==CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Regular Meeting September 03, 1964 10:00 Α.Μ. Council Chamber, City Hall The meeting was called to order with Mayor Palmer presiding. Roll call: Present: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Absent: None Present also: W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager; Doren R. Eskew, City Attorney; Reuben Rountree, Jr., Director of Public Works; Robert A. Miles, Chief of Police Church. Invocation was delivered by REVEREND WALTER W. KOENIG, St. John Lutheran Councilman Long noted two corrections to be made in the Minutes of August 27th, 1964, on Page 7 of the Mimeographed copies to correct the typographical error in the spelling of "word" in the first paragraph; and on page 9, the addition of "but was separated by a railroad track with a connecting underpass.", at the end of the third paragraph. Councilman LaRue moved that the Minutes of the Meeting of August 27, 1964 be approved with these two corrections noted. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Mayor Palmer introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL TERRITORY CONSISTING OF (A) 21.26 ACRES OF LAND, SAME BEING OUT OF AND A PART OF THE WILLIAM CANNON LEAGUE, IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND (B) 8.74 ACRES OF LAND, SAME BEING OUT OF AND A PART OF THE JAMES MITCHELL SURVEY, IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; WHICH SAID ADDITIONAL TERRITORY LIES ADJACENT TO AND ADJOINS THE PRESENT BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IN PARTICULARS STATED IN THE ORDINANCE. (Deer Park, Section 3 and Balcones Hills, Section 1) _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 Councilman White moved that the ordinance be published in accordance with Article 1, Section 6 of the Charter of the City of Austin and set for public hearing on September 17, 1964 at 10:45 A.M. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None :! Councilman long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, on maps or plats of Manor Hills, Section ll, a subdivision of record in Book 16 at Page 6 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, a certain street, extending from the south line of East 51st Street in a southerly!! direction 325 feet, more or less, to end of Cul-de-sac, is designated as Aspen Grove Circle; and, WHEREAS, the present owner of all lots abutting said street has requested that the name of Aspen Grove Circle be changed to Cottonwood Circle; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the name of the following described street, designated as Aspen Grove Circle, as the same appears on the map or plat of Manor Hills, Section 11, a subdivision of record in Book 16 at Page 6 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, be and the same is hereby changed to Cottonwood Circle, said street so changed being described as follows: All that certain street in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, known as Aspen Grove Circle, as shown on a map or plat of Manor Hills, Section ll, a subdivision of record in Book 16 at Page 6 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas; which Aspen Grove Circle extends from the south line of East 51st Street in a southerly direction 325 feet, more or less, to end of Cul-de-sac. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen IaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None After reviewing the plans shown by the Director of Public Works, Councilman Shanks offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the application of the City National Bank of Austin, Texas, to construct and maintain the hereinafter described underground improvements: _ CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS September 3, 1964 Two (2) pneumatic tubes laid parallel on nine inch (9.00") centers, both to be installed within a two (2.00) foot wide space assignment which is described for convenience in four (4) parts, the centerline of which two (2.00) foot wide space assignment is described as follows: Assignments for an underground pneumatic tube system in and under East 9th Street and Congress Avenue Alley, not to exceed a width of two (2.00) feet. The centerline of said two (2.00) foot wide underground pneumatic tube system assignment being more particularly described as follows: No. 1. In East 9th Street Extending from a point 5 feet east of the west line of Congress Avenue Alley and 12 feet south of the centerline of East 9th Street, in an easterly direction 12 feet south of and parallel to the centerline of East 9th Street, to a point 52 feet west of the west line of San Jacinto Street. No. 2. In East 9th Street Extending from a point in the South line of East 9th Street 52 feet west of the west line of San Jacinto Street, at right angles to the south line of East 9th Street northerly 28 feet to a point 12 feet south of the centerline of East 9th Street. No. 3. In Congress Avenue Alley Extending from a point in the west line of Congress Avenue Alley 55 feet south of the south line of East 9th Street, at right angles to the west line of Congress Avenue Alley easterly 5 feet to a point 55 feet south of the south line of East 9th Street. No. 4. In Congress Avenue Alley - Extending from a point 55 feet south of the south line of East 9th Street and 5 feet east of the west line of Congress Avenue Alley, in a northerly direction 5 feet east of and parallel to the west line of Congress Avenue Alley, 83 feet to a point 12 feet south of the centerline of East 9th Street. be and the same is hereby granted and the Building Inspector is hereby authorized to issue a permit for the construction of such improvements, said grant and permit to be subject to the following conditions: (1) The improvements shall be constructed and maintained in compliance with all ordinances relating thereto. (2) The permit shall be issued and accepted subject to all reasonable police, traffic, fire and health regulations of the City of Austin, now existing or hereafter adopted. (3) The repair or relocation of any and all utilities in the vicinity necessitated by the laying of these improvements shall be done at the expense of the City National Bank of Austin, Texas. (4) The City National Bank of Austin, Texas, will indemnify and save the City of Austin harmless from any and all claims against said City growing out of CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 or connected with the construction or maintenance of said improvements. (5) The City of Austin may revoke such permit for good cause after notice to the City National Bank in Austin and hearing thereon, and upon such revocation the owner of such improvements will remove the same and pay all costs and expenses attendant therewith. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The City Manager explained the contract with PRINGLE BROTHERS, INC. for installation of water and sewer mains in Balcones West ($40,134.88) involved installation of water and sewer mains costing about $65,000, and the pipe is larger than is required for the subdivision itself. The City pays the difference in the cost between the larger size and the size required in the subdivision, and bids are taken on both sizes of the pipe to arrive at the difference. In this case, the City is participating to the extent of $24,098 and the balance is on refund. Mayor Palmer introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CERTAIN CONTRACT WITH PRINGLE BROTHERS, INCORPORATED, FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF MONEY PAID TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN UNDER SUCH CONTRACT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The ordinance was read the first time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its second reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed. to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman Long moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. il CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS. September 3, 1964 1 Mayor Palmer introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CERTAIN CONTRACT WITH JOHN CANNIZZO FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF MONEY PAID TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN UNDER SUCH CONTRACT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The ordinance was read the first time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its second reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman Long moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Mayor Palmer brought up the following ordinance for its third reading: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL TERRITORY CONSISTING OF 0.48 OF ONE ACRE OF LAND, SAME BEING OUT OF AND A PART OF THE JAMES P. WALLACE SURVEY NO. 57 IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; WHICH SAID ADDITIONAL TERRITORY LIES ADJACENT TO AND ADJOINS THE PRESENT BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IN PARTICULARS STATED IN THE ORDINANCE. (Unplatted land) The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman LaRue moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS September 3, 1964 Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, after an engineering and traffic investigation, the City Council has found that the circumstances are such that the maximum reasonable and safe speed for the operation of vehicles at the following location is less than thirty miles per hour when pedestrians are present; and, WHEREAS, after said investigation the City Council has found that the maximum reasonable and safe speed for the opreation of vehicles is ten (10) miles per hour when pedestrians are present at the following location: ON STREET Alley running parallel to and between Guadalupe Street and San Antonio Street Now, Therefore, FROM TO West 19th Street West 21st Street BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the City Clerk be and she is hereby authorized and instructed to record this finding in Section 33.39 of the Traffic Register. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman Long moved that MR. AMOS HEROLD be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman LaRue. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. HEROLD inquired if there were other places where the speed limit was 10 miles per hour. Councilman Long explained this was in the alley in the University area, going one-way, and St. Austin's School is there, with a Library back of it, and they have children crossing back and forth in that alley; and this is for the pedestrians in that alley. The alley will be marked just like all of the other school speed limit signs. Councilman Long moved that MR. CHARLES GRANGER, MR. MAURICE DOKE, and his Attorney, MR. OWENS be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman White. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. GRANGER, interested in obtaining a permit for a sky-ride over Lake Austin, stated they had met with the Director of Water Utilities, the Superintendent of the Water Treatment, and the Sanitation Engineer from the Health Department, to work out a plan to eliminate the sanitary problems and any chances of polution of the lake. MR. DOKE'S Attorney had met with the City Attorney's Department on the legal angles. MR. GRANGER asked consideration of the Council - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 of the request, so that they might proceed with due haste to have the sky-ride in operation by next summer. MAYOR PALMER expressed concern over the overlapping jurisdiction of the boundaries of West Lake Hills and the City of Austin. He said with the 504.9 mean sea level not a clearly defined monument, that part of the buildings could be in West Lake Hills and part in the City of Austin, and there would be the areas of police, fire protection, and garbage collection, Mr. Granger replied that all of their construction on the west side would have to be above that level to eliminate any possibility of high water. Anything below that level would be developed as beach and recreation facilities. There would be no conflict as there would have to be settled a common bench mark. Councilman Shanks stated the concern now was with the construction of the two towers. Councilman Long asked Mr. Granger if he had gone before the Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Granger had appeared before the Board, which spoke favorably about the project, but took no action. The City Manager stated the two developments were so interrelated that the towers probably would not be built unless the project on the other bank were developed. He pointed out if the permission were granted for the towers but did not carry with it the approval for the rest of the project, then approval for the towers could be given on that basis. Councilman long inquired about the status of the building if it were inside or outside the city limits. Mr. Granger stated the survey they had on the site was tied into an old grade on the side of West Lake Drive; there would be a survey tied into a U.S.G.S. bench mark. Mayor Palmer called for a report of the City Manager. The City Manager reported there were several matters to be considered, one being the matter of sanitation facilities. MR. GRANGER and MR. SEGALL met with MR. VIC SCHMIDT, MR. ULLRICH, and MR. HARGIS and they concluded it would be feasible to put a force main type of sewer line across the river from the west side to tie into the existing sewer line on the east bank, with a lift station on the west side to move the sewage through the line. It was thought this lift station and force main would operate better than an inverted syphon. Comparing the cost the line under the lake and the installation of the lift station would be no greater to Mr. Doke than his installing a type of separate sewage treatment facility and arranging for an attendant. The amount the City would want to charge for sewer service would be no greater than it would cost this group to operate a separate system themselves. Councilman Long inquired as to the cost, and the City Manager stated it would be be- tween $20 and $30,000. The City Manager said the next problem was the matter of parking facilities, which presents more or a problem than the other. The City Manager read a recom-||. mendation from the Parks and Recreation Board stressing the parking problem, and commenting on Mr. Granger's suggestions of improving the city owned land on Enfield Road and Scenic Drive now used for parking cars and boat trailers for those who launch boats at the Walsh Boat Dock. This land was provided for the public for parking when they used the public boat ramp at Walsh landing. The Board felt that the attraction, which was anticipated to be very popular would cause those using the Walsh landing to have no place to park. As the City is planning on building two more boat ramps, the attractiveness of the Walsh landing will be increased also, resulting in more cars and trailers. The report said it was not conceivable that enough parking could be provided for the public boat launching facilities and private enterprise. The Board recommended that the Council should preserve the facilities for public parking for the exclusive use of the public interested in launching their boats at the Walsh landing. The Board also recommended that the installation of the sky-ride be encouraged and approved provided the Corporation will provide adequate parking on its own facilities. The City Manager suggested that the Council go look at the parking facilities the City has now. On a map he showed the area which the City owned _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 and was using at this time, and for which it paid about $50,000 for its acquisition for parking in conjunction with the lake shore activity. Councilman White inquired what hours Mr. Granger's project would operate. Mr. Granger stated essentially the main part of the utilization would be in the evening for those going over to the restaurant. Mr. Granger said no criteria for parking had been established for this sort of operation. The City Manager reported there was a considerable amount of undeveloped land, but it was owned by the University. There is not much chance of expanding the parking facilities without buying houses and lots and moving the houses off. Some of the University land was not a part of the Brackenridge Tract. On The other matter was the City limit line and the jurisdiction of West Lake Hills and the City of Austin over the development on the west shores and this should be cleared up before construction of that project. The City Manager pointed out the zoning ordinance would require before a building permit were issued on this side, that the matter of off-street parking be worked out. the other bank the property that is in the City limits is zoned "A" Residence, and the zoning would have to be changed. Mr. Granger stated he and Mr. Osborne are trying to establish a criteria for the requirements of off-street parking in connection with this sky-ride. Councilman LaRue thought this question should be resolved before a decision was made, and this pertains to the sky-ride rather than the operation across the river. The Director of Planning discussed parking for this type of operation, stating it is just an unknown at the present time; and it will take a lot of study to go into this. There will be quite a number of people to operate the sky-ride. Mr. Granger stated if there were insufficient parking the people would not use the sky-ride, and parking was just as critical to them as to the City, and they would get the parking worked out. The Planning Director stated it was his personal feeling the sky-ride was performing a transportation function rather than recreational in terms of the motel, restaurant, and housing on the west side. No doubt the parking from the apartments across the lake would be on the east side. Councilman Long stated it would have to be a tourist and amusement attraction, or they would not come out on it financially. The Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Fowler, inquired about the construction of double deck parking, so that Mr. Granger could have some parking without diminishing the public parking spaces. The City Manager pointed out some legal questions involved--the granting of an easement, the owners' indemnifying the City against any losses, and agreeing to carry public liability insurance. Councilman Long moved that the Council hear anyone interested in this question. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Long moved that MR. AMOS HEROLD be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shanks. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. HEROLD discussed lack of revenue from Lake Austin and the expenditures made by the City for land and for Police Patrol. The City Manager explained the operation of the lake. Mr. Herold protested the fact there were two square miles of recreational area from which the City receives no revenue. Councilman LaRue moved that MR. HIBLER be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman White. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. HIBLER believed if this permit for the sky-ride were given, next would ار CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 come a ferris wheel, and the whole area would be turned into an amusement park. He said the taxpayers in this area should not have to put up with an amusement park. The City Manager showed Mr. Hibler the plans of the overall development, as not being an amusement park. Councilman Long moved that MR. TOM PERKINS be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shanks. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. PERKINS said this subject had been discussed by the Tourism Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and he read a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors asking that the City Council take such action as reasonable and necessary to encourage the construction and installation of the aerial sky-ride across Lake Austin from the Viking Marina to Lake Austin Inn together with the necessary additional private parking facilities to the east terminal. MR. AMOS HEROLD inquired if the Tom Miller Dam were paid for. The City Manager answered that the L.C.R.A. built the dam, and he believed they had recouped their cost. The Mayor explained to Mr. Herold in 1972 the City would have the right to take over the dam and buildings or to lease it to the L.C.R.A. As to the resolution from the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Herold stated they had not looked into this matter very carefully. Councilman Shanks inquired about the timetable for this aerial sky-ride and if they were willing to accept the premit for the tower instead of getting it all in one package. Mr. Granger said the order had to be in by September 15th in order to get delivery and have the operation ready for next summer. Councilman Long said the Burden fell on Mr. Granger's clients to provide the land for the off-street parking. The Mayor said the Council would go look at the area and give an answer in the afternoon. Later in the afternoon meeting the Mayor announced the Council did look at the on-site situation. The City Manager stated it appeared there was a possibility that the parking problems could be resolved, perhaps by Mr. Doke's building a double level parking arrangement; there are no problems in connection with the sewer system that cannot be resolved, and the only remaining thing that has not been completely resolved is the matter of conflicting jurisdiction. Mr. Owens, who represents the owners, indicated in letter form that they would provide adequate public liability insurance, and make provisions of indemnifying the City against any harm and damage; that provisions would be included that if there were some need of relocation or raising of the ride such would be at their expense. Discussion of the zoning was held. The City Manager pointed out whatever property that was in the city limits on the west side was in a residential In the discussion it was suggested that it would be better to go ahead and get the zoning changed so there would be no questions arising in the future. area. Councilman Long moved that MR. AMOS HEROLD be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shanks. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. HEROLD read a statement proposing that a charge be made by the City of Austin for the permit or franchise to construct and operate an aerial cable transportation system across lake Austin, stating whether the franchise or permit was worth $1,000 or $100,000 was impossible to say. To start, he suggested that a minimum of $100 be charged, with the reservation in the future the City CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 may charge for an annual franchise and for a percentage of the gross receipts; and that the City Attorneys should seek an effective agreement with the L.C.R.A. that would give the City relief from unfair burdens of policing the Lake Area, sacrificing its own investment in the Tom Miller Dam, and other costs. The City should collect a fee of $1.00 to $5.00 for every boat admitted to the Lake over its ramps. Mayor Palmer explained the franchises by buses and taxicabs, and pointed out that none of the cable ride was on city property; piers would be on privately owned land, and there would be just a simple easement across the river bed. Councilman Long stated as time went on, there might be an amusement tax added. Councilman Shanks suggested in view of the time element on this project, and the realization that there are some contingencies to be worked out, that the permission be granted to erect the structures where they asked that they be erected, and their use be contingent upon their working out the problems that are involved. Councilman LaRue stated there was only one thing that had not been resolved and that is the parking space. He asked Mr. Granger if they were ready to go into this without having better understanding about the parking. The only space available was on City property, and there has been some indication that the City would look favorably upon an idea of developing that property for a joint use; but how it was to be divided he did not know. He said there were lots of questions unanswered. The Assistant City Attorney asked Councilman Shanks if it were his idea that the permission be granted subject to working out the terms of the easement across the lake, subject to working out the sanitary sewer problems, and subject to solving the parking problem. Councilman Shanks stated subject to working out whatever problems there were, the insurance, etc., is covered in the letter from Mr. Owens. It will be necessary for them to have this aerial easement to cross the river. Councilman Long asked if these piers could be designed to be something of beauty and if they would enhance the area. Mr. Granger stated the towers were just plain. Councilman Long said many people were interested in the beauty of the lake. Councilman Shanks moved that the permission be granted to erect the structures where they asked that they be erected, and their use be contingent upon their working out the problems that are involved. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman LaRue moved that MRS. GEORGE FRANCISCO be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman Long. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MRS. FRANCISCO asked if the Council had an opportunity to examine that blind corner at 29th Street and Jefferson. The City Manager reported he had driven by, but could not determine which one she had in mind, as there seemed to be good vision on all corners there. He stated he would get with Mrs. Francisco, and drive out there and see which corner she had in mind. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 MR. AMOS HEROLD said on September 17th, there will be a public hearing on the budget, and he had been unable to get a copy of the budget. He was told he could look at one in the Clerk's Office. He thought a dozen or two copies should be made available for the public. Councilman LaRue suggested that a budget might be placed at the Public Library. Councilman Shanks stated until the Budget is adopted, there should be none floating around. The Assistant City Attorney stated the provision in the charter was that the final budget is to be reproduced in such numbers to be available to the Departments and to interested members of the public, and also that the final budget is to be filed in the City Clerk's Office. MR. BARNEY PEARSON and MR. JOHN ZERN were present to hear a report on their request to paint house numbers on curbs. The City Manager said numerous requests to do this had been received throughout the years; and so far as he knew, the City had never officially given permission to anyone to do this for a number of reasons. 1. These young men would be working in the street without barricades and not have the protection that City personnel have when they are working in the streets. 2. Their working in the street, stooping as they would be to do this painting, and their suddenly standing up as a car was approaching, might cause that car to veer and strike another car. He stated the City might be held responsible. 3. The City has continuously reserved the faces of the curbs for painting messages to the public concerning parking, traffic conditions, etc. 4. Immediately there could be conflict between house numbers on the curb. Councilman Long stated the main problem was in deciding who would be entitled to paint the curbs, as there should not be a great number of people painting curbs with different types of paint, etc., and permission could not be granted to one and not to another. Councilman Shanks moved in view of what the City Manager recommended and in view of the conditions involved, that the request be denied. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor thanked the young men and told them this was a matter that had come before the Council many times, and it was best that the requests not be granted. Councilman LaRue moved that MR. TOM NATIONS be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman Long. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. The MR. NATIONS inquired about the City's selling property on Oltorf. City Manager reported the problem as stated last week was not knowing the amount of land that would be needed for future use, stating there was a suggestion that 15' paralleling Oltorf be retained. He showed a general outlay of the area _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS , September 3, 1964 pointing out the location of an overpass over the railroad and creek, and the amount of land involved for a frontage street to connect Thornton Road into Oltorf. Not all of the property would be needed but a good part of the front portion. Mr. Nations was interested in the larger segment closer to their property and would still be interested in buying that particular square rather than the whole tract. Mr. Nations said the City property, in the resubdivision, was divided into two lots, and asked if the City would sell the singular large lot with a little strip off the bottom, or as designated in the new sesubdivision, Lot 2. There would be two property owners, Mr. Paul Vercher and Mr. W. C. Adkins. Mayor Palmer asked if the City should sell the property to them, would they consider that in five, ten or fifteen years from now, selling back to the City whatever amount it needed at the same price with no interest on the money. Mr. Nations said something along that line could be worked out, but this limitation would cut down on what they would be willing to pay, and he suggested their purchasing just the portion of the land the City knew it would not need. Mayor Palmer said it would be five or ten years before this underpass was constructed, and this land needed for the underpass could be used now for parking and access. Councilman LaRue asked that the City Manager again appraise this in light of the discussion here and see if they could come up with a solution. The Mayor asked the City Manager to explore a fair market value in light of this type of arrangement with the understanding if the land is surfaced with asphalt or concrete that the City would not make any reimbursement for any capital outlay on that type of improvement, and that it would have the right to repurchase at the same price per square foot for which it was sold on that portion the City would need, and with no interest. The City Manager stated a line could be established beyond which the City would not have to acquire right of way. He pointed out, with the limitations which would exist with reference to the use of the land, and the small tract that would remain, the City would have nothing to auction. Mr. Nations stated they would start negotiating with the City Attorney. Mayor Palmer asked them to do that and see what they could come up with next week. The Council recessed this meeting until 2:30 Ρ.Μ. RECESSED MEETING At 2:30 P.M. the Council resumed its business. 2:30 Ρ.Μ. The Mayor announced MR. DON HILL would make a report on the Annual Study of the City of Austin, Traffic, Transportation, and Police Enforcement. MR. HILL distributed a leaflet setting out the Governor's program of the goals and legislation of traffic safety. Mr. Hill presented a Certificate of Outstanding Achievement to the Police Department from the International Association of Chiefs of Police for excellence in its Traffic Law Enforcement Program. Palmer asked that CHIEF MILES accept this award for the Police Department. Mayor MR. HILL discussed the analysis stating the same situation still existed in Austin as last year, in that Government effort was stronger than Citizens effort and the overall broad scale organization of program for traffic accident prevention, and the whole program is unbalanced. The Traffic Engineering Funetion rated high. In Austin the co-ordination of the several functions and marshaling of the citizens support behind them are the things which need to improve. He pointed out there was an excellent Traffic Engineering operation; and excellent Accident Records Operation and an excellent Police Department. از CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 Austin is 2/3 of the way in the 2nd year, when it is running over the national averages in death rate or fatal accident rate per 100,000 population. He urged that stress be placed on Public Safety Education and in better organization of the total efforts. The Education Program is lax because it is not planned and has no well defined objectives. He suggested the basic pieces of the Community Safety Organization--official action by government agencies on a co-ordinated basis; civic action by civic agencies in support of the government actionCommunity Council, or a Civic Club, etc., and joint action of co-operation. In these three, Austin rated 28%, 20% and 10% respectively. Mr. Hill stated despite better than average government traffic safety services, for lack of strong overall organization and public support, these government services are losing ground to the City's traffic problems. He concluded by suggesting the following eight goals: 1. Re-activate the Inter-Departmental Coordinating Committee. 2. Strengthen the Citizens' Safety Council; review and strengthen leadership representation from major trade and civic groups; develop specific traffic improvement goals in writing; increase budget; employ full-time staff. 3. Explore and correct deficiencies in the handling of drinking drivers. 4. Explore and correct deficiencies in the handling of traffic cases appealed from Corporation Court to the County Court at Law. 5. Allocate more staff time for supervision of safety education in the public schools. 6. Install a Student Accident Reporting System in the schools, and use its accident experience summaries to guide safety instruction. 7. Mount a strong safety education program through public information media, giving major attention to defined goals and major needs for traffic improvement. 8. Conduct continuous liaison and give continuous support to all government traffic safety services. Councilman Long stated Mr. Hill had presented this and he had attended a lot of safety meetings, and it seemed to her that his own recommendations were lacking in that he ought to bring in some live and exciting programs that communities would be glad to grasp on to and make this safety work exciting so that people would join it, and that it would be socially acceptable, and bring in all kinds of new things to keep it from being such a dull program. Mr. Hill pointed out he was laying the ground work. The interest comes after the basic set up is established. He recommended that a full time man and a staff be assigned to get the job done in Austin, together with a Safety Council. He stated the power structure of the town had to be interested and on the Safety Board. The offices of the Mayor and Council are needed and possibly financial help. The Council held a question and answer session with Mr. Hill on various items. MR. HEROLD asked if the establishment of one-way streets was an advantage. Mr. Hill stated if a driver has his alertness high enough he can keep out of trouble on one-way streets; that one-way streets increase 50% or more the capacity of the streets' service and add tremendously to the efficiency of the street. The Mayor thanked Mr. Hill for making this report, and congratulated CHIEF MILES on winning this CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS September 3, 1964 award. He said the Council would study this report, and see if it could come up with something better. At 3:30 P.M. the Mayor announced the public hearing to discuss the change in the Master Plan was opened. He said when this was first proposed, the Couמcil wanted further study by the Planning Commission. He asked the Director of Planning to review the plan and request. MR. OSBORNE located the industrial areas set out in the original Master Plan. In 1962, 245 acres of industrially designated land was converted to residential on the northwest side, and 155 acres on the south side from industrial to residential. In 1963, there was some reversion on the east side around the Tracor Plant to residential, and one addition to industrial on the far eastern side. Two cases are pending now--180 acres on the northwestern side from industrial to residential, with a portion remaining in a limited industrial designa- tion; then the southeast area which involved 70 acres but now involved 295 acres under consideration. He discussed specifically the southeast 295 acre area under consideration today, located east of Highway 35 and south of the railroad. This case started out with an area of 70 acres; and in that was a 20 acre Junior High School site. The Planning Commission first considered the limited area going to Burleson Road, and suggested that it be changed; but raised the question as to what would happen to the adjoining area. The Council asked the Commission for a firm recommendation on the balance of the area east of Burleson Road. The recommendation was that the original proposal of Santa Monica Park South, and the balance of the land all the way over to the extension of Montopolis Drive, (295 acres) be changed to residential designation. There might be an extension of industrial area along Interstate 35 on the east side. Forty acres are owned by the schools for a stadium, but there are 50-60 acres that could be used both for commercial and industrial purposes. It would not have railroad frontage. The Planning Director said the potential of railroad frontage was tremendous; however, industrial development in the area from South Congress to Interstate 35 has been nill. His suggestion was that the whole area, and the area south of the railroad track should be changed to residential classification with a portion east on Interstate 35 remaining under the industrial classification, having the advantage of Interstate 35, Ben White Boulevard and the railroad trackage, and some indication of the willingness of the owners to explore the possibilities of industrial development in that area. North of the railroad would continue in industrial classification. The Commission's recommendation was firm concerning this. His recommendation was to either keep essentially the whole area as industrial or change the area as the Commission recommended. Mayor Palmer asked about utilities in the area. The Planning Director stated the area under specific consideration can be served; but the area to the east would be difficult to serve at the present time. Councilman Long inquired about the property owners in the area, especially the ones left out because of the relocating of the road, and if they had any requests one way or another. The Planning Director said there had been no specific requests. He explained the problem of marketability of land for industrial purposes and the inability of owners to hold a sizable piece of land for a long period of time based on potential industrial development. The market now is for residential development. About 100 acres of industrial development has occurred outside the designated industrial areas. MR. CHESTER FREUND, SR. stated the trackage would be better than three and a half miles from Ben White Boulevard. He was for the recommendation outlined by Mr. Osborne and the Planning Commission. The portion north of the track to Ben White Boulevard is to be left as industrial, and south of the track to be residential. : CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- September 3, 1964 MR. GERALD HART, representing MR. KELLY DEBUSK developer of this tract of Mr. Freund's, and representing Mr. Freund as a member of Bryant-Curington Consulting Firm, stated the plan as presented is exactly what they requested, and they were happy the Council's thinking concurred with theirs. If this can be established they would be very happy. MR. LUDWIG, Assistant Director of Industrial Development with the Missouri Pacific Railroad, was vitally concerned with industrial development with this long trackage that could be served with rail. The specific area was the most attractive area so far as topography was concerned as anywhere in Austin, and is a very prestige area. He gave the status of the Bergstrom Spur. The Missouri Pacific Railroad agreed to assume the maintenance of that spur to make the area attractive for industry. The Missouri Pacific is acquiring the trackage on out to Bergstrom Air Base, feeling that it had, on a long haul, great potential for industrial development. They would like to continue their desire to purchase the Bergstrom Spur. Whether or not the railroad will be interested in acquiring this track and assuming the expense of the maintenance will be determined on how much potential there will be in the area if much of the potential is taken away. Industries along this track would provide jobs to build the houses for tomorrow, looking 25 years ahead. He realized the market problem. He suggested rather than taking this choice industrial area and reverting it to residential, that there was a lot of property that could be developed residential. There are only certain areas that are desirable to have rail, and this is one of those areas, and it is an attractive area. He offered as an alternate that a bond designated for industry be established along this track about 1000'. He suggested this depth be given careful study. Their decision in acquiring this surplus trackage would be dependent upon what is done with this property. MR. HART stated if industrial development is not anticipated for 15 or 20 years, it would put a burden on the property owners, as well as the railroad if they had to: maintain the trackage. He stated the median ground that the Planning Commission recommended looked like a more realistic approach to the problem. The owners would like to put their properties to use. MR. TOM PERKINS inquired of Mr. Ludwig as to the minimum size buffer strip that could be put on the south side of the track Mr. Ludwig said he mentioned 1000, and that this particular dimension should be given careful study. He stated industries selected the sites, and the Missouri Pacific was willing to make an investment in hopes that some industry would choose this site, and this area has the possibility of developing into a prestige type of industry. In discussion of the spur, the Mayor brought out that the City owned the right of way. The Planning Director discussed the pattern of development of residential next to industrial. MR. DAVID BARROW stated he had an ownership interest on the property on the left and some on the east side. He disqualified himself as voting on the Planning Commission. He said they would like to see this one piece changed from industrial to residential classification and the land they own on both sides of it, and whatever the Council did would be all right with them. It it is left industrial, it is all right; if it is changed to residential, it should be changed all the way over. As to the buffer strip on the south side, Mr. Barrow said an industrial area should have considerable depth, and 1000' might be sufficient. He made a general statement as a member of the Planning Commission, covering the amount of land the City could reasonably expect to use for industrial in a reasonable time. He did not believe the City would want to block privately owned property indefinitely and where that line should be drawn is the problem. The Mayor noted if one industry needed 100 acres, and a related industry came in for 25 or 50 acres the land would all be used. He commented on the development of industry in Austin generally. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 MR. BILL HOWARD, Industrial Department of the Chamber of Commerce, stated quite a few small industries had been obtained and quite a few had grown. The potentials for electronics firms, etc., that would align themselves with the University or Balcones Research are well provided for in the north. Austin has a potential for a distribution center because of its central location as a point of easy reach to all major population centers. There is no other area except this area adjacent to the Bergstrom Spur that is by an Interregional Highway that could be served by rail. He said they would hate to see the Council make a decision that would adversely affect the Missouri Pacific from purchasing this spur and keeping it maintained for future use. MR. S. P. KINSER explained the recommendation of the Commission, stating it felt the railroad would be a better buffer zone; that the 40 or 85 acre tracts were not sufficient for residential use in between industrial; that 85 acres of residential would not support a school or playground or any of the facilities the City had to offer and the Commission did not feel the 85 acres should be rolled back to residential without the rest of the area. The Commission recommended against any change on the area north of the Ben White Boulevard but recommended that the area south of the railroad be used as a buffer; and on the north side, Ben White Boulevard would be a buffer, and would have access from the railroad. The Director of Planning stated his recommendation to the Commission was not to change the areas; however, if it is to be change, that it be changed on a large scale basis. Mr. Kinser stated the Planning Commission was unanimous in its recommendation as set out on the map dis- played. MR. WROE stated one consideration the Planning Commission took was the position it would be in by recommending a denial. It was unknown if the use of the property would be denied for six months, six years, or 20 years. Until there were some reasons on a more immediate basis to deny it, the Commission felt it would be better to recommend the large change. MAYOR PALMER stated members of the Council wanted to drive out again; that it had looked at the 67 acre tract, but it wants to see the whole area now, and it would give an answer as soon as possible, perhaps next week. He thanked the group, and the Planning Commission for coming down. The Council went into Executive Session. The Council resumed its business. Councilman LaRue moved that the City Manager be authorized to enter into a contract with the architectural firms of BROOKS & BARR, and BARNES, LANDES, GOODMAN & YOUNGBLOOD, their scope to include the following: 1. 2. They will be charged with creating an overall development plan of the land use of the Health and Medical Center Complex, They will be charged with creating an overall development plan of the Health and Medical Center Buildings, 3. They will be charged with the architectural services of the first building phase of Brackenridge; and that the contract be drawn and submitted to the Council for approval. The September 3, 1964 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Mayor Palmer stated the cost basis on the development plan would have to be discussed at length, and that it would be done on a per diem basis. The first phase would be done on the usual architectural fee basis. He said the scope of the work should be worked out so there would be no misunderstanding. The Assistant City Attorney stated they would work that out in detail. MAYOR PALMER inquired as to the status of eminent domain on East 2nd Street. The Assistant City Attorney said they were ready to file two of the suits, and were still negotiating with the tenant and the property owner on the other. Councilman The City Manager stated there were four petitions for fogging. Long moved that the fogging be authorized as petitioned. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The City Manager had a letter from MR. BRUNO E. SCHROEDER, Chairman Sports Events Committee, Kiwanis Club, requesting permission to present a water skiing exhibition on Town Lake just north of the City Auditorium at 4:30 P.M., Friday, September 25, as one of the events for the 1964 convention of the Kiwanis Clubs to be held in Austin, September 24-27. The exhibition would be presented by Glastron Boat Company and the Austin Water Ski Club. It would be necessary to place ski jump platforms and boats in the vicinity beginning Tuesday, September 24th. Councilman Shanks moved this permission be granted as requested. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman LaRue offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Austin has found that public necessity requires the construction of a sanitary sewer line in the City of Austin to provide for the safe elimination of sewage in the Chernosky Subdivision in the City of Austin; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has found and determined that public necessity requires the acquisition of an easement ten (10.00) feet in width across the hereinafter described tract of land for right-of-way to permit the construction of the aforesaid sanitary sewer line; and, WHEREAS, the City of Austin has negotiated with the owners of said land and has been unable to agree with such owners as to the fair cash market value of such easement; Now, Therefore, _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized and directed to file or cause to be filed against all owners and lienholders, a suit in eminent domain to acquire the hereinafter described easement for sanitary sewer purposes across the hereinafter described tract of land: A strip of land ten (10.00) feet in width, same being out of and a part of that certain tract of land containing 9.4 acres more or less out of and a part of Outlot 20, Divsi on A, of the Government Outlots adjoining the Original City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, according to a map or plat of said Outlots on file in the General Land Office of the State of Texas; the centerline of the said strip of land ten (10.00) feet in width being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the most westerly north line of the said Russell S Tinnon tract of land, same being also the most easterly south line of Chernosky Subdivision No. 10, same being of record in Book No. 4 at page 200 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, and from which point of beginning the most westerly "ell" corner of the said Russell S. Tinnon tract of land, same being also the southeast corner of Lot 11, Block 2, of Chernosky Subdivision No. 10, bears N 34° 48' E 175.3 feet; THENCE, S9° 06' E 5.02 feet to a point; THENCE, S84° 48' E 176.33 feet to a point; THENCE, S 65° 52' E 104.32 feet to point of termination in a south line of the said Russell S. Tinnon tract of land. AND IN ADDITION thereto a temporary working space easement fifteen (15.00) feet in width, to cover the period of original installation, is to be retained adjacent and parallel to the sides of the above described easement. (Frank L. Tinnon, et al, on East 19th Street) The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The City Manager stated MR. OSBORNE, Planning Director has an application for a Community Shelter Plan Project, which is a part of the Civil Defense but in this case it falls under the Planning Department instead. The United States Government is interested in such a plan as this being developed in all of the cities. Now, the interest is in getting a pilot project in each city and they have agreed they will pay the full cost of the project in Austin, as the pilot project for Texas. The contracting agency is the Stanford Research Institute which contracts with the Government, and the City would actually become a subcontractor to the Stanford Research Institute. The agency would develop for Austin a community shelter plan for Civil Defense, and the City would spend about $12,000. The Government would furnish the funds 100%. The Planning Director stated the reason Austin had been selected was because of the very fine qual- ity of Civil Defense work that has been done in this City and County, and it is one of the outstanding programs in the southwest. He pointed out although there is a concentrated shelter space in down town and the University areas; from a CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 total population standpoint, there is not enough shelter space for all of the people of the City and County. He explained the various elements to be considered in the Shelter Plan. Councilman Long inquired if this plan is entered into, is it understood that it would not cost the City a cent? The Planning Director stated it would not obligate the City nor propose that the City would go out and build a shelter. The plan is: (1) identifying and allocating the shelter space in terms of population. (2) determining what means are available to the community in terms of encouraging or providing shelter space. Most shelter spaces are provided in terms of normal construction activities. (3) how the assignments are made and how they are updated. (4) the matter of assignment and reassignments that will come through private and public development of normal building. The Planning Director stated his department would do the basic study of the actual allocation of time and distance, shelter space, population, etc., but the Civil Defense Department would be working with them. The actual assignment of space would probably be made by the Civil Defense Agency, and the implementation of the plan carried out by the Civil Defense. Councilman Lang inquired if the $12,000 would be assigned to the Planning Department. The Planning Director stated it would be assigned to the City of Austin; the Planning Department would make the study and use one Civil Defense person full time. The Planning Director stated this was a proposal which the City Manager would send to the Stanford Research Institute stating the City would agree to do this shelter plan; and ask them to draw up a contract in terms of their proposal. The Council would approve the preparation of a proposal. In about two weeks the contract will be back for the Council. Councilman Long moved that the Council accept the recommendation submitted to the Council by Mr. Osborne. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman Long stated she noticed that the Community Council appointed a Committee to do an economics study through some Agency and it sounds as though they are doing the same thing the City is doing on the Community Renewal Program. The Planning Director stated it was his understanding this was not a duplication of work; that it is going primarily into some of the questions of human resources and is a specialized area in low income problems that relate to the poverty program. The community development program being carried on by the City will be of assistance to the various groups--Employment Commission, Community Councils or other groups to carry out the various aspects of the poverty program. Community Development Project is far ahead of any other city. Councilman Shanks moved that MR. STUART LONG be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman White, Roll call showed a unanimous vote. Austin's MR. LONG stated the Travis County Democratic Committee was having a reception Monday at 11:15 for the Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall. He invited the members of the Council to come to the Sun Room, Austin Hotel _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964. right after the parade and meet the Secretary while he was in town. Mayor Palmer expressed appreciation for the invitation. He said Austin had been honored by some very distinguished people and they want to let them know they are really welcome. The City Manager reviewed the contract with SOUTHERN UNION GAS COMPANY to buy gas for its power plants for five years, with a provision that if any additional Power Plant Units were built, the City had the privilege of taking gas from another supply. The City does have a contract with another supplier to provide gas for the Holly Street Unit 2. The Southern Union contract at that time applied to five units at the Seaholm Plant and one at Holly Street. Southern Union had a contract supporting this one with the City with United Gas Com- pany, which put a provision in that contract and which was carried forward in the contract with the City as a "take or pay" provision. The City Manager read the provision from the contract, covering the fact that the City could buy gas from others; operate other power plants, even plants utilizing atomic energy, for which it would take its fuel requirements from another supplier and install additional generating units at its power plants covered, but Southern Union might not supply the gas for those units. So to insure the Company of sales of gas commensurate to its obligation to have gas available for delivery it was set up that the City would agree to take during the calendar year, beginning in 1961 and cach year thereafter, a quantity of gas required to do one or the other of two things, one being to buy all of the gas which the City needs for its own distribution system, which is the City of Austin and the surrounding area it serves; the other, because of the interchange of electricity, and the City might sell electricity on a wholesale basis, is the quantity of gas necessary to provide fuel for the operation at capacity of the electric power plants and units covered by the contract when such plants and units are operating on annual load factor which is the same load factor as that of the City's Power Distribution System. The provision continues that the City agrees to take gas during each calendar year at a load factor which is never less than the load factor than the City's Power Distribution System for the same year. He explained in detail how the annual load factor of the City's Distribution System should be determined. !! i! The City Manager then described in detail the formula of the No. 1 provision. Discussions had been held with Southern Union Gas Company and United Gas Company. One of the differences with United was in the force majeure clause which the City thought applied to the explosion in Seaholm Plant. Also Holly No. 1 was out for two months for repair during the winter months. The City Manager stated the way the City construed the contract was, the better of these two formulas was No. 2, which was the load factor; and that the City was entitled to this force majeure provision which would reduce the overall capacity of the plant for the year, and the load factor percentage would be taken of that. The City Manager explained how they figured the load factor to be 46%; then applying the 46% to the generator capacity, after the force majeure part is deducted, the quantity of gas is 4,600,000 mcf, between August 1st and the 1st of the year. He stated if they were right about this, the City would owe the Company nothing. The Gas Company says what they come up with is between 5 and 6,000,000 mef instead of 4 and it is the difference they were talking about now. The City Manager told the Company the City thought that was the maximum that the City would be required to take, and it would be taking that anyway, and that the City would agree to take that much gas from them between now and the end of the year and that the company agree that they would not hold the City to any more than that. The City Manager stated they countered today with a proposal that the CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS September 3, 1964 difference be split at 5,000,000 mcf. He said the City believed it was better off by agreeing to buy 5,000,000 mcf for the rest of the year than it would be to continue the contract. Councilman Long asked why the compromise. The City Manager stated this would not be a compromise, as the City would be taking the gas anyway. He said the City wanted to get rid of the question now by agreeing to buy a specified number of cubic feet of gas, and it would be the amount of gas that the City would be buying anyway. He told them they would have to have a force majeure clause in such a contract. He asked the Council to authorize him to negotiate with the Company to provide for the taking by the city of 5,000,000 mef and the cancellation of this "take or pay" clause in the old contract. Councilman Shanks moved that the City Manager be instructed to negotiate in that manner, 5,000,000 mcf or less, with a force majeure clause. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman Shanks moved that the gas hearing that was discussed sometime in the past be set for September 10th, at 2:30 Ρ.Μ. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman Long stated this was just a hearing; and if the Council wanted The some rate man to come in and study it, could that be done at that time. Mayor stated this was the public hearing. The City Manager inquired if the Council had copies of a letter with some attached information regarding the gas rate increase. The City Council received notice from the City Manager that the following applications for change of zoning had been referred to the Planning Commission and set for public hearing before the Council at 11:00 A.M., October 8, 1964: HENRY GABLE AND ASSOCIATES, By E. M. DeGeurin U-TOTE'M OF AUSTIN, INC., By Robert C. Sneed J. B. FORD HARRY F. PORTER By Rogan B. Giles 2501-2517 Rio Grande St. 608-614 West 25th Street 2500-2516 Seton Avenue 615-621 West 26th Street 3000-3006 South Congress 101-109 LaVista Street 2007-2023 Ivy Trail 600 Riverside Drive From "B" Residence 3rd Height & Area To "C" Commercial 4th Height & Area From "C" Commercial & "C-1" Commercial 2nd Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 2nd Height & Area From "C" Commercial 6th Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 6th Height & Area From "D" Industrial 2nd Height & Area To "C-2" Commercial 2nd Height & Area HARDY M. SMITH MOTON H. CROCKETT, JR. MRS. MAXINE MOCK By Bob J. Bailey MARGARET KNIPPA BEST ET AL By Kash-Karry, Inc. CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK in Austin By Kash-Karry, Inc. WESTENFIELD DEVELOP- MENT CO., By Kash-Karry, Inc. CARRINGTON'S UNIVER- SITY HILLS By Paul D. Jones BOB AMMANN By Robert C. Sneed BOB AMMANN By Robert C. Sneed LOUTE GAGE HENRY W. STUDIMAN ESTATES and JACK MCKAY, By Fancher Archer CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK, Trustee by L. V. Bloomquist CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS 2905 San Gabriel Street 6200-6208 Cameron Road 5507-5517 Helen 2401-2407 San Gabriel St. 904-914 West 24th Street September 3, 1964 5513-5601 Parkcrest Drive 3423-3435 Northland Drive From "BB" Residence To "0" Office From "A" Residence To "C-1" Commercial From "A" Residence To "B" Residence From "C" Commercial 2nd Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 2nd Height & Area From "LR" Local Retail To "C-1" Commercial 1207-1211 West Lynn Street From "C" Commercial 1517-1521 West 13th Street To "C-1" Commercial Tract 1 6700-6722 Manor Road 3508-3520 Loyola Lane Tract 2 Rear of 6706-6710 Manor Road Rear of 3512-3516 Loyola Lane 8916-8922 North Lamar Boulevard Rear of 8916-8922 North Lamar Boulevard 1026 East 53rd Street 1014 East 38th Street 3801-3803 Harmon Avenue 1016 East 38th Street 3401-3405 Northland Drive 5603-5616 Balcones Drive From "A" Residence To "LR" Local Retail From "A" Residence To "C-1" Commercial From "C" Commercial 6th Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 6th Height & Area From "C" Commercial 6th Height & Area and "GR" General Retail 1st Height & Area To "C-2" Commercial 6th Height & Area From "A" Residence 5th Height & Area To "C" Commercial 5th Height & Area From "A" Residence 1st Height & Area To "C" Commercial 5th Height & Area From "LR" Local Retail To "GR" General Retail ī یز HAROLD H. ADKINS By Arthur E. Pihlgren GLEN E. LEWIS By Arthur E. Pihlgren WILLIAM J. JOSEPH By Arthur E. Pihlgren _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS:September 3, 1964 7201-7203 North Lamar Blvd. From "C" Commercial 712-720 St. Johns Avenue To "C-1" Commercial From "B" Residence 6th Height & Area Tract 1 921-929 Oltorf Street 2401-2405 South 5th Street To "LR" Local Retail Tract 2 Rear of 2403-2405 South 5th Street Rear of 923-927 Oltorf St. 1808 Briarcliff 6th Height & Area From "B" Residence 6th Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 6th Height & Area From "GR" General Re- tail 6th Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 6th Height & Area adjourn. vote: There being no further business Councilman White moved that the Council The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Ayes: Noes: None The Council adjourned at 7:00 P.M. subject to the call of the Mayor. ATTEST: 2 City Clerk APPROVED Mayor il