AN ORDINANCE OF THE OAKDALE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 12-2 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES, TO CHAPTER 12, FIRE
PROTECTION, OF THE OAKDALE MUNICIPAL CODE TO DESIGNATE FIRE
HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 51178 directs the State Fire Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria, which include fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 51179 directs local agencies to designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Government Code Section 51178; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakdale has received recommendations from the State Fire Marshal through a map titled “City of Oakdale – Stanislaus County; Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones” (“Oakdale FHSZ Map”), dated February 24, 2025, attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Oakdale FHSZ MAP accurately represents the fire hazard severity zones within the City and the City desires to adopt the map pursuant to Government Code section 51179; and
WHEREAS, a copy of this ordinance shall be transmitted to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within thirty (30) days of adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 51179.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKDALE, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Ordinance. Section 12-2 (Reserved), of Chapter 12, Fire Protection, of the Oakdale Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
§ 12-2 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map
The City of Oakdale hereby adopts the fire hazard severity zones designated on a map titled “City of Oakdale – Stanislaus County; Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones” as identified by the State Fire Marshal, dated February 24, 2025, incorporated hereto.
157
IN THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF OAKDALE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORDINANCE NO.
4910-9082-1958, v. 1
SECTION 2: SEVERABILITY. If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Oakdale finds that this ordinance is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to following sections of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3: (1) Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment); and (2) Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) because the subject ordinance has no potential for resulting in any significant physical change to the environment, either directly or indirectly.
SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption, provided it is published in a newspaper of general circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior to its effective date or a summary of the Ordinance is published in a newspaper of general circulation at least five (5) days prior to adoption and again at least fifteen (15) days prior to its effective date.
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Oakdale, held on June 2, 2025, and second reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Oakdale on June 16, 2025, the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ( )
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ( )
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ( )
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ( )
SIGNED:
Cherilyn Bairos, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patrick Mondragon, City Clerk
158
City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:
Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Federal Responsibility
Area (FRA)
Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:35,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2
Mi 0 1
High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
Oakdale
108
120
UNINCORPORATED
STANISLAUS CO.
UNINCORPORATED
STANISLAUS CO.
February 24, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF OAKDALE – STANISLAUS COUNTY
159
CITY OF OAKDALE
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: Monday, June 2, 2025
To: Mayor Bairos and Members of the Oakdale City Council From: Carina McDonald, Capital Projects Manager
Reviewed by: Jeff Gravel, Public Services Director
Subject: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Modesto Executive Electric for the installation of lights at one baseball field at Kerr Park in the amount of $142,200.00 and a 10% Contingency in the amount of $14,200.00 for a total Project Budget of $156,200.00 to be Funded by the Parks Replacement Fund 549 CP2414
I. BACKGROUND
Kerr Park, Oakdale’s largest park at 14 acres along the Stanislaus River, features picnic areas, a large playground, and three baseball fields used almost year-round.
The community has long sought to replace the lights at Field 1 to allow for night games.
AGENDA ITEM 11.1
160
CITY OF OAKDALE
City Council Staff Report (Continued)
SUBJECT: Kerr Park Field Lights Project
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025
II. DISCUSSION
This project includes reuse of the existing light poles, ballast boxes and conduits, removal and replacement of 22 floodlight fixtures, installation of new ballasts, provide lockable control on/off switch and box and disposal of old light fixtures.
There was an informal bid for this work and the following were the bid results:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Modesto Executive Electric $142,200.00
Vintage Contractors No Response
National LED No Response
III. FISCAL IMPACT
Modesto Executive Electric is the apparent low bidder. This is a budgeted project and will be funded by Parks Replacement Fund 549.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Modesto Executive Electric for the installation of lights at one baseball field at Kerr Park in the amount of $142,200.00 and authorize a 10% project contingency in the amount of $14,200.00 for a total Project Budget of $156,200.00 to be funded by the Parks Replacement Fund 549 – CP2414.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft City Council Resolution 2025-__
Attachment B: Construction Agreement
161
IN THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF OAKDALE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2025-__
ATTACHMENT A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF OAKDALE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MODESTO EXECUTIVE ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $142,200.00 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
LIGHTS AT ONE BASEBALL FIELD AT KERR PARK AND A CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,200.00 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET OF $156,200.00 TO BE FUNDED BY THE PARKS REPLACEMENT FUND 549-CP2414.
WHEREAS, the baseball fields at Kerr Park are used almost year-round. The community has long sought to replace the lights at Field 1 to allow for night games; and,
WHEREAS, this project includes reuse of the existing light poles, ballast boxes and conduits, removal and replacement of 22 floodlight fixtures, installation of new ballasts, lockable control on/off switch and box and disposal of old light fixtures; and, WHEREAS, there was an informal bid for this work and Modesto Executive Electric is the low bidder. This is a budgeted project and will be funded by Parks Replacement Fund 549 - CP2414; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council in the City of Oakdale does hereby adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Modesto Executive Electric in the amount of $142,200.00 for the installation of lights at baseball field 1 at Kerr Park and a contingency in the amount of $14,200.00 for a total project budget of $156,200.00 to be funded by the Parks Replacement Fund 549- CP2414.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION IS HEREBY ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
Cherilyn Bairos, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patrick Mondragon, City Clerk
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
To: City of Oakdale
From: MODESTOEXECUTIVE ELECTRIC, INC.
CSBL: 669018 DIR Registration #1000001938
Project Bidding: Kerr ParkBaseball FieldSports Lighting Retrofit BidDate:04/21/ 25 Updated
ADDENDUM NOTED:N/A
We are pleased to offer our proposal for the above-mentioned project. This estimate includes LED Lighting component receiving, offloading and installation only, equipment provided by L2. The costs listed below include all estimated material, labor and equipment required for installation based on the project for the scope as listed below.
Panel & LightingControl: $21,000.00
R/RLights: $63,000.00
Lift Rental: $16,000.00
Base Bid: $100,000.00
Add/Alt 1:$29,500.00 (estimated costto pull-in newwirefromto polesifrequired) Add/Alt 2:$12,500.00 (estimated costto installenclosure atoutfield fence for panel&controls) We include thefollowing:
• Remove 22 Floodlight/ Metal Halide/ 1500W fixtures around (1) baseball field • Install 22 1200W LED Sports Lighters
• Reuse existing poles
• Reuse of ballast boxes and conduits recommended
• System shall supply lighting of a minimum of 50-ft candles on the infield and 30-foot candles in the outfield • All lighting fixtures to be LED an UL listed and have a minimum of 50,000-hour expected lifespan • All lighting fixtures to have at least 125% efficiency, CRI 5000 is recommended • Wiring will be sized to have no more than 5% voltage loss over distance • If remote ballasts proposed, please provide cost advantages. If fixture mounted ballasts proposed than ballast shall have the same life rating as the fixture
• Simpler user interface/control on /off in a lockable box, location TBD • Dispose of old fixtures and other unused parts (arms etc.) per State of CA requirements We exclude thefollowing:
• Any and all design and/or engineeringfees.
• Any and all permits, bonds or associatedfees.
• Any and all utility company fees and associatedcosts. • Any and all additional costs incurred due to unforeseenconditions. • Anyovertimeorshiftworkperdiemassociatedwiththisprojectifneeded. • Any and all landscape, sod and irrigation system repairs orreplacement.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. This quote is subject to pricing as of date of bid. Due to current market volatility “Force Majeure” and Tariff Related increases may be applicable for some materials and equipment used on this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me.
Sincerely,
KevinSimpson, V.P./General Manager
446 Charity Way, STE 1, Modesto, Ca95356
(209) 238-9898 Fax: (209) 238-9576
Email:modexelec@modexelec,com License:C-10669018
MODESTO
EXECUTIVE
ELECTRIC
SUPERIOR SERVICE •EXECUTIVETREATMENT
174
CITY OF OAKDALE
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: Monday, June 2, 2025
To: Mayor Bairos and Members of the City Council
From: Jerry Ramar, Interim City Manager
Subject: Consideration of a Resolution Approving an Agreement with Bell Burnett & Associates for Electric Utility Feasibility Study for a Total of $75,000 to be Funded with General Fund – General Government – Contract Services Fund 110-1910-425003
I. BACKGROUND:
On May 5, 2025, the Oakdale City Council considered agenda item 11.4, a proposal to explore the feasibility of consolidating electric utility service under the Modesto Irrigation District (MID), replacing the current dual-provider model with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and MID. At that meeting, Council approved the initiative and directed staff to obtain proposals from qualified consultants to perform the study.
Currently, approximately 7,000 households in Oakdale are served by PG&E at significantly higher rates than those provided by MID. The average annual cost for PG&E residential service is $5,046 compared to $1,962 for MID, yielding potential savings of over $3,000 per household. This translates to an estimated $21.5 million in annual citywide savings, excluding areas already under MID service such as Bridle Ridge and the Vineyards.
Due to the technical, legal, and economic implications of such a transition, including negotiations with PG&E and MID, CPUC engagement, potential asset acquisition, and LAFCo involvement, Council directed the City Manager to initiate a feasibility study.
II. DISCUSSION:
Following the Council's direction, staff contacted consulting firms and received a proposal from Bell Burnett & Associates (BB&A). BB&A has extensive experience in utility transitions and offers a targeted scope focusing on the feasibility of Oakdale joining MID. Key elements of the proposal include:
• Task 1: Stakeholder engagement and identification of strategic options (e.g., facilitation, partial service, Community Choice Aggregation, or full service). • Task 2: High-level feasibility study analyzing benefits, risks, and costs, with special focus on MID integration.
The proposal outlines a fixed fee of $75,000, with deliverables due within 4 months of receiving a Notice to Proceed. BB&A will coordinate with MID and utilize existing rate and load data to assess alternatives. Any services beyond the original scope would require written agreement.
AGENDA ITEM 11.2
175
CITY OF OAKDALE
City Council Staff Report (Continued)
SUBJECT: Utilities Feasibility Study
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025
Bell Burnett & Associates (BB&A) is the ideal consultant for this feasibility study due to their specialized expertise in utility transitions and deep understanding of California’s complex electric service landscape. BB&A has an established track record of assisting municipalities with evaluating and implementing alternatives to investor-owned utility service, including public utility integration and Community Choice Aggregation. Their familiarity with regulatory bodies such as the CPUC and LAFCo, combined with their practical experience navigating legal, financial, and infrastructure-related challenges, makes them uniquely equipped to guide Oakdale through this process. Their proposal reflects a thoughtful and efficient roadmap focused on the City’s primary objective: assessing the feasibility of consolidating electric service under MID to benefit Oakdale residents and ensure long-term energy stability.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the study will be allocated in the FY 2025/2026 budget in the amount of $75,000. Funds for this study will come from the General Fund – General Government – Contract Services (110-1910-425003). In addition to the consultant fee, the City must also fund a System Impact Study and Facilities Study required by MID, which are not included in the BB&A proposal.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposal from Bell Burnett & Associates in the amount of $75,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
176
IN THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF OAKDALE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2025-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKDALE APPROVING
AN AGREEMENT WITH BELL BURNETT & ASSOCIATES FOR AN ELECTRIC UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR $75,000 TO BE FUNDED BY FUND GENERAL – GENERAL GOVERNMENT – CONTRACT SERVICES FUND 110-1910-425003 WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the City Council directed the Interim City Manager to solicit proposals for a formal feasibility study to evaluate the transition from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to MID; and
WHEREAS, Staff conducted thoughtful research on consulting firms by contacting stakeholders, professionals in the industry, and advisors; and WHEREAS, Bell Burnett & Associates was selected and has submitted a proposal to perform a high-level feasibility study for a fixed fee of $75,000; and WHEREAS, the study will identify strategic alternatives, estimate costs, and assess the legal and operational implications of transferring electric service to MID.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Oakdale as follows:
1. The City Council approves the scope of work and professional services agreement with Bell Burnett & Associates.
2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement and issue a Notice to Proceed.
3. The feasibility study costs will be included in the FY 2025/2026 budget for the total of $75,000 to be funded from the General Fund – General Government – Contract Services Fund 110-1910-425003.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION IS HEREBY ADOPTED THIS 2
nd DAY OF JUNE
2025 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ATTEST:
Patrick Mondragon, City Clerk
SIGNED:
Cherilyn Bairos, Mayor
177
1 CITY OF OAKDALE
Proposed Scope of Services
May 21, 2025
INTRODUCTION
The provision of electric service in California has evolved considerably since the State’s unsuccessful experiment with deregulation in the late 1990’s. The Investor-Owned Utilities (“IOU’s”) went from vertically integrated service providers (generation, transmission, and distribution service) holding a dominant market position to increasingly wire companies in the last quarter century. They have divested or are in the process of retiring much of their generation resources and have consistently raised the wire related electric rates of consumers. Publicly Owned Utilities (“POU’s”) have continued their vertical integration, but rely more on contracted resources, particularly for renewable resources, and have demonstrated the ability to have meaningfully lower rates than the IOU’s by as much as 50% in some rate classes. Community Choice Aggregators (“CCA’s”) have become a significant and growing source of supply for many customers and now represent more than 14 million customers in California for energy supply.
The City’s incumbent electric service provider, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) has faced challenges in adapting to changes that have occurred in the industry over the last 25 years.
In 2001, PG&E declared bankruptcy for the first time when it was unable to meet its power purchase obligations and again in 2019 in the face of significant wildfire liability. In recent years PG&E has had a succession of reliability and safety problems which combined with climate change has made it particularly susceptible to the gas and electric service disasters which created tens of billions of dollars of liabilities resulting in PG&E’s 2019 bankruptcy. Documented maintenance, safety, and record keeping/reporting shortcomings as well as significant rate increases has eroded public confidence in the utility. POU rates in northern California are generally 30 to 50% less than those charged by PG&E.
In the Report “Assessing California’s Climate Policies—Residential Electricity Rates in California” (CA LAO January 2025), the California Legislative Analyst’s Office noted:
• California electric rates that are close to double the national average with ONLY Hawaii having higher rates on average.
Bell Burnett &
178
2 • Average residential electricity rates in California have grown faster than inflation in recent years, rising by about 47 percent over the four-year period from 2019 through 2023 compared to overall growth in prices of about 18 percent. • Although electricity rates in California have exceeded the national average for many years, the gap has grown substantially in recent years.
These events, combined with the current crisis of affordability for this essential service, have prompted the City of Oakdale (“City”) to consider options it may have to exert greater control over the City’s direction regarding energy service and reliability by potentially joining MID. Bell Burnett & Associates (“BB&A”) is pleased to submit the following proposed Scope of Services for the City’s consideration.
TASK 1: IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES OF THE CITY There are a wide range of potential options open to the City depending upon Oakdale’s objectives and risk appetite. We understand that Oakdale has reached out to the Modesto Irrigation District (“MID”) to determine their interest in providing electric service to those areas of the City that they do not presently provide service to. Assessing the feasibility and steps necessary to potentially join MID is at the heart of the proposed high-level Feasibility Study (“Study”).
When other California cities have asked the same questions, they have made a variety of choices dependent upon local needs and resources. BB&A has been involved in numerous such analysis for communities of different sizes. In the end it is a local policy decision that should be made with the best information available with the interests of the community in mind. 179
3 Options employed in other communities range from full or partial service provision, to partnering or facilitating other service providers, to simply doing nothing. Generally, these options can be combined into four different categories based upon the level of local involvement. • Facilitator
o Petition adjacent service provider ( in this case MID) to acquire system assets and provide service
o MID or other partner(s) to invest in partial to complete acquisition, including greenfield development
• Full-Service Provider
o City acquires existing assets and provides local service o Establish greenfield service for new development
• Community Choice Aggregation
• Take No Action
For Task 1, BB&A proposes to meet with selected staff, policy makers, MID, and other stakeholders as determined by the City to assess the options available and obtain feedback as to the appetite for risk and the preferred alternatives for further review and analysis.
TASK 2: PREPARE HIGH-LEVEL FEASBILITY STUDY
After discussion with City officials and stakeholders, BB&A will prepare the Study describing the options available to the City with a particular focus on the feasibility of joining MID. The Study will also outline, on a high-level, additional alternatives that may merit consideration and will address the pros and cons of each option, general steps necessary to initiate and implement each option, and as described below, the estimated cost and potential benefits associated with each option. A discussion of key considerations and risk will be included in this analysis.
A high-level analysis of the financial feasibility of different alternatives is a critical factor for weighing the options. Given the limited scope and budget for this analysis it will be necessary to make some broad-based assumptions regarding costs and benefits and to focus on the strategy of potentially joining MID. At the same time, the Study will touch upon what additional alternatives may exist or any permutations that may merit additional consideration and study. BB&A will do its best to quantify potential costs and considerations of each option at a high level given information that is readily available.
It is also worth noting that it is quite likely, if not probable, that additional detailed analysis will be needed after the Study should the City elect to proceed further, which can be both time consuming and costly. The City has already identified the potential of a System Impact Study and Facilities Study with MID, which will certainly be necessary for MID to quantify the potential costs and interconnection requirements of potentially joining MID. However, it is also worth noting that any strategy that involves the acquisition of PG&E assets – which PG&E has publicly stated are not for sale – will require a physical inventory and age of existing assets, physical separation from the existing PG&E system (“Severance”), and other infrastructure costs. 180
4 In addition, ongoing operation, maintenance, administrative and general expense would need to be considered in the context of joining MID. Beyond the potential acquisition and ongoing costs for ratepayers there is a myriad of other considerations including, but not limited to potential exit fees, taxes and other contributions. For purposes of the calculation of benefits, rate and load forecasts are critical inputs. Typically, these calculations and forecasts take months to complete and are a costly and time-consuming process.
While the Study will predominantly focus on the potential of the City joining MID, the purpose of the Study is to provide the City with a high-level estimate of costs, risks, and key considerations of different alternatives in order to make a determination as to overall feasibility. To this end, BB&A proposes working with MID to understand their own system experience, cost, rate structure, and local knowledge.
DELIVERABLE
Draft and final reports and a presentation of findings of the Study will be prepared and presented to the City.
BUDGET AND TIMELINE
BB&A has an established methodology for compensation for this type of work that is a fixed fee tied to specific tasks. We would also note that our typical fee for this type of assignment is $100,000 to $150,000. For the City and given that the focus of the Study is predominantly on assessing the feasibility of joining MID, we would propose a fixed fee of $75,000. This fee is due upon 30 days of invoicing and would be payable as follows:
Task 1: Delivery of Draft Study: $25,000
Task 2: Delivery of Final Study and Presentation to City Council, as requested: $50,000 Should the City ask for additional work or additional items outside of this Scope of Services, compensation would be in addition to the fixed fee above and would be subject to mutual agreement by both parties in writing.
BB&A estimates that the Study can be completed and presented to the City within 4 months of getting a Notice to Proceed (NTP). The final timing will also be dependent on the City and MID’s availability and access to readily available information for customers, load forecasts, and rate classes.
181
AGENDA ITEM 12.1
Verbal Report on Striping Diagonal Parking on East D Street between North Yosemite Avenue and North Third Avenue
182
AGENDA ITEM 12.2
Verbal Report on Mobile App for Reserving Pickleball Courts 183