persons per Household 2.87 2.65 2.62 2.35 1.95 2.26 2.18 Owner Occupied Rate 55.2% 59.1% 61.2% 57.2% 61.5% 55.7% 67.9% Median Household Income$78,468$100,273$83,948 $94,799 $96,090 $98,185$135,781 Per Capita Income 2018-2022$35,345 $48,578 $43,370 $56,833 $70,445 $49,297$105,719 Median Home Value 2018-2022$439,400$771,700$620,300$933,400$924,700$824,400$1,631,700 Median Gross Rent 2018-2022$1,473 $2,051 $1,661 $2,167 $2,164 $1,681 $1,898 Retail Sales per Capita in 2017$19,348 $16,767 $21,277 $30,282 $23,745 $25,531 $29,554 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey and California State Department of Finance 543
22 Table 3: Current Inventory of Hotels in the Lodi Market Area A review of room revenue trends confirms strong demand growth as reflected by the construction of four major properties totaling 331 rooms since 2019. In September 2018, which was just before the pandemic, 12-month hotel revenue in Lodi totaled $14.2 million. By September 2024, this total had grown to $22.0 million, an increase of over 50 percent (Table 4). While occupancy has dropped due to the substantial inventory increase, the average daily room rate (ADR) has climbed from $98.20 to $126.19 over this same period. The transaction price per hotel room has also increased from $122,100 to $173,500. The capitalization rate for sales transactions has also dropped from 8.3 to 7.6 percent indicating that the financial markets view hotel investment in Lodi to be one of diminishing risk. Lodi’s growth benefitted from population out migration from the Bay Area due to high housing cost, the desire for more space related to the pandemic and the increased flexibility of working remotely at least part of the time. The hotel market tracked with this growth; however, the wine tourism opportunity has not yet been fully realized.
Year MeetingParkingParking
Count Name Address CoStar ClassOpened/RenovRoomsSpace in SFStallsRatio 1Econo Lodge Inn 118 N Cherokee Ln Economy 1992 53 - 591.11 2Days Inn 710 S Cherokee Ln Economy 1961 49 - 551.12 3Viking Motel 815 S Cherokee Ln Economy 1996 19 - 201.32 4Motel 6 1140 S Cherokee Ln Economy 1986 92 - NA NA 5Holiday Inn Express1341 E Kettleman Ln Upper Midscale 2009 89 1,825 700.79 6Residence Inn 2855 Reynolds Ranch ParkwayUpscale 2024 83 510 680.82 7Fairfield Inn 262 Rocky Ln Upper Midscale 2020 72 3,304 801.11 8Hampton Inn & Suites1337 S Beckman Rd Upper Midscale 2008101 814 NA NA 9Lodi El Rancho Motel603 N Cherokee Ln Economy 1950 33 - NA NA 10Wine Country Inn607 S Cherokee Ln Economy 1955 22 - NA NA 11Budget Inn of Lodi917 S Cherokee Ln Economy 1982 20 - 301.50 12Marion's Motel 12404 N Highway 99 Economy 1952 24 - 451.88 13Tru by Hilton 1337 E Kettleman Ln Midscale 2024 81 - 440.54 14Candlewood Suites1345 E Kettleman Ln Midscale 2019 95 - NA NA 15Wine and Roses Hotel2505 W Turner Rd Upper Upscale1984/200966 4,068 2674.05 Total Existing 899 1.42
Total Economy 312
Source: CoStar 10.23.2024 and aupdated by City 2.19.2025 544
23 Table 4: Trend in Lodi Hotel Market Performance – Properties within Four Miles of Downtown The influences that will determine the hotel market in Lodi over the next 20 years include the following: • Lodi will continue to experience population and economic growth because of abundant land, modest housing cost, a vibrant downtown and a quality place to live and work. • The construction of four hotels totaling 331 rooms over the past five years may cause development to pause until occupancy rates catch up in three or four years. However, a typical hotel project will likely require two to three years from planning to completion. • Including the hotels completed in 2024, Lodi has added 374 rooms over the last decade for 37.4 rooms per year. • Nearly 35 percent of the hotel inventory is small, over 30 years old and not competitive with newly developed properties. Many of these properties will likely be redeveloped into new hotels or alternative uses over the next two decades. Recent examples include the Deluxe Hotel on Main which ceased operation and the Imperial Hotel which was converted to housing. • The dominant wine tourism market will be the south and east part of the Bay Area making development on the westside preferrable. Hotel developers have indicated that name brands prefer their guests to step out the door and immediately see shops and restaurants within easy walking distance. Their preferred location is along Sacramento Street. Considering these factors, our hotel demand forecast for Lodi for the next 20 years ranges from 35 to 50 rooms per year for a total of 700 to 1,000 rooms citywide. With an estimated downtown share of 17 to 20 percent, the range of downtown demand is 120 to 200 rooms. The low forecast represents one or two boutique hotels and the high forecast translates into one or two small boutique hotels plus one national chain property. For planning purposes, we suggest using the high forecast of three downtown Period
Inventory
Rooms
Existing
Buildings
Avg Rooms
Per Building12 Mo Revenue
12 Mo
Occupancy12 Mo ADR
Current
Month
Occupancy
Market Sale
Price/Room
Market Cap
Rate
Sep 2024 849 15 57$21,993,66259.1%$126.19 61.3%$173,507 7.6% Sep 2023 766 14 55$22,256,41161.6%$129.13 63.7%$160,501 7.2% Sep 2022 766 14 55$23,698,92367.5%$126.38 67.9%$152,350 6.8% Sep 2021 748 14 53$21,084,62670.0%$110.37 76.1%$140,472 6.9% Sep 2020 748 14 53$16,504,30665.0% $99.29 71.8%$132,987 7.9% Sep 2019 676 13 52$15,326,26570.4%$101.24 77.1%$130,683 8.2% Sep 2018 581 12 48$14,227,10368.3% $98.20 74.9%$122,101 8.3% Sep 2017 581 12 48$13,672,44268.0% $94.82 73.4%$109,727 8.6% Sep 2016 580 12 48$12,639,92066.5% $89.77 72.6%$96,556 8.9% Sep 2015 580 12 48$10,978,82061.9% $83.73 71.2%$85,794 9.0% Sep 2014 580 12 48 $9,399,38456.6% $78.41 61.6%$77,780 9.1% Source: CoStar 10.23.2024
545
24 hotels and approximately 200 rooms because it allows future hotel developers more choice of sites and more flexibility in real estate negotiations. MulF-Family Market Trends From 2000 to 2016, Lodi experienced essentially no significant multi-family apartment construction. However, from 2016 to 2024 the number of multi-family units in developments of at least 25 units has increased from 2,859 to 3,496 units. This represents an increase of 637 units over eight years or approximately 80 units per year. Even with this level of recent construction, the current vacancy rate is still a very low 3.8 percent. Over this eight-year period, per square foot asking rent has increased from $1.68 to $2.43, an increase of 45 percent indicating strong demand growth (Table 5). Table 5: Multi Family Market Trends in Lodi – Properties within Four Miles of Downtown and in Projects of 25+ Units As the city continues its economic and population growth over the next 20 years, the pace of multi-family construction will likely accelerate. Our 20-year multi-family demand forecast ranges from a low of 70 units per year to a high of 100 units per year. The citywide demand forecast then ranges from 1,400 to 2,000 units. Depending upon site availability and the level of public investment in infrastructure and amenities, our forecast of market rate multi-family housing demand in the downtown ranges from a low of 200 units to a high of 400 units over the next 20 years. The planning for any below Period
Inventory
Bldgs
Inventory
Units
Inventory
Avg SF
Asking Rent
Per Unit
Asking Rent
Per SFVacant Units
Vacancy
Percent
Occupied
Units
Occupancy
Percent
2024 YTD 44 3,496 843 $2,081 $2.43 133 3.8% 3,363 96.2% 2023 44 3,496 843 $2,013 $2.35 208 6.0% 3,288 94.0%
2022 43 3,388 837 $2,003 $2.33 219 6.5% 3,169 93.5%
2021 43 3,388 837 $1,948 $2.25 240 7.1% 3,148 92.9%
2020 42 3,236 829 $1,784 $2.05 140 4.3% 3,096 95.7%
2019 42 3,236 829 $1,679 $1.93 194 6.0% 3,042 94.0%
2018 41 3,094 825 $1,602 $1.83 122 3.9% 2,972 96.1%
2017 40 2,938 813 $1,537 $1.76 115 3.9% 2,823 96.1%
2016 39 2,859 822 $1,477 $1.68 75 2.6% 2,784 97.4%
2015 39 2,859 822 $1,400 $1.59 94 3.3% 2,765 96.7%
2014 39 2,859 822 $1,310 $1.48 107 3.7% 2,752 96.3%
2013 39 2,859 822 $1,278 $1.45 131 4.6% 2,728 95.4%
2012 39 2,859 822 $1,248 $1.41 148 5.2% 2,711 94.8%
2011 39 2,859 822 $1,236 $1.40 145 5.1% 2,714 94.9%
2010 39 2,859 822 $1,226 $1.39 129 4.5% 2,730 95.5%
2009 39 2,859 822 $1,217 $1.38 137 4.8% 2,722 95.2%
2008 39 2,859 822 $1,297 $1.47 119 4.1% 2,740 95.9%
2007 39 2,859 822 $1,281 $1.45 97 3.4% 2,762 96.6%
2006 39 2,859 822 $1,224 $1.38 104 3.7% 2,755 96.3%
2005 39 2,859 822 $1,163 $1.32 121 4.2% 2,738 95.8%
2004 39 2,859 822 $1,121 $1.27 134 4.7% 2,725 95.3%
2003 39 2,859 822 $1,115 $1.26 111 3.9% 2,748 96.1%
2002 39 2,859 822 $1,128 $1.28 110 3.9% 2,749 96.1%
2001 39 2,859 822 $1,146 $1.30 93 3.3% 2,766 96.7%
2000 39 2,859 822 $1,082 $1.22 66 2.3% 2,793 97.7%
Source: CoStar 10.23.2024
546
25 market units, which will require external funding, would be in addition to these market rate units. One developer interviewed cautioned against an over concentration of below market units because their tenants do not have the spending power to support downtown shops and restaurants and such concentration will discourage market rate development. Over the next decade, we expect the development to be mostly three-story apartments with surface parking. In the second decade, as downtown sites become more precious, four-story buildings with some structured parking can be expected. One possible strategy to achieve the higher market demand would be for the City to renovate Hale Park and use that enhanced public amenity to induce multi-family development on surrounding blocks. A pedestrian bridge across the railroad track would accelerate market acceptance by enhancing the linkage between this Eastside redevelopment area and the already vibrant Westside of downtown. The Downtown Specific Plan zoning capacity should exceed projected market demand by at least three folds to facilitate land market competition to encourage multi-family housing development. Retail Market Trends in Lodi and Downtown Retail demand in Lodi has grown over the past decade as population in the city and San Joaquin County have both increased. In the ten years from 2014 to 2024, occupied retail space in the Lodi has increased from 4.26 million to 4.82 million square feet for a net increase of 560,000 square feet or 56,000 square feet per year. Over this ten-year period, per square foot rent has more than doubled and vacancy has dropped from 5.5 percent to a very low 2.3 percent (Table 6). Much of the recent development has been larger floorplate stores and centers in the suburban greenfield areas. With vacancies staying below four percent during the past eight years, the retail sector has enjoyed a robust decade in Lodi. 547
26 Table 6: Retail Market Trends in Lodi – within Four Miles of Downtown The retail demand picture in the downtown is more subdued. Downtown currently has 740,000 square feet of retail space for 15 percent of the citywide total. Over the same ten years, occupied retail space downtown has grown from 682,000 to 735,000 square feet for a total gain of 53,000 square feet or 5,300 square feet per year (Table 7). Downtown’s retail market share as measured by the gain in occupied space over the 2014 to 2024 period amounted to 9.5 percent. The current vacancy rate in downtown is a very low 0.7 percent, but rents are still at $21 per square foot which is below the requirement to stimulate new development. As demand pressure continue to build, rents will increase and new construction will become feasible.
Period
Inventory
BldgsInventory SFVacant SF
Vacant
PercentOccupied SF
Occupancy
PercentDeliveries SF
All Service
Type Rent
Overall
NNN Rent
Overall
2024 YTD 3844,938,531113,6042.3%4,824,927 97.7% 12,364 $22.97 $28.65 2023 3824,926,16787,454 1.8%4,838,713 98.2% - $21.24 $24.71 2022 3824,926,16793,248 1.9%4,832,919 98.1% - $15.59 $15.94 2021 3824,926,16796,434 2.0%4,829,733 98.0% 13,000 $15.10 $14.81 2020 3804,913,167130,9722.7%4,782,195 97.3% 5,200 $16.55 $18.72 2019 3794,907,967152,0033.1%4,755,964 96.9% 23,629 $14.94 $16.31 2018 3754,884,338154,7363.2%4,729,602 96.8% 66,238 $14.40 $14.57 2017 3714,818,100188,2353.9%4,629,865 96.1% 11,047 $12.80 $13.61 2016 3684,807,053131,7732.7%4,675,280 97.3%298,514 $16.18 $17.52 2015 3614,508,539202,0744.5%4,306,465 95.5% - $11.10 $11.12 2014 3614,508,539248,5735.5%4,259,966 94.5% 6,500 $10.70 $11.01 2013 3614,505,739265,2175.9%4,240,522 94.1% 15,202 $14.32 $18.75 2012 3584,490,537322,2797.2%4,168,258 92.8%134,240 $15.00 $17.44 2011 3584,360,521308,3007.1%4,052,221 92.9%148,000 $12.71 $13.91 2010 3574,212,521338,2208.0%3,874,301 92.0% 3,200 $12.62 $12.84 2009 3564,209,321667,28715.9%3,542,034 84.1% 17,984 $13.65 $14.31 2008 3544,191,337460,36411.0%3,730,973 89.0% 17,033 $18.14 $18.16 2007 3524,174,304324,7967.8%3,849,508 92.2% 8,839 $17.98 $18.04 Source: CoStar 10.29.2024
548
27 Table 7: Downtown Lodi Retail Market Trend
Over the next 20 years, our forecast for citywide retail demand is 50,000 to 60,000 square feet per year or 1.0 to 1.2 million square feet. The downtown share is projected to be in the eight to ten percent range indicating demand for 80,000 to 120,000 square feet. The newer downtown stores are expected to be restaurants, coffee shops, wine tasting rooms, delicatessens, specialty markets, bakeries, breweries, chocolatiers and other specialty shops. Office Demand in Lodi and Downtown The Lodi office market has remained flat over the past ten years with total inventory staying at 1.52 million square feet (Table 8). While vacancies have remained low (currently at 2.2 percent) office rents have also remained fairly low (currently $20.24 per square foot). Past trends suggest the lack of an office market going forward; however, as the economy continues to mature and diversify, office or laboratory uses could find Lodi to be an attractive location. New office or laboratory development of any scale will likely locate in the suburbs. The downtown office market has remained flat at 228,500 square feet for the last 20 years (Table 9). Vacancies have remained very low in recent years but rents have not been high enough to justify new construction. Projecting forward for the next 20 years, we expect growth in downtown office demand to be in the 25,000 to 40,000 square feet range but also expect office growth to be largely accommodated in renovated older buildings, in the upper floors of mixed-use buildings or in home offices in the new multi-family housing.
PeriodInventory BldgsInventory SFVacant SFVacant PercentOccupied SFOccupancy PercentNet Absorption SF Under Construction SF All Service Type Rent OverallNNN Rent Overall
2024 YTD95 740,343 4,985 0.7%735,35899.3% 7,568 - $21.00$21.00 2023 95 740,34312,553 1.7%727,79098.3% 2,527 - $22.34$21.00 2022 95 740,34315,080 2.0%725,26398.0% 5,959 - $16.12$21.00 2021 95 740,34321,039 2.8%719,30497.2% 9,271 - $18.63$21.00 2020 94 730,34320,310 2.8%710,03397.2% 555 10,000$15.21$21.00 2019 94 730,34320,865 2.9%709,47897.1% 2,913 - $14.05$21.00 2018 94 730,34323,778 3.3%706,56596.7%26,978 - $13.29$13.29 2017 94 730,34350,756 6.9%679,58793.1%(32,509) - $12.03$15.69 2016 94 730,34318,247 2.5%712,09697.5%27,040 - $12.22$18.60 2015 94 730,34345,287 6.2%685,05693.8% 3,174 - $12.03$17.48 2014 94 730,34348,461 6.6%681,88293.4% 3,537 - $10.65$14.32 2013 94 727,54349,198 6.8%678,34593.2%(14,503) - $9.88 $14.62 2012 94 727,54334,695 4.8%692,84895.2%(10,685) - $12.32$15.44 2011 94 727,54324,010 3.3%703,53396.7%47,475 - $10.52$14.91 2010 94 727,54371,485 9.8%656,05890.2%39,272 - $9.63 $9.52 2009 94 727,543110,75715.2%616,78684.8%(65,687) - $13.03$14.84 2008 94 727,54345,070 6.2%682,47393.8%(11,720) - $13.21$13.19 2007 94 727,54336,550 5.0%690,99395.0% 4,000 - $15.60$15.55 Source: CoStar 11.7.2024
549
28 Table 8: Office Market in Lodi – within Four Miles of Downtown Table 9: Lodi Downtown Office Market Trend
Period
Inventory
BldgsInventory SFVacant SF
Vacant
PercentOccupied SF
Occupancy
PercentDeliveries SF
Office Base
Rent Overall
2024 YTD 167 1,521,754 33,653 2.2% 1,488,101 97.8% - $20.24 2023 167 1,521,754 27,758 1.8% 1,493,996 98.2% - $19.40 2022 167 1,521,754 22,636 1.5% 1,499,118 98.5% - $17.71 2021 167 1,521,754 14,501 1.0% 1,507,253 99.0% - $18.01 2020 167 1,521,754 33,089 2.2% 1,488,665 97.8% - $16.92 2019 167 1,521,754 10,936 0.7% 1,510,818 99.3% - $11.21 2018 167 1,521,754 13,797 0.9% 1,507,957 99.1% - $14.68 2017 167 1,521,754 19,266 1.3% 1,502,488 98.7% - $13.87 2016 167 1,521,754 44,914 3.0% 1,476,840 97.0% - $13.75 2015 167 1,521,754 39,175 2.6% 1,482,579 97.4% - $16.17 2014 167 1,521,754 49,466 3.3% 1,472,288 96.7% - $14.02 2013 167 1,521,754 84,769 5.6% 1,436,985 94.4% - $10.20 2012 167 1,521,754 167,112 11.0%1,354,642 89.0% - $9.62 2011 168 1,523,254 184,753 12.1%1,338,501 87.9% - $9.50 2010 168 1,523,254 179,321 11.8%1,343,933 88.2% - $12.21 2009 168 1,523,254 161,880 10.6%1,361,374 89.4% - $13.65 2008 168 1,523,254 156,454 10.3%1,366,800 89.7% 202,477 $16.59 2007 167 1,335,228 71,409 5.3% 1,263,819 94.7% - $19.37 Source: CoStar 10.29.2024
Period
Inventory
BldgsInventory SFVacant SFVacant PercentOccupied SF
Occupancy
Percent
Office Gross
Rent Overall
Office Base
Rent Overall
2024 YTD 26 228,529 2,550 1.1% 225,979 98.9% - $21.60
2023 26 228,529 1,412 0.6% 227,117 99.4% $40.44 $19.50
2022 26 228,529 6,397 2.8% 222,132 97.2% $40.44 $14.71
2021 26 228,529 5,262 2.3% 223,267 97.7% - $13.25
2020 26 228,529 5,575 2.4% 222,954 97.6% $24.00 $17.06
2019 26 228,529 2,304 1.0% 226,225 99.0% $16.20 $16.20
2018 26 228,529 560 0.2% 227,969 99.8% $13.92 $16.20
2017 26 228,529 2,188 1.0% 226,341 99.0% $13.41 $13.83
2016 26 228,529 3,054 1.3% 225,475 98.7% - -
2015 26 228,529 - - 228,529 100.0% $16.59 $17.74
2014 26 228,529 300 0.1% 228,229 99.9% $10.72 $11.41
2013 26 228,529 4,271 1.9% 224,258 98.1% $11.17 $12.62
2012 26 228,529 8,740 3.8% 219,789 96.2% $11.97 $11.83
2011 26 228,529 12,394 5.4% 216,135 94.6% $10.56 $10.56 2010 26 228,529 15,000 6.6% 213,529 93.4% $7.20 $7.20
2009 26 228,529 11,880 5.2% 216,649 94.8% $7.20 $7.20
2008 26 228,529 4,100 1.8% 224,429 98.2% - $12.00
2007 26 228,529 6,500 2.8% 222,029 97.2% - $12.00
2006 26 228,529 7,500 3.3% 221,029 96.7% $27.48 $21.00
2005 26 228,529 13,513 5.9% 215,016 94.1% $15.30 $13.61 Source: CoStar 11.7.2024
550
551
MEMO To: RRM Design and City of Lodi From: Land Econ Group RE: Evaluation of Financial Feasibility of Prototype Development Projects in Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area Date: December 4, 2025 Introduction As part of the Downtown Lodi Specific Plan preparation, the RRM Design and Land Econ Group (LEG) team proposed to test the financial feasibility of six redevelopment project concepts. The six prototype projects were selected in a cooperative fashion by RRM and LEG and vetted by the City staff. They are intended to demonstrate new development approaches that either improve private sector development feasibility and/or identify City actions that enhance such feasibility. The overriding objective is to use these project concepts to stimulate private development to upgrade the economic vitality, pedestrian activity and design quality of Downtown Lodi. Conclusions Because Lodi is surrounded by an abundance of land, developers prefer to buy extra inexpensive land to provide surface parking rather than to invest in the more expensive podium or structured parking more typical of larger urban areas. However, this approach does not work in downtown where there is no longer an abundance of readily developable land and surface parking promotes suburban style development that degrades pedestrian vitality and Lodi’s historic small-town charm. For Downtown Lodi to grow and prosper over the next 20 years, the downtown needs a set of parking standards that is different from the balance of the city. After some initial feasibility testing, the RRM/LEG team is recommending a requirement of one parking stall per unit for multi-family development in the Specific Plan Area. Developers have the right to build more than one stall per unit in response to market requirements; however, this approach allow each project to optimize its parking economics by balancing surface, structured and rent implications. The prototypes advanced RRM are designed to test this approach which will greatly improve multi-family development feasibility in the Downtown 552
2 Specific Plan Area. LEG has conducted feasibility analysis of each of these six prototype projects, and our conclusions and recommendations are summarized below. These conclusions are presented in order of recommended implementation priority based upon likely private sector development feasibility and the project’s impact on a successful Downtown Lodi looking forward for the next 20 years. Priority One – 1.7 Acres Industrial Parcel Located at E. Lockeford Between Main and Stockton (RRM Prototype 1) This is a single parcel of 1.7 acres that does not require the assembly of multiple parcels to create a large enough project to attract developers that are well capitalize. Our analysis indicates this project is likely feasible with the unknows being the relocation of the existing industrial use – where and what would it cost and any site contamination issues. This development is at a location and of a scale that will change the market perception of the Eastside of Downtown, which has received little investment in recent decades. Once completed and occupied, other private investment will follow into this older area. We recommend that the City make every effort to promote the redevelopment of this industrial parcel into a well-designed apartment project, including the use of fee waivers or industrial relocation assistance.
553
3 Priority Two – Wine Country Hotel Development on two Parcels Spanning Sacramento Street on the South Side of Walnut Street (RRM Prototype 6) This project is designed as a wine country style hotel of 60 rooms located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sacramento and Walnut Streets with much of its parking located on a surface lot across Sacramento Street which is currently occupied by an automobile repair shop. The feasibility analysis indicates this is clearly a feasible development with one major caveat, which is the proposed 150-room hotel under discussion a few blocks to the north. If that much larger and complex joint use hotel proceeds to construction, the Downtown Lodi hotel market may be saturated for a period and this proposed hotel will likely be delayed until the market regains equilibrium. Since most successful wine country hotels are in the 50 to 70 room range and the Wine and Roses Hotel has recently been rebranded and upgraded to Appellation Lodi, which moves Lodi up one notch as a wine tourism destination, this proposed hotel is the correct size and well located to be the Downtown Lodi’s wine country hotel. If the 150-room mixed use hotel does not proceed, we recommend that the City aggressively push this project forward which could include the use of development fee rebates that 554
4 would be recovered through transient occupancy tax collections in three to four years. Even if the 150-rooom hotel moves forward, the City should move to control these two parcels for future hotel development either through specific hotel zoning or outright acquisition for future hotel development. RRM has found a well located and workable hotel site, and this site opportunity should be protected to achieve one of the City’s key objectives. The issue is timing relative to the larger hotel development.
Our recommendation is for this hotel to include a high-end restaurant and for the east block to be reserved entirely for surface parking for this hotel and restaurant. The office/service building shown below that will require its own parking should not be promoted. With a larger surface lot, this subject hotel could be slightly larger than 60 rooms. 555
5 Priority Three – 0.73 Acres Industrial Parcel Located at Stockton and Locust (RRM Prototype 2) This is a smaller 32-unit apartment project located adjacent to Hale Park with 8,000 square feet of ground floor retail space facing a proposed new paseo connecting Hale Park to a new plaza opportunity adjacent to the water tower. The feasibility of this project is marginal in part because the retail frontage is single loaded and at an unproven location. Pro forma rents for this retail space are lower than rents in the downtown and lower than residential rents in this building. This project is likely to proceed following the completion of Prototype One, the renovation of Hale Park and construction of the new paseo and water tower plaza become immanent. Our recommendation for Prototype 2 is to encourage action after completion of Prototype One and the renovation of Hale Park. The reduction in the amount of retail space will likely improve project feasibility and reduce development risk. However, from a neighborhood building perspective, some retail such as a coffee shop and bakery at this location would be welcomed. 556
6 557
7 Priority Four – 0.58 Acres Industrial Parcel Located at Stockton and Pine Streets (RRM Prototype 3) This is a 32-unit apartment development which requires the assembly of three parcels into a building site of slightly over a half-acre. The feasibility is marginal in part because of the risk to reward ratio. The assembly of three parcels and the relocation of industrial uses requires considerable effort and cost while the financial reward is limited by the small size of the project. The development of this project is likely a decade away and will follow the successful development of Prototypes One and Two and public investment into the eastside of downtown.
558
8 Priority Five – 1.17 Acre Railroad Parcel Located at Walnut and Main Streets (RRM Prototype 5) The 14 row houses proposed for this location faces significant challenges because it is a pioneering product type for the Lodi market. While the ground floor ADU offer office, granny unit or rental possibilities, the layout is a difficult because the units front on older industrial uses to the east, the freight rail tracks in the back on the west; and most units have no light penetration from the north and south. In the Lodi market this level of density for an ownership townhouse product would be venerable to suburban competition from zero lot line or duplex townhouses. Given these constraints, we analyzed this prototype as a rental product and it proved to be marginally feasible. However, a larger complex with project amenities and more articulation of design to improve light penetration into more of the units would improve market acceptance. 559
9 560
10 Priority Six – One Acres Office Parcel Located at Church and Locust Streets (RRM Prototype 4) This proposed 38-unit apartment development is well located on the westside of downtown with the Lodi Public Library on the northside across Locust Street, the Police Station across the alley to the south and single-family homes to the immediate west. However, current project feasibility is marginal because the acquisition of the site requires the purchase of an office complex with an assessed value over $1.1 million and market value likely higher. Redevelopment of this office property into a four-story apartment complex is likely a decade away assuming residential demand in the downtown gains increasing popularity. Land economics currently favors the redevelopment of older and low intensity industrial uses into multi-family apartment in contrast to redevelopment of viable office uses in the downtown.
561
11 Method of Analysis Our feasibility approach compares a proposed development project’s residual land value to the cost of acquiring and clearing the site. Residual land value is what a developer would be willing to pay for land after all development costs and required profits are covered. In Downtown Lodi where the prototypes are rarely proposed on vacant land, the cost of relocation of existing industrial and office uses and demolition of existing buildings must be taken into consideration. Issue like availability of relocation sites, the cost of moving heavy industrial equipment, buyout of existing leases and clean-up of contaminated sites complicates the analysis beyond the depth possible in a planning study. In those cases, we made educated estimates based upon visual inspection and best available information. In analyzing the development pro formas for the six prototype projects, all of the following variables were incorporated: • Parcel land area • Type and size of buildings to be cleared • Cost of acquiring and demolishing existing industrial or office buildings • Assessed value of building improvements to be demolished 562
12 • Estimated premium paid for relocation of existing businesses • Redevelopment program in units and square feet • Net rentable area • Gross building area • Average monthly rent per unit and per square foot • Rate of rent increase • Rate of project lease-up for each use • Direct construction cost for building areas and parking spaces by type of construction • Indirect construction cost • Construction financing • Long-term financing • Debt coverage ratio in year four (to reflect project stabilization) • Project capitalization rate • Capitalized project value • Operating cost and revenue • Loan amortization • Project terminal value • Developer’s internal rate of return The estimates and assumptions are based upon our experience over five decades of this type of work, local market research and interviews with local developers. The data used and pro formas for the six prototypes development concepts are detailed in the Statistical Appendix Tables 1-9. The conclusions cited above are based upon this analysis. 563
APPENDIX A
DRAFT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TABLESPrepared for RRM Design and the City of Lodi By Land Econ Group
5-Dec-25
564
Table 1
COMPARABLE LAND PARCELS TRANSACTIONS IN LODI SINCE JUNE 2024 Land
ParcelAddress Sale Date Sale PriceAcresSquare Feet Price/AcrePrice /SF 1 9036 Thornton Road 8/13/2024 $1,093,000 2.12 92,347 $515,566 $11.84 2 2641 Bronzan Road 10/30/2024 $1,589,945 3.65 158,994 $79 $10.00 3 4260 Bilby Road 6/11/2024 $1,105,000 0.51 22,216 $2,166,667 $49.74 4 2693 Bronzan Road 12/92024 $2,250,000 3.65 158,994 $616,438 $14.15 5 8740 Bruceville Road 12/23/2024 $1,150,000 3.34 145,490 $344,311 $7.90 6 222 E. Kettleman Lane 3/7/2025 $1,750,000 3.55 154,638 $492,958 $11.32 7 620 S. Central Avenue 6/27/2025 $629,000 0.34 14,810 $1,850,000 $42.47 Total & Average $9,566,94517.16 747,490 $557,514 $12.80 Source: CoStar - Aug 25, 2025DRAFT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TABLES 565
Table 2
ASKING PRICE FOR LAND IN LODI - AUGUST 2025
Asking Price
ParcelAddress Days on Marketof Land ParcelAcresSquare Feet Price/AcrePrice /SF 1 113 N Cherokee Lane 56 $650,000 0.58 25,265 $1,120,690 $25.73 2 1811 W Kettleman Lane 165 $1,600,000 1.71 74,488 $79 $21.48 3 1320 W Lockeford Street 672 $1,403,000 1.13 49,223 $1,241,593 $28.50 4 68 Taylor Road 2456 $1,100,000 4.37 190,357 $251,716 $5.78 Total & Average $4,753,000 7.79 339,332 $610,141 $14.01 Source: CoStar - Aug 25, 2025
566
Table 3
BUILDING AREA AND IMROVEMENT VALUES FOR RRM PROTOTYPE PARCELS Development
NumberParcelsLand AreaBldg AreaImprovement Land Total Total Per SF LandPercent Building Residual 1 1 1.74 17,378 $166,113 $290,700 $456,813 $6.03 36.4% $20.43 2 $15.03
3 3 0.58 5,000 $322,553 $384,552 $707,105 $27.99 45.6% $29.34 4 1 1.01 13,994 $1,140,000 $400,000 $1,540,000 $35.00 74.0% $34.12 5 $21.00
6 2 0.85 4,352 $110,057 $404,337 $514,394 $13.89 21.4% $46.25 Source: CoStar
No Data Available - Railroad Land
No Data Available
2025 Assessemnt
567
Table 4
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 1 - RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME PODIUM PARKING AT LOCKFORD AND MAIN Date:12.1.2025 Levered Project:Lodi
A: Key Project Information
Total Allocated Land AreaAcres 1.74 Number of Apt Units79 Total Parcel Land AreaSF 75,794 Average SF per unit870
Retail Space SF 0 Montly Rent per Unit$2,393
Retail & Restaurant Rent NNNPer SF $0.00 $0.00 Annual Rent Affordable Apartments Net AreaSF 0 Annual Rate of Rent Increase Year 1Year 2Year 3+ Affordable Apartment RentsPer SF $0.00 Retail 3.0% Retail 60%90%95% Market Apartments Net AreaSF 68,750 Affordable Units 0.0% Affordable0% 0% 0% Market Rate Apt RentDRAFT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TABLES$2.75 Market Apartments3.0% Apartments50%85%95% Total Residential Gross AreaSF 79,750Total Gross Bldg AreaSF 79,750 Parking 79 28 spaces in podium garage plus 51 SurfaceRelocation of Industrial UsesSF $18.00 $477,505Demolition Cost per SFPer SF$15.00Total 260,670 Bldg area is 17,378 SF Dir Bldg Const Cost Inc AmenitiesPer SF$250.00Total19,937,500 Parking Const Cost Per Space$13,867Total 1,095,500
Indirect Const Cost & FeesPercent Dir20.0%Total 4,258,734Total Construction Cost Total26,029,909Construction InterestPer SF$11.89Total 948,440Total Project Cost Excluding LandPer GSF$338.29Total26,978,349Total Project Cost Including Land Total28,039,470 Assume $1.06 million for site including demolition for financing calculation only Amount Financed Inc LandPercent78.0%Total21,870,787
Year Four Debt Cover Ratio 1.46
Long Term Financing Rate 6.30%
Terms in Years 30
Construction Interest Rate 7.5%
Project Capitalization Rate 6.0%
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Project Internal Rate of Return12.0% Levered IRR
Residual for LandResidual for Land per AcreResidual for Land Per SF $20 Effective Annual Occupancy Rate
$1,548,751$890,087
568
Table 4 Continued
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 1 - RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME PODIUM PARKING AT LOCKFORD AND MAIN Date:12.1.2025 Project:Lodi
B: Operating Cash Flow
20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Retail & Restaurant Leaseable Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Leased 60%90%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apartment Complex Leaseable Square Feet 68,75068,75068,75068,75068,75068,75068,75068,75068,75068,75068,75068,750 Percentage Leased 60%85%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $2.75$2.83$2.92$3.00$3.10$3.19$3.28$3.38$3.48$3.59$3.70$3.81 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 1,3611,9862,2872,3552,4262,4992,5742,6512,7302,8122,8972,983 Parking Revenue @ 5% 68 99 114 118 121 125 129 133 137 141 145 149 Total Gross Lease Revenue ($1,000) 1,4292,0862,4012,4732,5472,6242,7022,7832,8672,9533,0413,133Less Operating Cost @ 26% -372-542-624-643-662-682-703-724-745-768-791-814Total Gross Operating Revenue ($1,000) 1,0581,5431,7771,8301,8851,9412,0002,0602,1212,1852,2512,318 Net Operating Income ($1,000) $1,058$1,543$1,777$1,830$1,885$1,941$2,000$2,060$2,121$2,185$2,251$2,318Capitalized Value ($1,000) $17,628$25,722$29,611$30,499$31,414$32,357$33,328$34,327$35,357$36,418$37,510$38,636Cap Value per Unit $223,142$325,601$374,824$386,069$397,651$409,580$421,868$434,524$447,559$460,986$474,816$489,060 569
Table 4 ContinuedFINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF MIXED USE ON PARCELS A, B AND C COMBINED INTO SINGLE DEVELOPMENT Date:12.1.2025Project:Lodi 20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037C: Financing & Return Calculation COST & FINANCING ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Development Cost Direct Bldg Construction 19,938 Site & Parking Construction 1,096 Indirect Construction 4,259 Costruction Interest 948 Total Development Cost 26,240 Financing Computation Amount Financed 21,871 Loan Balance 21,60821,33021,03320,71820,38320,02719,64819,24618,81818,36417,88017,366 Annual Debt Service 1,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,640 Interest Payment 1,3781,3611,3441,3251,3051,2841,2621,2381,2121,1861,1571,126 Retirement of Principal 262 279 296 315 335 356 379 402 428 455 483 514 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Revenue Long Term Financing 21,871 Net Operating Income 1,0581,5431,7771,8301,8851,9412,0002,0602,1212,1852,2512,318 Terminal Value (Sale Proceed Net of Debt and Commission) 20,110 Cost Development 26,240 Debt Service 1,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,6401,640 Net Cash Flow -4,369 -583 -97 136 190 245 301 359 419 481 545 61020,788 Residual for Land @ IRR12.0%
Residual for Land Per SF $20
$1,548,751
570
Table 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 2 - RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME GARAGE PARKING AND LIMITED RETAIL AT LOCUST AND STOCKTONDate:11.30.2025 Levered Project:Lodi
A: Key Project Information
Total Allocated Land AreaAcres 0.73 Number of Apt Units32 Total Parcel Land AreaSF 31,799 Average SF per unit859
Retail Space SF 8,000 Montly Rent per Unit$2,363
Retail & Restaurant Rent NNNPer SF $2.50 $30.00Annual Rent Affordable Apartments Net AreaSF 0 Annual Rate of Rent Increase Year 1Year 2Year 3+ Affordable Apartment RentsPer SF $0.00 Retail 3.0% Retail 60%90%95% Market Apartments Net AreaSF 27,500 Affordable Units 0.0% Affordable0% 0% 0% Market Rate Apt RentDRAFT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TABLES$2.75 Market Apartments3.0% Apartments50%85%95% Total Residential Gross AreaSF 31,900Total Gross Bldg AreaSF 39,900 Parking 38 14 spaces in garage plus 28 SurfaceRelocation of Industrial UsesSF $18.00 $200,332Demolition Cost per SFPer SF$15.00Total 166,944 Bldg area is assumed to be 35 percent of site area Dir Bldg Const Cost Inc AmenitiesPer SF$250.00Total 9,975,000 Parking Const Cost Per Space$28,829Total 1,095,500
Indirect Const Cost & FeesPercent Dir20.0%Total 2,247,489Total Construction Cost Total13,685,265Construction InterestPer SF$12.52Total 499,425Total Project Cost Excluding LandPer GSF$355.51Total14,184,689Total Project Cost Including Land Total14,629,873 Assume $445,000 million for site including demolition for financing calculation only Amount Financed Inc LandPercent78.0%Total11,411,301
Year Four Debt Cover Ratio 1.40
Long Term Financing Rate 6.30%
Terms in Years 30
Construction Interest Rate 7.5%
Project Capitalization Rate 6.0%
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Project Internal Rate of Return12.0% Levered IRR
Residual for LandResidual for Land per AcreResidual for Land Per SF $15 Effective Annual Occupancy Rate
$477,864$654,608
571
Table 5 Continued
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 2 - RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME GARAGE PARKING AND LIMITED RETAIL AT LOCUST AND STOCKTONDate:11.30.2025 Project:Lodi
B: Operating Cash Flow
20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Retail & Restaurant Leaseable Square Feet 8,0008,0008,0008,0008,0008,0008,0008,0008,0008,0008,0008,000 Percentage Leased 60%90%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $2.50$2.58$2.65$2.73$2.81$2.90$2.99$3.07$3.17$3.26$3.36$3.46 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 144 222 242 249 257 264 272 280 289 297 306 316 Apartment Complex Leaseable Square Feet 27,50027,50027,50027,50027,50027,50027,50027,50027,50027,50027,50027,500 Percentage Leased 60%85%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $2.75$2.83$2.92$3.00$3.10$3.19$3.28$3.38$3.48$3.59$3.70$3.81 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 545 795 915 942 970 9991,0291,0601,0921,1251,1591,193 Parking Revenue @ 5% 27 40 46 47 49 50 51 53 55 56 58 60 Total Gross Lease Revenue ($1,000) 5741,0571,2021,2381,2751,3141,3531,3941,4361,4791,5231,569Less Operating Cost @ 24% -138-254-289-297-306-315-325-334-345-355-366-376Total Gross Operating Revenue ($1,000) 436 803 914 941 969 9981,0281,0591,0911,1241,1571,192 Net Operating Income ($1,000) $436$803$914$941$969$998$1,028$1,059$1,091$1,124$1,157$1,192Capitalized Value ($1,000) $7,274$13,385$15,228$15,685$16,156$16,641$17,140$17,654$18,184$18,729$19,291$19,870Cap Value per Unit $227,297$418,286$475,889$490,165$504,870$520,016$535,617$551,685$568,236$585,283$602,842$620,927 572
Table 5 ContinuedFINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF MIXED USE ON PARCELS A, B AND C COMBINED INTO SINGLE DEVELOPMENT Date:11.30.2025Project:Lodi 20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037C: Financing & Return Calculation COST & FINANCING ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Development Cost Direct Bldg Construction 9,975 Site & Parking Construction 1,096 Indirect Construction 2,247 Costruction Interest 499 Total Development Cost 13,817 Financing Computation Amount Financed 11,411 Loan Balance 11,27411,12910,97410,81010,63510,44910,25210,0429,8199,5819,3299,061 Annual Debt Service 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 Interest Payment 719 710 701 691 681 670 658 646 633 619 604 588 Retirement of Principal 137 146 155 164 175 186 198 210 223 237 252 268 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Revenue Long Term Financing 11,411 Net Operating Income 436 803 914 941 969 9981,0281,0591,0911,1241,1571,192 Terminal Value (Sale Proceed Net of Debt and Commission) 10,212 Cost Development 13,817 Debt Service 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 Net Cash Flow -2,406 -419 -53 58 85 114 143 173 203 235 268 30210,549 Residual for Land @ IRR12.0%
Residual for Land Per SF $15
$477,864
573
Table 6
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 3 - RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME GARAGE PARKING AND LIMITED RETAIL AT LOCUST AND STOCKTONDate:12.1.2025 Levered Project:Lodi
A: Key Project Information
Total Allocated Land AreaAcres 0.58 Number of Apt Units32 Total Parcel Land AreaSF 25,265 Average SF per unit938
Retail Space SF 0 Montly Rent per Unit$2,578
Retail & Restaurant Rent NNNPer SF $2.50 $30.00Annual Rent Affordable Apartments Net AreaSF 0 Annual Rate of Rent Increase Year 1Year 2Year 3+ Affordable Apartment RentsPer SF $0.00 Retail 3.0% Retail 60%90%95% Market Apartments Net AreaSF 30,000 Affordable Units 0.0% Affordable0% 0% 0% Market Rate Apt RentDRAFT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TABLES$2.75 Market Apartments3.0% Apartments50%85%95% Total Residential Gross AreaSF 34,800Total Gross Bldg AreaSF 34,800 Parking 36 18 spaces in garage plus 18 SurfaceRelocation of Industrial UsesSF $18.00 $400,000 EstimatedDemolition Cost per SFPer SF$15.00Total 200,000 Estimated Dir Bldg Const Cost Inc AmenitiesPer SF$250.00Total 8,700,000 Parking Const Cost Per Space$19,750Total 711,000
Indirect Const Cost & FeesPercent Dir20.0%Total 1,922,200Total Construction Cost Total11,933,200Construction InterestPer SF$12.21Total 424,995Total Project Cost Excluding LandPer GSF$355.12Total12,358,195Total Project Cost Including Land Total12,758,195 Assume $400,000 million for site including demolition for financing calculation only Amount Financed Inc LandPercent78.0%Total 9,951,392
Year Four Debt Cover Ratio 1.40
Long Term Financing Rate 6.30%
Terms in Years 30
Construction Interest Rate 7.5%
Project Capitalization Rate 6.0%
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Project Internal Rate of Return12.0% Levered IRR
Residual for LandResidual for Land per AcreResidual for Land Per SF $29 Effective Annual Occupancy Rate
$741,332$1,278,158
574
Table 6 Continued
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 3 - RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME GARAGE PARKING AND LIMITED RETAIL AT LOCUST AND STOCKTONDate:12.1.2025 Project:Lodi
B: Operating Cash Flow
20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Retail & Restaurant Leaseable Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Leased 60%90%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $2.50$2.58$2.65$2.73$2.81$2.90$2.99$3.07$3.17$3.26$3.36$3.46 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apartment Complex Leaseable Square Feet 30,00030,00030,00030,00030,00030,00030,00030,00030,00030,00030,00030,000 Percentage Leased 60%85%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $2.75$2.83$2.92$3.00$3.10$3.19$3.28$3.38$3.48$3.59$3.70$3.81 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 594 867 9981,0281,0591,0901,1231,1571,1911,2271,2641,302 Parking Revenue @ 5% 30 43 50 51 53 55 56 58 60 61 63 65 Total Gross Lease Revenue ($1,000) 626 9101,0481,0791,1111,1451,1791,2151,2511,2881,3271,367Less Operating Cost @ 24% -150-218-251-259-267-275-283-291-300-309-319-328Total Gross Operating Revenue ($1,000) 476 692 796 820 845 870 896 923 951 9791,0091,039 Net Operating Income ($1,000) $476$692$796$820$845$870$896$923$951$979$1,009$1,039Capitalized Value ($1,000) $7,932$11,528$13,270$13,669$14,079$14,501$14,936$15,384$15,846$16,321$16,811$17,315Cap Value per Unit $247,871$360,241$414,701$427,142$439,956$453,155$466,749$480,752$495,174$510,030$525,331$541,091 575
Table 6 ContinuedFINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF MIXED USE ON PARCELS A, B AND C COMBINED INTO SINGLE DEVELOPMENT Date:12.1.2025Project:Lodi 20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037C: Financing & Return Calculation COST & FINANCING ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Development Cost Direct Bldg Construction 8,700 Site & Parking Construction 711 Indirect Construction 1,922 Costruction Interest 425 Total Development Cost 11,758 Financing Computation Amount Financed 9,951 Loan Balance 9,8329,7059,5709,4279,2749,1128,9408,7578,5628,3568,1367,902 Annual Debt Service 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 Interest Payment 627 619 611 603 594 584 574 563 552 539 526 513 Retirement of Principal 119 127 135 143 152 162 172 183 195 207 220 234 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Revenue Long Term Financing 9,951 Net Operating Income 476 692 796 820 845 870 896 923 951 9791,0091,039 Terminal Value (Sale Proceed Net of Debt and Commission) 8,894 Cost Development 11,758 Debt Service 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 746 Net Cash Flow -1,807 -270 -55 50 74 98 124 150 177 204 233 2629,186 Residual for Land @ IRR12.0%
Residual for Land Per SF $29
$741,332
576
Table 7
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 4 - RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME GARAGE PARKING AT LOCUST AND N. CHURCH Date:12.1.2025 Levered Project:Lodi
A: Key Project Information
Total Allocated Land AreaAcres 1.01 Number of Apt Units38 Total Parcel Land AreaSF 43,996 Average SF per unit967
Retail Space SF 0 Montly Rent per Unit$2,756
Retail & Restaurant Rent NNNPer SF $2.50 $30.00Annual Rent Affordable Apartments Net AreaSF 0 Annual Rate of Rent Increase Year 1Year 2Year 3+ Affordable Apartment RentsPer SF $0.00 Retail 3.0% Retail 60%90%95% Market Apartments Net AreaSF 36,750 Affordable Units 0.0% Affordable0% 0% 0% Market Rate Apt RentDRAFT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TABLES$2.85 Market Apartments3.0% Apartments50%85%95% Total Residential Gross AreaSF 42,630Total Gross Bldg AreaSF 42,630 Parking 55 19 spaces in garage plus 36 SurfaceAcquisition of Office BldgsSF $66.67 $1,200,000 EstimatedDemolition Cost per SFPer SF$15.00Total 270,000 Estimated Dir Bldg Const Cost Inc AmenitiesPer SF$250.00Total10,657,500 Parking Const Cost Per Space$14,109Total 776,000
Indirect Const Cost & FeesPercent Dir20.0%Total 2,340,700Total Construction Cost Total15,244,200Construction InterestPer SF$12.12Total 516,533Total Project Cost Excluding LandPer GSF$369.71Total15,760,733Total Project Cost Including Land Total16,160,733 Assume $400,000 million for site including demolition for financing calculation only Amount Financed Inc LandPercent78.0%Total12,605,371
Year Four Debt Cover Ratio 1.41
Long Term Financing Rate 6.30%
Terms in Years 30
Construction Interest Rate 7.5%
Project Capitalization Rate 6.0%
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Project Internal Rate of Return12.0% Levered IRR
Residual for LandResidual for Land per AcreResidual for Land Per SF $34 Effective Annual Occupancy Rate
$1,500,944$1,486,083
577
Table 7 Continued
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 4 - RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME GARAGE PARKING AT LOCUST AND N. CHURCH Date:12.1.2025 Project:Lodi
B: Operating Cash Flow
20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Retail & Restaurant Leaseable Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Leased 60%90%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $2.50$2.58$2.65$2.73$2.81$2.90$2.99$3.07$3.17$3.26$3.36$3.46 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apartment Complex Leaseable Square Feet 36,75036,75036,75036,75036,75036,75036,75036,75036,75036,75036,75036,750 Percentage Leased 60%85%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $2.85$2.94$3.02$3.11$3.21$3.30$3.40$3.51$3.61$3.72$3.83$3.95 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 7541,1001,2671,3051,3441,3841,4261,4681,5131,5581,6051,653 Parking Revenue @ 5% 38 55 63 65 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 83 Total Gross Lease Revenue ($1,000) 7941,1551,3301,3701,4111,4531,4971,5421,5881,6361,6851,735Less Operating Cost @ 24% -191-277-319-329-339-349-359-370-381-393-404-417Total Gross Operating Revenue ($1,000) 604 8781,0111,0411,0721,1051,1381,1721,2071,2431,2811,319 Net Operating Income ($1,000) $604$878$1,011$1,041$1,072$1,105$1,138$1,172$1,207$1,243$1,281$1,319Capitalized Value ($1,000) $10,061$14,635$16,847$17,353$17,873$18,410$18,962$19,531$20,117$20,720$21,342$21,982Cap Value per Unit $264,772$385,130$443,353$456,653$470,353$484,464$498,998$513,968$529,387$545,268$561,626$578,475 578
Table 7 ContinuedFINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF MIXED USE ON PARCELS A, B AND C COMBINED INTO SINGLE DEVELOPMENT Date:12.1.2025Project:Lodi 20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037C: Financing & Return Calculation COST & FINANCING ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Development Cost Direct Bldg Construction 10,658 Site & Parking Construction 776 Indirect Construction 2,341 Costruction Interest 517 Total Development Cost 14,291 Financing Computation Amount Financed 12,605 Loan Balance 12,45412,29312,12311,94111,74811,54311,32411,09310,84610,58410,30510,009 Annual Debt Service 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 Interest Payment 794 785 774 764 752 740 727 713 699 683 667 649 Retirement of Principal 151 161 171 182 193 205 218 232 247 262 279 296 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Revenue Long Term Financing 12,605 Net Operating Income 604 8781,0111,0411,0721,1051,1381,1721,2071,2431,2811,319 Terminal Value (Sale Proceed Net of Debt and Commission) 11,313 Cost Development 14,291 Debt Service 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 Net Cash Flow -1,685 -342 -67 65 96 127 159 192 226 262 298 33511,687 Residual for Land @ IRR12.0%
Residual for Land Per SF $34
$1,500,944
579
Table 8
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 5 - RENTAL TOWNHOUSES ON MAIN STREET Date:12.1.2025 Levered Project:Lodi
A: Key Project Information
Total Allocated Land AreaAcres 1.17 Number of Apt Units28 Total Parcel Land AreaSF 50,965 Average SF per unit1,225 Retail Space SF 0 Montly Rent per Unit$3,124
Retail & Restaurant Rent NNNPer SF $0.00 $0.00 Annual Rent Affordable Apartments Net AreaSF 0 Annual Rate of Rent Increase Year 1Year 2Year 3+ Affordable Apartment RentsPer SF $0.00 Retail 3.0% Retail 60%90%95% Market Apartments Net AreaSF 34,300 Affordable Units 0.0% Affordable0% 0% 0% Market Rate Apt RentDRAFT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TABLES$2.55 Market Apartments3.0% Apartments50%85%95% Total Residential Gross AreaSF 34,300Total Gross Bldg AreaSF 34,300 Parking 55 28 spaces in garage plus 30 SurfaceAcquisition of Office BldgsSF $0.00 $0Demolition Cost per SFPer SF $0.00Total 0 Dir Bldg Const Cost Inc AmenitiesPer SF$240.00Total 8,232,000 Parking Const Cost Per Space$23,727Total 1,305,000
Indirect Const Cost & FeesPercent Dir20.0%Total 1,907,400Total Construction Cost Total11,444,400Construction InterestPer SF$12.51Total 429,165Total Project Cost Excluding LandPer GSF$346.17Total11,873,565Total Project Cost Including Land Total12,473,565 Assume $600,000 for site including demolition for financing calculation only Amount Financed Inc LandPercent78.0%Total 9,729,381
Year Four Debt Cover Ratio 1.52
Long Term Financing Rate 6.30%
Terms in Years 30
Construction Interest Rate 7.5%
Project Capitalization Rate 6.0%
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Project Internal Rate of Return12.0% Levered IRR
Residual for LandResidual for Land per AcreResidual for Land Per SF $21 Effective Annual Occupancy Rate
$1,070,073$914,592
580
Table 8 Continued
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF RRM SITE 5 - RENTAL TOWNHOUSES ON MAIN STREET Date:12.1.2025 Project:Lodi
B: Operating Cash Flow
20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Retail & Restaurant Leaseable Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage Leased 60%90%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apartment Complex Leaseable Square Feet 34,30034,30034,30034,30034,30034,30034,30034,30034,30034,30034,30034,300 Percentage Leased 60%85%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Avg Lease Rate $2.55$2.63$2.71$2.79$2.87$2.96$3.04$3.14$3.23$3.33$3.43$3.53 Total Lease Revenue ($1,000) 630 9191,0581,0901,1221,1561,1911,2261,2631,3011,3401,380 Parking Revenue @ 5% 31 46 53 54 56 58 60 61 63 65 67 69 Total Gross Lease Revenue ($1,000) 661 9651,1111,1441,1781,2141,2501,2881,3261,3661,4071,449Less Operating Cost @ 24% -159-232-267-275-283-291-300-309-318-328-338-348Total Gross Operating Revenue ($1,000) 503 733 844 869 896 922 950 9791,0081,0381,0691,101 Net Operating Income ($1,000) $503$733$844$869$896$922$950$979$1,008$1,038$1,069$1,101Capitalized Value ($1,000) $8,376$12,221$14,069$14,491$14,926$15,374$15,835$16,310$16,799$17,303$17,822$18,357Cap Value per Unit $299,130$436,481$502,467$517,541$533,067$549,059$565,531$582,497$599,971$617,971$636,510$655,605 581
Table 8 ContinuedFINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF MIXED USE ON PARCELS A, B AND C COMBINED INTO SINGLE DEVELOPMENT Date:12.1.2025Project:Lodi 20242025 202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037C: Financing & Return Calculation COST & FINANCING ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Development Cost Direct Bldg Construction 8,232 Site & Parking Construction 1,305 Indirect Construction 1,907 Costruction Interest 429 Total Development Cost 11,874 Financing Computation Amount Financed 9,729 Loan Balance 9,6139,4899,3579,2179,0678,9098,7418,5628,3718,1697,9547,726 Annual Debt Service 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 Interest Payment 613 606 598 589 581 571 561 551 539 527 515 501 Retirement of Principal 117 124 132 140 149 158 168 179 190 202 215 229 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Revenue Long Term Financing 9,729 Net Operating Income 503 733 844 869 896 922 950 9791,0081,0381,0691,101 Terminal Value (Sale Proceed Net of Debt and Commission) 10,081 Cost Development 11,874 Debt Service 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 Net Cash Flow -2,144 -227 4 114 140 166 193 220 249 278 309 34010,452 Residual for Land @ IRR12.0%
Residual for Land Per SF $21
$1,070,073
582
Table 9 Lodi
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT SACRAMENTO AND WALNUT 12.1.2025
PROJECT INFORMATION
Land Area Acres 0.85 Two parcelsLand Parcel Area SF 37,026Number of Units Units 60Parking Spaces Spaces 70 30 podium and 40 surface across Sacramento StreetAvergae Room Size SF 400 Includes hallwaysTotal Room Area SF 24,000 Includes hallwaysCommon Area SF 9,600Gross Building Area SF 33,600Initial Year's Eff Room RateDRAFT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS TABLES$235.00Annual Room Rate Increase 3.0% Dir Bldg Const Cost Per SF$325.00Total$10,920,000Parking Const Cost Per Space$17,143Total $1,200,000 Indir Const Cost Percent Dir20.0%Total $2,424,000Furniture, Fixture & EquipmentPer Unit$85,000Total $5,100,000Total Cost Before Const InterestPer Unit$327,400Total$19,644,000Construction Interest Per Unit$15,224Total $913,446Total Project Cost No LandPer Unit$342,624Total$20,557,446 Cost per KeyLand Cost and Demo Cost $650,000Total Cost Including Land $21,207,446Amount Financed Exc LandPercent 80%Total$16,965,957Year Four Debt Cover Ratio 1.44Long Term Financing Rate 6.5%Terms in Years 30Construction Interest Rate 7.5%Project Capitalization Rate 7.0%
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Project Internal Rate of Return 13.0%Residual for LandResidual for Land Per SF $46 $342,624
$1,712,293
583
Table 9FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT SACRAMENTO AND WALNUT 2025 2026 202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038 OPERATING ANALYSIS (Revenue & Expenses in $1,000)Project Completion Percentage 30% 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%Number of Units Completed 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60Occupancy Rate 52.0%65.0%72.0%72.0%72.0%70.0%70.0%70.0%70.0%70.0%70.0%Average Effective Room Rate $235.00$242.05$249.31$256.79$264.49$272.43$280.60$289.02$297.69$306.62$315.82Room Nights Sold 11,38814,23515,76815,76815,76815,33015,33015,33015,33015,33015,330 Hotel RevenueRoom Revenue 2,6763,4463,9314,0494,1714,1764,3024,4314,5644,7014,842Food & Beverage Revenue 9901,2751,4551,4981,5431,5451,5921,6391,6891,7391,791Garage & Misc. 201 258 295 304 313 313 323 332 342 353 363Hotel Retail 94 121 138 142 146 146 151 155 160 165 169 Total Revenue 3,9615,0995,8185,9936,1726,1816,3666,5576,7546,9577,165 Departmental ExpensesRoom 8031,0341,0611,0121,0431,0441,0751,1081,1411,1751,210Food & Beverage 8321,0711,1641,1691,2041,2051,2411,2791,3171,3571,397Garage & Misc. 72 93 106 109 113 113 116 120 123 127 131Hotel Retail 61 78 89 92 95 95 98 101 104 107 110 Total Departmental Expenses 1,7682,2762,4212,3822,4542,4572,5312,6072,6852,7662,849 Unallocated ExpensesGeneral & Administrative 317 408 436 419 432 433 446 459 473 487 502Marketing 238 306 320 300 309 309 318 328 338 348 358Management Fee 119 153 175 180 185 185 191 197 203 209 215Utilities 139 178 204 210 216 216 223 230 236 243 251Property Operation & Maintenance 119 153 175 180 185 185 191 197 203 209 215 Total Unallocated Expenses 9311,1981,3091,2881,3271,3291,3691,4101,4521,4961,541 Cash Flow Before Fixed Charges 1,2621,6252,0882,3222,3922,3952,4672,5412,6172,6962,776 Fixed ChargesProperty Taxes 236 243 250 258 265 273 281 290 299 308 317Insurance 59 61 63 64 66 68 70 72 75 77 79Replacement Reserve 40 102 116 180 185 185 191 197 203 209 215 Total Fixed Charges 334 405 429 502 517 527 543 559 576 593 611 Net Operating Income 9281,2201,6591,8201,8751,8681,9241,9822,0412,1022,165Capitalized Value 13,25617,42323,70626,00326,78326,68427,48528,30929,15930,03330,934 584
Table 9FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT SACRAMENTO AND WALNUT 2025 2026 202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038 OPERATING RATIOS (Percentage of Total Revenue Except for Departmental Expenses) Hotel RevenueRoom Revenue 67.6%67.6%67.6%67.6%67.6%67.6%67.6%67.6%67.6%67.6%67.6%Food & Beverage Revenue 25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%Garage & Misc. 5.1%5.1%5.1%5.1%5.1%5.1%5.1%5.1%5.1%5.1%5.1%Hotel Retail 2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4% Total Revenue 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% Departmental Expenses (Expressed as Percentage of Departmental Revenue)Room 30.0%30.0%27.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%25.0%Food & Beverage 84.0%84.0%80.0%78.0%78.0%78.0%78.0%78.0%78.0%78.0%78.0%Garage & Misc. 36.0%36.0%36.0%36.0%36.0%36.0%36.0%36.0%36.0%36.0%36.0%Hotel Retail 65.0%65.0%65.0%65.0%65.0%65.0%65.0%65.0%65.0%65.0%65.0% Total Departmental Expenses (As Percentage of Total Revenue)44.6%44.6%41.6%39.8%39.8%39.8%39.8%39.8%39.8%39.8%39.8% Unallocated ExpensesGeneral & Administrative 8.0%8.0%7.5%7.0%7.0%7.0%7.0%7.0%7.0%7.0%7.0%Marketing 6.0%6.0%5.5%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%Management Fee 3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Utilities 3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%Property Operation & Maintenance 3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0% Total Unallocated Expenses 23.5%23.5%22.5%21.5%21.5%21.5%21.5%21.5%21.5%21.5%21.5% Cash Flow Before Fixed Charges 31.9%31.9%35.9%38.7%38.7%38.7%38.7%38.7%38.7%38.7%38.7% Fixed ChargesProperty Taxes 6.0%4.8%4.3%4.3%4.3%4.4%4.4%4.4%4.4%4.4%4.4%Insurance 1.5%1.2%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%Replacement Reserve 1.0%2.0%2.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0% Total Fixed Charges 8.4%8.0%7.4%8.4%8.4%8.5%8.5%8.5%8.5%8.5%8.5% Net Operating Income 23.4%23.9%28.5%30.4%30.4%30.2%30.2%30.2%30.2%30.2%30.2% 585
Table 9FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT SACRAMENTO AND WALNUT 2025 2026 202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038 PRE FINANCING CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ($1,000)
CostDevelopment Cost 5,893 13,751
RevenueNet Operating Income 9281,2201,6591,8201,8751,8681,9241,9822,0412,1022,165Net Proceed From Sale 29,697 Net Cash Flow (5,893)(13,751)9281,2201,6591,8201,8751,8681,9241,9822,0412,10231,862 Residual for Land @ IRR10.0% $894
AFTER FINANCING CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ($1,000)
Financing ComputationLoan Balance 16,96616,77016,56016,33816,10015,84815,57815,29214,98714,66214,31513,947Annual Debt Service 1,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,299Interest Payment 1,1031,0901,0761,0621,0471,0301,013 994 974 953 930Retirement of Principal 196 209 223 237 253 269 287 305 325 346 369 CostDevelopment Cost 5,893 13,751Costruction Interest 133 781Debt Service 1,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,2991,299 RevenueBorrowing 3,536 13,430 0Net Operating Income 9281,2201,6591,8201,8751,8681,9241,9822,0412,1022,165Net Proceed from Sale 15,750 Net Cash Flow (2,490) (1,102)(371) (80) 360 521 576 569 625 682 742 80316,617 Residual for Land @ IRR13.0%$1,712
Residual for Land Per SF $46
TOT plus LTBID @ 10.5% 281 362 413 425 438 439 452 465 479 494 508 Source: Land Econ Group
586
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL STUDIES
Appendix A.3: Historical Analysis
Contents
• Historical Resource Inventory
INTRODUCTION
The historical subconsultant prepared a Historical Resources Inventory for the Downtown Specific Plan study area, which consisted of an informal reconnaissance-level survey to identify known and potential historical resources in the Specific Plan area.
The Historical Resources Inventory was provided to inform the Specific Plan and to identify properties which may require review in the future if they are the subject of a discretionary action under the Specific Plan. The inventory will serve as an aid to City staff in the processing of future entitlements by providing guidance on those properties which are likely to warrant evaluation to determine if they are historical resources as defined by CEQA. 587
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Lodi, California
Historical Resource Inventory
Prepared by
January 2026
588
Historical Resource Inventory i
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Qualifications 1
1.2 Methodology 1
2. EXISTING SETTING 2
2.1 Description of the Plan Area 2
2.2 History of the Plan Area 3
3. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 5
3.1 National Register of Historic Places 5
3.2 California Register of Historical Resources 7
3.3 City of Lodi 9
4. IDENTIFICATION OF KNOWN HISTORICAL RESOURCES 11
4.1 CCIC Records Search 11
4.2 San Joaquin County BERD Review 12
4.3 Results of Identification of Known Historical Resources 12
5. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES 13
5.1 Existing Documentation Review 13
5.2 Parcel Data Review and Desktop Survey 16
5.3 Reconnaissance Survey 16
5.4 Comparative Assessment 17
5.5 Results of Identification of Potential Historical Resources 18
6. CONCLUSIONS 19
7. SOURCES 20
APPENDIX A Records Search Results Letter
APPENDIX B California Historical Resource Status Codes
APPENDIX C Known Historical Resources in the Plan Area
APPENDIX D Potential Historical Resources in the Plan Area
589
Historical Resource Inventory ii
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Historical Resource Inventory (HRI) presents the results of efforts to identify known and potential historical resources for the City of Lodi (City) Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan) within the Downtown Specific Plan Area (Plan Area).
The Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan) is a planning tool that shapes the future of development within the plan area through zoning, development standards, and design guidelines. The Plan Area is located in the city of Lodi and includes approximately 413 parcels in an area roughly bound by Pleasant Avenue to the west, De Force Avenue to the north , Washington Street to the east , and Lodi Avenue to the south . GPA Consulting (GPA) was retained as subconsultant to the City to complete this HRI as part of the development of the Specific Plan.
To identify known and potential historical resources, GPA reviewed existing information and conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey of the Plan Area . The project team obtained a records search from the California Historical Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) Central California Information Center (CCIC) , and reviewed the Built Environment Resource Database (BERD) maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) . In addition, the project team used San Joaquin County A ssessor data, historic aerial photographs, and Sanborn Maps to identify buildings and structures within the Plan Area that are at least 45 years old. To conduct the reconnaissance-level survey of the entire Plan Area, GPA drove and walked every street in the Plan Area to identify and take digital photographs of properties with moderate to high levels of integrity .
GPA then compared properties of a similar type, age, and/or style , noting the properties that exhibited a comparatively high level of integrity, and thus have the potential to convey historical significance.
As part of these efforts, GPA identified six known historical resources within the Plan Area that were previously listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and/or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). Additionally, GPA identified 118 potential historical properties that may require evaluation as part of future projects because they are at least 45 years old, possess moderate to high levels of physical integrity, and thus have the potential to convey historical significance.
This HRI is intended to provide the City with an overview of known and potential historical resources within the Plan Area. GPA did not prepare any intensive -level evaluations of individual properties to assess whether they meet any criteria for listing in the National Register and/or California Register. It is understood that the Specific Plan will provide the land use regulations under which future projects will be approved on a property-by-property basis. GPA recommends that the potential historical reso urces included in this HRI be further studied for potential impacts to historical resources in the event they are proposed for alteration or demolition as part of a future project.
590
Historical Resource Inventory iii
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
Figure 1: Plan Area map. Project boundary/Plan Area outlined in black. Source: RRM, 2024. 591
Historical Resource Inventory 1
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Qualifications
The purpose of this Historical Resource Inventory (HRI) is to identify known and potential historical resources within the City of Lodi (City) Downtown Specific Plan Area (Plan Area) to help guide future development . The Plan Area includes the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoned areas of Lodi, roughly bounded by Pleasant Avenue on the west, De Force Avenue on the north, Washington Street on the east, and Lodi Avenue on the south (see Figure 1). There are approximately 413 parcels within the Plan Area , of which approximately 3 37 contain buildings and/or structures with a wide range of uses including commercial, institutional, industrial, and residential.
Senior Associate Architectural Historian Jenna Kachour, Senior Architectural Historians Audrey von Ahrens and Amanda Duane, and Architectural Historian I Phoebe Rayburn of GPA Consulting were responsible for the preparation of this report. Ms. Kachour, Ms. von Ahrens, and Ms. Duane fulfill the qualifications for historic preservation professionals outlined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61. Their résumés are available upon request.
1.2 Methodology
In conducting the analysis of potential historic al resources and project impacts, GPA performed the following tasks:
1. Reviewed Existing Information
• Submitted a records search request to the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS), which is maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and includes information on cultural and historical resources reviewed for eligibil ity to National Park Service (NPS) and the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) programs through federal and state environmental compliance laws, as well as resources nominated under federal and state registration programs.
The records search was submitted to the Central California Information Center (CCIC) at California State University, Stanislaus on November 12, 2024, and encompassed the Plan Area and a 100 - foot radius. The results were received on November 18, 2024 and are summarized in Section 4.1. • Consulted the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The BERD provides information organized by county regarding non - archaeological resources in the OHP inventory and contains resource data from do cuments that may not yet be digitized.1 The results of the BERD review are summarized in Section 4.2. • Reviewed existing documentation such as prior survey data and City planning documents to compile a list of resources that were previously identified as potentially historic but not formally designated and/or evaluated. The results of this review are summarized in Section 5.1.
2. Reviewed Parcel Data
• Obtained parcel data from the City and San Joaquin County Assessor’s office with build dates.
1 “Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD),” California State Office of Historic Preservation, accessed July 2025, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338.
592
Historical Resource Inventory 2
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
• Completed a desktop review of parcels with missing build dates using digital imagery, such as Google Street View, to assess whether the existing buildings and/or structures appear to be over 45 years of age.
• Narrowed the estimated dates of construction where feasible by conducting additional review of materials such as historic aerial photographs and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.
3. Reconnaissance Survey
• Conducted a reconnaissance -level survey of the entire Plan Area, focusing on the parcels with buildings and structures over 45 years of age identified during research. A survey team of two walked and drove each street in the Plan Area and took digital photographs of the properties that appeared to have a moderate to high level of integrity based on visual observation (see Section 5.3).
4. Comparative Assessment
• Compared the integrity and characteristics of properties of a similar age, type, and/or style, noting the properties that exhibited a comparatively high level of integrity and potential for significance (see Section 5.4).
2. EXISTING SETTING
2.1 Description of the Plan Area
The Plan Area is located in the northeastern corner of Lodi, near Highway 99 and I-5, and includes the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoned area roughly bounded by Pleasant Avenue on the west, De Force Avenue on the north, Washington Street on the east, and Lodi Avenue on the south (see Figure 1, next page ). The former Southern Pacific Railroad , now the Amtrak San Joaquin s, runs north-south along tracks through the center of the Plan Area between Sacramento and Main streets. The Plan Area is laid out in a nearly north-south rectilinear grid with local corridors, collector streets, and alleys.2 There are approximately 413 parcels within the Plan Area with a wide range of uses including industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential.
Many civic and institutional properties are located throughout the Plan Area, such as city services, museums, places of worship, and community gathering places. Municipal buildings including City Hall, the Police Department, Fire Department, and Library are at the west end of the Plan Area, and Hale Park is on the northeast side of the Plan Area.3
Main commercial streets in the Plan Area include, School, Pine, Sacramento, Elm, and Oak streets. 4 Lodi’s Downtown is organized primarily along School Street between Locust Street to the north and Lodi Avenue to the south. Lodi Avenue, the southern boundary of the Plan Area, is a commercial artery that traverse the entire city.5 The downtown area is densely developed and pedestrian -oriented with many two- to three -story buildings constructed to the property line , and a variety of businesses occupy ground-floor storefronts .6 Streetscape
2 Moore Lacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc., Downtown Lodi Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Design Guidelines: A Tool to Stimulate Downtown Development Draft (City of Lodi, 2007), 12. 3 Dyett & Bhatia, Fehr & Peers, Environmental Science Associates, West Yost Associates, and Mundie & Associates, Lodi General Plan Update Working Paper #1: Land Use, Transportation, Environment, and Infrastructure (Draft, City of Lodi, July 2007), 2-11, accessed July 2025. https://www.lodi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/204/1---Land-Use-Transportation- Environment-and-Infrastructure-PDF; MIG, Inc., Eastside Mobility and Access Plan (Revised Draft, City of Lodi, August 2006), 13; MIG, Inc., TOD Guidelines, 25.
4 Dyett & Bhatia, et al., 2-10.
5 Dyett & Bhatia, et al., 2-11; MIG, Inc., Eastside Mobility, 13. 6 MIG, Inc., TOD Guidelines, 14.
593
Historical Resource Inventory 3
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
improvements include street trees, streetlights , benches, signage, kiosks, and trash cans. 7 Lodi’s Downtown is further characterized by murals and the gateway arches at Pine and Sacramento streets and School Street and Lodi Avenue. 8 Main Street, which was the historic home of Lodi’s original town center and fire station, is less densely developed. Buildings are interrupted by empty parcels, and the area does not have consistent streetscape features such as streetlights and sidewalks. 9 Adjacent to Pine Street, Sacramento Street is lined with more auto-oriented uses such as auto repair shops and surface parking lots. 10 The north and south ends of the project area have a more industrial character. The areas along the railroad between Lockeford and Main streets are scattered with large warehouses and offices interspersed with large vacant parcels.11
2.2 History of the Plan Area
The following brief history of the plan area was excerpted from the December 2024 City of Lodi Conservation Element Update and California Japantowns.
Pre-Historic Setting12
Although the Planning Area may have been occupied by Native Americans for 12,000 years or longer, the evidence of early human use is likely buried by alluvial deposits that have accumulated during the last several thousand years. Reliable evidence from arc haeological excavations indicates that this region of California has certainly been occupied for at least 6,000 years. Later periods are better understood because there is more representation in the archaeological record.
The ethnographically known people (the Native American people occupying the Planning Area at the time of contact with non -Native American peoples such as explorers and settlers) are called Northern Valley Yokut. The Northern Valley Yokut Indians held an extensive region within north-central California, which ranged between the Diablo Mountain range to the west, the Sierra Nevada to the east, the north bend of the San Joaquin River to the south, and the Mokelumne River to the north. Semi-sedentary, the Yokuts lived in single-family dwellings and depended heavily on salmon, waterfowl and acorns for subsistence. Their technology included pottery, baskets, bow and arrow, bedrock mortars, pestles, portable mortars, and flaked stone tools. The Yokut traded with th e Paiute and Shoshone to the east, Salinan and Coastanoan on the coast, and Miwok in the western central valley.
Historic Setting13
By the early 1800s, Spaniards had started exploring the area, adversely impacting the Native population. The 1848 Gold Rush further affected the Yokut population as white settlers began to inhabit the area permanently or travel through on their way to the gold fields in the Sierra Nevada. Lodi began in 1869 as the Town of Mokelumne, founded by the Central Pacific Railroad. The railroad connected Lodi with Sacramento to the north and Oakland and Stockton to the south, and the town was laid out parallel to th e tracks. To avoid confusion with Mokelumne Hills and Mokelumne City, the townspeople changed the name to Lodi in 1874.
7 MIG, Inc., TOD Guidelines, 16.
8 MIG, Inc., TOD Guidelines, 17.
9 MIG, Inc., TOD Guidelines, 21.
10 MIG, Inc., TOD Guidelines, 21.
11 Dyett & Bhatia, et al., 2-13.
12 Rincon Consultants and Mintier Harnish. City of Lodi Conservation Element Update (City of Lodi, December 2024), 10- 11, accessed July 2025, https://www.lodi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8320/2024-Adopted-Conservation-Element-Update. 13 Rincon Consultants and Mintier Harnish, Conservation Element Update, 12-13. 594
Historical Resource Inventory 4
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
Local industries, such as the Lodi Flouring Mill, and agriculture promoted further growth in the area. The Ivory Store, at the corner of Pine and Sacramento streets, was established in 1869, and other merchants soon followed with their businesses. Access to rail transportation allowed crops and products to be transported throughout the country. Wheat and watermelons were the predominant crops throughout the nineteenth century.
In 1885, Japanese immigrants settled the area to work on ranches. Over time, they purchased lands and grew grapes. In the late 1890s German nationals settled Lodi and also participated in the grape industry, Flame Tokay vines. In 1906, the City was incorporated, and held its first Tokay Carnival the next year, which would later evolve into the Lodi Grape Festival. The Lodi Arch, which covers the gateway entrance to downtown, was built to commemorate the first Grape Festival in 1934.
Over the following century, Lodi grew from a population of 2,000 to over 60,000. In 1912 Lodi’s first City Hall/fire station was built on Main Street. The current City Hall building was dedicated in 1928. In 1913, the Lodi Union High School opened for clas ses, and in 1919, entrepreneur Roy Allen brewed and sold his first batch of A&W Root beer in Lodi. Local farmers and wineries weathered the Prohibition Era well, growing grapes and shipping them out in secret for wine making. In 1956 the Federal Government officially acknowledges Lodi as a wine grape growing district. The City’s continued growth led to the creation of numerous schools and public utilities and services throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Since the mid -1990s, the City has bee n involved in numerous restoration projects for its historic resources throughout the city, including the City Hall, the Lodi Arch, and the Southern Pacific Lodi Train Station.
Lodi’s Japantown14
Across the railroad tracks [along Main Street} are two blocks of historic structures that served as the hub for Japanese immigrants from the late 19 th century up until WWII. Beginning with small numbers of immigrants in the 1880s, local Nikkei numbered over fifty residents by 1902.
Four years later, they established a Japanese Association tied to headquarters in San Francisco and branches throughout the state. Connections between Japanese immigrants were reinforced in places like Lodi, where the Japanese enclave served local Nikkei and those who were engaged in agricultural work throughout the fertile San Joaquin Delta region.
By 1910, Lodi’s Japantown was thriving next to the Union Pacific railroad tracks, icehouses and packing sheds that shipped the area’s fruits and vegetables across the United States. On Main Street, Nikkei hotels, stores, restaurants, pool halls and bathhouses were intermingled with establishments run by Chinese immigrants. Japantown businesses offered an economic base for the town’s Nikkei and familiar goods and services to the thousands of seasonal grape pickers who worked in regional vineyards. By 1940, t he area’s approximately 800 Japanese residents had created a Nihonmachi [Japantown] that included a Buddhist Church and many social organizations, four general stores and a fish market, a drug store, six restaurants, a pool hall, a tofu maker, a laundry, and five hotels.
14 “Preserving California's Japantowns – Lodi,” California Japantowns, accessed July 2025, https://californiajapantowns.org/lodi.html.
595
Historical Resource Inventory 5
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
3. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
Generally, a lead agency must consider a property a historic al resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if it is eligible for listing in the California Register. The California Register is modeled after the National Register and properties that are listed or formally determined eligible for listing on the National Register are automatically included in the California Register . Furthermore, a property is presumed to be historically significant if it is listed in a local register of historical resources or has been identified as historically significant in a historical resource s survey (provided certain criteria and requirements are satisfied) unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the property is not historically or culturally significant. 15 The national, state, and local designation programs are described below.
3.1 National Register of Historic Places
The National Register is "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment."16 Criteria
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age and possess significance in American history and culture, architecture, or archaeology.17 A property of potential significance must meet one or more of four established criteria: 18
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Physical Integrity
According to National Register Bulletin #15 , “to be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must not only be shown to be significant under National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity.”19 Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin #15 as "the ability of a property to convey its significance.” 20 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that in various combinations define integrity. They are feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials, and they are defined by National Register Bulletin #15 as follows:21
15 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and 14 CCR Section 4850. 16 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.2.
17 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4.
18 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4.
19 Patrick Andrus and Rebecca Shrimpton, eds., (National Register Bulletin 15) How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources: 1997), 44, accessed July 2025, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf 20 National Register Bulletin 15, 44-45.
21 National Register Bulletin 15, 44-45.
596
Historical Resource Inventory 6
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Context
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must also be significant within a historic context.
National Register Bulletin #15 states that the significance of a historic property can be judged only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific...property or site is understood and its meanin g...is made clear.” 22 A property must represent an important aspect of the area’s history or prehistory and possess the requisite integrity to qualify for the National Register.
Historic Districts
The National Register includes significant properties, which are classified as buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects. A historic district “derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a variety of re sources. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.” 23 A district is defined as a geographically definable area of land containing a significant concentration of buildings, sites, structures, or objects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. 24 A district’s significance and historic integrity should help determine the boundaries. Other factors include:
• Visual barriers that mark a change in the historic character of the area or that break the continuity of the district, such as new construction, highways, or development of a different character; • Visual changes in the character of the area due to different architectural styles, types, or periods, or to a decline in the concentration of contributing resources; • Boundaries at a specific time in history, such as the original city limits or the legally recorded boundaries of a housing subdivision, estate, or ranch; and
22 National Register Bulletin 15, 7.
23 National Register Bulletin 15, 5.
24 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.3(d).
597
Historical Resource Inventory 7
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
• Clearly differentiated patterns of historical development, such as commercial versus residential or industrial.25
Within historic districts, properties are identified as contributing and noncontributing. A contributing building, site, structure, or object adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archeological values for which a district is significant because:
• It was present during the period of significance, relates to the significance of the district, and retains its physical integrity; or
• It independently meets the criterion for listing in the National Register. 26
3.2 California Register of Historical Resources
In 1992, Governor Wilson signed Assembly Bill 2881 into law establishing the California Register. The California Register is an authoritative guide used by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identify historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse impacts.
The California Register consists of properties that are listed automatically, as well as those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. 27 The California Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed in the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register;
• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 0770 onward; and • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion on the California Register.
The criteria for eligibility of listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria, but are identified as 1-4 instead of A-D. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age and possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
25 Donna J. Seifert, Barbara J. Little, Beth L. Savage, and John H. Sprinkle, Jr., (National Register Bulletin 21) Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources:
1997), 12, accessed July 2025, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/Boundaries-Completed.pdf. 9 Linda F. McClelland, Carol D. Shull, and James Charleton, (National Register Bulletin 16A) How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, eds. Maureen P. Danaher and Rebecca Shrimpton (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources: 1997), 16, accessed July 2025, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A-Complete.pdf. 27 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
598
Historical Resource Inventory 8
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register may include buildings, sites, structures, objects, and historic districts. Resources less than 50 years of age may be eligible if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. While the enabling legislation for the California Register is less rigorous with regard to the issue of integrity, there is the expectation that properties reflect their appearance during their period of significance. 28
The California Register may also include properties identified during historical resource surveys. However, the survey must meet all of the following criteria: 29
1. The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical resources Inventory.
2. The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with office (OHP) procedures and requirements.
3. The resource is evaluated and determined by the office (OHP) to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on a DPR Form 523.
4. If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource.
OHP Survey Methodology
The evaluation instructions and classification system proscribed by OHP in its Instructions for Recording Historical Resources provide a three-digit evaluation code for use in classifying potential historical resources. In 2003, the codes were revised to address the California Register. The first digit indicates the general category of evaluation. The second digit is a letter code to indicate whether the resource is separately eligible (S), eligible as part of a district (D), or both (B). The third digit is a number, which is coded to describe some of the circumstances or conditions of the evaluation. The general evaluation categories are as follows:
1. Listed in the National Register or the California Register.
2. Determined eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register.
3. Appears eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register through survey evaluation.
4. Appears eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register through other evaluation.
5. Recognized as historically significant by local government.
6. Not eligible for listing or designation as specified.
7. Not evaluated or needs re-evaluation.
28 Public Resources Code Section 4852.
29 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
599
Historical Resource Inventory 9
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
The specific Status Codes referred to in this report are as follows. A full list is included as Appendix A:
1S Individually listed in the National Register by the Keeper. Listed in the California Register. 1CL State Historical Landmark (CHL) numbered 770 and above, or an earlier CHL reheard by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) and determined that it also meets California Register criteria. Listed in the California Register.
2S2 Individually determined eligible for National Register by consensus through Section 106 process.
Listed in the California Register.
3S Appears eligible for National Register individually through survey evaluation. 6Y Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or local listing.
6Z Found ineligible for NR, CR or local designation through survey evaluation. 7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey or in an Area of Potential Effect (APE): Not evaluated.
3.3 City of Lodi
The City of Lodi currently has no historic preservation ordinance or formal designation criteria or procedures for local listing; however, the December 2024 City of Lodi Conservation Element Update identifies goals and policies related to historical resources, including adopting a historic preservation ordinance (C-P33), establishing a Historic Preservation Commission (CP-32), and requiring that properties be evaluated for potential historical significance during environmental review for CEQA (C-P29).30 C-P30 and C-P31 of the 2024 updated Conservation Element identify the characteristics of potentially eligible resources that the City would designate as historic as part of a comprehensive historic resources survey:
C-P30 Conduct a comprehensive survey of historic resources in Lodi, including consideration of potentially eligible historic resources […] Designate a structure as historic if it:
• Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, architectural, aesthetic, social, economic, political, artistic, and/or engineering heritage; • Is identified with persons, businesses, or events significant to local, State, or National history;
• Embodies distinctive characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; • Represents of the notable work of a builder, designer, engineer, or architect; • Is unique location or singular physical characteristic represents an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the city […] C-P31 Designate a district as historic if it:
• Is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects as unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development.
• Identify relevant key neighborhoods either as historic districts or merit districts. Designate accordingly if 50% of property owners in the proposed district agree to the designation.
30 Rincon Consultants and Mintier Harnish, Conservation Element Update, 38-39. 600
Historical Resource Inventory 10
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
• An “Historic District” means any area containing a concentration of improvements that has a special character, architectural importance, historical interest, or aesthetic value, which possesses integrity of location, deign, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association or which represents one or more architectural periods or styles typical to the history of Lodi.
• A “Merit District” recognizes a district’s history but does not provide for a regulatory structure at this time. The structures of these districts may not be architecturally significant, but the role that these neighborhoods have played in the city’s devel opment, the cultural and economic conditions that resulted in the construction of these neighborhoods and the stories surrounding them make them an important part of the city’s history for which they should be acknowledged and celebrated.
601
Historical Resource Inventory 11
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
4. IDENTIFICATION OF KNOWN HISTORICAL RESOURCES
GPA researched Plan Area to identify any properties that are currently designated through national or state historic preservation programs, as well as any properties have been previously identified or evalua ted as a historical resource. This involved a review of the records search results from the CCIC of the CHRIS, and a review of the BERD for San Joquin County maintained by the OHP.
4.1 CCIC Records Search
The CICC records search identified a total of eight resources located within the Plan Area listed in Error! Reference source not found. , below. Four are designated historical resources, including two listed in the National Register and California Register (Status Code 1S) and two that are listed in the California Register only (Status Code 2S2).31 Two other resources were previously recorded but not formally evaluated. One of these is a linear resource encompassing multiple parcels, the former Southern Pacific Railroad (P -39-000002). Other segments of the former Southern Pacific Railroad outside the Plan Area have been previously evaluated and determined ineligible for the National Register only through the Section 106 process but were not evaluated for California Register or local listing (Status Code 6Y). The records search result letter from CCIC is included as Appendix B.
TABLE 1: CHRIS RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
# Primary No. (P-) Name Address APN Status
Code*
1. 39-000491 Lodi Arch, Mission Arch (NRHP
#80000848; SHL #931)
1 E. Pine St. 043-037-080 1S;
1CL
2. 39-000069 Hotel Lodi 5 S. School St. 043-034-040 1S
3. 39-000073 Southern Pacific Passenger
Depot
2 N. Sacramento St.
(relocated to 24 S.
Sacramento St.)
043-037-090
(existing
location)
2S2
4. 39-004317 California Army National Guard
Armory, Lodi Armory
333 N. Washington St. 041-230-450 2S2
5. 39-005324 121 E. Lockeford Street - Site 3
(The George Lawrence House)
121 E. Lockeford St. 041-230-350 6Z
6. 39-005329 224 N. Main Street - Site 9 224 N. Main St. 043-083-010 6Z
7. 39-000666 Miyajima Hotel 4 N. Main St. 043-071-130 7R
8. 39-000002 Southern Pacific Railroad in San
Joaquin County
N/A N/A N/A
*Definitions of Status Codes used in table:
1S: Individually listed in the NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 1CL: State Historical Landmark (CHL) numbered 770 and above, or an earlier CHL reheard by the SHRC and determined that it also meets CR criteria. Listed in the CR. 2S2: Individually determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 6Z: Found ineligible for NR, CR or local designation through survey evaluation. 7R: Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey or in an Area of Potential Effect (APE): Not evaluated.
31 One of the five designated properties, the Southern Pacific Passenger Depot (P-39-000073), has since been relocated and therefore may require re-evaluation.
602
Historical Resource Inventory 12
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
4.2 San Joaquin County BERD Review
A review of the BERD for San Joaquin County revealed a total of twelve additional resources located within the Plan Area that were not identified in the CHRIS records search results: two designated historical resources that are listed in the California Register (Status Code 2S2); and ten potential historical resources that were previously recorded and determined ineligible for the National Regis ter through the Section 106 process but were not formally evaluated for California or local listing (Status Code 6Y). 32 TABLE 2: PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED IN THE BERD
# Primary No. (P-) Name Address APN Status
Code*
1. 39-000678 Lodi Carnegie Library 305 W. Pine St. 037-280-150 2S2
2. 39-000677 Lodi City Hall 221 W. Pine St 043-031-110 2S2
3. None 11 W. Lockeford St. 11 W. Lockeford St. 041-165-080 6Y
4. None One Eighty Teen Center 17 W. Lockeford St. 041-165-090 6Y
5. None Imperial Hotel 7 W. Oak St. 043-036-130 6Y
6. None 105 S. Sacramento St. 105 S. Sacramento St. 043-045- 07033
6Y
7. None 217 S. Sacramento St. 217 S. Sacramento St. 043-046-100 6Y
8. None Blewett Family's Ice Cream
Fountain
221 S. Sacramento St. 043-046-110 6Y
9. None 216 S. Sacramento St. 216 S. Sacramento St. 043-048- 03034
6Y
10. 39-000671 Southern Pacific Freight
Loading Dock
Sacramento St. N/A 6Y
11. 39-000672 Southern Pacific Railroad
Telephone Booth
Sacramento St. N/A 6Y
12. 39-000673 Southern Pacific Metal Storage
Shed
Sacramento St. N/A 6Y
*Definitions of Status Codes used in table:
2S2: Individually determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 6Y: Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or local listing.
4.3 Results of Identification of Known Historical Resources The CCIC records search and San Joaquin BERD review revealed that there are six designated historical resources located within the Plan Area. They include two properties listed in the National Register (Status Code
32 “Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD),” Office of Historic Preservation, State of California, accessed April 2025, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338.
33 APN is associated with a parking lot parcel, but building on adjacent parcel, APN 043-045-060, is associated with the address 105 S. Sacramento St.
34 APN is associated with a parking lot parcel, but building on adjacent parcel, APN 043-048-020, is associated with the address 216 S. Sacramento St.
603
Historical Resource Inventory 13
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
1S), one of which is also designated an CHL (Status Code 1CL), and four listed on the California Register (Status Code 2S2). An illustrated table of known historical resources is included as Appendix C.
5. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES
5.1 Existing Documentation Review
GPA reviewed existing documentation such as prior survey data and City planning documents to compile a list of resources that were previously identified as potentially historic but not formally designated and/or evaluated , including:
• The Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850 -1995 Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF), which was initially approved by the Keeper of the National Register in January 2020 and amended in March 2024. 35 The Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850 -1995 MPDF establishes the framework to identify and designate places in California associated with Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities. It compl ements and builds upon the national theme study, Finding A Path Forward: Asian American Pacific Islander National Historic Landmarks Theme Study produced by the National Park Service.
• The Preserving California's Japantowns project, which is a recent statewide effort sponsored by the California Japanese American Community Leadership Council and funded by the California State Library's Civil Liberties Public Education Program to identify potential historical resources associated with the dozens of Japantowns that thrived throughout California prior to World War II and provide a basis for documentation, stewardship, and interpretation of sites associated with Japanese American heritage.36
• City planning documents and associated studies and reports that reference historical resources:
▪ 2024 City of Lodi Conservation Element Update, Public Review Draft ▪ 2022 City of Lodi Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan ▪ 2010 Lodi General Plan
▪ 2007 Downtown Lodi Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines (2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines)
▪ 2007 Lodi General Plan Update Working Paper #1: Land Use, Transportation, Environment, and Infrastructure
▪ 2006 City of Lodi Eastside Mobility and Access Plan
▪ 1997 Lodi Downtown Development Standards & Guidelines • Other online resources detailing Lodi’s history prepared by local historical societies, organizations, and community members:
▪ Lodi Historical Society, https://lodihistory.org/ and https://www.lodicahistory.org/ ▪ San Joaquin County Historical Society and Museum, https://sanjoaquinhistory.org/
35 “Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California 1850-1995,” California State Office of Historic Preservation, accessed July 2025, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30573. 36 “Preserving California's Japantowns.”
604
Historical Resource Inventory 14
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
▪ “Lodi History Pages,” Wright Realtors,
https://www.wrightrealtors.com/san_joaquin_files/lodi_history.htm (Wright Realtors) ▪ Lodi News-Sentinel, https://www.lodinews.com/
▪ Randy Caparoso, “Letters from Lodi,” Lodi Winegrape Commission, https://www.lodiwine.com/Blog (lodiwine.com)
▪ Historical Marker Database, www.hmdb.org
GPA’s review of the existing documentation listed above r evealed 38 extant properties that were previously identified as potential historic resources but not formally evaluated.37 One potentially eligible historic district was also identified: Lodi’s Japantown Historic District, along N. Main St reet between E. Elm St reet and E. Oak Street.38
TABLE 3: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORICAL RESOURCES
# Name (If Any) Address APN Build
Date Source
1. N/A 217 N. Sacramento St 043-025-060-000 1918 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
2. L.S. Weeks Auto Dealers
/ Lodi Motor Company -
Chrysler-Plymouth
118 N. School St 043-026-010-000 1918 Wright Realtors
3. Former State Theatre
(later T&D Theatres then
Fox West Coast)
21 W. Elm St 043-026-130-000 1910 Wright Realtors
4. Former Lodi Feed & Fuel/
Farmers' & Merchants’
Bank
27 W. Elm St 043-026-140-000 1918
5. N/A 208 N. Sacramento St 043-027-050-000 N/A 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
6. N/A 204 N. Sacramento St 043-027-060-000 1902 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
7. N/A 200 N. Sacramento St 043-027-070-000 1923 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
8. N/A 118 N. Sacramento St 043-028-040-000 1921 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
9. N/A 116 N. Sacramento St 043-028-050-000 N/A 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
10. N/A 114 N. Sacramento St 043-028-060-000 1922 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
11. Joe Hassan’s Warehouse 100 N. Sacramento St 043-028-110-000 N/A 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
12. Granger's Building 47 N. Sacramento St 043-035-060-000 1876 lodiwine.com
13. Friedberger-Blodget
Building
1 N. Sacramento St 043-035-170-000 1910 lodiwine.com
14. Hale Building 14 W. Pine St 043-036-030-000 1880s 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
37 A total of 45 properties were initially identified as part of this review; however, the reconnaissance survey revealed that seven of these properties have been demolished.
38 Flora Chou, Stephanie Cisneros, Deepeaka Dhaliwal, Stephanie Hodal, and Donna Graves, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1995 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Amended March 2024), 446, accessed July 2025, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/CA_Multiple%20Counties_AAPI%20in%20CA%20MPS_Amended%20MPDF.p df.
605
Historical Resource Inventory 15
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
TABLE 3: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORICAL RESOURCES
# Name (If Any) Address APN Build
Date Source
15. Bank of Lodi 2 W. Pine St 043-036-050-000 1888 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
16. Old Beckman, Welch and
Thompson Store;
Henderson
Bros.
21 S. Sacramento St 043-036-090-000 1950
californiarevealed.
org
17. Lodi Opera House 10 S. School St 043-036-200-000 1905 lodiwine.com
18. Lodi United States Post
Office
120 S. School St 043-045-210-000 N/A Wright Realtors
19. Swerington-Jentoff
Oldsmobile; B&W Motor
Sales
214 S. Sacramento St 043-048-020-000 N/A lodiwine.com
20. Takeuchi Co.; Takeuchi
Hotel; Japantown
Historic District
Contributor
30 N. Main St 043-071-020-000 N/A California
Japantowns;
Asian Americans
and Pacific
Islanders in
California MPDF;
2007 Lodi TOD
Design Guidelines
21. Oga Toko and Pool;
Japantown Historic
District Contributor
24 N. Main St 043-071-040-000 1946 California
Japantowns;
Asian Americans
and Pacific
Islanders in
California MPDF;
2007 Lodi TOD
Design Guidelines
22. Hiroshima Hotel;
Japantown Historic
District Contributor
20 N. Main St 043-071-050-000 1946 California
Japantowns;
Asian Americans
and Pacific
Islanders in
California MPDF;
2007 Lodi TOD
Design Guidelines
23. Quong Wong Restaurant;
Japantown Historic
District Contributor
2 N. Main St 043-071-120-000 1978 Asian Americans
and Pacific
Islanders in
California MPDF;
2007 Lodi TOD
Design Guidelines
24. Lodi Restaurant;
Miyajima Co.; Japantown
Historic District
Contributor
8 N. Main St 043-071-140-000 N/A California
Japantowns;
Asian Americans
and Pacific
Islanders in
California MPDF;
2007 Lodi TOD
Design Guidelines
25. Buddhist Church of Lodi;
Heimushakai; JACL; Lo-A
Gakuen; Lo-A Kabushiki
Kaisha; Nichibei
Tsuushin
23 N. Stockton St 043-071-170-000 1954 California
Japantowns
606
Historical Resource Inventory 16
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
TABLE 3: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORICAL RESOURCES
# Name (If Any) Address APN Build
Date Source
26. 100 E. Pine St. 100 E. Pine St 043-072-010-000 N/A 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
27. 4 S. Main St. 4 S. Main St 043-072-020-000 N/A 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
28. 10 S. Main St. 10 S. Main St 043-072-030-000 N/A 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
29. Chugoku Hotel; Bocho
Kaigai Kyokai
30 S. Main St 043-072-080-000 N/A California
Japantowns; 2007
Lodi TOD Design
Guidelines
30. Chugoku Hotel; Tukuo
Okazaki Groceries;
Bocho Kaigai Kyokai
22 S. Main St 043-072-090-000 1962 California
Japantowns; 2007
Lodi TOD Design
Guidelines
31. 20 S. Main St 20 S. Main St 043-072-100-000 N/A 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
32. 18 S. Main St 18 S. Main St 043-072-110-000 N/A 2007 Lodi TOD Design Guidelines
33. Former Tokay Motors -
Cadillac & Pontiac
201 E. Pine St 043-073-090-000 1952 Wright Realtors
34. Ice House 219 N. Main St 043-081-020-000 N/A
35. Livery Stables/Olde
Icehouse
27 E. Locust St 043-081-030-000 1880s lodinews.com
36. First Lodi City Hall and
Fire Station; Lodi Water
Tower
043-084-130-000 1912 lodinews.com
37. Hale Park (formerly
Wardrobe Grove)
208 E. Locust St 043-086-010-000 1876 Historical Marker Database
38. Maple Square (Former
Lodi Fire Department)
2 E. Lodi Av 045-310-010-000 N/A Wright Realtors
5.2 Parcel Data Review and Desktop Survey
In most cases, the minimum age threshold for National Register eligibility is 50 years; however, it is industry standard to identify and evaluate properties at least 45 years of age during review of development projects, in the event that the property reac hes the 50 -year threshold by the time the project is completed. To identify properties that are at least 45 years old as of the date of this HRI, GPA obtained parcel data from the City and San Joaquin County Assessor’s office with build dates.
The parcel data was missing build dates for a number of parcels within the Plan Area. To fill this information gap, GPA completed a desktop review of parcels with missing build dates using digital imagery, such as Google Street View, to assess whether the existing buildings and/or structures appear to be over 45 years of age. GPA narrowed the estimated dates of construction where feasible by conducting additional review of materials such as historic aerial photographs and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. This p arcel data review identified approximatel y 22 9 parcels that (1) meet the minimum age threshold and (2) were not identified as part of the CCIC records search, the San Joaquin BERD review, or the review of existing documentation.
5.3 Reconnaissance Survey
Based on GPA’s research and review of existing information, GPA compiled a list of approximately 274 parcels for the reconnaissance survey. This list included:
607
Historical Resource Inventory 17
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
• Two resources from the CCIC records search that were previously recorded but not formally evaluated: Miyajima Hotel (P- 39-000666) and the former Southern Pacific Railroad (P-39- 000002) (see Section 4.1)
• Ten resources that were previously recorded and determined ineligible for the National Register only through the Section 106 process but were not formally evaluated for the California Register or local listing (see properties with 6Y status code Error! Reference source not found. in Section 4.2). • Properties that were p reviously identified as potential historical resources but not formally designated and/or evaluated (see TABLE 3 in Section 5.1) • Any remaining parcels that met the minimum age threshold of 45 years (see Section 5.2).
Using this list, GPA conducted a reconnaissance survey of the Plan Area on February 27 and February 28, 2025.
This effort involved driving and walking each street within the Plan Area . Each of the parcels were viewed from the public right-of-way. Those parcels with buildings and/or structures that had moderate to high level of integrity based on visual observation were photographed from the public right -of-way and noted on field maps and a spreadsheet.
5.4 Comparative Assessment
Following the reconnaissance survey, GPA reviewed the survey photographs and compared the integrity and characteristics of properties of a similar age, type, and/or style , noting the p roperties that exhibited a comparatively high level of integrity and potential for significance.
Comparative integrity was assessed through visual observation, historic maps and aerials, and digital imagery such as Google Street View. Properties were not excluded from consideration if they exhibited only minor alterations, such as replacement windows within original openings , but p roperties exhibiting numerous minor alterations or several major alterations were omitted from consideration potential historical resources. Greater latitude for alterations was given to early properties (e.g., late 1800s -early 1900s), properties with potential ethnic-cultural significance, and unique or rare property types within the Plan Area. Minor and major alterations were defined as follows:
Minor Alterations:
• Replacement windows/doors in original openings
• Replacement cladding with a similar material
• Replacement roofing with a similar material
• Enclosure of a porch or storefront that does not obscure the original configuration Major Alterations:
• Replacement windows/doors in modified openings
• New/incompatible cladding material
• New incompatible roofing material
• Infill/enclosure of a window/door opening, porch, or storefront that obscures the original configuration • Large additions that obscure the original size, massing, function and/or design of the resource
608
Historical Resource Inventory 18
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
5.5 Results of Identification of Potential Historical Resources GPA identified a total of 118 individual resources across 130 parcels, and one potential historic district that meet (or will soon meet) the minimum age threshold for the various registration program and exhibit a moderate to high level of physical integrity, as compared to similar properties in the Plan Area, and thus have the potential to convey historical significance.
Preparing individual intensive-level evaluations for all the properties identified as potential historical resources within their respective historic contexts would exceed the level of effort for a typical Specific Plan ; therefore, properties identified as potential historical resources would still require a historical resource evaluation on a case-by-case basis, consistent with City of Lodi Cultural Element policy C-P29 (see Section 3.3), if they are proposed to be altered or demolished as part of proposed project in the future. These properties are assigned Status Code 7R: Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated.
An illustrated table of potential historical resources is included as Appendix D. 609
Historical Resource Inventory 19
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
6. CONCLUSIONS
The Plan Area contains six designated historical resources that were previously listed in the National Register and/or California Register. These resources are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA that should be further evaluated for potential impacts for future development projects.
Following a review of existing documentation , a reconnaissance survey, and comparative assessment of similar properties, GPA identified an additional 118 resources on 130 parcels that meet (or will soon meet) the minimum age threshold for the various registration program s and exhibit a moderate to high level of physical integrity, as compared to similar properties in the Plan Area, and thus have the potential to convey historical significance.
These resources are therefore considered “potential historical resources” that should be further evaluated for historical significance and project impacts, if applicable, for future development projects. This evaluation should be prepared in accordance with best practices for historical resource evaluations and impacts analysis, generally involving a report prepared by an individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards and recordation of the property on a DPR 523 For m.
Properties not included on this list, including properties that turn 50 years old after adoption of the Specific Plan, may still qualify as historical resources if a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that they meet one of the National or California register criteria listed in Section 3 of this report. The fact that a property has not been previously identified does not preclude the City from treating any other resources over the age of 45 within the Specific Plan Area as potential historical resources , and t hey City may request that they be evaluated as part of a future project.
610
Historical Resource Inventory 20
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
7. SOURCES
California Japantowns. “Preserving California's Japantowns – Lodi.” Accessed February 2025. https://californiajapantowns.org/lodi.html.
California State Office of Historic Preservation. “Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California 1850- 1995.” Accessed July 2025. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30573. ⸻⸻⸻. “Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD).”Accessed November 2024, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338.
Chou, Flora, Stephanie Cisneros, Deepeaka Dhaliwal, Stephanie Hodal, and Donna Graves. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1995 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Amended November 2023. Accessed July 2025.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/CA_Multiple%20Counties_AAPI%20in%20CA%20MPS _Amended%20MPDF.pdf.
Dyett & Bhatia, Fehr & Peers, Environmental Science Associates, West Yost Associates, and Mundie & Associates. Lodi General Plan Update Working Paper #1: Land Use, Transportation, Environment, and Infrastructure. Draft. City of Lodi, July 2007. Accessed July 2025. https://www.lodi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/204/1---Land-Use-Transportation-Environment-and- Infrastructure-PDF.
How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Register Bulletin 15). Edited by Patrick Andrus and Rebecca Shrimpton. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources: 1997. Accessed July 2025.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB -15_web508.pdf.
McLelland, Linda F., Carol D. Shull, and James Charleton. (National Register Bulletin 16A) How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Edited by Maureen P. Danaher and Rebecca Shrimpton. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources: 1997.
Accessed July 2025. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A - Complete.pdf.
Moore Lacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc. City of Lodi Eastside Mobility and Access Plan. Revised Draft. City of Lodi, August 2006. Accessed July 2025. https://www.lodi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7313/2006- Eastside-Mobility-and-Access-Plan-PDF-?bidId=.
⸻⸻⸻. Downtown Lodi Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines: A Tool to Stimulate Downtown Development. Draft. City of Lodi, July 2007. Accessed July 2025. https://www.lodi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7314/2007-Lodi-TOD-Design-Guidelines- PDF?bidId=.
Rincon Consultants and Mintier Harnish. City of Lodi Conservation Element Update. City of Lodi, December 2024. Accessed July 2025. https://www.lodi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8320/2024-Adopted- Conservation-Element-Update.
Seifert, Donna J., Barbara J. Little, Beth L. Savage, and John H. Sprinkle, Jr. (National Register Bulletin 21) Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources: 1997. Accessed July 2025 . https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/Boundaries -Completed.pdf. 611
Historical Resource Inventory and Technical Report Appendix A Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
Appendix A: California Historical Resource Status Codes 612
California Historical Resource Status Codes
Current as of 3/1/2020
1. Listed in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR):
1D: Contributor to a multi-component resource like a district listed in the NR by the Keeper.
Listed in the CR.
1S: Individually listed in the NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 1CD: Contributor to a multi-component resource listed in the CR by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC).
1CS: Individually listed in the CR by the SHRC.
1CL: State Historical Landmark (CHL) numbered 770 and above, or an earlier CHL reheard by the SHRC and determined that it also meets CR criteria. Listed in the CR. 1CP: State Point of Historical Interest (CPHI) nominated since 1998 that the SHRC also found CR eligible, or an earlier CPHI reheard by the SHRC and determined that it also meets CR criteria. Listed in the CR.
2. Determined Eligible for Listing in National (NR) or California (CR) Registers:
2B: Determined eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible multi- component resource like a district in a federal regulatory process. Listed in the CR. 2D: Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for NR by the Keeper.
Listed in the CR.
2D2: Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR.
2D3: Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for NR by Part 1 Tax Certification. Listed in the CR.
2D4: Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Listed in the CR.
2S: Individually determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 2S2: Individually determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process.
Listed in the CR.
2S3: Individually determined eligible for NR by Part 1 Tax Certification. Listed in the CR. 2S4: Individually determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO.
Listed in the CR.
2CB: Determined eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible multi- component resource by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC). 2CD: Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for CR by the SHRC. 2CS: Individually determined eligible for CR by the SHRC.
613
3. Appears Eligible for National (NR) or California (CR) Registers:
3B: Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible multi- component resource like a district through survey evaluation. 3D: Appears eligible for NR as a contributor to a NR eligible multi-component resource through survey evaluation.
3S: Appears eligible for NR individually through survey evaluation. 3CB: Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible multi- component resource through survey evaluation.
3CD: Appears eligible for CR as a contributor to a CR eligible multi-component resource through survey evaluation.
3CS: Appears eligible for CR individually through survey evaluation.
4. Appears Eligible for National Register or as State Historical Landmark through PRC§ 5024:
4CM: State agency owned resource added to Master List - appears to meet criterion.
5. Recognized as Historically Significant by Local Government:
5B: Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as contributor to a multi-component resource like a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible, or appears eligible through survey evaluation. 5D1: Contributor to a multi-component resource that is listed or designated locally. 5D2: Contributor to a multi-component resource that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5D3: Appears to be a contributor to a multi-component resource that appears eligible for local listing or designation.
5S1: Individually listed or designated locally.
5S2: Individually eligible for local listing or designation. 5S3: Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.
6. Not Eligible for or Removed from Listing or Designation as Specified:
6J: State Historic Landmark (CHL) or State Point of Historical Interest (CPHI) determined ineligible for or removed by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC). 6L: Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning. 6R: Resource listed more than once on the National Register (NR) that has had some, but not all listings removed by the Keeper. Still NR listed.
6T: Determined ineligible for NR through Part 1 Tax Certification process. 6U: Determined ineligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by Office of Historic Preservation (OHP).
6W: Removed from NR by the Keeper.
614
6X: Determined ineligible for NR by the SHRC or the Keeper. 6Y: Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or local listing.
6Z: Found ineligible for NR, CR or local designation through survey evaluation. 6CR: Resource listed more than once on the California Register (CR) that has had some, but not all listings removed by the SHRC. Still CR listed.
6CW: Removed from CR by the SHRC.
6CX: Determined ineligible for CR by the SHRC.
6WM: Removed from Master List because no longer state owned. 6XM: Removed from Master List because of historic feature loss or further evaluation. 6YM: State agency owned resource determined ineligible for Master List.
7. Not Evaluated, or Needs Re-evaluation for National (NR) or California (CR) Registers:
7J: Received by Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for evaluation or action but not yet evaluated.
7K: Submitted to OHP for action but not reevaluated.
7L: State Historical Landmarks 1 through 769 that does not meet CR criteria. 7M: Submitted to OHP but not evaluated - referred to National Park Service. 7N: Needs to be reevaluated - formerly coded as may become NR eligible with specific conditions.
7N1: Needs to be reevaluated (former status code 4) - may become NR eligible with restoration or other specific conditions.
7P: State Point of Historical Interest that does not meet CR criteria. 7R: Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey or in an Area of Potential Effect (APE): Not evaluated.
7W: Submitted to OHP for action – withdrawn or inactive. 615
Historical Resource Inventory and Technical Report Appendix B Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
Appendix B: Records Search Results Letter
616
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties
Date: 11/18/2024 Records Search File No.: 13113L
Project: #1338 Lodi Downtown Specific Plan
Jenna Kachour
GPA Consulting
840 Apollo Street, Suite 312 [email protected] El Segundo, CA 90245
310-792-2690
The Central California Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Lodi North 7.5’ quadrangle in San Joaquin County. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project study area and radius:
As per data currently available at the CCaIC, the locations of resources/reports are provided in the following format: ☒ Custom GIS maps ☒ GIS Data/shape files
Summary Data:
Resources within the project area: 10: P-39-000002, 69, 73, 491, 666, 4317, 4928, 5324, 5325, 5329
Resources within the 100-foot radius: 3: P-29-000506, 5389, 5485 Reports within the project area: 19: SJ-02756, 3379, 3995, 4378, 4379, 4456, 4506, 4596, 4977, 5011, 5342, 6023, 6345, 6546, 6911, 7879, 7880,
8896, 9558
Reports within the 100-foot radius: 1: SJ-09226
Resource Database Printout (list): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
617
OHP Historic Properties Directory: New Excel File: Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Dated 9/23/2022; Not all resources listed in the BERD are mapped in GIS, nor do we have records on file for; if you identify additional resources in the BERD that you need copies of, contact the IC. ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Archaeological Resource Directory (ARD excerpt):☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed See also: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov>topoview
Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed See also: https://glorecords.blm.gov
Shipwreck Inventory: ☒ not available at CaCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp Soil Survey Maps: ☒ not available at CCaIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email by our Financial Services office* ($633.45), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.
618
If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse
E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services 619
Historical Resource Inventory and Technical Report Appendix C Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
Appendix C: Known Historical Resources in the Plan Area 620
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix C
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX C: KNOWN HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA
# Primary
No. (P-) Name Address APN Build
Date
Status Code
(Year) Source Survey Photo
1. 39-
000491
Lodi Arch, Mission
Arch (NRHP
80000848; CHL.
931)
1 E. Pine St. 043-037-080 1907 1S (2007);
1CL (2012)
CCIC
2. 39-
000069
Hotel Lodi (NPS
95001140)
5 S. School St. 043-034-040 1915 1S (2007) CCIC
3. 39-
004317
California Army
National Guard
Armory, Lodi
Armory
333 N.
Washington St.
041-230-450 1930 2S2 (2000) CCIC
(Google Street View, February 2025)
621
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix C
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX C: KNOWN HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA
# Primary
No. (P-) Name Address APN Build
Date
Status Code
(Year) Source Survey Photo
4. 39-
000677
Lodi City Hall 221 W. Pine St. 043-031-110 1927/
1928
2S2 (1986) BERD
5. 39-
000678
Lodi Carnegie
Library
305 W. Pine St. 037-280-150 1909-
1928
2S2 (1986);
3S (1989)
BERD
6. 39-
000073
Southern Pacific
Passenger Depot
2 N.
Sacramento
St.39
043-037-090
(existing
location)
1907
(moved
c.1990)
2S2 (1995) CCIC
39 The Southern Pacific Passenger Depot was evaluated and assigned a Status Code of 2S2 in 1995 but has since been moved from its original location at 2 N. Sacramento St. to its current location at 24 S. Sacramento St. (APN 043-037-090) and therefore may require re-evaluation. 622
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
Appendix D: Potential Historical Resources in the Plan Area 623
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
1. 041-163-060 107 W. Lockeford St. Residential 1907 7R
2. 041-163-080 109 W. Lockeford St. Residential 1917 7R
3. 041-163-090 111 W. Lockeford St. Residential 1920 7R
4. 041-165-050 3 W. Lockeford St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
624
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
5. 041-230-190 346 N. Main St. Residential 1912 7R
6. 041-230-310 323 N. Stockton St. Residential Appears Over 45
Years
7R
7. 041-230-320 319 N. Stockton St. Residential Appears Over 45
Years
7R
8. 041-230-380 346 N. Stockton St. Residential 1923 7R
625
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
9. 041-230-440 Utilities &
Government
Pre-1950 Armory Park;
Tom Chapman
Field; Ball Park
7R
10. 041-230-470 309 N. Stockton St. Residential 1915 7R
11. 041-240-410 401 N. Stockton St. Utilities &
Government
1968-1984 Softball
complex
7R
12. 043-021-090 201 W. Locust St. Utilities &
Government
1979 Lodi Public
Library
7R
626
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
13. 043-021-110 223 N. Church St. Commercial 1957-1967 7R
14. 043-021-130 222 W. Lockeford St. Commercial 1980 7R
15. 043-022-010 220 W. Locust St. Residential 1946 7R
16. 043-022-120 125 N. Church St. Commercial 1969 Lodi News Sentinel
7R
(Google Street View, February 2025)
627
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
17. 043-023-030 116 W. Lockeford St. Residential Appears Over 45
Years
7R
18. 043-023-060 209 N. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
19. 043-023-090 200 N. Church St. Commercial 1975
7R
20. 043-024-050 123 N. School St. Institutional 1909- 1926/1927-
1950
Undertaker/
Funeral Home
7R
628
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
21. 043-024-060 115 N. School St. Commercial 1957-1967 7R
22. 043-025-020 218 N. School St. Residential Appears Over 45
Years
7R
23. 043-025-130 21 W. Locust St.,
210 N. School St.
Residential Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
24. 043-026-020 20 W. Locust St. Commercial 1916-1926 7R
629
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
25. 043-026-040 127 N. Sacramento
St.
Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
26. 043-026-130 21 W. Elm St. Commercial 1910 Former State Theatre (later
T&D Theatres
then Fox West
Coast)
7R
27. 043-026-140 27 W. Elm St. Commercial 1918 Former Lodi Feed &
Fuel/Farmers' &
Merchants'Ban
k
7R
28. 043-026-150 106 N. School St. Commercial 1922 7R
630
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
29. 043-026-160 5 W. Elm St./101 N.
Sacramento St.
Commercial 1917-1926 7R
30. 043-027-020 214 N. Sacramento
St.
Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
31. 043-027-050 208 N. Sacramento
St.
Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
32. 043-027-060 204 N. Sacramento
St.
Commercial 1902 7R
631
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
33. 043-027-070 200 N. Sacramento
St.
Commercial 1923 7R
34. 043-027-100 10 E. Lockeford St. Commercial 1963-197 Tokay Liquors 7R
35. 043-028-010 130 N. Sacramento
St.
Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
36. 043-028-070 108 N. Sacramento
St.
Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
632
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
37. 043-028-110 100 N. Sacramento
St
Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
Joe Hassan’s
Warehouse
7R
38. 043-032-010 4 S. Pleasant Ave. Commercial 1927-1950 7R
39. 043-032-050 11 S. Church St. Commercial 1968 7R
40. 043-032-060 17 S. Church St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
Guild Cleaners 7R
633
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
41. 043-032-130 24 S. Pleasant Ave. Residential 1949 7R
42. 043-033-010 124 W. Elm St. Utilities &
Government
1927-1950 Pacific
Telephone Co.
7R
43. 043-033-060 11 N. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
44. 043-033-070 9 N. School St. Commercial 1925 7R
634
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
45. 043-033-080 7 N. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
46. 043-033-090 5 N. School St. Commercial 1968-1984 7R
47. 043-033-140 111 W. Pine St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
F&M Bank 7R
48. 043-034-050 17 S. School St. Commercial 1964 7R
635
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
49. 043-034-060
043-034-070
31 S. School St. Commercial 1968 7R
50. 043-035-010 24 N. School St. Commercial 1912 7R
51. 043-035-060 47 N. Sacramento
St.
Commercial 1876 Granger's
Building
7R
52. 043-035-170 1 N. Sacramento St. Commercial 1910 Friedberger- Blodget
Building
7R
636
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
53. 043-035-210 6 N. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
54. 043-035-220 4 N. School St. Commercial 1922 7R
55. 043-035-290 14 N. School St. Commercial 1925 7R
56. 043-035-300 18 N. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
637
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
57. 043-036-020 18 W. Pine St. Commercial 1910
7R
58. 043-036-030 14 W. Pine St. Commercial 1880s Hale Building 7R
59. 043-036-050 2 W. Pine St. Commercial 1888 Bank of Lodi 7R
60. 043-036-090 21 S. Sacramento St. Commercial 1950 Beckman, Welch and
Thompson store
(later
Henderson
Bros.)
7R
638
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
61. 043-036-120 39 S. Sacramento St. Commercial Appears Over 45
Years
7R
62. 043-036-160 28 S. School St. Commercial 1925 Rosewood Building
7R
63. 043-036-170 16 S. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
64. 043-036-190 14 S. School St. Commercial 1923 7R
639
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
65. 043-036-200 10 S. School St. Commercial 1905 Lodi Opera House
7R
66. 043-036-210 11 S. Sacramento St. Commercial 1895 7R
67. 043-041-010 104 S. Pleasant Ave. Residential Appears Over 45
Years
7R
68. 043-041-020 106 S. Pleasant Ave. Residential 1910 7R
640
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
69. 043-041-050 200 W. Oak St. Institutional 1948 7R
70. 043-043-010 118 W. Oak St. Residential 1920 7R
71. 043-043-060 101 S. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
72. 043-043-120 115 W. Walnut St. Commercial 1968-1984 7R
641
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
73. 043-044-010
043-044-130
110-120 W. Walnut
St.
Commercial 1957-1967/
1968-1984
Bank of
Stockton
7R
74. 043-044-140 203 S. School St. Commercial 1952 7R
75. 043-045-050 6 W. Oak St. Commercial 1953-1957 7R
76. 043-045-060 101-105 S.
Sacramento St.
Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R (2025);
6Y (2018)
642
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
77. 043-045-210 120 S. School St. Utilities &
Government
Appears
Over 45
Years
Lodi United
States Post
Office
7R
78. 043-046-030 208 S. School St. Commercial 1957-1967 7R
79. 043-046-040 210 S. School St. Commercial 1927-1950 7R
80. 043-046-100 217 S. Sacramento
St.
Commercial 1912 Former Poe
Fruit Exchange
Building
7R (2025); 6Y
(2018)
643
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
81. 043-046-110 221 S. Sacramento
St.
Commercial 1920/1923 Blewett family's
Ice Cream
Fountain
7R (2025); 6Y
(2013)
82. 043-046-130 226 S. School St. Commercial 1968-1984 7R
83. 043-046-140 220 S. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
84. 043-046-150 212 S. School St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
644
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
85. 043-048-020
043-048-030
214-216 S.
Sacramento St.
Commercial;
Utilities &
Government
1945 Swerington-
Jentoff
Oldsmobile;
B&W Motor
Sales
7R (2025); 6Y
(2018)
86. 043-048-040 228 S. Sacramento
St.
Commercial 1968-1984
7R
87. 043-064-010 200 E. Oak St. Commercial 1957-1967 7R
88. 043-071-020 30 N. Main St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
Takeuchi Co./
Takeuchi Hotel;
Japantown HD
Potential
Contributor
7R
645
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
89. 043-071-040 24 N. Main St. Commercial 1946 Oga Toko and Pool; Japantown
HD Potential
Contributor
7R
90. 043-071-050 20 N. Main St. Commercial 1946 Hiroshima Hotel;
Japantown HD
Potential
Contributor
7R
91. 043-071-120 2 N. Main St. Commercial 1978 Quong Wong Restaurant (101
E Pine St);
Japantown HD
Potential
Contributor
7R
92. 043-071-130 4 N. Main St. Commercial 1937 Miyajima Hotel (Primary No.
39-000666;
Japantown
Potential
Historic District
7R (2025); 7R
(1980)
646
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
93. 043-071-140 8 N. Main St. Commercial
Lodi Restaurant/
Miyajima Co.;
Japantown HD
Potential
Contributor
7R
94. 043-071-170 23 N. Stockton St. Institutional 1954 Buddhist Church of Lodi;
Heimushakai;
JACL; Lo-A
Gakuen; Lo-A
Kabushiki
Kaisha; Nichibei
Tsuushin
7R
95. 043-071-200 21 N. Stockton St. Commercial Appears Over 45
Years
7R
96. 043-071-220 123 E. Pine St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
647
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
97. 043-072-010 100 E. Pine St. Utilities &
Government
Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
98. 043-072-020 4 S. Main St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
99. 043-072-030 10 S. Main St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
100. 043-072-080 30 S. Main St. Industrial Appears
Over 45
Years
Chugoku Hotel;
Bocho Kaigai
Kyokai (24 S
Main St)
7R
648
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
101. 043-072-090 22 S. Main St. Commercial 1962 Chugoku Hotel; Tukuo Okazaki
Groceries;
Bocho Kaigai
Kyokai (24 S
Main St)
7R
102. 043-072-110 18 S. Main St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
103. 043-072-160 124 E. Pine St. Residential Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
104. 043-073-020 210 E. Elm St. Institutional 1955/1993 Lodi Japanese Community Hall
7R
649
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
105. 043-073-060 11 N. Washington St. Residential Appears Over 45
Years
7R
106. 043-073-080 207 E. Pine St. Residential Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
107. 043-073-090 201 E. Pine St. Commercial 1952 Former Tokay Motors -
Cadillac &
Pontiac
7R
108. 043-074-010 208 E. Pine St. Commercial 1939 7R
650
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
109. 043-074-150 201 E. Oak St. Industrial 1968-1984 7R
110. 043-074-160 212 E. Pine St. Residential 1906 7R
111. 043-081-020
043-081-030
219 N. Main St., 27
E. Locust St.
Commercial/
Industrial
c.1880s Livery stables/
ice house
7R
112. 043-082-030 21 E. Elm St. Commercial Appears
Over 45
Years
7R
651
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
113. 043-084-120 Utilities &
Government
Pre 1957 Lodi Water
Tower
7R
114. 043-084-130 Multiple Utilities &
Government
1912 First Lodi City
Hall and Fire
Station (114 N.
Main St.)
7R
115. 043-085-160 210 N. Stockton St. Residential 1910 7R
116. 043-086-010 208 E. Locust St. Utilities &
Government
1876 Hale Park
(Formerly
Wardrobe
Grove)
7R
652
Historical Resource Inventory Appendix D
Lodi Downtown Specific Plan Area
APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN PLAN AREA # APN Address Property Type Build Date
Historical
Name/
Association (if
known)
Status Code Survey Photograph
117. 045-310-010 2 E. Lodi Ave. Utilities &
Government
Appears
Over 45
Years
Maple Square
(Former Lodi
Fire Dept.)
7R
118. 041-240-440
043-027-080
043-027-090
043-028-100
043-037-050
043-037-060
043-047-090
043-048-050
043-061-030
Utilities &
Government
Appears
Over 45
Years
Southern Pacific
Railroad
(Primary No.
39-000002)
7R
653
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL STUDIES
Appendix A.4: Railroad Coordination
Contents
• Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone
Feasibility Evaluation Memorandum
INTRODUCTION
The railroad subconsultant developed a brief memorandum discussing existing conditions and factors that may influence the Specific Plan which includes a high level discussion of standards, requirements, and regulations relating to potential or proposed development opportunities along the railroad cooridor.
The memorandum includes a high-level analysis of a Quiet Zone feasibilitity and includes steps for the City to complete in the future if they decide to move forward with a Quiet Zone. 654
250 Commerce , Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
P: (714) 734-8765 F: (714) 734-8755
w w w . r a i l p r o s . c o m
City of Lodi Downtown Corridor
Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Evaluation Memorandum
June 3, 2025
Background
The City of Lodi is evaluating establishment of a p otential Quiet Zone through the downtown area between Tokay Street on the south and Lockeford Street on the north. RailPros has been asked to provide a high-level conceptual evaluation and recommendations for the City’s consideration in decision making.
In effort to gather a high-level understanding of t he existing conditions as well as the City’s future plans, RailPros has reviewed available aerial and street view imagery, visited the crossings to observe conditions and behaviors, collected and reviewed available dat a from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), including grade crossing inventory and accident his tory data (see Attachment A and B respectively), an d discussed high-level development plans with the City.
The intent of this evaluation is to identify potent ial Quiet Zone improvements for each crossing locat ion for Quiet Zone establishment, as well as to highlight other potential impacts or safety considerations that may be recommended or required when modifying the crossings.
Quiet Zone Requirements and Feasibility
The FRA developed rules regarding the use of horns at crossings in 2005 as 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229, the Final Rule on Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Final Rule). The Final Rule requires trains to sound horns on approach to at-grade cross ings and also allows for the establishment of quiet zones, where the routine sounding of horns is not required.
General quiet zone requirements include a minimum l ength of ½ mile (¼ mile between a quiet zone crossing and the nearest non-quiet zone crossing on either side), certain basic crossing equipment, an d implementation of key safety enhancements. These en hancements are generally referred to as Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) as defined by the Final Rule, or Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) which may consist of Modified SSMs (MSSMs) or other proposed safety enhancements, among other things. A quiet zone can be established over a sing le crossing or along a corridor with multiple cross ings.
It is important to consider the consistency of improvements, horn usage, noise leakage (horn noise from adjacent non-quiet zone crossings), and other elements throughout a corridor, region, or area.
In accordance with FRA rules and requirements, a Qu iet Zone may be established by a Public Agency by one of the following typical methods:
• implementing one or more SSMs at each crossing within the Quiet Zone 655
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 2
• implementing SSMs at selected crossings within the Quiet Zone sufficient to reduce the calculated Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) to a level below the Risk index with Horns (RIWH) • implementing ASMs, or a combination of ASMs and SSM s, at selected crossings within the Quiet Zone sufficient to reduce the calculated QZRI to a level below the RIWH (requires additional application to the FRA for approval of ASMs and associated calculations) In evaluating quiet zone safety measures, both the existing and proposed conditions should be considered to assist in identifying realistic and effective SS Ms and/or ASMs to be implemented to address local crossing and quiet zone corridor risks. SSM installation will be considered as the first alternative at each location, where feasible. Common SSMs include:
• 100’ raised medians or channelization (may be reduc ed to up to 60’ where adjacent intersecting roadways/driveways are present) (these systems disc ourage or reduce the risk of motorists circumventing lowered warning gate arms) – See Figures 1 and 2 below, • 4-quadrant gates (entrance and exit gates – exit gates discourage or reduce risk of circumventing lowered gate arms, particularly where adjacent intersections or driveways are present, or where medians are not feasible) – See Figure 3 below,
• Roadway Closure,
• Conversion to 1-way street (1-way street approaches are fully protected by gate arm(s) and discourage or reduce the risk of motorists circumventing lowered warning gate arms).
Figure 1. City of Orange Palmyra Avenue 100’ Raised Median with Adjacent Driveway (60’+) Example 656
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 3
Figure 2. Town of Windsor Mitchell Drive 100’ Channelization Example
Figure 3. City of Encinitas Chesterfield Drive 4-Quadrant Gate Example Where SSMs are not feasible or practicable due to e xisting or proposed constraints, ASMs may be evaluated or considered as an alternative. Common ASMs typically include MSSMs such as:
• Medians or channelization with or without a reduced length (and potentially reduced effectiveness) due to adjacent intersections or driveways – see Figure 4 below, • Combination of 3-quadrant gates and medians or channelization* - see Figure 5 below, or • Other similar combination of elements of two SSMs
657
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 4
Figure 4. City of Oceanside Wisconsin Avenue Medians with Adjacent Driveway (-60’) ASM Example
Figure 5. City of Orange Meat Avenue 3-Quad Gates w/ Medians ASM Example *It should be noted that UPRR does not typically al low implementation of 3-quadrant gates and other alternatives will be considered for this study.
The project crossings will be included in a single quiet zone for this evaluation. Recommended SSM and ASM alternatives for each crossing are discussed in more detail in the Findings, Observations, and Recommendations section below. A flow chart summari zing the quiet zone development process and required notices is included in Attachment C.
Other safety enhancements are also likely to be required when establishing the Quiet Zone and the actual recommended improvements for each crossing will be determined by the stakeholder diagnostic team consisting of City, Railroad, and regulatory agency staff from the California Public Utilities Commiss ion (CPUC) and FRA, and other relevant stakeholders. An exhibit outlining the decision making and diagnostic team process is shown in Attachment D.
658
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 5
Observations, Findings, and Quiet Zone Recommendations at Individual Crossings The individual crossings are discussed further belo w, beginning with Tokay Street on the south moving northward through the project crossings and includi ng conceptual observations and findings on the existing condition and quiet zone SSM and ASM alternative opportunities.
The results of the high-level conceptual review are outlined below including the following details for each crossing:
• Existing Crossing Condition Data and Details
o Roadway
o Track
o Inventory/Accident data
o Notes and observations
• Quiet Zone SSM and/or ASM Alternative Options
• Other Safety Enhancement/Modification Considerations
These details, observations, and recommendations ar e not intended to be exhaustive, but are intended to provide a high-level look at the current condition and potential opportunities.
Tokay Street 752918C
Existing Crossing Condition:
• 2 lane roadway (1 lane in each direction)
• Concrete sidewalks transition to asphalt pathways level with the roadway near the railroad Right of Way (ROW)
• Existing driveways near crossing in all quadrants
• Roadway asphalt shows wear
• 2 tracks
• CPUC No. 9a cantilever warning devices/gates (approx. 25’+ offset from tracks near edges of ROW on both approaches)
• Exit quadrant ped flashers (single flasher) (approx. 25’+ offset from tracks near edges of ROW) • 32 trains (16 day, 16 night), 45MPH
• 5705 ADT - 2016
• No recent accident history
• Adjacent intersections:
o Approx. 220’ west Sacramento St. (2-way stop controlled) o Approx. 600’+ east Stockton (4-way stop controlled)
o Approx. 250’ east Main (T- single stop controlled)
Quiet Zone Safety Measure Alternatives:
• Possible SSM – 4
quad gates
659
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 6
• Possible ASM – 100’ Medians may provide partial Qui et Zone risk reduction especially if the railroad warning devices are relocated closer to the tracks
Other Safety Enhancement/Modification Considerations:
• Roadway resurfacing
• Construct sidewalk/pathway through crossing
• Update/refresh signage and striping and pedestrian treatments per standard • Evaluate traffic/queuing and potential mitigations
• Relocate railroad warning devices closer to tracks, per standard • Consider replacing existing CPUC No. 9a warning device cantilevers with curb mounted CPUC No. 9 warning device gates and flashers
• Replace existing pedestrian flashers with CPUC No. 8 warning device with flashers or consider installation of CPUC No. 9 pedestrian warning devic es with gates, flashers and channelization/refuge gates on all sidewalk approaches
• Remove parking within proximity of crossing
Lodi Avenue 752917V
Existing Crossing Condition:
• 4 lane roadway (2 lane in each direction)
• 1 track
• CPUC No. 9a cantilever warning devices/gates
• Driveway NE Quad approx. 60’ from cantilever
• 32 trains (16 day, 16 night), 45MPH
• 15245 ADT – 2016, 20% trucks
• Ped Accident 2020 (went around gates)
• Adjacent intersection:
o Approx. 220’ west Sacramento St. (traffic signal co ntrolled – railroad interconnection – simultaneous preemption)
o Approx. 600’+ east Stockton St. (traffic signal controlled) o Approx. 220’ east Main St. (offset double T- single stop controlled on T’s)
Quiet Zone Safety Measure Alternatives:
• Possible SSM – 100’ Medians (consider relocating warning equipment or driveway if measured to be less than 60’)
• Possible ASM – 100’ Medians, partial risk reduction if driveway is measured to be less than 60’ (no changes to equipment location or driveway)
Other Safety Enhancement/Modification Considerations:
• Consider roadway resurfacing
• Verify/construct ADA sidewalk/pathway and channelization through crossing • Update/refresh signage and striping and pedestrian treatments per standard 660
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 7
• Evaluate traffic/queuing and potential mitigations (including advance preemption) • Relocate railroad warning devices closer to tracks, per standard • Consider installation of pedestrian CPUC No. 8 warn ing device with flashers in exit quadrants or consider installation of CPUC No. 9 pedestrian warn ing devices with gates, flashers and channelization/refuge gates on all sidewalk approaches
• Remove parking within proximity of crossing
Pine Street 752914A
Existing Crossing Condition:
• 2 lane roadway (1 lane in each direction with wide bike lane/parking shoulder in on each side) • 1 Track
• CPUC No. 9 cantilever/gates (approx. 50’ offset east side) • Exit quadrant ped flashers (single flasher – approx. 50’ offset east side) • Driveways SW quad (upstream) approx. 1’ (parking lot exit only, currently closed for construction), approx.80’ (parking lot entrance), NE and SE quad driveways approx. 25’ (gated and undeveloped – possibly railroad property)
• 32 trains (16 day, 16 night), 45MPH
• 3227 ADT - 2016
• No recent accident history
• Adjacent intersection:
o Approx. 175’ west Sacramento St. (traffic signal co ntrolled – railroad interconnected – simultaneous preemption)
o Approx. 575’+ east Stockton St. (4-way stop controlled) o Approx. 200’ east Main St. (2-way stop controlled)
Quiet Zone Safety Measure Alternatives:
• Possible SSM – 100’ medians (close driveways within 60’) • Possible SSM – 4 quad gates
• Possible ASM – 100’ medians (keep protected upstrea m driveway, close east side driveway(s) or move gates – potential for full credit)
Other Safety Enhancement/Modification Considerations:
• Consider roadway resurfacing
• Verify/construct ADA sidewalk/pathway and channelization through crossing • Update/refresh signage and striping and pedestrian treatments per standard • Evaluate traffic/queuing and potential mitigations (including advance preemption) • Relocate railroad warning devices closer to tracks, per standard • Consider replacing existing CPUC No. 9a warning device cantilevers with curb mounted CPUC No. 9 warning device gates and flashers
661
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 8
• Replace existing pedestrian flashers with CPUC No. 8 warning device with flashers or consider installation of CPUC No. 9 pedestrian warning devic es with gates, flashers and channelization/refuge gates on all sidewalk approaches
• Remove parking within proximity of crossing
Elm Street 752913T
Existing Crossing Condition:
• 2 lanes (1 lane each direction)
• Driveways SW Quad (upstream) approx. 25’ (parking s tructure), NW quad approx. 20-25’, NE approx. 35’ (upstream and fully fenced off), an d SE quad driveways approx. 35’ (gated and undeveloped – possibly railroad property)
• 1 Track
• CPUC No 9a cantilever/gates (approx. 50’ offset east side) • 32 trains (16 day, 16 night), 45MPH
• 2281 ADT - 2016
• Pedestrian accident 2023
• Adjacent intersection:
o Approx. 175’ west Sacramento St. (traffic signal controlled – not interconnected) o Approx. 575’+ east Stockton St. (4-way stop controlled) o Approx. 200’ east Main St. (2-way stop controlled)
Quiet Zone Safety Measure Alternatives:
• Possible SSM – 4 quad gates
• Possible ASM – 100’ Medians with driveways (close where possible) – partial risk reduction
Other Safety Enhancement/Modification Considerations:
• Consider roadway resurfacing
• Verify/construct ADA sidewalk/pathway and channelization through crossing • Update/refresh signage and striping and pedestrian treatments per standard • Evaluate traffic/queuing and potential mitigations (including advance preemption) • Relocate railroad warning devices closer to tracks, per standard • Consider installation of pedestrian CPUC No. 8 warn ing device with flashers in exit quadrants or consider installation of CPUC No. 9 pedestrian warn ing devices with gates, flashers and channelization/refuge gates on all sidewalk approaches
• Remove parking within proximity of crossing
Locust Street 752912L
Existing Crossing Condition:
• 2 lanes (1 lane each direction)
• Driveways SW Quad (upstream) approx. 20’ (parking structure), NW quad approx. 30’ • Sidewalks end or transition to asphalt surface near railroad ROW 662
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 9
• 1 Track
• Cantilever/gates (30’ offset east side)
• 32 trains (16 day, 16 night), 45MPH
• 682 ADT - 2016
• No recent accident history
• Adjacent intersection:
o Approx. 175’ west Sacramento St. (2-wasy stop controlled on Locust) o Approx. 575’+ east Stockton St. (2-way stop controlled on Locust) o Approx. 200’ east Main St. (2-way stop controlled)
Quiet Zone Safety Measure Alternatives:
• Possible SSM – 4quad gates
• Possible SSM – Crossing Closure
• Possible ASM – 100’ Medians with driveways (close where possible) – partial risk reduction
Other Safety Enhancement/Modification Considerations:
• Consider closure or conversion to pedestrian-only crossing • Consider roadway resurfacing
• Verify/construct ADA sidewalk/pathway and channelization through crossing • Update/refresh signage and striping and pedestrian treatments per standard • Evaluate traffic/queuing and potential mitigations (including advance preemption) • Relocate railroad warning devices closer to tracks, per standard • Consider installation of pedestrian CPUC No. 8 warn ing device with flashers in exit quadrants or consider installation of CPUC No. 9 pedestrian warn ing devices with gates, flashers and channelization/refuge gates on all sidewalk approaches
• Remove parking within proximity of crossing
Lockeford Street 752911E
Existing Crossing Condition:
• 2 lane roadway (1 lane in each direction with bike lanes, street parking on south side) • Driveways SW quad (upstream) approx. 10’ and SE quad driveways approx. 75’ from track center • Sidewalk on north side appears to be barricaded
• 1 Track
• CPUC No. 9a cantilever/gates (30’ offset east side)
• 32 trains (16 day, 16 night), 45MPH
• 7778 ADT - 2016
• Pedestrian accident 2014
• Adjacent intersection:
o Approx. 175’ west Sacramento (traffic signal contro lled – interconnection not known - simultaneous)
o Approx. 575’+ east Stockton (traffic signal controlled) 663
Lodi Crossing Observations and Quiet Zone Feasibility Memo Page 10
o Approx. 200’ east Main (2-way stop controlled)
Quiet Zone Safety Measure Alternatives:
• Possible SSM – 4quad gates
• Possible SSM – 100’ medians with driveway closure, gate relocation • Possible ASM – 100’ medians with driveways (close where possible) – partial risk reduction
Other Safety Enhancement/Modification Considerations:
• Consider Roadway resurfacing
• Verify/construct ADA sidewalk/pathway and channelization through crossing • Add sidewalk to north side or update barricade and proper signage advance warning • Update/refresh signage and striping and pedestrian treatments per standard • Evaluate traffic/queuing and potential mitigations
• Relocate railroad warning devices closer to tracks, per standard • Consider replacing existing CPUC No. 9a warning device cantilevers with curb mounted CPUC No. 9 warning device gates and flashers
• Consider installation of pedestrian CPUC No. 8 warn ing device with flashers in exit quadrants or consider installation of CPUC No. 9 pedestrian warn ing devices with gates, flashers and channelization/refuge gates on all sidewalk approaches
• Remove parking within proximity of crossing
Conclusion
After observing the crossings and reviewing documen tation, possible Quiet Zone Safety Measures have been identified and summarized for City review and consideration.
Diagnostic Meetings will be required and will provide further information and details regarding potential overall modifications, safety enhancements, and rec ommendations on the implementation of quiet zones. It is recommended that the diagnostic meetin gs include discussions of the additional safety enhancement opportunities. Further evaluations and details will be discussed with the City of Lodi as the project development moves forward.
664
U. S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION OMB No. 2130-0017
Instructions for the initial reporting of the following types of new or previously unreported crossings: For public highway-rail grade crossings, complete the entire inventory Form. For private highway- rail grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For public pathway grade crossings (including pedestrian station grade crossings), complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For Private pathway grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For grade-separated highway-rail or pathway crossings (including pedestrian station crossings), complete the Header, Part I, and the Submission Information section. For changes to existing data, complete the Header, Part I Items 1 -3, and the Submission Information section, in addition to the updated data fields. Note: For private crossings only, Part I Item 20 and Part III Item 2.K. are required unless otherwise noted. An asterisk * denotes an optional field.
A. Revision Date
(MM/DD/YYYY)
_____/_____/_________
B. Reporting Agency C. Reason for Update (Select only one) D. DOT Crossing Inventory Number Railroad Transit Change in
Data
New
Crossing
Closed No Train
Traffic
Quiet
Zone Update
State Other Re-Open Date
Change Only
Change in Primary
Operating RR
Admin.
Correction
Part I: Location and Classification Information
1. Primary Operating Railroad
_____________________________________________________
2. State
________________________________
3. County
____________________________________
4. City / Municipality
In
Near __________________________
5. Street/Road Name & Block Number
________________________________| __ ________________
(Street/Road Name) |* (Block Number)
6. Highway Type & No.
_______________________________________
7. Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
8. Do Other Railroads Operate Over Your Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
9. Railroad Division or Region
None _______________________
10. Railroad Subdivision or District
None _______________________
11. Branch or Line Name
None _______________________
12. RR Milepost
_______|____________|____________
(prefix) | (nnnn.nnn) | (suffix)
13. Line Segment
*
_________________________
14. Nearest RR Timetable
Station *
__________________________
15. Parent RR (if applicable)
N/A _____________________________
16. Crossing Owner (if applicable)
N/A _________________________________
17. Crossing Type
Pub
lic
Private
18. Crossing Purpose
Highway
Pathway, Ped.
Station, Ped.
19. Crossing Position
At Grade
RR Under
RR Over
20. Public Access
(if Private Crossing)
Yes
No
21. Type of Train
Freight
Intercity Passenger
Commuter
Transit
Shared Use Transit
Tourist/Other
22. Average Passenger
Train Count Per Day
Less Than One Per Day
Number Per Day_____
23. Type of Land Use
Open Space Farm Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Recreational RR Yard
24. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? Yes No If Yes, Provide Crossing Number __________________
25. Quiet Zone (FRA provided)
No 24 Hr Partial Chicago Excused Date Established _________________
26. HSR Corridor ID
__________________ N/A
27. Latitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: nn.nnnnnnn)
28. Longitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: -nnn.nnnnnnn)
29. Lat/Long Source
Actual Estimated
30.A. Railroad Use * 31.A. State Use *
30.B. Railroad Use * 31.B. State Use *
30.C. Railroad Use * 31.C. State Use *
30.D. Railroad Use * 31.D. State Use *
32.A. Narrative (Railroad Use) * 32.B. Narrative (State Use) *
33. Emergency Notification Telephone No. (posted)
_________________________________
34. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.)
______________________________________
35. State Contact (Telephone No.)
_________________________________
Part II: Railroad Information
1. Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements
1.A. Total Day Thru Trains
(6 AM to 6 PM)
__________
1.B. Total Night Thru Trains
(6 PM to 6 AM)
__________
1.C. Total Switching Trains
__________
1.D. Total Transit Trains
__________
1.E. Check if Less Than
One Movement Per Day
How many trains per week? ______
2. Year of Train Count Data (YYYY)
__________
3. Speed of Train at Crossing
3.A. Maximum Timetable Speed (mph) __________
3.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) From __________ to __________
4. Type and Count of Tracks
Main __________ Siding __________ Yard __________ Transit __________ Industry __________
5. Train Detection (Main Track only)
Constant Warning Time Motion Detection AFO PTC DC Other None
6. Is Track Signaled?
Yes No
7.A. Event Recorder
Yes No
7.B. Remote Health Monitoring
Yes No
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 1 OF 2 ✘
✘
07 20
2021
752918C
Union Pacific Railroad Company [UP]
CALIFORNIA
SAN JOAQUIN
LODI
TOKAY STREET
✘
ls
✘
✘
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Fresno Sub
0072.200
✘
✘
UP
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
4 ✘
✘
✘
✘
38.1264674
-121.272039
✘
CPUC 001BEL-72.04
800-848-8715
402-544-3721
415-703-3722
16 16
2 0
45 2019
25 45
1 1
0 0
0 ✘
✘
✘
✘
665
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 2 OF 2 U. S.
DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
A. Revision Date (MM/DD/YYYY) PAGE 2 D. Crossing Inventory Number (7 char.) Part III: Highway or Pathway Traffic Control Device Information
1. Are there
Signs or Signals?
Yes
No
2. Types of Passive Traffic Control Devices associated with the Crossing
2.A. Crossbuck
Assemblies (count)
2.B. STOP Signs (R1-1)
(count)
2.C. YIELD Signs (R1-2)
(count)
2.D. Advance Warning Signs (Check all that apply; include count) None W10-1 ________ W10-3 ________ W10-11 __________
W10-2 ________ W10-4 ________ W10-12 __________
2.E. Low Ground Clearance Sign
(W10-5)
Yes (count_______)
No
2.F. Pavement Markings 2.G. Channelization
Devices/Medians
2.H. EXEMPT Sign
(R15-3)
Yes
No
2.I. ENS Sign (I-13)
Displayed
Yes
No
Stop Lines
RR Xing Symbols
Dynamic Envelope
None
All Approaches
One Approach
Median
None
2.J. Other MUTCD Signs Yes No 2.K. Private Crossing Signs (if private)
Yes
No
2.L. LED Enhanced Signs (List types)
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Count __________
Count __________
Count __________
3. Types of Train Activated Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing (specify count of each device for all that apply)
3.A. Gate Arms
(count)
Roa
dway _____
Pedestrian _____
3.B. Gate Configuration 3.C. Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures (count)
3.D. Mast Mounted Flashing Lights
(count of masts) _________
3.E. Total Count of
Flashing Light Pairs
2 Quad
3 Quad
4 Quad
Full (Barrier)
Resistance
Median Gates
Over Traffic Lane _____
Not
Over Traffic Lane _____
Incandescent
LED
Incandescent
Back Lights Included
LED
Side Lights
Included
3.F. Installation Date of Current
Active Warning Devices: (MM/YYYY)
______/___________ Not Required
3.G. Wayside Horn 3.H. Highway Traffic Signals Controlling Crossing
Yes No
3.I. Bells
(count) Yes
No
Installed on (MM/YYYY) ______/__________
3.J. Non-Train Active Warning
Flagging/Flagman Manually Operated Signals Watchman Floodlighting None
3.K. Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices
Count ___________ Specify type ______________________
4.A. Does nearby Hwy
Intersection have
Traffic Signals?
Yes
No
4.B. Hwy Traffic Signal
Interconnection
Not Interconnected
For Traffic Signals
For Warning Signs
4.C. Hwy Traffic Signal Preemption 5. Highway Traffic Pre-Signals Yes No
6. Highway Monitoring Devices
(Check all that apply)
Yes - Photo/Video Recording
Yes – Vehicle Presence Detection
None
Simultaneous
Advance
Storage Distance * ____________
Stop Line Distance * ____________
Part IV: Physical Characteristics
1. Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad One-way Traffic Two-way Traffic
Number of Lanes _______ Divided Traffic
2. Is Roadway/Pathway
Paved?
Yes No
3. Does Track Run Down a Street?
Yes No
4. Is Crossing Illuminated? (Street
lights within approx. 50 feet from
nearest rail) Yes No
5. Crossing Surface (on Main Track, multiple types allowed) Installation Date * (MM/YYYY) _______/__________ Width * ______________ Length * _______________ 1 Timber 2 Asphalt 3 Asphalt and Timber 4 Concrete 5 Concrete and Rubber 6 Rubber 7 Metal 8 Unconsolidated 9 Composite 10 Other (specify) ________________________________________________________
6. Intersecting Roadway within 500 feet?
Yes No If Yes, Approximate Distance (feet) _________________
7. Smallest Crossing Angle
0° – 29° 30° – 59° 60° - 90°
8. Is Commercial Power Available? *
Yes No
Part V: Public Highway Information
1. Highway System
(0
1) Interstate Highway System
(02) Other Nat Hwy System (NHS)
(03) Federal AID, Not NHS
(08) Non-Federal Aid
2. Functional Classification of Road at Crossing
(0) Rural (1) Urban
(1) Interstate (5) Major Collector
(2) Other Freeways and Expressways
(3) Other Principal Arterial (6) Minor Collector (4) Minor Arterial (7) Local
3. Is Crossing on State Highway
System?
Yes No
4. Highway Speed Limit
___________ MPH
Posted Statutory
5. Linear Referencing System (LRS Route ID) *
6. LRS Milepost *
7. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
Year _______ AADT _____________
8. Estimated Percent Trucks
___________________ %
9. Regularly Used by School Buses?
Yes No Average Number per Day ___________
10. Emergency Services Route
Yes No
Submission Information - This information is used for administrative purposes and is not available on the public website.
Subm
itted by __________________________________ Organization _______________________________________ Phone _______________ Date _____________ Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for information collection is 2130-0017. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-25 Washington, DC 20590.
07/20/2021
752918C
✘
0 0
0 ✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
0 ✘
2 ✘
2 4
✘
0 0
✘
10 ✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
2 CANO10
✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
72 ✘
200
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
30 ✘
✘
2016
5705
20 ✘
666
U. S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION OMB No. 2130-0017
Instructions for the initial reporting of the following types of new or previously unreported crossings: For public highway-rail grade crossings, complete the entire inventory Form. For private highway- rail grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For public pathway grade crossings (including pedestrian station grade crossings), complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For Private pathway grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For grade-separated highway-rail or pathway crossings (including pedestrian station crossings), complete the Header, Part I, and the Submission Information section. For changes to existing data, complete the Header, Part I Items 1 -3, and the Submission Information section, in addition to the updated data fields. Note: For private crossings only, Part I Item 20 and Part III Item 2.K. are required unless otherwise noted. An asterisk * denotes an optional field.
A. Revision Date
(MM/DD/YYYY)
_____/_____/_________
B. Reporting Agency C. Reason for Update (Select only one) D. DOT Crossing Inventory Number Railroad Transit Change in
Data
New
Crossing
Closed No Train
Traffic
Quiet
Zone Update
State Other Re-Open Date
Change Only
Change in Primary
Operating RR
Admin.
Correction
Part I: Location and Classification Information
1. Primary Operating Railroad
_____________________________________________________
2. State
________________________________
3. County
____________________________________
4. City / Municipality
In
Near __________________________
5. Street/Road Name & Block Number
________________________________| __ ________________
(Street/Road Name) |* (Block Number)
6. Highway Type & No.
_______________________________________
7. Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
8. Do Other Railroads Operate Over Your Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
9. Railroad Division or Region
None _______________________
10. Railroad Subdivision or District
None _______________________
11. Branch or Line Name
None _______________________
12. RR Milepost
_______|____________|____________
(prefix) | (nnnn.nnn) | (suffix)
13. Line Segment
*
_________________________
14. Nearest RR Timetable
Station *
__________________________
15. Parent RR (if applicable)
N/A _____________________________
16. Crossing Owner (if applicable)
N/A _________________________________
17. Crossing Type
Pub
lic
Private
18. Crossing Purpose
Highway
Pathway, Ped.
Station, Ped.
19. Crossing Position
At Grade
RR Under
RR Over
20. Public Access
(if Private Crossing)
Yes
No
21. Type of Train
Freight
Intercity Passenger
Commuter
Transit
Shared Use Transit
Tourist/Other
22. Average Passenger
Train Count Per Day
Less Than One Per Day
Number Per Day_____
23. Type of Land Use
Open Space Farm Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Recreational RR Yard
24. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? Yes No If Yes, Provide Crossing Number __________________
25. Quiet Zone (FRA provided)
No 24 Hr Partial Chicago Excused Date Established _________________
26. HSR Corridor ID
__________________ N/A
27. Latitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: nn.nnnnnnn)
28. Longitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: -nnn.nnnnnnn)
29. Lat/Long Source
Actual Estimated
30.A. Railroad Use * 31.A. State Use *
30.B. Railroad Use * 31.B. State Use *
30.C. Railroad Use * 31.C. State Use *
30.D. Railroad Use * 31.D. State Use *
32.A. Narrative (Railroad Use) * 32.B. Narrative (State Use) *
33. Emergency Notification Telephone No. (posted)
_________________________________
34. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.)
______________________________________
35. State Contact (Telephone No.)
_________________________________
Part II: Railroad Information
1. Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements
1.A. Total Day Thru Trains
(6 AM to 6 PM)
__________
1.B. Total Night Thru Trains
(6 PM to 6 AM)
__________
1.C. Total Switching Trains
__________
1.D. Total Transit Trains
__________
1.E. Check if Less Than
One Movement Per Day
How many trains per week? ______
2. Year of Train Count Data (YYYY)
__________
3. Speed of Train at Crossing
3.A. Maximum Timetable Speed (mph) __________
3.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) From __________ to __________
4. Type and Count of Tracks
Main __________ Siding __________ Yard __________ Transit __________ Industry __________
5. Train Detection (Main Track only)
Constant Warning Time Motion Detection AFO PTC DC Other None
6. Is Track Signaled?
Yes No
7.A. Event Recorder
Yes No
7.B. Remote Health Monitoring
Yes No
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 1 OF 2 ✘
✘
07 20
2021
752917V
Union Pacific Railroad Company [UP]
CALIFORNIA
SAN JOAQUIN
LODI
Lodi Avenue
✘
ls
✘
✘
Northern California
Fresno Sub
0071.920
✘
✘
UP
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
4 ✘
✘
✘
✘
38.130391
-121.271823
✘
CPUC 001BEL-71.84
800-848-8715
402-544-3721
415-703-3722
16 16
2 0
45 2019
22 45
1 0
0 0
0 ✘
✘
✘
✘
667
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 2 OF 2 U. S.
DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
A. Revision Date (MM/DD/YYYY) PAGE 2 D. Crossing Inventory Number (7 char.) Part III: Highway or Pathway Traffic Control Device Information
1. Are there
Signs or Signals?
Yes
No
2. Types of Passive Traffic Control Devices associated with the Crossing
2.A. Crossbuck
Assemblies (count)
2.B. STOP Signs (R1-1)
(count)
2.C. YIELD Signs (R1-2)
(count)
2.D. Advance Warning Signs (Check all that apply; include count) None W10-1 ________ W10-3 ________ W10-11 __________
W10-2 ________ W10-4 ________ W10-12 __________
2.E. Low Ground Clearance Sign
(W10-5)
Yes (count_______)
No
2.F. Pavement Markings 2.G. Channelization
Devices/Medians
2.H. EXEMPT Sign
(R15-3)
Yes
No
2.I. ENS Sign (I-13)
Displayed
Yes
No
Stop Lines
RR Xing Symbols
Dynamic Envelope
None
All Approaches
One Approach
Median
None
2.J. Other MUTCD Signs Yes No 2.K. Private Crossing Signs (if private)
Yes
No
2.L. LED Enhanced Signs (List types)
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Count __________
Count __________
Count __________
3. Types of Train Activated Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing (specify count of each device for all that apply)
3.A. Gate Arms
(count)
Roa
dway _____
Pedestrian _____
3.B. Gate Configuration 3.C. Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures (count)
3.D. Mast Mounted Flashing Lights
(count of masts) _________
3.E. Total Count of
Flashing Light Pairs
2 Quad
3 Quad
4 Quad
Full (Barrier)
Resistance
Median Gates
Over Traffic Lane _____
Not
Over Traffic Lane _____
Incandescent
LED
Incandescent
Back Lights Included
LED
Side Lights
Included
3.F. Installation Date of Current
Active Warning Devices: (MM/YYYY)
______/___________ Not Required
3.G. Wayside Horn 3.H. Highway Traffic Signals Controlling Crossing
Yes No
3.I. Bells
(count) Yes
No
Installed on (MM/YYYY) ______/__________
3.J. Non-Train Active Warning
Flagging/Flagman Manually Operated Signals Watchman Floodlighting None
3.K. Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices
Count ___________ Specify type ______________________
4.A. Does nearby Hwy
Intersection have
Traffic Signals?
Yes
No
4.B. Hwy Traffic Signal
Interconnection
Not Interconnected
For Traffic Signals
For Warning Signs
4.C. Hwy Traffic Signal Preemption 5. Highway Traffic Pre-Signals Yes No
6. Highway Monitoring Devices
(Check all that apply)
Yes - Photo/Video Recording
Yes – Vehicle Presence Detection
None
Simultaneous
Advance
Storage Distance * ____________
Stop Line Distance * ____________
Part IV: Physical Characteristics
1. Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad One-way Traffic Two-way Traffic
Number of Lanes _______ Divided Traffic
2. Is Roadway/Pathway
Paved?
Yes No
3. Does Track Run Down a Street?
Yes No
4. Is Crossing Illuminated? (Street
lights within approx. 50 feet from
nearest rail) Yes No
5. Crossing Surface (on Main Track, multiple types allowed) Installation Date * (MM/YYYY) _______/__________ Width * ______________ Length * _______________ 1 Timber 2 Asphalt 3 Asphalt and Timber 4 Concrete 5 Concrete and Rubber 6 Rubber 7 Metal 8 Unconsolidated 9 Composite 10 Other (specify) ________________________________________________________
6. Intersecting Roadway within 500 feet?
Yes No If Yes, Approximate Distance (feet) _________________
7. Smallest Crossing Angle
0° – 29° 30° – 59° 60° - 90°
8. Is Commercial Power Available? *
Yes No
Part V: Public Highway Information
1. Highway System
(0
1) Interstate Highway System
(02) Other Nat Hwy System (NHS)
(03) Federal AID, Not NHS
(08) Non-Federal Aid
2. Functional Classification of Road at Crossing
(0) Rural (1) Urban
(1) Interstate (5) Major Collector
(2) Other Freeways and Expressways
(3) Other Principal Arterial (6) Minor Collector (4) Minor Arterial (7) Local
3. Is Crossing on State Highway
System?
Yes No
4. Highway Speed Limit
___________ MPH
Posted Statutory
5. Linear Referencing System (LRS Route ID) *
6. LRS Milepost *
7. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
Year _______ AADT _____________
8. Estimated Percent Trucks
___________________ %
9. Regularly Used by School Buses?
Yes No Average Number per Day ___________
10. Emergency Services Route
Yes No
Submission Information - This information is used for administrative purposes and is not available on the public website.
Subm
itted by __________________________________ Organization _______________________________________ Phone _______________ Date _____________ Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for information collection is 2130-0017. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-25 Washington, DC 20590.
07/20/2021
752917V
✘
0 0
0 ✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
0 ✘
2 ✘
2 2
✘
0 0
✘
8 ✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
2 TWOTRAIN
✘
✘
✘
✘
4 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
80 ✘
185
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
25 ✘
✘
2016
15245
20 ✘
668
U. S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION OMB No. 2130-0017
Instructions for the initial reporting of the following types of new or previously unreported crossings: For public highway-rail grade crossings, complete the entire inventory Form. For private highway- rail grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For public pathway grade crossings (including pedestrian station grade crossings), complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For Private pathway grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For grade-separated highway-rail or pathway crossings (including pedestrian station crossings), complete the Header, Part I, and the Submission Information section. For changes to existing data, complete the Header, Part I Items 1 -3, and the Submission Information section, in addition to the updated data fields. Note: For private crossings only, Part I Item 20 and Part III Item 2.K. are required unless otherwise noted. An asterisk * denotes an optional field.
A. Revision Date
(MM/DD/YYYY)
_____/_____/_________
B. Reporting Agency C. Reason for Update (Select only one) D. DOT Crossing Inventory Number Railroad Transit Change in
Data
New
Crossing
Closed No Train
Traffic
Quiet
Zone Update
State Other Re-Open Date
Change Only
Change in Primary
Operating RR
Admin.
Correction
Part I: Location and Classification Information
1. Primary Operating Railroad
_____________________________________________________
2. State
________________________________
3. County
____________________________________
4. City / Municipality
In
Near __________________________
5. Street/Road Name & Block Number
________________________________| __ ________________
(Street/Road Name) |* (Block Number)
6. Highway Type & No.
_______________________________________
7. Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
8. Do Other Railroads Operate Over Your Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
9. Railroad Division or Region
None _______________________
10. Railroad Subdivision or District
None _______________________
11. Branch or Line Name
None _______________________
12. RR Milepost
_______|____________|____________
(prefix) | (nnnn.nnn) | (suffix)
13. Line Segment
*
_________________________
14. Nearest RR Timetable
Station *
__________________________
15. Parent RR (if applicable)
N/A _____________________________
16. Crossing Owner (if applicable)
N/A _________________________________
17. Crossing Type
Pub
lic
Private
18. Crossing Purpose
Highway
Pathway, Ped.
Station, Ped.
19. Crossing Position
At Grade
RR Under
RR Over
20. Public Access
(if Private Crossing)
Yes
No
21. Type of Train
Freight
Intercity Passenger
Commuter
Transit
Shared Use Transit
Tourist/Other
22. Average Passenger
Train Count Per Day
Less Than One Per Day
Number Per Day_____
23. Type of Land Use
Open Space Farm Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Recreational RR Yard
24. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? Yes No If Yes, Provide Crossing Number __________________
25. Quiet Zone (FRA provided)
No 24 Hr Partial Chicago Excused Date Established _________________
26. HSR Corridor ID
__________________ N/A
27. Latitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: nn.nnnnnnn)
28. Longitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: -nnn.nnnnnnn)
29. Lat/Long Source
Actual Estimated
30.A. Railroad Use * 31.A. State Use *
30.B. Railroad Use * 31.B. State Use *
30.C. Railroad Use * 31.C. State Use *
30.D. Railroad Use * 31.D. State Use *
32.A. Narrative (Railroad Use) * 32.B. Narrative (State Use) *
33. Emergency Notification Telephone No. (posted)
_________________________________
34. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.)
______________________________________
35. State Contact (Telephone No.)
_________________________________
Part II: Railroad Information
1. Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements
1.A. Total Day Thru Trains
(6 AM to 6 PM)
__________
1.B. Total Night Thru Trains
(6 PM to 6 AM)
__________
1.C. Total Switching Trains
__________
1.D. Total Transit Trains
__________
1.E. Check if Less Than
One Movement Per Day
How many trains per week? ______
2. Year of Train Count Data (YYYY)
__________
3. Speed of Train at Crossing
3.A. Maximum Timetable Speed (mph) __________
3.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) From __________ to __________
4. Type and Count of Tracks
Main __________ Siding __________ Yard __________ Transit __________ Industry __________
5. Train Detection (Main Track only)
Constant Warning Time Motion Detection AFO PTC DC Other None
6. Is Track Signaled?
Yes No
7.A. Event Recorder
Yes No
7.B. Remote Health Monitoring
Yes No
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 1 OF 2 ✘
✘
08 28
2024
752914A
Union Pacific Railroad Company [UP]
CALIFORNIA
SAN JOAQUIN
LODI
PINE STREET
✘
ls
✘
✘
ATK
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
FRESNO SUB
0071.690
✘
✘
UP
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
38.134105
-121.271548
✘
CPUC 001BEL-71.64
800-848-8715
402-544-3721
415-703-3722
16 16
2 0
45 2019
22 45
1 0
0 0
0 ✘
✘
✘
✘
669
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 2 OF 2 U. S.
DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
A. Revision Date (MM/DD/YYYY) PAGE 2 D. Crossing Inventory Number (7 char.) Part III: Highway or Pathway Traffic Control Device Information
1. Are there
Signs or Signals?
Yes
No
2. Types of Passive Traffic Control Devices associated with the Crossing
2.A. Crossbuck
Assemblies (count)
2.B. STOP Signs (R1-1)
(count)
2.C. YIELD Signs (R1-2)
(count)
2.D. Advance Warning Signs (Check all that apply; include count) None W10-1 ________ W10-3 ________ W10-11 __________
W10-2 ________ W10-4 ________ W10-12 __________
2.E. Low Ground Clearance Sign
(W10-5)
Yes (count_______)
No
2.F. Pavement Markings 2.G. Channelization
Devices/Medians
2.H. EXEMPT Sign
(R15-3)
Yes
No
2.I. ENS Sign (I-13)
Displayed
Yes
No
Stop Lines
RR Xing Symbols
Dynamic Envelope
None
All Approaches
One Approach
Median
None
2.J. Other MUTCD Signs Yes No 2.K. Private Crossing Signs (if private)
Yes
No
2.L. LED Enhanced Signs (List types)
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Count __________
Count __________
Count __________
3. Types of Train Activated Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing (specify count of each device for all that apply)
3.A. Gate Arms
(count)
Roa
dway _____
Pedestrian _____
3.B. Gate Configuration 3.C. Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures (count)
3.D. Mast Mounted Flashing Lights
(count of masts) _________
3.E. Total Count of
Flashing Light Pairs
2 Quad
3 Quad
4 Quad
Full (Barrier)
Resistance
Median Gates
Over Traffic Lane _____
Not
Over Traffic Lane _____
Incandescent
LED
Incandescent
Back Lights Included
LED
Side Lights
Included
3.F. Installation Date of Current
Active Warning Devices: (MM/YYYY)
______/___________ Not Required
3.G. Wayside Horn 3.H. Highway Traffic Signals Controlling Crossing
Yes No
3.I. Bells
(count) Yes
No
Installed on (MM/YYYY) ______/__________
3.J. Non-Train Active Warning
Flagging/Flagman Manually Operated Signals Watchman Floodlighting None
3.K. Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices
Count ___________ Specify type ______________________
4.A. Does nearby Hwy
Intersection have
Traffic Signals?
Yes
No
4.B. Hwy Traffic Signal
Interconnection
Not Interconnected
For Traffic Signals
For Warning Signs
4.C. Hwy Traffic Signal Preemption 5. Highway Traffic Pre-Signals Yes No
6. Highway Monitoring Devices
(Check all that apply)
Yes - Photo/Video Recording
Yes – Vehicle Presence Detection
None
Simultaneous
Advance
Storage Distance * ____________
Stop Line Distance * ____________
Part IV: Physical Characteristics
1. Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad One-way Traffic Two-way Traffic
Number of Lanes _______ Divided Traffic
2. Is Roadway/Pathway
Paved?
Yes No
3. Does Track Run Down a Street?
Yes No
4. Is Crossing Illuminated? (Street
lights within approx. 50 feet from
nearest rail) Yes No
5. Crossing Surface (on Main Track, multiple types allowed) Installation Date * (MM/YYYY) _______/__________ Width * ______________ Length * _______________ 1 Timber 2 Asphalt 3 Asphalt and Timber 4 Concrete 5 Concrete and Rubber 6 Rubber 7 Metal 8 Unconsolidated 9 Composite 10 Other (specify) ________________________________________________________
6. Intersecting Roadway within 500 feet?
Yes No If Yes, Approximate Distance (feet) _________________
7. Smallest Crossing Angle
0° – 29° 30° – 59° 60° - 90°
8. Is Commercial Power Available? *
Yes No
Part V: Public Highway Information
1. Highway System
(0
1) Interstate Highway System
(02) Other Nat Hwy System (NHS)
(03) Federal AID, Not NHS
(08) Non-Federal Aid
2. Functional Classification of Road at Crossing
(0) Rural (1) Urban
(1) Interstate (5) Major Collector
(2) Other Freeways and Expressways
(3) Other Principal Arterial (6) Minor Collector (4) Minor Arterial (7) Local
3. Is Crossing on State Highway
System?
Yes No
4. Highway Speed Limit
___________ MPH
Posted Statutory
5. Linear Referencing System (LRS Route ID) *
6. LRS Milepost *
7. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
Year _______ AADT _____________
8. Estimated Percent Trucks
___________________ %
9. Regularly Used by School Buses?
Yes No Average Number per Day ___________
10. Emergency Services Route
Yes No
Submission Information - This information is used for administrative purposes and is not available on the public website.
Subm
itted by __________________________________ Organization _______________________________________ Phone _______________ Date _____________ Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for information collection is 2130-0017. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-25 Washington, DC 20590.
08/28/2024
752914A
✘
0 0
0 ✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
R8-8
2 0
✘
2 ✘
2 4
✘
0 0
✘
12 ✘
✘
✘
4 ✘
2 CANO10
✘
✘
✘
✘
4 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
80 ✘
190
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
30 ✘
✘
2016
3227
20 ✘
670
U. S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION OMB No. 2130-0017
Instructions for the initial reporting of the following types of new or previously unreported crossings: For public highway-rail grade crossings, complete the entire inventory Form. For private highway- rail grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For public pathway grade crossings (including pedestrian station grade crossings), complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For Private pathway grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For grade-separated highway-rail or pathway crossings (including pedestrian station crossings), complete the Header, Part I, and the Submission Information section. For changes to existing data, complete the Header, Part I Items 1 -3, and the Submission Information section, in addition to the updated data fields. Note: For private crossings only, Part I Item 20 and Part III Item 2.K. are required unless otherwise noted. An asterisk * denotes an optional field.
A. Revision Date
(MM/DD/YYYY)
_____/_____/_________
B. Reporting Agency C. Reason for Update (Select only one) D. DOT Crossing Inventory Number Railroad Transit Change in
Data
New
Crossing
Closed No Train
Traffic
Quiet
Zone Update
State Other Re-Open Date
Change Only
Change in Primary
Operating RR
Admin.
Correction
Part I: Location and Classification Information
1. Primary Operating Railroad
_____________________________________________________
2. State
________________________________
3. County
____________________________________
4. City / Municipality
In
Near __________________________
5. Street/Road Name & Block Number
________________________________| __ ________________
(Street/Road Name) |* (Block Number)
6. Highway Type & No.
_______________________________________
7. Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
8. Do Other Railroads Operate Over Your Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
9. Railroad Division or Region
None _______________________
10. Railroad Subdivision or District
None _______________________
11. Branch or Line Name
None _______________________
12. RR Milepost
_______|____________|____________
(prefix) | (nnnn.nnn) | (suffix)
13. Line Segment
*
_________________________
14. Nearest RR Timetable
Station *
__________________________
15. Parent RR (if applicable)
N/A _____________________________
16. Crossing Owner (if applicable)
N/A _________________________________
17. Crossing Type
Pub
lic
Private
18. Crossing Purpose
Highway
Pathway, Ped.
Station, Ped.
19. Crossing Position
At Grade
RR Under
RR Over
20. Public Access
(if Private Crossing)
Yes
No
21. Type of Train
Freight
Intercity Passenger
Commuter
Transit
Shared Use Transit
Tourist/Other
22. Average Passenger
Train Count Per Day
Less Than One Per Day
Number Per Day_____
23. Type of Land Use
Open Space Farm Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Recreational RR Yard
24. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? Yes No If Yes, Provide Crossing Number __________________
25. Quiet Zone (FRA provided)
No 24 Hr Partial Chicago Excused Date Established _________________
26. HSR Corridor ID
__________________ N/A
27. Latitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: nn.nnnnnnn)
28. Longitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: -nnn.nnnnnnn)
29. Lat/Long Source
Actual Estimated
30.A. Railroad Use * 31.A. State Use *
30.B. Railroad Use * 31.B. State Use *
30.C. Railroad Use * 31.C. State Use *
30.D. Railroad Use * 31.D. State Use *
32.A. Narrative (Railroad Use) * 32.B. Narrative (State Use) *
33. Emergency Notification Telephone No. (posted)
_________________________________
34. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.)
______________________________________
35. State Contact (Telephone No.)
_________________________________
Part II: Railroad Information
1. Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements
1.A. Total Day Thru Trains
(6 AM to 6 PM)
__________
1.B. Total Night Thru Trains
(6 PM to 6 AM)
__________
1.C. Total Switching Trains
__________
1.D. Total Transit Trains
__________
1.E. Check if Less Than
One Movement Per Day
How many trains per week? ______
2. Year of Train Count Data (YYYY)
__________
3. Speed of Train at Crossing
3.A. Maximum Timetable Speed (mph) __________
3.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) From __________ to __________
4. Type and Count of Tracks
Main __________ Siding __________ Yard __________ Transit __________ Industry __________
5. Train Detection (Main Track only)
Constant Warning Time Motion Detection AFO PTC DC Other None
6. Is Track Signaled?
Yes No
7.A. Event Recorder
Yes No
7.B. Remote Health Monitoring
Yes No
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 1 OF 2 ✘
12 18
2023
✘
752913T
Union Pacific Railroad Company [UP]
CALIFORNIA
SAN JOAQUIN
LODI
East Elm Street
✘
ls
✘
✘
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Fresno Sub
0071.611
✘
✘
UP
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
4 ✘
✘
✘
✘
38.135309
-121.271461
✘
CPUC 001BEL-71.54
800-848-8715
402-544-3721
415-703-3722
16 16
2 0
45 2019
22 45
1 0
0 0
0 ✘
✘
✘
✘
671
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 2 OF 2 U. S.
DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
A. Revision Date (MM/DD/YYYY) PAGE 2 D. Crossing Inventory Number (7 char.) Part III: Highway or Pathway Traffic Control Device Information
1. Are there
Signs or Signals?
Yes
No
2. Types of Passive Traffic Control Devices associated with the Crossing
2.A. Crossbuck
Assemblies (count)
2.B. STOP Signs (R1-1)
(count)
2.C. YIELD Signs (R1-2)
(count)
2.D. Advance Warning Signs (Check all that apply; include count) None W10-1 ________ W10-3 ________ W10-11 __________
W10-2 ________ W10-4 ________ W10-12 __________
2.E. Low Ground Clearance Sign
(W10-5)
Yes (count_______)
No
2.F. Pavement Markings 2.G. Channelization
Devices/Medians
2.H. EXEMPT Sign
(R15-3)
Yes
No
2.I. ENS Sign (I-13)
Displayed
Yes
No
Stop Lines
RR Xing Symbols
Dynamic Envelope
None
All Approaches
One Approach
Median
None
2.J. Other MUTCD Signs Yes No 2.K. Private Crossing Signs (if private)
Yes
No
2.L. LED Enhanced Signs (List types)
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Count __________
Count __________
Count __________
3. Types of Train Activated Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing (specify count of each device for all that apply)
3.A. Gate Arms
(count)
Roa
dway _____
Pedestrian _____
3.B. Gate Configuration 3.C. Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures (count)
3.D. Mast Mounted Flashing Lights
(count of masts) _________
3.E. Total Count of
Flashing Light Pairs
2 Quad
3 Quad
4 Quad
Full (Barrier)
Resistance
Median Gates
Over Traffic Lane _____
Not
Over Traffic Lane _____
Incandescent
LED
Incandescent
Back Lights Included
LED
Side Lights
Included
3.F. Installation Date of Current
Active Warning Devices: (MM/YYYY)
______/___________ Not Required
3.G. Wayside Horn 3.H. Highway Traffic Signals Controlling Crossing
Yes No
3.I. Bells
(count) Yes
No
Installed on (MM/YYYY) ______/__________
3.J. Non-Train Active Warning
Flagging/Flagman Manually Operated Signals Watchman Floodlighting None
3.K. Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices
Count ___________ Specify type ______________________
4.A. Does nearby Hwy
Intersection have
Traffic Signals?
Yes
No
4.B. Hwy Traffic Signal
Interconnection
Not Interconnected
For Traffic Signals
For Warning Signs
4.C. Hwy Traffic Signal Preemption 5. Highway Traffic Pre-Signals Yes No
6. Highway Monitoring Devices
(Check all that apply)
Yes - Photo/Video Recording
Yes – Vehicle Presence Detection
None
Simultaneous
Advance
Storage Distance * ____________
Stop Line Distance * ____________
Part IV: Physical Characteristics
1. Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad One-way Traffic Two-way Traffic
Number of Lanes _______ Divided Traffic
2. Is Roadway/Pathway
Paved?
Yes No
3. Does Track Run Down a Street?
Yes No
4. Is Crossing Illuminated? (Street
lights within approx. 50 feet from
nearest rail) Yes No
5. Crossing Surface (on Main Track, multiple types allowed) Installation Date * (MM/YYYY) _______/__________ Width * ______________ Length * _______________ 1 Timber 2 Asphalt 3 Asphalt and Timber 4 Concrete 5 Concrete and Rubber 6 Rubber 7 Metal 8 Unconsolidated 9 Composite 10 Other (specify) ________________________________________________________
6. Intersecting Roadway within 500 feet?
Yes No If Yes, Approximate Distance (feet) _________________
7. Smallest Crossing Angle
0° – 29° 30° – 59° 60° - 90°
8. Is Commercial Power Available? *
Yes No
Part V: Public Highway Information
1. Highway System
(0
1) Interstate Highway System
(02) Other Nat Hwy System (NHS)
(03) Federal AID, Not NHS
(08) Non-Federal Aid
2. Functional Classification of Road at Crossing
(0) Rural (1) Urban
(1) Interstate (5) Major Collector
(2) Other Freeways and Expressways
(3) Other Principal Arterial (6) Minor Collector (4) Minor Arterial (7) Local
3. Is Crossing on State Highway
System?
Yes No
4. Highway Speed Limit
___________ MPH
Posted Statutory
5. Linear Referencing System (LRS Route ID) *
6. LRS Milepost *
7. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
Year _______ AADT _____________
8. Estimated Percent Trucks
___________________ %
9. Regularly Used by School Buses?
Yes No Average Number per Day ___________
10. Emergency Services Route
Yes No
Submission Information - This information is used for administrative purposes and is not available on the public website.
Subm
itted by __________________________________ Organization _______________________________________ Phone _______________ Date _____________ Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for information collection is 2130-0017. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-25 Washington, DC 20590.
12/18/2023
752913T
✘
0 0
0 ✘
2 0
0 0
0 0
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
0 ✘
2 ✘
2 2
✘
0 0
✘
8 ✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
3 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
80 ✘
200
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
25 ✘
✘
2016
2281
20 ✘
672
U. S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION OMB No. 2130-0017
Instructions for the initial reporting of the following types of new or previously unreported crossings: For public highway-rail grade crossings, complete the entire inventory Form. For private highway- rail grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For public pathway grade crossings (including pedestrian station grade crossings), complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For Private pathway grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For grade-separated highway-rail or pathway crossings (including pedestrian station crossings), complete the Header, Part I, and the Submission Information section. For changes to existing data, complete the Header, Part I Items 1 -3, and the Submission Information section, in addition to the updated data fields. Note: For private crossings only, Part I Item 20 and Part III Item 2.K. are required unless otherwise noted. An asterisk * denotes an optional field.
A. Revision Date
(MM/DD/YYYY)
_____/_____/_________
B. Reporting Agency C. Reason for Update (Select only one) D. DOT Crossing Inventory Number Railroad Transit Change in
Data
New
Crossing
Closed No Train
Traffic
Quiet
Zone Update
State Other Re-Open Date
Change Only
Change in Primary
Operating RR
Admin.
Correction
Part I: Location and Classification Information
1. Primary Operating Railroad
_____________________________________________________
2. State
________________________________
3. County
____________________________________
4. City / Municipality
In
Near __________________________
5. Street/Road Name & Block Number
________________________________| __ ________________
(Street/Road Name) |* (Block Number)
6. Highway Type & No.
_______________________________________
7. Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
8. Do Other Railroads Operate Over Your Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
9. Railroad Division or Region
None _______________________
10. Railroad Subdivision or District
None _______________________
11. Branch or Line Name
None _______________________
12. RR Milepost
_______|____________|____________
(prefix) | (nnnn.nnn) | (suffix)
13. Line Segment
*
_________________________
14. Nearest RR Timetable
Station *
__________________________
15. Parent RR (if applicable)
N/A _____________________________
16. Crossing Owner (if applicable)
N/A _________________________________
17. Crossing Type
Pub
lic
Private
18. Crossing Purpose
Highway
Pathway, Ped.
Station, Ped.
19. Crossing Position
At Grade
RR Under
RR Over
20. Public Access
(if Private Crossing)
Yes
No
21. Type of Train
Freight
Intercity Passenger
Commuter
Transit
Shared Use Transit
Tourist/Other
22. Average Passenger
Train Count Per Day
Less Than One Per Day
Number Per Day_____
23. Type of Land Use
Open Space Farm Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Recreational RR Yard
24. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? Yes No If Yes, Provide Crossing Number __________________
25. Quiet Zone (FRA provided)
No 24 Hr Partial Chicago Excused Date Established _________________
26. HSR Corridor ID
__________________ N/A
27. Latitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: nn.nnnnnnn)
28. Longitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: -nnn.nnnnnnn)
29. Lat/Long Source
Actual Estimated
30.A. Railroad Use * 31.A. State Use *
30.B. Railroad Use * 31.B. State Use *
30.C. Railroad Use * 31.C. State Use *
30.D. Railroad Use * 31.D. State Use *
32.A. Narrative (Railroad Use) * 32.B. Narrative (State Use) *
33. Emergency Notification Telephone No. (posted)
_________________________________
34. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.)
______________________________________
35. State Contact (Telephone No.)
_________________________________
Part II: Railroad Information
1. Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements
1.A. Total Day Thru Trains
(6 AM to 6 PM)
__________
1.B. Total Night Thru Trains
(6 PM to 6 AM)
__________
1.C. Total Switching Trains
__________
1.D. Total Transit Trains
__________
1.E. Check if Less Than
One Movement Per Day
How many trains per week? ______
2. Year of Train Count Data (YYYY)
__________
3. Speed of Train at Crossing
3.A. Maximum Timetable Speed (mph) __________
3.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) From __________ to __________
4. Type and Count of Tracks
Main __________ Siding __________ Yard __________ Transit __________ Industry __________
5. Train Detection (Main Track only)
Constant Warning Time Motion Detection AFO PTC DC Other None
6. Is Track Signaled?
Yes No
7.A. Event Recorder
Yes No
7.B. Remote Health Monitoring
Yes No
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 1 OF 2 ✘
✘
07 20
2021
752912L
Union Pacific Railroad Company [UP]
CALIFORNIA
SAN JOAQUIN
LODI
Locust Street
✘
ls
✘
✘
Northern California
Fresno Sub
0071.531
✘
✘
UP
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
4 ✘
✘
✘
✘
38.1365150
-121.2713860
✘
CPUC 001BEL-71.44
800-848-8715
402-544-3721
415-703-3722
16 16
2 0
45 2019
22 45
1 0
0 0
1 ✘
✘
✘
✘
673
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 2 OF 2 U. S.
DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
A. Revision Date (MM/DD/YYYY) PAGE 2 D. Crossing Inventory Number (7 char.) Part III: Highway or Pathway Traffic Control Device Information
1. Are there
Signs or Signals?
Yes
No
2. Types of Passive Traffic Control Devices associated with the Crossing
2.A. Crossbuck
Assemblies (count)
2.B. STOP Signs (R1-1)
(count)
2.C. YIELD Signs (R1-2)
(count)
2.D. Advance Warning Signs (Check all that apply; include count) None W10-1 ________ W10-3 ________ W10-11 __________
W10-2 ________ W10-4 ________ W10-12 __________
2.E. Low Ground Clearance Sign
(W10-5)
Yes (count_______)
No
2.F. Pavement Markings 2.G. Channelization
Devices/Medians
2.H. EXEMPT Sign
(R15-3)
Yes
No
2.I. ENS Sign (I-13)
Displayed
Yes
No
Stop Lines
RR Xing Symbols
Dynamic Envelope
None
All Approaches
One Approach
Median
None
2.J. Other MUTCD Signs Yes No 2.K. Private Crossing Signs (if private)
Yes
No
2.L. LED Enhanced Signs (List types)
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Count __________
Count __________
Count __________
3. Types of Train Activated Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing (specify count of each device for all that apply)
3.A. Gate Arms
(count)
Roa
dway _____
Pedestrian _____
3.B. Gate Configuration 3.C. Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures (count)
3.D. Mast Mounted Flashing Lights
(count of masts) _________
3.E. Total Count of
Flashing Light Pairs
2 Quad
3 Quad
4 Quad
Full (Barrier)
Resistance
Median Gates
Over Traffic Lane _____
Not
Over Traffic Lane _____
Incandescent
LED
Incandescent
Back Lights Included
LED
Side Lights
Included
3.F. Installation Date of Current
Active Warning Devices: (MM/YYYY)
______/___________ Not Required
3.G. Wayside Horn 3.H. Highway Traffic Signals Controlling Crossing
Yes No
3.I. Bells
(count) Yes
No
Installed on (MM/YYYY) ______/__________
3.J. Non-Train Active Warning
Flagging/Flagman Manually Operated Signals Watchman Floodlighting None
3.K. Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices
Count ___________ Specify type ______________________
4.A. Does nearby Hwy
Intersection have
Traffic Signals?
Yes
No
4.B. Hwy Traffic Signal
Interconnection
Not Interconnected
For Traffic Signals
For Warning Signs
4.C. Hwy Traffic Signal Preemption 5. Highway Traffic Pre-Signals Yes No
6. Highway Monitoring Devices
(Check all that apply)
Yes - Photo/Video Recording
Yes – Vehicle Presence Detection
None
Simultaneous
Advance
Storage Distance * ____________
Stop Line Distance * ____________
Part IV: Physical Characteristics
1. Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad One-way Traffic Two-way Traffic
Number of Lanes _______ Divided Traffic
2. Is Roadway/Pathway
Paved?
Yes No
3. Does Track Run Down a Street?
Yes No
4. Is Crossing Illuminated? (Street
lights within approx. 50 feet from
nearest rail) Yes No
5. Crossing Surface (on Main Track, multiple types allowed) Installation Date * (MM/YYYY) _______/__________ Width * ______________ Length * _______________ 1 Timber 2 Asphalt 3 Asphalt and Timber 4 Concrete 5 Concrete and Rubber 6 Rubber 7 Metal 8 Unconsolidated 9 Composite 10 Other (specify) ________________________________________________________
6. Intersecting Roadway within 500 feet?
Yes No If Yes, Approximate Distance (feet) _________________
7. Smallest Crossing Angle
0° – 29° 30° – 59° 60° - 90°
8. Is Commercial Power Available? *
Yes No
Part V: Public Highway Information
1. Highway System
(0
1) Interstate Highway System
(02) Other Nat Hwy System (NHS)
(03) Federal AID, Not NHS
(08) Non-Federal Aid
2. Functional Classification of Road at Crossing
(0) Rural (1) Urban
(1) Interstate (5) Major Collector
(2) Other Freeways and Expressways
(3) Other Principal Arterial (6) Minor Collector (4) Minor Arterial (7) Local
3. Is Crossing on State Highway
System?
Yes No
4. Highway Speed Limit
___________ MPH
Posted Statutory
5. Linear Referencing System (LRS Route ID) *
6. LRS Milepost *
7. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
Year _______ AADT _____________
8. Estimated Percent Trucks
___________________ %
9. Regularly Used by School Buses?
Yes No Average Number per Day ___________
10. Emergency Services Route
Yes No
Submission Information - This information is used for administrative purposes and is not available on the public website.
Subm
itted by __________________________________ Organization _______________________________________ Phone _______________ Date _____________ Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for information collection is 2130-0017. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-25 Washington, DC 20590.
07/20/2021
752912L
✘
0 0
0 ✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
0 ✘
2 ✘
2 2
✘
0 0
✘
8 ✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
0 ✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
70 ✘
172
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
25 ✘
✘
2016
682
20 ✘
674
U. S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION OMB No. 2130-0017
Instructions for the initial reporting of the following types of new or previously unreported crossings: For public highway-rail grade crossings, complete the entire inventory Form. For private highway- rail grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For public pathway grade crossings (including pedestrian station grade crossings), complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For Private pathway grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For grade-separated highway-rail or pathway crossings (including pedestrian station crossings), complete the Header, Part I, and the Submission Information section. For changes to existing data, complete the Header, Part I Items 1 -3, and the Submission Information section, in addition to the updated data fields. Note: For private crossings only, Part I Item 20 and Part III Item 2.K. are required unless otherwise noted. An asterisk * denotes an optional field.
A. Revision Date
(MM/DD/YYYY)
_____/_____/_________
B. Reporting Agency C. Reason for Update (Select only one) D. DOT Crossing Inventory Number Railroad Transit Change in
Data
New
Crossing
Closed No Train
Traffic
Quiet
Zone Update
State Other Re-Open Date
Change Only
Change in Primary
Operating RR
Admin.
Correction
Part I: Location and Classification Information
1. Primary Operating Railroad
_____________________________________________________
2. State
________________________________
3. County
____________________________________
4. City / Municipality
In
Near __________________________
5. Street/Road Name & Block Number
________________________________| __ ________________
(Street/Road Name) |* (Block Number)
6. Highway Type & No.
_______________________________________
7. Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
8. Do Other Railroads Operate Over Your Track at Crossing? Yes No If Yes, Specify RR
____________, ____________, ____________, _____________
9. Railroad Division or Region
None _______________________
10. Railroad Subdivision or District
None _______________________
11. Branch or Line Name
None _______________________
12. RR Milepost
_______|____________|____________
(prefix) | (nnnn.nnn) | (suffix)
13. Line Segment
*
_________________________
14. Nearest RR Timetable
Station *
__________________________
15. Parent RR (if applicable)
N/A _____________________________
16. Crossing Owner (if applicable)
N/A _________________________________
17. Crossing Type
Pub
lic
Private
18. Crossing Purpose
Highway
Pathway, Ped.
Station, Ped.
19. Crossing Position
At Grade
RR Under
RR Over
20. Public Access
(if Private Crossing)
Yes
No
21. Type of Train
Freight
Intercity Passenger
Commuter
Transit
Shared Use Transit
Tourist/Other
22. Average Passenger
Train Count Per Day
Less Than One Per Day
Number Per Day_____
23. Type of Land Use
Open Space Farm Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Recreational RR Yard
24. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? Yes No If Yes, Provide Crossing Number __________________
25. Quiet Zone (FRA provided)
No 24 Hr Partial Chicago Excused Date Established _________________
26. HSR Corridor ID
__________________ N/A
27. Latitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: nn.nnnnnnn)
28. Longitude in decimal degrees
(WGS84 std: -nnn.nnnnnnn)
29. Lat/Long Source
Actual Estimated
30.A. Railroad Use * 31.A. State Use *
30.B. Railroad Use * 31.B. State Use *
30.C. Railroad Use * 31.C. State Use *
30.D. Railroad Use * 31.D. State Use *
32.A. Narrative (Railroad Use) * 32.B. Narrative (State Use) *
33. Emergency Notification Telephone No. (posted)
_________________________________
34. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.)
______________________________________
35. State Contact (Telephone No.)
_________________________________
Part II: Railroad Information
1. Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements
1.A. Total Day Thru Trains
(6 AM to 6 PM)
__________
1.B. Total Night Thru Trains
(6 PM to 6 AM)
__________
1.C. Total Switching Trains
__________
1.D. Total Transit Trains
__________
1.E. Check if Less Than
One Movement Per Day
How many trains per week? ______
2. Year of Train Count Data (YYYY)
__________
3. Speed of Train at Crossing
3.A. Maximum Timetable Speed (mph) __________
3.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) From __________ to __________
4. Type and Count of Tracks
Main __________ Siding __________ Yard __________ Transit __________ Industry __________
5. Train Detection (Main Track only)
Constant Warning Time Motion Detection AFO PTC DC Other None
6. Is Track Signaled?
Yes No
7.A. Event Recorder
Yes No
7.B. Remote Health Monitoring
Yes No
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 1 OF 2 ✘
✘
11 29
2023
752911E
Union Pacific Railroad Company [UP]
CALIFORNIA
SAN JOAQUIN
LODI
LOCKEFORD STREET
✘
LS
✘
✘
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Fresno Sub
0071.450
✘
✘
UP
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
4 ✘
✘
✘
✘
38.1377280
-121.2712820
✘
CPUC 001BEL-71.34
800-848-8715
402-544-3721
415-703-3722
16 16
2 0
45 2019
22 45
1 0
0 0
0 ✘
✘
✘
✘
675
FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 3/15) OMB approval expires 01/31/2026 Page 2 OF 2 U. S.
DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM
A. Revision Date (MM/DD/YYYY) PAGE 2 D. Crossing Inventory Number (7 char.) Part III: Highway or Pathway Traffic Control Device Information
1. Are there
Signs or Signals?
Yes
No
2. Types of Passive Traffic Control Devices associated with the Crossing
2.A. Crossbuck
Assemblies (count)
2.B. STOP Signs (R1-1)
(count)
2.C. YIELD Signs (R1-2)
(count)
2.D. Advance Warning Signs (Check all that apply; include count) None W10-1 ________ W10-3 ________ W10-11 __________
W10-2 ________ W10-4 ________ W10-12 __________
2.E. Low Ground Clearance Sign
(W10-5)
Yes (count_______)
No
2.F. Pavement Markings 2.G. Channelization
Devices/Medians
2.H. EXEMPT Sign
(R15-3)
Yes
No
2.I. ENS Sign (I-13)
Displayed
Yes
No
Stop Lines
RR Xing Symbols
Dynamic Envelope
None
All Approaches
One Approach
Median
None
2.J. Other MUTCD Signs Yes No 2.K. Private Crossing Signs (if private)
Yes
No
2.L. LED Enhanced Signs (List types)
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Specify Type _______________
Count __________
Count __________
Count __________
3. Types of Train Activated Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing (specify count of each device for all that apply)
3.A. Gate Arms
(count)
Roa
dway _____
Pedestrian _____
3.B. Gate Configuration 3.C. Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures (count)
3.D. Mast Mounted Flashing Lights
(count of masts) _________
3.E. Total Count of
Flashing Light Pairs
2 Quad
3 Quad
4 Quad
Full (Barrier)
Resistance
Median Gates
Over Traffic Lane _____
Not
Over Traffic Lane _____
Incandescent
LED
Incandescent
Back Lights Included
LED
Side Lights
Included
3.F. Installation Date of Current
Active Warning Devices: (MM/YYYY)
______/___________ Not Required
3.G. Wayside Horn 3.H. Highway Traffic Signals Controlling Crossing
Yes No
3.I. Bells
(count) Yes
No
Installed on (MM/YYYY) ______/__________
3.J. Non-Train Active Warning
Flagging/Flagman Manually Operated Signals Watchman Floodlighting None
3.K. Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices
Count ___________ Specify type ______________________
4.A. Does nearby Hwy
Intersection have
Traffic Signals?
Yes
No
4.B. Hwy Traffic Signal
Interconnection
Not Interconnected
For Traffic Signals
For Warning Signs
4.C. Hwy Traffic Signal Preemption 5. Highway Traffic Pre-Signals Yes No
6. Highway Monitoring Devices
(Check all that apply)
Yes - Photo/Video Recording
Yes – Vehicle Presence Detection
None
Simultaneous
Advance
Storage Distance * ____________
Stop Line Distance * ____________
Part IV: Physical Characteristics
1. Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad One-way Traffic Two-way Traffic
Number of Lanes _______ Divided Traffic
2. Is Roadway/Pathway
Paved?
Yes No
3. Does Track Run Down a Street?
Yes No
4. Is Crossing Illuminated? (Street
lights within approx. 50 feet from
nearest rail) Yes No
5. Crossing Surface (on Main Track, multiple types allowed) Installation Date * (MM/YYYY) _______/__________ Width * ______________ Length * _______________ 1 Timber 2 Asphalt 3 Asphalt and Timber 4 Concrete 5 Concrete and Rubber 6 Rubber 7 Metal 8 Unconsolidated 9 Composite 10 Other (specify) ________________________________________________________
6. Intersecting Roadway within 500 feet?
Yes No If Yes, Approximate Distance (feet) _________________
7. Smallest Crossing Angle
0° – 29° 30° – 59° 60° - 90°
8. Is Commercial Power Available? *
Yes No
Part V: Public Highway Information
1. Highway System
(0
1) Interstate Highway System
(02) Other Nat Hwy System (NHS)
(03) Federal AID, Not NHS
(08) Non-Federal Aid
2. Functional Classification of Road at Crossing
(0) Rural (1) Urban
(1) Interstate (5) Major Collector
(2) Other Freeways and Expressways
(3) Other Principal Arterial (6) Minor Collector (4) Minor Arterial (7) Local
3. Is Crossing on State Highway
System?
Yes No
4. Highway Speed Limit
___________ MPH
Posted Statutory
5. Linear Referencing System (LRS Route ID) *
6. LRS Milepost *
7. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
Year _______ AADT _____________
8. Estimated Percent Trucks
___________________ %
9. Regularly Used by School Buses?
Yes No Average Number per Day ___________
10. Emergency Services Route
Yes No
Submission Information - This information is used for administrative purposes and is not available on the public website.
Subm
itted by __________________________________ Organization _______________________________________ Phone _______________ Date _____________ Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for information collection is 2130-0017. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-25 Washington, DC 20590.
11/29/2023
752911E
✘
0 0
0 ✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
0 ✘
2 ✘
2 2
✘
0 0
✘
8 ✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
0 ✘
✘
✘
2 ✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
80 ✘
175
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
25 ✘
✘
2016
7778
18 ✘
676
1. Reporting Railroad
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)
HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING
ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT
OMB Approval No. 2130-0500
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FORM FRA F 6180.57 * NOTE THAT ALL CASUALTIES MUST BE REPORTED ON FORM FRA F 6180.55A RR Accident/Incident No.
5. Date of Accident/Incident
3. Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance
2. Other Railroad Involved in Train Accident/Incident
3a.
2a.
4. U.S. DOT-AAR Grade Crossing ID No.
2b.
3b.
6. Time of Accident/Incident
UP
UP
0597RS021
0597RS021
752918C 05/16/97 11:05 PM
Union Pacific Railroad Company [UP]
Union Pacific Railroad Company [UP]
7. Nearest Railroad Station 8. Division 9. County 10. State Code CA06SAN JOAQUINROSEVILLELODI
11. City (if in a city) 12. Highway Name or No.LODI TOKAY STREET Public Private Highway User Involved Rail Equipment Involved
Code Code13. Type C. Truck-trailer
D. Pick-up truck
E. Van
A. Auto
B. Truck
F. Bus
G. School Bus
H. Motorcycle
J. Other Motor Vehicle
K. Pedestrian
M. Other (specify) B
17. Equipment
14. Vehicle Speed
(est. mph at impact)
1. Train
2. Train
(units pulling)
(units pushing)
1. North 2. South 3. East
3. Train
4. Car(s)
5. Car(s)
(standing)
(moving)
(standing)
6. Light loco(s)
8. Other
(moving)
(standing)7. Light loco(s)
(specify)
1 0
Code
4 15. Direction (geographical)
4. West
18. Position of Car Unit in Train
1 16. Position 1. Stalled on crossing
2. Stopped on Crossing
3. Moving over crossing
4. Trapped
Code
2 19. Circumstance 1. Rail equipment struck highway user
2. Rail equipment struck by highway user
Code
1 20a. Was the highway user and/or rail equipment involved in the impact transporting hazardous materials?
1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither
Code
4 Code
41. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither
20b. Was there a hazardous materials release by
20c. State the name and quantity of the hazardous material released, if any
21. Temperature
(specify if minus) 69
22. Visibility (single entry)
1. Dawn 2. Day 3. Dusk 4. Dark
Code
4 23. Weather (single entry) Code
11. Clear 2. Cloudy 3. Rain 4. Fog 5. Sleet 6. Snow
24. Type of Equipment
(single entry)
1. Freight train
2. Passenger train
3. Commuter train
4. Work train
5. Single car
6. Cut of cars
7. Yard/Switching
9. Main./inspect. car
8. Light loco(s)
A. Spec. MoW Equip.
Consist
Code
1 25. Track Type Used by Rail
Equipment Involved
1. Main 2. Yard 3. Siding 4. Industry
Code
1 26. Track Number or Name
SINGLE MAIN
27. FRA Track
Class
4 28. Number of
Locomotive
4 29. Number of
Cars
76 30. Consist Speed
R. Recorded
(Recorded if available)
11 mph
Code
EUnits E. Estimated 1. North 2. South 3. East
31. Time Table Direction
4. West
Code
3 32. Type of
Warning
1. Gates
2. Cantilever FLS
3. Standard FLS
4. Wig wags
5. Hwy. traffic signals
6. Audible
7. Crossbucks
9. Watchman
8. Stop signsCrossing
10. Flagged by crew
11. Other
12. None
(specify)
Code(s)
33. Signaled Crossing 34. Whistle Ban Code
201 02 07
1. Yes
2. No
3. Unknown
35. Location of Warning
31 1. Both Sides
2. Side of Vehicle Approach
3. Opposite Side of Vehicle Approach 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown
36. Crossing Warning Interconnected 37. Crossing Illuminated by Street 3 Code
with Highway Signals
Code
Lights or Special Lights
1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown
Code
38. Driver's
Age
39. Driver's Code
11. Male
2. Female33
40. Driver Drove Behind or in Front of Train
and Struck or was Struck by Second Train
1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2
Code
1. Drove around or thru the gate
3. Did not stop
2. Stopped and then proceeded
4. Stopped on crossing
5. Other (specify) 5
Code41. Driver
Gender
Warning
Allgd. warn > 60 sec (2);
42. Driver Passed Standing
Highway Vehicle
1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown
2 Code 43. View of Track Obscured by (primary obstruction) 8 Code
1. Permanent Structure
2. Standing railroad equipment
3. Passing Train
4. Topography
5. Vegetation
6. Highway Vehicles 8. Not Obstructed
7. Other (specify)
1a.
Name Of
1b.
Alphabetic Code
Abbr.
Casualties to:
46. Highway-Rail Crossing Users
49. Railroad Employees
52. Passengers on Train
Killed Injured
44. Driver was
1. Killed 2. Injured 3. Uninjured
Code
3 47. Highway Vehicle Property Damage
(est. dollar damage) $7,0000
0 0
0 0
0 50. Total Number of People on Train
(include passengers and crew)
2 1. Yes 2. No
45. Was Driver in the Vehicle?
2 Code
48. Total Number of Highway-Rail Crossing Users
(include driver) 2
51. Is a Rail Equipment Accident /
Incident Report Being Filed
1. Yes 2. No 2
Code
53a. Special Study Block 53b. Special Study Block
54. Narrative Description
55. Typed Name and Title 56. Signature 57. Date
#41 - AROUND GATES STOPPED
A. Train pulling- RCL
B. Train pushing- RCL
C. Train standing- RCL
°F
677
1. Reporting Railroad
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)
HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING
ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT
OMB Approval No. 2130-0500
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FORM FRA F 6180.57 * NOTE THAT ALL CASUALTIES MUST BE REPORTED ON FORM FRA F 6180.55A RR Accident/Incident No.
5. Date of Accident/Incident
3. Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance
2. Other Railroad Involved in Train Accident/Incident
3a.
2a.
4. U.S. DOT-AAR Grade Crossing ID No.
2b.
3b.
6. Time of Accident/Incident
SP
SP
R4569
R4569
752918C 10/04/79 07:45 AM
Southern Pacific Transportation Company [SP]
Southern Pacific Transportation Company [SP]
7. Nearest Railroad Station 8. Division 9. County 10. State Code CA06SAN JOAQUINLODI
11. City (if in a city) 12. Highway Name or No.LODI TOKAY ST Public Private Highway User Involved Rail Equipment Involved
Code Code13. Type C. Truck-trailer
D. Pick-up truck
E. Van
A. Auto
B. Truck
F. Bus
G. School Bus
H. Motorcycle
J. Other Motor Vehicle
K. Pedestrian
M. Other (specify) K
17. Equipment
14. Vehicle Speed
(est. mph at impact)
1. Train
2. Train
(units pulling)
(units pushing)
1. North 2. South 3. East
3. Train
4. Car(s)
5. Car(s)
(standing)
(moving)
(standing)
6. Light loco(s)
8. Other
(moving)
(standing)7. Light loco(s)
(specify)
1 0
Code
15. Direction (geographical)
4. West
18. Position of Car Unit in Train
1 16. Position 1. Stalled on crossing
2. Stopped on Crossing
3. Moving over crossing
4. Trapped
Code
2 19. Circumstance 1. Rail equipment struck highway user
2. Rail equipment struck by highway user
Code
1 20a. Was the highway user and/or rail equipment involved in the impact transporting hazardous materials?
1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither
Code
4 Code
1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither
20b. Was there a hazardous materials release by
20c. State the name and quantity of the hazardous material released, if any
21. Temperature
(specify if minus) 60
22. Visibility (single entry)
1. Dawn 2. Day 3. Dusk 4. Dark
Code
2 23. Weather (single entry) Code
11. Clear 2. Cloudy 3. Rain 4. Fog 5. Sleet 6. Snow
24. Type of Equipment
(single entry)
1. Freight train
2. Passenger train
3. Commuter train
4. Work train
5. Single car
6. Cut of cars
7. Yard/Switching
9. Main./inspect. car
8. Light loco(s)
A. Spec. MoW Equip.
Consist
Code
7 25. Track Type Used by Rail
Equipment Involved
1. Main 2. Yard 3. Siding 4. Industry
Code
3 26. Track Number or Name
9103
27. FRA Track
Class
1 28. Number of
Locomotive
1 29. Number of
Cars
28 30. Consist Speed
R. Recorded
(Recorded if available)
4 mph
Code
EUnits E. Estimated 1. North 2. South 3. East
31. Time Table Direction
4. West
Code
3 32. Type of
Warning
1. Gates
2. Cantilever FLS
3. Standard FLS
4. Wig wags
5. Hwy. traffic signals
6. Audible
7. Crossbucks
9. Watchman
8. Stop signsCrossing
10. Flagged by crew
11. Other
12. None
(specify)
Code(s)
33. Signaled Crossing 34. Whistle Ban Code
04 1. Yes
2. No
3. Unknown
35. Location of Warning
21 1. Both Sides
2. Side of Vehicle Approach
3. Opposite Side of Vehicle Approach 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown
36. Crossing Warning Interconnected 37. Crossing Illuminated by Street 2 Code
with Highway Signals
Code
Lights or Special Lights
1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown
Code
38. Driver's
Age
39. Driver's Code
1. Male
2. Female
40. Driver Drove Behind or in Front of Train
and Struck or was Struck by Second Train
1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown
Code
1. Drove around or thru the gate
3. Did not stop
2. Stopped and then proceeded
4. Stopped on crossing
5. Other (specify)
Code41. Driver
Gender
Warning
20 sec warn min (1);
42. Driver Passed Standing
Highway Vehicle
1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown
Code 43. View of Track Obscured by (primary obstruction) 8 Code
1. Permanent Structure
2. Standing railroad equipment
3. Passing Train
4. Topography
5. Vegetation
6. Highway Vehicles 8. Not Obstructed
7. Other (specify)
1a.
Name Of
1b.
Alphabetic Code
Abbr.
Casualties to:
46. Highway-Rail Crossing Users
49. Railroad Employees
52. Passengers on Train
Killed Injured
44. Driver was
1. Killed 2. Injured 3. Uninjured
Code