Lewis has said that every paragraph should tell a little story of its own. One can also say that it should lead the reader through a logical sequence of thoughts. A logical progression. In description, this often means leading the reader's eye through a sequence of images, somewhat like the sequence of shots in a film montage. Get the images out of order, and the paragraph becomes a jumble.
One example in your story (in my opinion) is on p. 18: "Before he could get his beefy arms around me, I stepped forward to shake his hand." The sequence is logical, and yet the mind's eye is presented with an image of Ted with his arms around the narrator followed by an image of her shaking hands with him. Even though the first image shows what did not happen, if you think in terms of film montage you see that the flow doesn't quite work here. (Some would argue about this, saying that this first image shows something that happens in her imagination. I think that the sequence is questionable though.)
On p. 17, "I followed behind her in hip-hugger bell-bottoms and a mid-riff T-shirt." (The narrator is the one wearing the bell-bottoms and T-shirt.) You're asking me to see the narrator climbing the stairs in front of her first, and then to see the narrator's clothes. Visually, this is bad logic. In the first half of the sentence, I already had my own image of the clothes the narrator was wearing. The second half requires me to change that image.
On p. 19: "Ted handed me a beer. I took a sip. It tasted great. Ted had squeezed a chunk of lime into it." The first three sentences make a logical sequence, moving from Ted to the narrator and then zooming in on the bottle of beer (and perhaps the narrator's face). But the fourth sequence puts the focus back on Ted and thus destroys the logical flow of the sequence within the paragraph.
You can fix the visual logic of the sequences by interchanging the final two sentences. "Ted handed me a beer. I took a sip. Ted had squeezed a hunk of lime into it. It tasted great." This does change the impact of the sequence slightly though since it puts the emphasis on the visual image of Ted squeezing the lime rather than on the taste of the lime in the beer.
In my opinion (and I realize that this is a subtle point where many will argue) you can also fix the paragraph by changing the last sentence to "He had squeezed a chunk of lime into the beer." Now the dominant image in the fourth paragraph is the lime rather than Ted, and the sequence from the taste of the beer to the image of the lime is a logical one.
Another example: "Walking past the street musicians and panhandlers, I loved this time of day before the sun set over the Pacific." The previous examples were all somewhat nitpicky on my part, but here the error is blatant. First, because of the participle, there is an implied cause and effect: "The musicians and panhandlers caused me to love this particular time of day." Obviously this is not the implication you intended. Also there's a statement about time: "I only loved this time of day when I was walking past musicians and panhandlers." Certainly you didn't intend to say this.
But also notice the reverse sequencing of images here. First we see the musicians and panhandlers, and then we see the time of day and setting sun. The reader's eye doesn't want to follow that sequence.
But change it just a little bit, and the same sequence can be okay. "I would walk past street musicians and panhandlers. I loved this time of day just before the sun set over the Pacific." Because the walking and the loving are now separate sentences, there's no longer the implication of close connection between them --- cause and effect. Furthermore, instead of panning your camera through the images, you're making them separate shots. The slight break between the images gives the camera a chance to pull back and show the sunny day.
This brings up another point, which I'm pretty sure I don't need to tell you about. Verb forms such as "walking," "would walk," "used to walk," and "was walking" can be very useful when really needed. But they all weaken the impact of sentences as compared to the plain and simple present tense or past tense. On p. 16, "Ellen wore my sandals" is stronger than "Ellen was wearing my sandals."
On p. 20, instead of "'It's dolomite,' said Ted, wiping his hands," I think it's better to say, "'It's dolomite.' Ted wiped his hands." Logically, it's perfectly reasonable that the saying and the wiping can be simultaneous, but in terms of images it's stronger if he first says then wipes. Also, this way you can leave out the "Ted said," which, among other things, is an unfortunate inadvertent rhyme. (It's not conspicuous here, but with names like Ted and Fred it's something you should watch out for.)
Now consider a sentence on p. 16. "It was summer, but I felt like I had spring fever. I believed people make their own fate." The two sentences in sequence here suggest actions (or thoughts, actually) happening in the same time frame. But in fact, as the next sentence makes clear, "I believed" is something that takes place in a much wider time frame than "I felt." You have to let the reader know that you're pulling back to a more general frame of reference. There are lots of ways of rearranging the paragraph to indicate this, but in my opinion (for what it's worth), to say, "I believed that people made their own fate," may be sufficient to solve the problem. The slight increase in formality is enough to prevent the reader from assuming a parallelism between the two sentences.
And speaking of false parallelism, there's a technical name for it, but I've forgotten it. You use false parallels in a couple of places. It can be used to create a comic effect, but it jars in your work here.
On p. 18, "With twinkly blue eyes, an impish grin, and a Hawaiian shirt." The Hawaiian shirt is not quite in parallel with the two facial features, making the sentence just slightly humorous. This may be okay, but it's something to notice.
On p. 11: "Sociologists and Time Magazine were calling it the Me Decade." The parallelism here is just slightly odd. I think this is because you're saying "Time Magazine" as if it were a single person. If "Time Magazine" were used alone, this minor rhetorical device would pass unnoticed, but pairing it with "sociologists" calls attention to it. In this case, the slightly humorous effect this produces does not seem out of place, and perhaps was even intentional on your part.
On p. 12: "There was sexism, ageism, patriarchy, Nixon, and the military-industrial complex to eradicate." Here I think you definitely intended the humorous tone of the false parallelism. It works because it has a purpose: a gentle mocking of the rather unrealistic idealism of those days.