Loading...
03-24-1969 - Special 2 Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 24, 1969. The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Leonard S. Gleckman at 4:06 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Lloyd. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Leonard Gleckman; Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Lloyd. Councilman Gillum was absent. Also -Present: George Aiassa, City Manager Oweni.Menard, Planning Director Lela Preston, City Clerk George Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer Robert Schaefer, C. E. Ass't. Mr. Goodrich, of Peat, Marwick & Livingston GENERAL PLAN UP -DATING Presentation by Traffic Consultant: Peat, Marwick & Livingston Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - we have rearranged the schedule a • bit, we are having a short introduction by our Planning Director --Mr. Menard, and then Mr. Zimmerman, Assistant Citjr.nEngineer, and -Mr. Goodrich, representing the firm of Peat, Marwick & Livingston, will make the detailed presentation pertaining to the lanes, traffic counts, etc. Mr. Menard: My remarks are brief, only to set the frame- work as to how the traffic study fits into the General Plan program and the steps and evolutions that program went through as it was created. In regard to the relationship between the General Plan and traffic analysis it became obvious at the sketch plan stage that it was necessary to test some of the changes they were recommending in the traffic pattern. At that time it was ultimately de- cided to retain the services of Peat, Marwick & Livingston, in a two phase program. First phase - to test the sketch plan and some of the broad concepts embodied therein. This test proved that the rough traffic system as proposed did appear feasible. They then launched forward into the more sophisticated General Plan study, and phase II of the traffic analysis in connection with the land uses, as the traffic generations proposed on that General Plan slowing evolved. Phase II of the traffic study was to test the overall General Plan, the land use as contained therein, to determine whether or not those land uses could be handled under the traffic system as proposed. If the answer was "yes" then we had a . coordinated long range guide off into the future and if "no" then we had to •go back and change traffic, change land use, etc. The plan we have at then moment tends to indicate the land uses contained therein, the traffic proposals, etc., will work hand in hand. The only other comment I would make is in regard to the kind of study we have done, the County Regional Planning Commission is anticipating the same kind of study for the entire East San Gabriel Valley. So we may have triggered something in West Covina that will spread over the entire valley. In conclusion this has only been an attempt to set the framework: sketch plan, sketch traffic study, general plan, and the overall traffic analysis was the sequence of events. - 1 - ADJ. C.C. - 3-24-69 Page Two TRAFFIC STUDY - PRESENTATION - Continued Mr. Zimmerman: With that format indicating the relationship of the work which is very briefly outlined technically on the sheet here, I would like to expand a bit and show some of the things which brought it about and some of the things which it is leading into. Most of us are aware of the situation that existed on Garvey Avenue prior to the San Bernardino Freeway. This was replaced by the 4-lane freeway which soon became over- loaded and went to 3-lanes in each direction and is now proposed to go to 5-lanes each directionin this area. This Traffic Study is an effort to learn hbw';-;the network of our streets should go, tell us what we are really to run into in the future. (Referred to map presented, pointed out areas and explained.) This is a conservative viewpoint of the situation and not one which is blown out of proportion to what is likely to happen. The study has been coordinated with the Division of Highways and the DMJM report in Covina. We checked with every source in the area and this includes the Los";Angeles Regional study participated in by all local. agencies under the State Division of Highways, made some years ago. The FAS system of highways was instituted and there are a number of routes in West Covina - Azusa, Glendora, Citrus north of the Freeway, Amar Road west of Grand and Grand Avenue. The State in 1957 identified street standards for FAS routes of 110' bf right-of-way with a 90' street section on the 110' right-of-way. Azusa Avenue was built to that standard within the last few years and the same on Grand Avenue and the Division of Highways has shown that it acquieses as well as the Federal Government to the tune of several million dollars with the San Bernardino Freeway widening. The Freeway underpasses includes a wide street at West Covina Parkway, which will be sufficient to •accommodate this. No change at Sunset and at Sunset Avenue approximately doubling of the freeway underpass size; an additional one at Lark Ellen, approximate doubling of Azusa Avenue underpass size; an additional bridge at Hollenbeck, doubling of the Citrus Avenue grade separation. The State now tells us at Barranca in conjunction with the Freeway building they will completely tear out the existing bridge and rebuild it to accommodate the increased traffic in that area. And you all know the Grand interchange which will go in instead of the present underpass without an interchange which now exists. So that is an indication of what this type study can do for West Covina under tie new General Plan concepts. West Covina Parkway has been put in, in view of studies done over the past several years, in conjunction with the replacement of the Garvey Avenue. We now show in the Traffic Study, a 6-lane street for West Covina Parkway. The main implementation occurs in two steps, at least. 1: If right-of-way is available for any additional widening which becomes necessary it is almost always not too difficult of a problem to find the funds for construction. Gas Tax furnishes funds for considerable construction effort by the City which need only be proportioned according to first priority. There are additional programs and.one we discussed is what is known as a Topics Program. This is federal funds oriented strictly to the problem of congested places. These funds are becoming available the first of July, and this study as a back-up could possibly be incorporated to implement the program. • The future of the program, hopefully, is that it will result as being the main basis that will result in a traffic generation pattern for the General Plan, which will again accommodate the needs of the different areas within our City. (Briefly explained the different areas.) Mr. Aiassa: The Council has received a copy of two reports, dated February 6 and March 19th. The March 19 did not have the recommended supplement. Mr. Zimmerman: Correct. We had studied to the traffic consultant 2 - this and proposed it and he agreed that he ADJ. C.C. 3-24-69 Page Three TRAFFIC STUDY - Continued felt this was a satisfactory one. Mr. Goodrich will explain that phase of it. (Mayor Gleckman asked that a copy be made of the supplement recommendation and given to Council - this was done.) (Mr. Zimmerman then suggested that he might • briefly outline the Traffic Study for the record.) Page 1 - Introduction: "The study findings are based upon the outputs of a simulated gravity traffic model. To derive the 1990 travel demand, the computer model utilized present and proposed land use, as developed from the General Plan. Recommendations.for the traffic circulation system were established through analysis of these traffic volumes. Significant features of this report and the conduct of the study are - Lane requirements were determined for all links to the future West Covina street network (1990); the General Plan Studies were completely integrated into this study; Travel forecasts were calculated by a computer model and based upon the proposed LandOUse Plan prepared by the Planning Consultant. Forecasted volumes were specified for each link in the city street system; the entire process has been adapted to in-house capabilities so that land use and network proposals can be evaluated by City staff as they develop. A supplemental technical manual was prepared and an information and procedures seminar was conducted for the Traffic and Public Works staff of the City." (Mr. Zimmerman explained that this providers the City with the method of using it with all the computer cards should there be any significant changes in the traffic program, it will be possible for the City staff to run the figures over again and come up with new volumes on the • adjusted network.) "Interfaces between the FAP, FAS, and Select System were selected (Figure 3)." Councilman Lloyd: I wonder would you enlighten me again as to the differences between the FAP and FAS - I am more interested in that. I can read the rest of it, but I do not know what FAP or FAS or Select System means. Mr. Zimmerman: The FAP is primarily involved with freeways; the FAS is some of the major non -freeway streets, some are State Highways and some are not; the Select System is the major city street system which overlaps the FAS system. Councilman Lloyd: You have outlined the problem but I don't fully understand the differences between the FAS and FAP and Select System. Mr. Zimmerman: FAP - Federal Aid Primary and FAS - Federal Aid Secondary - both are Federal Highway Systems nationwide. Councilman Lloyd:. They are then federally funded and the Select • System would be State funded? Mr. Zimmerman: The answer to that is they are all funded by State and Federal monies combined. Mr. Aiassa: The percentages vary. (Councilman Lloyd asked for further explanation regarding percentages - 80% or 60% or what.) Mr. Zimmerman: We can certainly make an analysis of that and present it. - 3 - • • • ADJ. C.C. - 3-24-69 TRAFFIC STUDY - Continued Page Four (Mr. Goodrich, Traffic Consultant, offered to summarize.) Federal Aid Primary is the highest classification in this category - FAP, it is roughly funded by about 50% federal monies which come through gas tax, the 4¢ you pay on each gallon of gasoline. Usually FAP is a freeway and always a State Highway. Glendora, for example, Route 39 - shown on Page 10 in the report but not defined. The FAP are State Highways and the highest category and generally includes Freeways. FAS - Federal Aid Secondary, is also funded about 50% through federal funds, but it goes to a lower classification of streets and generally these are county road types or streets going through a city and continuing on into other cities., The Select System is a new State designation that came in about 3 years ago and it is part of the State legislation and it is still gas tax funds that are returned to the local jurisdictions on the basis of the system they have designated as a Select System. The city has the prerogative of designating the streets they want to receive this state assistance. (this is also shown on Page 10) This varies by individual street and this is why Mr. Zimmerman said it would be necessary to get some background of this to give you the whole picture. Councilman Lloyd: Walnut Creek Parkway would probably be a Select System? Mr. Zimmerman: Unquestionably a Select System street. FAS would require approval of the State Division of Highways. Councilman Lloyd: That means then that you have the opportunity to select that system; you recommend to the State and they accept it and then it is automatically put into the FAS or higher category. Do you select the FAP? Mr. Zimmerman: The FAS system is something the local jurisdictions have a hand in, and FAP is strictly something the State and Federal Government determine. Councilman Chappell: Do we use any of our city funds for FAP or FAS maintenance? Mr. Zimmerman.: Yes, all maintenance is done with city funds. The Glendora project is State and County gas - tax spent on a FAS street. FAS funds are quite limited. I think it is $500,000 a year per county and because of the limited amount of money available some projects have to be done through other funds. Mr. Aiassa: And that is a very important point, because we just picked up some money from the County - $97,000, so we have taken one -fifth of the $500,000 for 1969-70. Also to go one step further there is a FASUE, which is a modification - additional funds are available if you can. meet a certain criteria. We were able to get some of these funds because we were able to meet the criteria and we picked up almost $500,000 (explained.) We were able to make it by one year and we received $500,000 and if there were just enough change of one more annexation or subdivision in that area we would not have gained the $500,000, but through the cooperation of the County, the State, and Federal Government we were able to get this money and thereby extend Azusa over the hill, and it only cost the City $29,000. (Explained that FASUE was originally for use for market to farm roads, but there were so many gimmicks in it no one could qualify, but the City of West Covina was able to do so. It stands for Federal Aid Suburban Urban Extension.) .- 4 - ADJ. C.C. 3-24-69 TRAFFIC STUDY - Continued Page Five Mr. Zimmerman then continued summarizing the Traffic Study report: On Pages 6-7-8-9 we have attempted to condense it and show it graphically; a discussion of some of the more important major streets is on Pages 11 through 13. Page 13 discusses priorities. This necessarily has to be *general because there are many factors that the City cannot control. We can only speak in terms of generalities because the City does not have control of all of the factors that enter into the definition of priorities, and we believe the exact identification of function and cost should remain the function of the Five Year Program of Public Works. This can be changed from time to time as the various factors affecting priorities change. Page 14 - an identification of discussion of right- of-way needs, indicates that PML recommends the preservation of rights -of way or set backs, at least for two lanes beyond those shown on the major street system. An advantage of this is if any of the streets should spurt ahead this would provide the need for some sort of a safety valve. It is not likely that additional traffic lanes can be built if necessary, requiring the tearing down of commercial buildings, etc. So the setback line' ­should be established to control building construction and develop- ing areas and rights -of -way purchases can also be delayed if setback lines are established to control the encroachment of new improvements. This is another result and gives us the guideline as to what the traffic lanes will be. Page 34 is a statement along a similar line and this compares the traffic volume with the number of lanes needed to accommodate that traffic. (Read from report.) Councilman Lloyd: Are these figures compatible with those published in the Highway Commission booklet? •Mr. Goodrich: Briefly--- yes, is.,1the -answer. These criteria are over simp-lified as such and they do vary on the type of the facility and the side friction. If you have a lot of cross traffic then more lanes., are required than the volume on it might indicate. The answer is "Yes", but everybody's standards have quite a range in them. Mr. Zimmerman: This completes the Engineering Department report, we feel the consultant has completed the requirements of his contract and we recommend the approval of it by the City Council. Don K. Goodrich, Manager I would like briefly to give you some specifics Peat, Marwick, Livingston on how we did this and then get into other Traffic Consultants specifics on the findings - traffic volumes, number of lanes, etc., for 1990. There were three primary purposes to this study: 1 - Check the circulation element of the new General Plan; 2 - Estimate right-of-way width and street needs for 20 years into the future, or 1990; 3 - provide staff capability to do similar work in the future if the land use plan should be changed or some other unforeseen condition should occur. The methodology we have used we have turned over to staff and they can repeat what we have done without having to hire a ..consultant. Methodology, the tool that we used was what is called mathematical traffic model. The newest method for forecasting traffic. •The Division of Highways and the County are going to enter into an agree - meet to do similar type work in the West San Gabriel Valley. There is nothing set up yet for the East San Gabriel Valley but it shows your City is far ahead of the others in getting this kind of an analysis accomplished. Now what this traffic model does it converts land use plans into traffic count-p. (Explained the working of the traffic model.) This is what we did to test the model and get it working for this area. We took the current land use plan for 1967 with the number of dwelling units, popula- tion, employment that existed in 1967 in the City and ran this plan through the model and came out with traffic counts for 1967 and we compared to the actual counts done by the City. When we found we were able to duplicate these counts we knew if we could repeat this for the 1990 plan we would then come up with the traffic count for 1990. - 5 - ADJ. C.C. 3-24-69 TRAFFIC STUDY - Continued Page Six The technique for doing this is done in three steps: l.- the dwelling units or the employees as shown on the General Plan, or so many acres with. certain usages have so many employees, etc. Through statistical analysis we know so many families determines so many trips; 2 - where will these trips go? What is the destination? This is calculated based on the land use and the travel time to all possible destinations within the city and outside of the city. Page 32 shows the equations for this model. Once we know the origin of the trips and the destination of the trips then we know the linkage between the origin and destination. 3 - assign this traffic movement to specific routes. Existing routes if we are working with existing land use plan, or future routes if working with the future land use plan. So we test aut,-�fut are routes by assigning traffic to them and see if they can carry it or how many lanes they would require. Now some of the aspects of this - one, would be a computer of these calculations; anoher factor in the analysis has been the Los Angeles Regional Trangqportation Study - LARTS done by the Division of Highways for the local jurisdictions and it does a forecast for the year 1980 but not to the detail required:"in','We�,t Covina. So we use the LARTSdata as a tie down for the traffic in and out of West Covina and traffic through West Covina and we did this land use model analysis-. to determine the travel within West Covina and the internal ends of traffic that would be leaving the City. Findings are on Page 5 of the report. This is a key map for the four phases following, showing the detailed analysis of four quadrants of the City. Page 6 is the detail analysis for the northwest quadrant. This map shows 1990 estimated condition, shows the network of streets tested for 1990. It also shows the State freeways for 1990, and on each linkage of each street or freeway are shown two numbers., The first figure is the 1990 estimated • average daily traffic volume in thousands. (Explained land use data) For example - Workman Avenue, present volume on Workman is around 4500. On this map the volumes range from 9 - 10 - 11 etc., the volume will go from two to three times what it is currently on Workman. And four lanes will be required. Sunset Avenue north of Merced currently has 15,000 and the forecast is for about the same. This is undoubtedly due to the impact of the Huntington Beach Freeway taking off some longer distance trips so this street has actually not increased in volume. That is one of the few that does not. (Explained other streets in the City.) Just east of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway you would expect probably the parallel street lanes would go down from today but they have not because the land use increase is so much more, as well as the streets being used as a collector road to get down to the Freeway, so its volume does not drop. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Chappell: This overall General Plan - I notice we tie in with streets h.ot in our community and they are major streets. When does the implementation start and.when do we start working with the County, Covina, LaPuente - do we do this before we make this decision? Mr. Zimmerman: This has been coordinated with the other agen- cies as far as possible. (Explained) Also this coordination was based on the LARTS made in 1961 and all cities and several surrounding counties participated in this. And as Mr. Menard stated it is presently before the E.S.G.V. Planning Commission - a proposal that the County Road Department and Division of Highways perform this study for the E.S.G.V. This has already been given to the County Road Department - our report for information, and they will undoubtedly coordinate with us. I am sure they will use the same system we have used here. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Goodrich - I noted that on Page 32 that your land use variables are held at 5. Was there a specific reason for this? You obviously had more 6 - • ADJ. C.C. 3-24-69 Page Seven TRAFFIC STUDY - Continued variables? And my next question would be what is the percentage of your accuracy of observations? You made -an assumption on this, what was it? Mr. Goodrich: Answering your second question first, the screenline check method was used for checking the accuracy. An. artificial line was drawn across the City from east to west for the year 1967 and after going through the model for 1967 and coming up with the artificial traffic o-ounts we compared the volumes of the count with the models that should be there and the east -west screenline we were within 1% and in the north - south screenline within 8% of duplicating counts. Councilman Lloyd: Was your final assumptions 5%? Mr. Goodrich: Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Goodrich: to more categories Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Goodrich: Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Goodrich: The model is able to duplicate traffic within 10% accuracy. Why did you limit to 5? The five land use criteria groupings are fairly standard. It is a matter of data availability and computer time whether you go or fewer. What was the judgment that entered into it to say we will do five? If we hgd gone to six or seven the accuracy would have been improved only 1 or 2%. And what were the five land use variables? Residential, shopping, commerical, industrial, and public, and they are defined on Page 26. Mayor Gleckman: Somewhere along the line I was under the impression we were going to talk - implementa- tion. Maybe that is strictly in-house, and maybe I misunderstood the study, but it seems to me you used the proposed General Plan and land usages to get to the particular figures you got to and now we are going to take this and put into the General Plan in order to justify their - position regarding the widening of streets, etc. My question to you is, does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail? Mr. Goodrich: This is a good question that the professionals have been kicking around for years. What this plan of circulation has done is it has checked the land use plan as to its reasonableness. Ever since land use plans with a circulation plan thrown in without checking that, they just could not possibly work together. The functions would be impossible and the orientation of the circulation system would be impossible. We have worked with the consultant of the General Plan and we have set not only where these routes should be and can go but how many lanes. This is getting into implementation and the important thing is that staff now has the findings in here and when someone wants to put in a subdivision that may fall across or near one of these routes that the right-of-way be preserved, so it is now up to staff and Council to review every proposal that comes into the City to make sure provisions are made for this plan to be implemented. Mayor Gleckman: One of the main streets we talked about was Walnut Creek Parkway. My question would be we are dealing now, and of course you people mentioned it when you started talking about going over the wash, if possible - dollarwise. You are dealing with a particular street with the - 7 - ADJ. C.C. 3-24-69 TRAFFIC STUDY - Continued Page Eight exception of Glendora east, that is in existence at the present time and we are talking about husinesses presently located without the proper right-of-way to give us the proper lanes we might need, •specifically in our Civic Center. Now if that is going to carry the amount of traffic projected, are the recommendations that we permit nb`"parking on this street to give us the extra lane or can we go to the Court House and Barker Brothers and say we need an extra lane to provide for the amount of traffic that will be created with the new off -ramp? And in addition to that, have we given any thought to how much land is available to the north of the present Walnut Creek Parkway, that we are trying to sell and which might be useful to the City in the future to widen the lanes? In other words we go out and sell the land then we condemn the land to widen the lane we knew we were going to need when we were trying to sell the land. It doesn't make sense to me unless there are comments in here which I did not find. I found going over the bridge, but I did not find the excess land that belongs to the County Flood Control. Why don't we go after it prior to it being developed? Mr. Zimmerman: Excess parcels - this is again beyond the limits of a normal traffic consultants - operation. The traffic consultant would indicate that so many lanes of traffic are needed to carry the volume needed in 1990, whether or not parking is permitted , this doesn't affect the number of lanes required. It would be a part of the general alignment of street plans. Mayor Gleckman: That is what I am getting back to, does the • tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail? This is fine to give us all these figures but my point is when if ever do we ever- take that map and put the existing things in there into effect to achieve this particular method rather than having a piece of paper and saying it would be nice to have 6 lanes, etc. In other words if the City will widen Walnut Creek Parkway to the extent of ...... we will then be able to handle the traffic that should be used on that particular street. If the City doesn't widen that street - what happens to the traffic projection - that is my question? Mr. Goodrich: There are two ways of solving this and I think you have them both in mind - if there is no substitute for the Walnut Creek_"Parkway widening then obviously the City cannot go to the land use plan that is being evolved by the Planning Consultant. If the City attempted to go with the land use plan without the traffic or attempting to change the land use plan there is a tremendous congestion built in and the economies built in, etc., and the land use plan will not be achieved and there will be some undesirable development. If you don't have the capacity you can't have the land use plan. Mayor Gleckman: people who are viewing it • to make this decision an That is my only comment - state the implementation General Plan or the City. That is my point. I was curious why this was not put in the report, in order to be able to better guide not only the General Plan, but the and the City Council in the future who may have d not necessarily the City Council, sitting in now. why it wasn't in the plan in order to better necessary if this is to be of any use to the Councilman Nichols: That is a good point. The Council makes a formal approval or adoption of this plan and obviously it is a committment to supporting the General Plan, before the hearing of the General Plan. Adversely if this Council does adopt the General Plan to the extent that General Plan is supported by this plan, then we darn well better adopt this. - 8 - ADJ. C.C. 3-24-69 Page Nine TRAFFIC STUDY - Continued Mayor Gleckman: You said it very well and that is really what I was trying to bring out, because it was not mentioned in the report. • Mr. Zimmerman: I would like to comment that in the event there is a change=- the General Plan is not approved in its present form, the information is given to us and all the data, so the staff can rerun on any change that Council would want to make, in either the street circulation system or the General Plan. Mayor Gleckman: I was also under the impression, Mr. Goodrich, that the traffic consultants were going to give us methods in which to secure financing in order to obtain this internal traffic map. I was under the impression we were going to get some type of direction in funding these projects in order to get this job done. Mr. Goodrich: We went part way in that in the identification of the FAP and FAS and the Select System. We think you should go to that route - which would be financing from the outside of the City. Mayor Gleckman: That also was not specifically in the report - that we the Council,on any implementation that would be done, should do so under the direction of the study. Stating this is what you should do in order to •accomplish this - this was not in the report and had not Mr. Lloyd received the information he received this end result would not have come out as to the manner in which to proceed to obtain the funds. I feel this should have been more definite in the report so anyone in the future would have this reformation. If there are no further questions we do have a recommendation from the staff, in fact we have two. The question was indicated here as to whether the Council at this particular time should approve the report or accept the report. What is your pleasure? Councilman Nichols: My thought was that although this is a very meaty and good report I believe the Council at this stage should not approve it per se, but accept it. The approval of the report would tend to specifically place the cart before the horse, in effect adopting the General Plan in advance of the hearing of the General Plan. I think this is something we should accept. My thought would be first accept': this and then act on the other. Mayor Gleckman: The accepting or adopting of this report has nothing to do with the second recommenda- tion, which is to approve the discharge of the consultant in view of the fact he has fulfilled the terms of the contract with the City. I would entertain a motion to the first part. Councilman Chappell: Do we want to instruct them to come back with a couple more pages in light of what we brought out this evening, or leave it as it is? Mayor Gleckman: I believe our staff can do that in the General Plan rather than require additional time of the consultant. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the Council, -receive the report with supplement from the traffic consultants - Peat, Marwick & Livingston. - 9 - w ADJ. C.C. 3�24-69 Page Ten TRAFFIC STUDY - Continued Mayor Gleckman: A point - don't we actually want in that motion that the report is to be used as one of the major considerations pertaining to the circulation element of the General Plan, otherwise we really haven't • given direction as to where this plan is to be put to use. • Councilman Nichols asked to withdraw his motion; Councilman Lloyd withdrew his second. Motion by Councilman Nichols that the Council receive the Traffic Study report from Peat, Marwick & Livingston and direct it as an input to the General Plan. Seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried. Councilman Gillum absent. Motion that the City Council approve the discharge of the consultant and that he has fulfilled the terms of the agreement with the City. Motion made by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried. Councilman Gillum absent. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that this meeting adjourn at 5:19 p.m. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR - 10 -