= CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Regular Meeting January 22, 1976 10:00 Α.Μ. Council Chambers 301 West Second Street The meeting was called to order with Mayor Friedman presiding. Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell Absent: None The Invocation was delivered by REVEREND MERLE FRANKE, First English Lutheran Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Pro Tem Snell moved that the Council approve the Minutes for January 15, 1976, and the Special Meeting Minutes for January 15, 1976. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino Noes: None CHILDREN'S DENTAL HEALTH WEEK Mayor Friedman read and presented a proclamation to Dr. Sam Schneider and Mrs. Steve Norman proclaiming the week of February 1-7, 1976, as "Children's Dental Health Week" and urged all citizens and all community organizations to join in the observance. Mrs. Norman commented that during the Children's Dental Health Week there would be several activities associated with this Week in an effort to promote good children's dental health. Dr. Schneider and Mrs. Norman thanked the Council for the proclamation. 38 72 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 AUSTIN PATRIOT ENLISTMENT, 1976 Mayor Friedman read and then presented a proclamation to Maline McCalla and Mr. Doug Nichols, Co-Chairpersons of the Austin Bicentennial Commission and Mr. Beverly Sheffield, Director of Bicentennial Affairs, proclaiming the next 76 days as "Austin Patriot Enlistment, 1976," and encouraged all residents to join in supporting the American Bicentennial in Austin by enlisting as a Patriot. Maline McCalla thanked the Council for the opportunity that the proclamation would put before the citizens of Austin to support their Bicentennial by becoming Austin Patriots. She noted there would be a party for all to attend and for participation in this party, they will receive some momento and have their names recorded in annals of time. She stressed that this Bicentennial effort was a genuine one on the part of many people and hoped it would not be confused with any form of commercialism. By this participation in the Patriot Program, people will have the opportunity to support the plan that they have planned themselves. Ms. McCalla thanked the Council for this opportunity to initiate the program today. The first Austin Patriot was recognized at this time as being "Uncle Sam" and he was presented with his membership card. He thanked everyone and stated it was his 56th appearance before different organizations since June 1. A REQUEST CONCERNING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT Mr. Robert Young appeared before the Council in Mr. Ken Wendler's stead and stated that he is a consultant for the Travis County Democratic Party. He referred to the letter that was sent to the Council requesting the assistance of certain specific City staff members from the City Manager's office, City Attorney's office and the Planning Department to aid in the preparation of submissions to the Federal Civil Rights Division in an effort to obtain clearance for activities associated with the conduct of elections in 1976. This letter was filed due to a request by the City Manager and felt that a well-planned presentation had been prepared for Washington, D. C. Mr. Young was requesting Council approval of use and cooperation of the staff individuals. City Manager Dan Davidson stated his recommendation of this request and felt that this was certainly a proper approach. Councilmember Lebermann moved that the Council approve the request for the use and cooperation of staff individuals. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Hofmann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman Noes: None HEARING ON VACATION OF STREET AND ALLEY Mayor Friedman opened the public hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on the proposed vacation of the following street and alley and passage of the ordinance: 73 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXASJanuary 22, 1976 RED RIVER STREET from the north line of East 12th to the south line of East 15th Street and from the north line of East 15th Street to the south line of East 17th Street and East 14TH STREET ALLEY from the west line of Red River Street westerly 228.87 feet. (Red River Street from the north line of East 12th Street to the south line of East 15th Street and East 14th Street Alley was requested by the City of Austin and Red River Street from the north line of East 15th Street to the South line of East 17th Street was requested by Mr. E. D. Walker, representing the University of Texas at Austin) In response to Mayor Friedman's question as to whether this was filed under the present policies used for charging adjacent property owners for the increase to their property, MR. REUBEN ROUNTREE, Director of Public Works commented that it was. He noted that the City owns all of the property on the portion south of 15th Street that is being vacated. North of 15th Street the property belongs to the University of Texas and the processing fee was paid. Mayor Friedman introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND PERPETUALLY CLOSING THOSE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF RED RIVER STREET AND EAST 14TH STREET ALLEY, IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; RETAINING EASEMENTS IN THE CITY FOR GAS, WASTE WATER, ELECTRIC UTILITY, TELEPHONE AND WATER LINE PURPOSES; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF AN ORDINANCE ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember Lebermann moved that the Council close the public hearing, waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. RELEASE OF EASEMENTS Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing release of the following easements: The south 140.00 feet of the Drainage and Public Utility Easements ten (10.00) feet in width centered on the common lot line between Lots 12 and 13, Block M, NORTHWEST HILLS, NORTHWEST OAKS III, a subdivision. (Requested by Leon A. Whitney, owner) The motion, seconded by Coundiamembert Himmelblaupocarried by the fellowing vote: יו Ayes: Councilmembers Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmember Himmelblau Noes: None Mayor Friedman pointed out that this was postponed before pending the proper notification being sent to surrounding property owners. 74 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 Mr. Reuben Rountree noted that he had not received any objection to these easements. In response to Councilmember Linn's question concerning the drainage easement, Mr. Rountree stated that the slide, being presented to the Council at this time, did not show the grade of the street; but there was a straight grade and an inlet thereby eliminating the need for an easement for drainage purposes. Councilmember Linn requested that when these easements are presented to the Council, that the elevations accompany them. Mr. Rountree stated this would be done. Mayor Friedman extended his thanks to Mr. Leon Whitney, owner, for waiting on the delay while the property owners were notified. AFFILIATION AGREEMENT Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing an Affiliation between the City of Austin for Brackenridge Hospital, Department of Physical Therapy, and the State of New York at Buffalo, Office of Continuing Education, School of Health Related Professions, Department of Physical Therapy. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Hofmann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Bebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann Noes: None In response to Councilmember Himmelblau's question regarding the standing of the University, MR. WILL BROWN, Administrator of Buackenridge, commented that Mr. Bork, Director of Continuing Education at the State University, is a graduate of the University of Texas. This affiliation would entail three or four students coming to the hospital for 16 weeks of clinical laboratory training. He felt this would open opportunities for some of the hospitals in Texas for employing physical therapists. There would not be any expense to the City for this program. Councilmember Himmelblau indicated that if this occurred again, she would want to have thesstanding of the schools. Mr. Brown stated this request would be complied with. CONTRACTS AWARDED Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract: KRUEGER ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 12001 Hirsch Road Houston, Texas - Retubing and Repair of Tube Bundle, Feedwater Heater No. 72, Seaholm Power Plant, Power Production Division. Item No. 1; 1 ea. @ $9,763.00 The motion, sedonded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Noes: None Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract: 75 January 22, 1976 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 201 North St. Mary's Street San Antonio, Texas - Two 3,000 Amp, 480Y/277 Volt, Network Protectors and eight 1,600 Amp, 480Y/277 Volt, Network Protectors, Electric Department. Item 1; 2 ea. @ $10,660 Item 2; 8 ea. @ $ 6,865 Total $76,240.00 The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Noes: None Councilmember Linn pointed out that this corporation does not have any minorities. Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 1609 Shoal Creek Boulevard Austin, Texas - Fixed Term Plan. Magnetic Tape Units, Data Systems Department. Item No. 1, 2 units @ $527.00 monthly Two year Fixed Term Plan (lease) The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Noes: None Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract: SIDAL ALUMINUM CORPORATION 115 Progress Avenue Springfield, Massachusetts Aluminum Traffic Sign Post, Urban Transportation Item 1 $8,370.00 The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Ayes: Noes: None Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contracts: Bid Award: LOREYS FIRE PROTECTION 4407 Sinclair Austin, Texas Fire Hose, Fire Department Item 1 and 2 $10,026.00 CLAUDE WRIGHT & ASSOCIATES 9018 Ruland, Building E Houston, Texas 76 =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 Item 3 $1,935.00 The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmember Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Noes: None Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contracts: Bid Award: ROOSTER ANDREWS SPORTING GOODS, INC. 3901 Guadalupe Street Austin, Texas SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY Commercial Sales 2139 Anderson Lane Austin, Texas - Athletic Equipment, Parks and Recreation Department. Item 2-5, 7-31, 33-41, 42-56 59-69, 72-78, and 80-101 $37,385.20 Items 1, 6, 32, 57, 58, 70, 71, and 79 $3,293.55 The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Coinntimembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Noes: None In response to Councilmember Linn's question concerning the quality of this equipment, MR. SOLON BENNETT, Director of Purchasing, noted that the Parks and Recreation Department aided him ineevaluating samples of the items that were proposed by Sears, Roebuck and Company. After this evaluation, they felt the items were not as good quality as the ones from Rooster Andrews Sporting Goods. HEARING ON PROPOSED URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Mayor Friedman opened the public hearing scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on the proposed Urban Transportation Commission and passage of the Ordinance. MR. JOE TERNUS, Director of Urban Transportation, noted that the Council had in their possession the proposed Ordinance that was first suggested by the League of Women Voters. During the past several months, the Ordinance was reviewed by various City departments as well as Councilmember Lebermann's office to insure that this Ordinance would have no apparent conflicts with any other boards or their responsibilities. Mr. Ternus stated that this commission should encourage the citizens' participation and felt that this Ordinance would address all of the needs in the area of transportation. Another major advantage would be the coordination of all the various modes of transportation and Austin would be one of the very few cities in the nation that would have a complete transportation 77 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 concept. He felt this Ordinance is adequate to meet the needs of the City, provides no conflicts with any other commissions or boards and submits it for the Council to consider. Mr. Ternus took this opportunity to acknowledge the work that the League had done in developing this Ordinance. Ms. Susan Reid, President of the League of Women Voters, commented that their purpose was to create a commission that would consolidate and coordinate citizen review of transportation planning and transportation related matters, and would facilitate citizen participation in the transportation planning process. This proposed Ordinance has been revised by the League and the Urban Transportation Department as well as various boards and commissions; and the League felt that this is an excellent ordinance. Ms. Reid definitely felt that the Commission would accomplish the goals that were set out. Under Section 3 of the Ordinance, Ms. Reid requested that there be an amendment to the Ordinance that would state, "Safety related programs and projects." She felt that the Commission should be cognizant of safety and to make it an integral part of all its transportation deliberations; that safety be planned and built into the transportation system. If there is some overlap in the area of safety, it is such an important subject that it justifies consideration by both groups. Ms. Reid felt that by creating this Commission it would be a positive step in efficiency in government and would increase citizen participation. This Commission is consistent with the League of Women Voters position on transportation which would includedthese concerns: 1. Cities must have the opportunity to plan transportation systems of their own choice. 2. Transportation planning and construction must weigh all social and environmental costs. 3. That continuous and wide spread community participation must be insured throughout the planning and operation of any transit program. Mayor Friedman felt that there would not be any problem with the amendment; however, after reviewing the Ordinance he noticed that one thing was lacking and that was a representative with the Austin Transportation Study and would like to amend the Ordinance whereby the Chairperson of the Commission would be citizen representative on the Austin Transportation Study as long as the Study exists. Ms. Reid noted that this would be no problem since it would be in harmony with their idea of consolidation and coordination in planning. In response to Councilmember Himmelblau's question as to having an exofficio member from the Traffic Safety Commission to participate in the Commission's meetings, Ms. Reid indicated that since there is an overlap of several boards, this would possibly create the need for an ex-officio from other boards. Councilmember Lebermann suggested the possibility of having a subcommittee instead of an ex-officio, Ms. Reid felt that it should be organized this way. MR. DOUG NICHOLS commented that he had been asked by Mr. Bill Nolan, Chairman of the Traffic Safety Commission, to appear before the Council. Mr. Nichols noted that he had been a member of the Traffic Safety Commission since 1971, and that it had definitely been an education for him. He felt there was a real problem with traffic safety and felt that the Traffic Safety Commission 7 =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 should be held as is. By doing this, it would give the Council additional input and another view on matters. Mr. Nichols definitely felt that there should be two commissions to consider problems from different viewpoints and that the Traffic Safety Commission was needed to teach traffic safety. Councilmember Lebermann pointed out that the Traffic Safety Commission would not be dissolved but would continue. Mr. George Henry, Traffic Safety Official of Urban Transportation, felt with the participation of the two commissions it would give the Council a wider view upon which to make their decisions. Councilmember Linn supported this idea by stating that by having additional groups involved one would get a wider point of view. Mr. Henry was concerned that there might be a conflict of opinions inssome matters. Councilmember Lebermann felt that there would not be any conflict between the two and they would work very well together. Mayor Friedman commented that the Ordinance called for the Urban Transportation Commission to take into consideration elements of safety and this would be in a cooperative effort with all other transportation areas which would include the Traffic Safety Commission. Mr. Nichols noted that the Governor emphasized his concern with the number of people being killed on highways. If the Traffic Safety Officer is dissolved, it could involve the termination of certain grants from the government to sponsor an officer to oversee the traffic safety. Mayor Friedman noted that both of the commissions would proceed cooperatively. The KAY HART, President of "We Care Austin," a local environmental organization, supported the proposed Commission and felt that there was a close relation- ship between the environmentaof the City and the transportation project. most positive aspect of the Commission will be in facilitating citizen participation and she had no objections to the proposed amendments. Mr. Ternus reiterated that the Chairperson of the Commission would serve as the citizen appointee on the Steering Committee. Mayor Friedman requested that the Chairperson become the citizen representative as appointed by the Mayor and that this be done by ordinance. Councilmember Lebermann referred to Section 3 of the Ordinance, and asked that the wording be changed from "The Department of Urban Transportation" to "All transportation related City departments." Councilmember Linn suggested that it be "The Department of Urban Transportation and other transportation related departments." She commented that she would like to keep the Department of Urban Transportation specifically named. Councilmember Lebermann congratulated Mr. Ternus and his department that the had worked so closely with the League of Women Voters; that everyone owed League a great deal of gratitude for proposing this Ordinance and for working so closely in an excellent spirit of compromise to complete the Ordinance. He noted his pleasure in being able to work with this in this completion of the Ordinance. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 Mayor Friedman introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; DEFINING ITS MEMBERSHIP, PURPOSE, FUNCTION AND DUTIES; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF AN ORDINANCE ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember Lebermann moved that the Council close the public hearing, waive the requirement for three readings, declare aneemergency, and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately, including the following amendments: 1. Under Section 3 the phrase "Safety related programs and projects: would be added. 2. That the Chairperson of the Urban Transportation Commission would be the citizen representative on the Austin Transportation Study as long as the Study exists. 3. Under Section 3 that the wording be changed to read "The Department of Urban Transportation and other transportation-related City Departments!" The motion, seconded by Councilmember Hofmann, carried by the following vote: Councilmember Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn Ayes: Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. 79 HEARING ON HCD FUNDING OF BOGGY CREEK IMPROVEMENTS AND PASSAGE OF APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE Councilmember Trevino suggested that this be postponed until January 29 when all of the HCD money would be considered. The reason for this request is due to one of the recommendations made by the City Engineer that the bridge on Shady Lane has created considerable interest in that neighborhood and also the parents from Brooke School that requested recreational equipment have not been met with yet. Therefore, he asked that this be postponed and all of it be considered at one time. Councilmember Trevino moved that the Council continue the public hearing on HCD funding of Boggy Creek Improvements and passage of Appropriation Ordinance to January 29, 1976, at 2:30 p.m. along with the HCD public hearing. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Noes: Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino None 80 _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 SELECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Councilmember Linn moved that the Council select the firm of IDI ARCHITECTS, INC., for architectural services in connection with the following 1976 C.I.P. Projects for the Parks and Recreation Department: Fiesta Gardens Building Renovations 1. 2. Pan American Park Improvements 3. Austin Recreation Center Renovations The motion, seconded by Councilmember Trevino, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman Noes: None Councilmember Linn moved that the Council select the firm of COFFEE & CRIER, ARCHITECTS for architectural services in connection with the following 1976 C.I.P. Projects for the Parks and Recreation Department: 1. Guerrero Park Restroom Shelder 2. Glenn Oaks Park Restrooms 3. Butler Softball Field Restrooms 4. Bull Creek Park Restrooms 5. Lake Long Restrooms The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell Noes: None SELECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR PROJECT FOR BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL Councilmember Himmelblau moved that the Council select the firm of BROOKS, BARR, GRAEBER & WHITE for architectural services in connection with the following 1976 C.I.P. Project for Brackenridge Hospital: Brackenridge Parking Structure The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Counatimember Himmelblau Noes: None In response to Councilmember Hofmann's question as to the advantages and disadvantages of keeping the same firm already employed at Brackenridge, MR. A. M. ELDRIDGE, Director of Construction Management, indicated his approval of any of the recommended firms. The reason the Brackenridge architects were included was because they are experienced in this field. He felt that it would be easier to work with a firm that is already located in the area doing related work. 81 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 Councilmember Himmelblau stated the reason for her motion for the firm of BROOKS, BARR, GRAEBER & WHITE was because they recently completed a parking garage at the Texas Medical Center in Houston which is similar to the one proposed by the City. Councilmember Linn noted that one of the parking garages at Southwest Educational Research Laboratory was completed by this firm and felt it was one of the best looking parking garages that she had seen. Councilmember Trevino supported this motion because one of the principals had indicated an interest in seeking minority professionals. Mayor Friedman stressed that one of the obligations the Council has is to try to distribute the work equally to as many firms as possible. ZONING HEARING Mayor Friedman announced that the Council would hear the zoning case scheduled for 11:00 alm. for public hearing at this time. Pursuant to published notice thereof, the following zoning case was publicly heard: NPC ASSOCIATES By Leo P. Danze C14-76-007 1709-1753 & 1708- 1752 Rundberg Lane, also bounded by Rutland Drive From "B" Residence and "BB" Residence 1st Height and Area To a Planned Unit Development of 102 attached single-family dwelling units, recreation and dommdingpen space called "QUAIL RUN". RECOMMENDED by the Planning Commission subject to compliance with departmental requirements and recommendations and a restrictive covenant providing for special permit approval on the area between the drain- age ditch and Colony Creek Drive. Mr. Dick Lillie, Director of Planning, noted that this was recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission subject to departmental requirements. One of these requirements was a creek permit that would provide protection to the creek that the City has been interested in for some time in order to make corrections. The hearing was postponed or continued from two weeks ago at the request of the Engineering Department and Environmental Department to assure that the program as proposed would not hegatively impact the creek within the project or downstream. Mr. Lillie stated that he was not associated with that review and requested that the developer and planners as well as a representative from the Environmental Resource Management and the Engineering Department speak to the work that has been completed during theepast two weeks. Dr. Maureen McReynolds, Director of Environmental Resource Management, commented that the applicant had been working with the Engineering Department and that she was assured that the requests would be satisfied when the creek permit is applied for. Mr. Leo Danze noted that the site would contain 7.4 units per acre, which would be fairly low density. The drainage problem in the area does not originate from this site but is a problem further downstream. The developer has worked 82 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 with the Engineering Department to alleviate the problem downstream and indicated that they are willing to do what is necessary to limit the amount of runoff that is generated on the site. In response to Councilmember Linn's question concerning the open space, Mr. Danze indicated that there was about 48%. In response to Councilmember Himmelblau's question as to the appearance being similar to Old Towne, Mr. Danze stated that this was primarily one-story townhouses with two families per building while Old Towne has six to five families per building. At this point, Mr. Danze displayed the plan of the proposed development. Councilmember Himmelblau indicated her approval of the one-story units and felt there was a tremendous need for this type of development. City Manager Dan Davidson commented that if this project was approved, it would require a creek permit, and if the Council should approve the project, it should be subject to any departmental requirements either in connection with the creek permit or anything else. The reason it was deleted from the agenda before was to review some downstream problems that he felt was the obligation of the developer. It was his understanding that the developer has agreed to comply with the request to complete the improvements that would be asked for. Mr. Davidson suggested that this project be considered by the Council subject to departmental requirements both from the standpoint of theddownstream drainage requirements and also the creek permit. He pointed out that these requirements were agreed to by the firm. In response to Councilmember Linn's question, Mr. Davidson noted that the Council could approve this case but construction could not occur until all the departmental requirements were met in connection with the creek permit and until the City was satisfied on the downstream improvements that would have to be undertaken. Mr. Danze asked if the streets and utilities could be started if it was approved, but not construction of the units. City Manager Davidson pointed out that it was not fair to ask the Council to indicate that anything could proceed until there was the opportunity to study more regarding the site as it relates to the proposed streets. Mr. Davidson stated that the City would be guaranteed that the work involving the downstream would be completed. Mr. Homer Reed, Deputy City Manager, submitted that he met with the Vice-President of NPC and their engineer and the City Engineer and rait that the City would have to have the firm guarantee, a bond or a letter of credit on the downstream work, But except for that requirement, he felt the downstream work should not defer the project. The creek ordinance gives the City Engineer the control to require the proper handling of the drainage within the project and the detailed engineering for this has not been done so the creek permit has not been issued. NPC has agreed fully with the requirements that the City has felt they are responsible for downstream and have agreed to the plans that have been prepared. Councilmember Linn moved that the Council grant the Planned Unit Development as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Trevino, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann Noes: None CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 The Mayor announced that the change had been granted to a Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions, and the City Attorney was instructed to draw the necessary ordinance to cover. GRANT APPLICATION FOR A SOCIAL PLANNING PROGRAM Councilmember Linn moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing submission of a grant application to the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare for the operation of a Social Planning Program for a twelve month period, beginning on the date of the grant award. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Noes: None HEARING SET TO CONSIDER THE 1976-77 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND APPLICATION Councilmember Hofmann moved that the Council set a hearing for 2:30 p.m. on January 29, 1976, to give citizens of Austin an opportunity to express their views on the needs and priorities to be addressed in the 1976-77 Housing and Community Development Program and Application. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmember Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn Noes: None HEARING SET TO CONSIDER CLOSING A STREET TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Councilmember Linn moved that the Council set a hearing for 10:30 a.m. on February 12, 1976, to consider the closing of West 8th Street to vehicular traffic in the Original City of Austin from the east line of San Antonio Street in an easterly direction 276.00 feet more or less to the west line of Guadalupe Street. (Requested by the staff of the City of Austin) The motion, seconded by Councilmember Trevino, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino Noes: None AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO ADJUST PARKS AND RECREATION FEES Mayor Friedman indicated that there had been considerable finterest from interested citizens concerning amending the City Code Section 24-2.1(a) through (f) to adjust Parks and Recreation Fees; therefore, he suggested that this be postponed to allow more time for input. Councilmember Trevino moved that the Council postpone amending the Austin City Code Section 24-2.1(a) through (f) to adjust Parks and Recreation fees. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: 3 84 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman Noes: None ZONING ORDINANCES Mayor Friedman introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE ORDERING A CHANGE IN USE AND CHANGING THE USE MAPS ACCOMPANYING CHAPTER 45 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967 AS FOLLOWS: (1) TRACT ONE: 50 X 110 FEET OUT OF LOTS 65 AND 66, OAKWOOD, A RESUBDIVISION OUT OF OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, DIVISION "D"; AND, TRACT TWO: 6 X 8 FEET OUT OF LOT 65, OAKWOOD, A RESUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, DIVISION "D," LOCALLY KNOWN AS 3109 GRANVIEW; LOT 40, AND 11.5 FEET OUT OF LOT 39, OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, OAKWOOD, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 3018 WEST AVENUE; LOT 2, AND 52 FEET OUT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 6, OUTLOT 75, PENN SUBDIVISION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 3202 WEST AVENUE; LOT 1, LESS THE EAST TEN FEET, OUTLOT 75, PENN SUBDIVISION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 3200 WEST AVENUE; THE WEST 142.5 FEET OF LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 2, OUTLOT 75, DIVISION "D," SMYTHS ADDITION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 3201 WEST AVENUE; LOT 18, OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION LOCALLY KNOWN AS 904 WEST 30-1/2 STREET; LOTS 12 AND 13, OUTLOT 72, OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 804 WEST 30-1/2 STREET AND 808 WEST 30-1/2 STREET; THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOTS 71 AND 72, OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 900 WEST 31ST STREET; THE WEST ONE-HALF OF LOTS 71 AND 72, OAKWOOD ADDITION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 902 WEST 31ST STREET; LOTS 5 AND 6, OUTLOT 72, OAKWOOD, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 903 WEST 31ST STREET; LOT 7, AND THE WEST 24 FEET OF LOT 8, OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, OAKWOOD, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 901 WEST 31ST STREET; LOT 70, AND THE WEST 25 FEET OF LOT 69, OUTLOT 72 AND 75, AND LOT 68, AND THE EAST 25 FEET OF LOT 69, OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, OAKWOOD, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 810 WEST 31ST STREET AND 806 WEST 32ND STREET; THE EAST 42 FEET OF LOT 2, AND THE WEST EIGHT FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 12, OUTLOTS 75 AND 76, GYPSY GROVE ADDITION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 616 WEST 31-1/2 STREET; 47 K 113 FEET OUT OF BLOCK 13, OUTLOTS 75 AND 76, DIVISION "D," GYPSY GROVE ADDITION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 613 WEST 31-1/2 STREET; LOTS 4, 5, AND THE EAST 4.7 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 13, OUTLOTS 75 AND 76, DIVISION "D," GYPSY GROVE ADDITION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 615 WEST 31-1/2 STREET; LOT 8, AND THE EAST ELEVEN FEET OF LOT 7, BLOCK 11, GYPSY GROVE, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 607 WEST 32ND STREET; LOTS 4, 5, THE EAST NINE FEET OF LOT 3, AND THE WEST FIFTEEN FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 11, OUTLOTS 75 AND 76, GYPSY GROVE, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 611 AND 613 WEST 32ND STREET; LOT 1, AND THE WEST 23 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 11, GYPSY GROVE, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 617 WEST 32ND STREET; THE WEST 32 FEET OF THE NORTH NINE FEET OF LOT 58, THE WEST 32 FEET OF LOT 59, THE WEST 32 FEET OF THE SOUTH THIRTEEN FEET OF LOT 60, THE EAST 27 FEET OF THE SOUTH THIRTEEN FEET OF LOT 61, THE EAST 27 FEET OF LOT 62, AND THE EAST 27 FEET OF THE NORTH NINE FEET OF LOT 63, OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, DIVISION "D," OAKWOOD, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 807 WEST 32ND STREET; THE EAST FIFTY FEET OF LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 2, OUTLOT 75, DIVISION "D," SMYTHS ADDITION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 708 WEST 32ND STREET; THE SOUTH THIRTEEN FEET OF THE WEST 131 FEET OF LOT 61, THE WEST 131 FEET OF LOT 62, AND THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF LOT 63, OUTLOTS 72 AND 75, OAKWOOD, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 809 WEST 32ND STREET; AND LOT 7, LESS THE SOUTH TWENTY-FIVE FEET, BLOCK 6, OUTLOT 75, PENN SUBDIVISION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 808 WEST 32ND STREET; FROM "BB" RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO "A" RESIDENCE DISTRICT; AND, (2) A 29,241 SQUARE FOOT TRACT OF LAND, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 1607 SAN JACINTO STREET, FROM "C-2" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO "C-2-H" COMMERCIAL-HISTORIC DISTRICT; AND, 85 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 (3) LOT 6, BLOCK 114, ORIGINAL CITY OF AUSTIN, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 507 EAST 10TH STREET, FROM "C-2" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO "C-2-H" COMMERCIAL-HISTORIC DISTRICT; AND, (4) LOT 1, BLOCK 98, ORIGINAL CITY OF AUSTIN, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 800-802 CONGRESS AVENUE, FROM "C-2" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO "C-2-H" COMMERCIAL-HISTORIC DISTRICT; ALL OF SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Edward J. Jennings, C14-75-115; Scholz Garden, C14h-75-010; German Free School, C14h-75-018; Taylor-Pendexter Building, C14-75-019) Councilmember Linn moved that the City waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass theoordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Snell, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. The Council had before it for consideration amending Chapter 45 of the Austin City Code of 1967 (Zoning Ordinance) to cover the following change: HARLEY R. CLARK, JR., ET AL C14-74-048 1100-1110 Baylor Street From "B" Residence To 2nd Height and Area "0" Office 1100-1108 West 11th Street 1101-1103 West 12th Street 2nd Height and Area and "B" Residence 2nd Height and Area Mr. Lillie reviewed this application and stated that it was made in 1974 to change zoning from "B" Residence 2nd Height and Area, which is apartment zoning permitting buildings to 60 feet, to "LR" Local Retail 2nd Height and Area. The Council approved "O" Office and "B" Residence 2nd Height and Area with several amendments. One of the primary amendments was to amend the building height so that it could not go to 60 feet. He noted that this location was about halfway up the 12th Street hill on Baylor, and the neighborhood organization argued that a 60-foot building height would take the building above the crest of the hill. The Council granted the zoning with a maximum of 35 feet on the building so it would not interfere with the view of the property owners. There was also the provision of no access to 11th Street. In response to Councilmember Trevino's question concerning the conditions being acceptable to the neighborhood association, Mr. Lillie stated that they were agreed upon. Mayor Friedman introduced the following ordinance: CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 86 January 22, 1976 AN ORDINANCE ORDERING A CHANGE IN USE AND CHANGING THE USE MAPS ACCOMPANYING CHAPTER 45 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967 AS FOLLOWS: PART OF LOTS 1 AND 8, BLOCK 5, SILLIMAN'S SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 5, SILLIMAN'S SUBDIVISION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 1100-1110 BAYLOR STREET AND 1101-1103 WEST 12TH STREET, FROM "B" RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO "O" OFFICE DISTRICT; SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Harley R. Clark, Jr., et al, C14-74-048) Councilmember Himmelblau moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmember Himmelblau Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO REQUIRE AN ENCLOSURE DEVICE AROUND PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL POOLS The Council had before it for consideration amending the Austin City Code, Chapter 43, to require an enclosure device around private residential pools and semipublic pools; requiring building permits for enclosure devices; providing for enforcement of Chapter 443yby the Health Officer or the Building Official. Mayor Friedman suggested that a public hearing be set to consider this since there seem to be interested citizens that wanted to have input concerning this. Mayor Friedman moved that the Council set a public hearing to consider amending the Austin City Code, Chapter 43, to require an enclosure device around private residential pools and semipublic pools; requiring building permits for enclosure devices; providing for enforcement of Chapter 43 by the Health Officer or the Building Official for February 12, 1976, at 3:30 p.m. motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn,.carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann Noes: None The ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES The Council had before it for consideration establishing certain requirements for appointment and membership on City established boards, commissions, and committees; requiring adherence to open meetings laws; and deleting certain requirements. Councilmember Trevino commented that the Explosives Board was not included in their list of committees. City Attorney Don Butler noted that the board could be added to the excepted list. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- 87 January 22, 1976 In response to Councilmember Hofmann's question concerning the appointments, MR. JIM MILLER, Assistant City Manager for Community Services, submitted that he understood that the stipulation of making appointments in October and November was going to be deleted from the Ordinance. He noted that it would almost be an impossibility to get all of the boards and commissions appointed in those two months. JACKIE BLOCK, a member of the League of Women Voters, noted that Councilmember Hofmann included in her motion made on October 30 the League's recommend- ations concerning boards and commissions. In response to Mayor Friedman's question as to whether this would eliminate further consideration of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Mr. Miller indicated that it would not. Mayor Friedman introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY RESIDENCE AS A REQUIREMENT FOR APPOINTMENT TO AND SERVICE ON CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES; ELIMINATING REQUIREMENTS THAT CERTAIN ΑΡΡΟΙΝΤEES TO OR MEMBERS OF BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS BE REGISTERED VOTERS OR TAXPAYERS; DISSOLVING CERTAIN COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES; REQUIRING BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES TO COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, VERNON'S TEXAS STATUTES, RELATIVE ΤΟ ΟΡΕΝ ΜΕΕTINGS; REQUIRING THAT RECORDS OF BOARD, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS BE MAINTAINED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC; PROVIDING THAT APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES BE MADE IN OCTOBER; REQUIRING BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES TO SUBMIT ANNUAL WRITTEN SUMMARY REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN; ESTABLISHING ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPOINTEES AND MEMBERS OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING ORDINANCES BE READ ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember Hofmann moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinancehhad beealfinałły passed. SIGN ORDINANCE SECOND AND THIRD READINGS Councilmember Hofmann commented that she was advised from some of the realtors that they wanted to be at the Council meeting when this was heard. At this time, Mr. Mike Sampson, Assistant Attorney, distributed the amendments to the Sign Ordinance. Mayor Friedman stated that he understood that everything had been resolved concerning the Sign Ordinance; however, it would be discussed in the afternoon if the Council so desired. Mr. Bob Miller, a member of the Sign Committee, indicated that the only people that had contacted him concerning the Sign Ordinance were people that wanted to endorse the changes that the Sign Committee had made. He noted that there were representatives from the Board of Realtors present at the meeting as well as representatives from various other groups and was unaware of any opposition. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 Councilmember Hofmann commented that she was satisfied with the Sign Ordinance but just wanted to express that she had received calls from people that were not happy with the Ordinance. Mayor Friedman brought up the following ordinance for its second reading: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 3 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967; ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 3 PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF ADVERTISING AND ALL SIGNS; ESTABLISHING LICENSE, PERMIT AND BOND REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS. The ordinance was read the second time, and Councilmember Linn moved that the Council waive the requirement for the third reading, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Trevino, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmember Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. After a short discussion of dissolving the Sign Committee, the Mayor thanked the members of the Committee for their work and Mr. Mike Sampson for his aid in preparing the amendments to the Ordinance. SIXTH STREET LIGHTING PROGRAM Councilmember Linn noted that she would not be voting on this item since she lived on Sixth Street but pointed out that the program had been formally passed and wanted to proceed with the program. In response to Councilmember Himmelblau's question concerning the funding of the program, City Manager Davidson noted that there was money available; however, he was requesting clearance to proceed with the project since it was placed on hold during the energy crisis. Councilmember Linn commented that this is a neighborhood that is multiethnic, residential and commercial neighborhood and there are people residing in the area that have done so for three or more generations. Recently, the neighborhood has been named as a National Historic District, and she felt that the residents would appreciate what is done for them. Councilmember Trevino moved that the Council authorize the program to proceed. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Trevino Noes: None Abstain: Councilmember Linn CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS. January 22, 1976 Mayor Friedman announced that the Council would have an Executive Session at 12 noon. AFTERNOON SESSION 2:00 Ρ.Μ. EXECUTIVE SESSION ACTION Mayor Friedman announced that the Council had been in an Executive Session earlier and had discussed appointements to various boards and commissions that were now before the Council for action: Building Standards Commission Mayor Pro Tem Snell moved that the Council appoint the following to the Building Standards Commission: Bill Moellendorf Walter G. Hunt Nella Cunningham 2 years 2 years - 2 years The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell Noes: None Capital Area Consortium Executive Committee Councilmember Trevino moved that the Council appoint RAY MCCLURE to serve to June 12, 1976, on the Capital Area Consortium Executive Committee. The motion seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Snell, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmember Himmelblau Noes: None Citizens Board of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Councilmember Himmelblau moved that the Council appoint DR. CARL MORGAN to serve to June 19, 1978, on the Citizens Board of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality. The motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Snell, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann Noes: None 90 CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS January 22, 1976 Historic Landmark Commission Councilmember Linn moved that the Council appoint the following to the Historic Landmark Commission: Byron Lockhart (Travis Bar Association) Blake Alexander (U.T. School of Architecture) Charles A. Betts Ada Simond Peggy Brown Anna Drayer Eva Marie Mosley to 4-4-77 - to 4-4-77 to 4-4-78 to 4-4-78 to 4-4-78 to 4-4-78 to 4-4-78 The motion, seconded by Councilmember Lebermann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmember Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann Noes: None Municipal Citizens Traffic Safety Commission Councilmember Hofmann moved that the Council appoint the following to the Municipal Citizens Traffic Safety Commission: George Gustafson Dr. Clyde Lee Charles Zlatkovich 2 years 2 years 2 years The motion, seconded by Councilmember Lebermann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmember Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn Noes: None Mayor Friedman noted that the Municipal Citizens Traffic Safety Commission had been reduced to nine members. Retirement Board Mayor Pro Tem Snell moved that the Council appoint the following to the Retirement Board: Ted Quadlander Ed Golden Robert McIntyre 2 years 2 years 2 years The motion, seconded by Councilmember Himmelblau, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino Noes: None 91 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 Solicitation Board Councilmember Linn moved that the Council appoint the following to the Solicitation Board: Mrs. Oliver Smith Mrs. Herman P. Becker 2 years 2 years The motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Snell, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman Noes: None WORK SESSION Mayor Friedman noted that a work session was set for January 28, 1976, at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the water and wastewater programs in conjunction with the budget that was approved in 1975 as well as concerns of priorities due to the failure of the Water and Wastewater Sewer bonds in December, 1975. APPEARANCE TO DISCUSS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Carol Prentice, representing the Nursing Practice Committee of the Texas Nurses Association, District 5, commented that she was appearing before the Council instead of Ms. Betty J. Skaggs and Ms. Herma Dawson. Ms. Prentice pointed out that District 5 encompassed a nine-county area surrounding Austin. Ms. Prentice stated that due to the Texas Nurses Association monitoring all health legislation, they began studying the development of the Emergency Medical Service in 1975 and wished to share some information regarding this study. Mr. Bill Lever, Director of the Emergency Medical Service, met with the association on November 13, 1975, to discuss their concerns with the EMS. They were informed at that meeting that there would not be a distinction between the role of the registered nurse, emergency medical technicians or paramedics. The EMS team would not have a designated leader when they responded to a call. As to the reason the nurses were hired, Mr. Lever informed the group that this was the desire of the Council. Also of concern was the fact that the registered nurses or paramedics were practicing under no law and there was not a job description for registered nurses. Ms. Prentice felt that under the program at the present time, the nurse would be accountable for actions undertaken by herself and the members of that team without the authority to direct the members of the team. The program also poses the question of the effective use of the registered nurse and the possible over-extension of the skills of the emergency medical technician or paramedic. She was concerned with the hiring practice since it is difficult to hire knowledgeable and skilled nurses when there is not a job description. She explained the training that a registered nurse receives and noted that there were many differences between the preparation of a registered nurse and that of a emergency medical technician/paramedic. Ms. Prentice felt that the registered nurse should be allowed to function within the depth and breadth of his or her knowledge. The members of the Texas Nurses _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 92 January 22, 1976 Association expect the nurse to be professionally accountable to his or her peers and to the citizens as a professional nurse, not as an emergency medical technician or paramedic. She pointed out that according to civil statute the nurse is legally accountable for his or her actions and for the team members. Another area of concern was that much of the emphasis was place on the response time of the EMS rather than on standards of care. She noted that Claire Jordon, a member of the Texas Nurses Association, offered to aid Mr. Lever with standards and to write job descriptions for their registered nurses and would like to make available the American Nurses Association, 1975 Emergency Medical Service Standards of Practice. The third concern was regarding the failure to implement the EMS as originally directed by the Council and supported the concept of the registered nurse as a primary assessor of the client, initiator and director of the care given to that patient. There were also concerns expressed about the Louisville EMS system and just how extensively this was studied, since at this time the system was not operating in Austin. She recommended that if the Quality Assurance Board returned to Louisville to study the system, that Susan Juarez also be included in that visit. Mayor Friedman stated that there had been several changes regarding the implementation of the system since the Nurses Association had met with Mr. Lever and felt that a specific meeting between the Association and the Quality Assurance Board was necessary. Councilmember Linn commented that when this system and policy was established that would be followed, the Council stated that the nurse would be the primary person on the scene to evaluate the patient. There is no question that this is exactly what is meant and hoped that the Quality Assurance Board would fulfill this policy. Mayor Friedman noted that the Louisville program was having problems at the present and "breaking down." Councilmember Linn indicated that the intent was to have a nurse on every delivery team that would be the head of the team to evaluate the patient since the nurse would be the best qualified person to perform this task. In response to Councilmember Himmelblau's question regarding emergency room training of nurses, Ms. Prentice submitted that she could not specifically answer the question since each program varies from school to school. As for suggesting to the schools to include this in the training, Ms. Prentice felt this would have to be discussed by the American Nurses Association before any recommendation could be made. Mayor Friedman noted that whatever is done should be with the cooperation of just what the nurses can offer. Ms. Prentice stressed that this was the reason for wanting a job description. NORMANWILKERSON reiterated that it was a vital concern that a job description be written. Then people could be located that are qualified, since notaall nurses have this training. Councilmember Linn felt that also in need of definition is which person in the team is actually the head of the team and to whom this person would be responsible. In response to Ms. Prentice's question as to the registered nurse being defined as the primary care giver and leader in the written job description, Councilmember Linn commented that this was stated when the program was authorized to take effect. 13 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS_ January 22, 1976 Councilmember Trevino pointed out that the primary purpose of the Louisville visit was not to discuss the roles of the nurses but to aid in determining if a separate department for EMS should be created or to go with the Fire Department. The key to the EMS system is that flexibility will exist. The understanding in the beginning was that the registered nurse would be utilized as the lead person on the team, and he assumed that all nurses were trained in emergency room procedures, but now he has found that they are not. He felt if the paramedic was more qualified than the nurse in trauma situations, it would be difficult for the paramedic to be subservient to the nurse. Ms. Prentice stated that she would like to see experienced and qualified nurses hired by the City not just anyone. Councilmember Trevino felt that the nurse on the assurance team should be included in this visit to Louisville and wanted to support and endorse the recommendation that the Nurses Association be allowed to have input regarding the job description. As to why the program was not implemented as it was originally planned, Mayor Friedman stated that it was never voted on to be this way. Discussion involved an EMS system that would be ready on January 1, 1976, and that a fullscale program would not be established immediately, thereby necessitating the need for the Quality Assurance Team to progress to these concepts of utilizing the nurses. The concept was that the nurses would be integrated as the primary response in the team, but it was not indicated that this would begin immediately. This would be something that should occur approximately April 1. Councilmember Linn expressed that she did not vote with this assumption. She felt that someone else possibly was thinking that they know better than the Council. City Manager Davidson felt that Councilmember Linn was referring to him because everything that Mr. Lever has done in establishing the EMS program effective January 1 has been at Mr. Davidson's direction. This has been done in an attempt to follow the policy as outlined by the Council, and he did not think that it was feasible to set up all phases of the concept desired by the Council effective January 1. If he had thought that any member of the Council assumed that this would be possible, he would have explained at that time that this was not the direction that would be followed since it would have been impossible. Mr. Davidson indicated that the concept that the Council desired was explained to Mr. Lever in the beginning and is still being explained to him and the Quality Assurance Team just what the Council intended. City Manager Davidson pointed out that the system in Louisville is changing and felt it is valuable if someone would go to Louisville and determine exactly how the original mode has changed and what necessitated the changes. He wanted it to be made clear to the Council that the Quality Assurance Team does not have the power or the authority, nor does Mr. Lever, to make any change in the original concept without the Council approving it. The Quality Assurance Team is presently attempting to coordinate all of the information possible so they can present to the Council this original concept with additional information that has become available so that concerns can be answered. Mr. Lever has done precisely what he had been requested to do by the City Managerrever since the beginning; and Mr. Lever is not operating under any misconception as to what the Council originally intended. The EMS system will be based upon just what the Council desires. Councilmember Linn stressed that she wanted the best qualified person at the scene first and felt this would be the registered nurse. Mayor Friedman noted that there is no misunderstanding regarding this. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- 14 January 22, 1976 Mayor Pro Tem Snell expressed his desire to have clarification regarding the system and agreed with Councilmember Linn that he assumed the system would provide nurses making the initial call in the stationwagon. Mayor Friedman reiterated that the system will be this way but the program could not begin like this but would come later in the program. Mayor Pro Tem Snell commented that no preparation was made to employ registered nurses; that the nurses were being "played down" and that the entire concept was being changed until April 1, and this was not his impression of the system. Councilmember Linn referred to the diagram received and noted that the registered nurse was not included in the delivery team. MS. BETTY SKAGGS submitted that the Nurses Association wanted the best qualified person at the scene initially and felt that nurses have the background to contribute to this. She felt that there should be more study accomplished before one could know exactly what is needed, and that the job descriptions should be developed parallel. Mayor Friedman stated that he felt this was the reason for the two parties to meet in order to involve the Nurses Association in creating the job description, Mayor Pro Tem Snell noted that he appreciated the information that was presented to the Council today by the Texas Nurses Association and stressed that it will take the entire City to cooperate in getting this program going. He did not think that any one person should change any system that the Council has voted on. City Manager Davidson submitted that this was not the case. The intent to implement the full system is still proceeding and has not changed. Councilmember Linn asked why the registered nurse was not included on the delivery team, and City Manager Davidson felt that if there was any fault involved, that he apparently did not do a good job communicating with the Council before Mr. Lever was employed and the system was started. He would have explained then that it was absolutely impossible to fully implement what the Council had requested by January 1. He thought it was evident to everyone that this was impossible and apologized if this was not communicated clearly. In response to Councilmember Linn's question as to whether a registered nurse would head every team, City Manager Davidson stated his assurance that no one had made any decision to change the original concept that was adopted by the Council. Councilmember Linn wanted the assurance that a registered nurse would head each team and if this is what was voted on. Mr. Davidson commented that he was not sure about this. Councilmember Himmelblau indicated that this was not the way she voted, and she wanted to see the registered nurse as a part of the overall program. She stated that she had the utmost confidence in Mr. Lever and felt he had done a magnificent job in the three months he had been here and that he should have more latitude to develop the program. At this time, Ms. Prentice read the motion that was passed concerning the EMS system. Mayor Friedman felt that the motion showed that the City was working toward the goal of implementing the nurses as soon as possible. Councilmember Trevino noted that in one of the work sessions regarding the EMS the Council indicated that they wanted the nurses to be the team leader since they would be qualified for this. =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- 95 January 22, 1976 MR. MIKE LEVY, Quality Assurance Team, introduced two members of the In EMS team, Mr. Frank Fitzgerald and Mr. David Heatly, a registered nurse. response to Councilmember Linn's question, Mr. Heatly commented that he was hired as a registered nurse. Mr. Levy pointed out that the Quality Assurance Team was responsible with patient care and wanted to present to the Council new information as it is available to the team. Mayor Friedman suggested to Mr. Levy that all parties concerned meet to discuss the EMS system and obtain the necessary results. Councilmember Trevino emphasized that the registered nurse on the Quality Assurance Team be invited to go to Louisville. HEARING TO CONSIDER TERMINATION OF MOPAC STUDY Mayor Friedman opened the public hearing scheduled for 2:30 p.m. to consider the termination of the MoPac study. He noted that extensive work is being done by the consultant and several very interested and concerned citizens as well as members of the Council. At this time, Mayor Friedman requested a report from Mr. Joe Ternus, Director of Urban Transportation, as to what has been accomplished. MR. JOE TERNUS submitted that in order to determine the items that should be studied, and the items that would not require studying and in effort to cut the cost making the dollars more effective a review had been conducted with the consultant reviewing the original study outline that was submitted approximately one month ago. As a result of this review, two study outlines have been provided. $97,900.00 Study This study would call for a cash outlay of approximately $97,900 and would review transportation and land use information along the corridor of MoPac. It also would study alternative facilities between U.S. 183 on the north, and Loop 360 on the south. The four different alternatives would be: 1. a no-build situation 2. an extension to the south to Loop 360 3. an extension to the north to 183 4. the entire facility from Loop 360 to U.S. 183. Based on this review and the study of the alternatives, environmental and neighborhood impact, offsetting measures would be developed for these alternatives as well as the existing facility. A a result of this study specific design concepts would be incorporated both in the extension of the alternatives, where extensions are appropriate, as well as the central portion of the facility. $50,000.00 Study This study would call for a cash outlay of approximately $50,000 and would provide basically the same information as the $97,900 study, with one major exception. This study would be conducted for a facility from Loop 360 to U.S. 183 and three of the alternatives would be eliminated and the detailed information of those alternatives. CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS: 96 January 22, 1976 The basic benefits of the study would be that the $50,000 study would be able to determine any adverse condition that would occur on a facility between U.S. 183 and Loop 360, and then these conditions could then be offset by certain measures as recommended. The $97,900 study would have these benefits, but in addition it would provide the detailed information on all of the other alternatives. So the major difference between the $50,000 study and the $100,000 study would be the additional alternatives and the detailed information for those alternatives. Mr. Ternus noted that both of the study outlines would provide for certain items that were in the original MoPac outline, which he believed to be essential to the development of the entire transportation system. These items would and should be part of the ongoing transportation process under way at this time and thus could be financed by Federal funds in lieu of the City funds. In response to Councilmember Himmelblau's question, Mr. Ternus indicated that the $97,900 or the $50,000 would be in addition to the $10,000 that has already been spent. The $50,000 and $97,900 would be exclusively City funds and anything in addition to this would be City funds. In responsetto Councilmember Linn's question as to the availability of the funds, Mr. Ternus stated that the funds were authorized by the Council in the Capital Improvement Program. In response to Councilmember Lebermann's question as to the original design of MoPac, Mr. Ternus commented that for the most past the original design was done by the City and consultants hired by the City. The designs were then submitted to the Texas Highway Department, who incorporated the principles of these designs. In response to Councilmember Himmelblau's question as to flexibility of the design study, Mr. Ternus indicated that certain funds have already been expended, particularly by the County and the State in the southern section. He noted that north of 183 no funds had been expended, but considerable funds have been expended south of Bee Cave Road in that section of MoPac by County and the State. If MoPac went just to 183, there would not be any reason to study too much on the northern extension only providing that both the City and the State would also be agreeable to terminating the facility at 183. Councilmember Hofmann pointed out the cost of studies that had been done in the past involving certain areas of the City and noted that they were costly. Mr. Ternus stressed that no matter which study is agreed upon, especially if it is limited strictly to the 360 to 183 area, that some type of understanding be reached with the County and the State as to the design being an interim or a permanent one. WANDA TERRELL, Director of the Austin Citizens League, expressed the League's support of completing MoPac from 290 on the south to 1325 on the north as in the original concept. She urged the Council to take the necessary action to complete MoPac and to utilize any local capabilities in doing this; that the Council support Councilmember Himmelblau's motion regarding this. WARREN BEEMAN, appearing in behalf of Downtown Austin Unlimited, stated their support of the completion of MoPac and urged the Council to employ the City staff for doing the study. 97 January 22, 1976 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS HOWARD HARDIN, representing nine salesmen from south Austin, indicated that they had talked to numerous people concerning MoPac and all they contacted expressed their desire to have MoPac finished on the north and the south. He also commented that the City staff be utilized for this study. HOWARD FERGUSON urged the Council to proceed with the study as planned. He preferred the $97,900 study but would settle for the $50,000 one. Mr. Ferguson felt that there were many problems that needed to be studied and that an independent study was necessary. JOHN HARRIS, representing the Citizens for MoPac, wanted to express their support of the completion of MoPac south to 290 west or alternatively at least to 360 and termination or minimization of the proposed study. He referred to the athletic facility to be completed in 1977 and felt that MoPac would aid in moving some of the traffic that would be going to this facility. OSCAR WEGAN, University of Texas, felt that basically everyone wanted MoPac and that finishing MoPac now is important. He noted that the Council voted for the sufficient money to make the $100,000 and felt this information was vital. TOM GREEN, a former City employee, supported the completion of MoPac and utilizing the engineers employed by the City rather than an outside firm. BOB FINNEY wanted MoPac to be finished as soon as possible and had faith in the City engineers to do the study. LOUISE JARRELL commented that she wanted MoPac to be kept as a boulevard and no trucks. There are over 2,000 names on petitions requesting that a study be done to keep it a boulevard. MASON DULA, representing the Northwest Civic Association, stated that the portion of MoPac from 183 to 1325, south from 360 to 290 should be a separate entity for a separate study. He felt that efforts should be confined to 183 north and its completion and extend it to Loop 360 south. If the Council wants additional consultants for the study, then this should be done as soon as possible. Mr. Dula supported the $50,000 study. ERWIN SALMANSON stated that MoPac should be completed and by spending more money is only another delay in this completion. He felt that the City staff could perform the task of doing this study. MR. STERLING did not want MoPac to extend past 183 and desired that no trucks be allowed on it. He favored the $97,900 study. ANNA DRAYER felt that everyone wanted a traffic facility that would not adversely effect the City and since there was money in the CIP for the study it should be done. LEO LEWIS felt that the City could do any study that was needed for MoPac and no money should be spent. 98 January 22, 1976 = CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS JOSEPHINE HUNTLEY, 1105 West 10th, representing the Concerned Citizens for the Development of West Austin, read a letter that was written by Kay Hart for this organization. She felt that MoPac was going to become another I.H. 35 with fast commercial traffic. Ms. Huntley referred to the letter and supported the $97,900 study for MoPac. BARNEY WELCH commented that he was convinced that there were people employed by the City that could do this study and was not in favor of employing someone else to do it. EDWIN HOCH stated that even if the study was performed would there be any assurance that the State would accept it. He was not opposed to MoPac but wanted it kept a responsible street to be proud of. WOODROW SLEDGE, representing the Austin Independent School District, stated that the AISD did not have a position regarding the continuance of a study for MoPac. In referring to the stadium site to be built on 290, Mr. Sledge noted that he was shown the MoPac plan when the land selection for the site came up for discussion. He felt without this highway facility opened all of the traffic would be diverted to Lamar, creating a bad problem. He indicated that the School District relied upon this plan of MoPac when the stadium site was selected. MONA JARRELL felt the City of Austin has capable engineers but felt that more than that was needed and supported the $97,900 study to get the best for Austin. TERRY LELFESTE, representing the Allandale Neighborhood Association, submitted that this organization passed six resolutions concerning MoPac which are as follows: 1. That MoPac be committed to its original intent as a boulevard to accommodate local and cross-City traffic, and that noise abatement, pollution and appropriate landscape features be included with the construction. 2. That MoPac not be developed as a part of an interstate system. 3. That a comprehensive study be made regarding the above points by an independent firm. 4. That the neighborhood organizations be involved in this study. 5. All truck traffic be prohibited on MoPac. 6. That none of the aforementioned resolutions be construed as an indication of opposition to extending MoPac to 183. NELLIE WHITE stated that since there were many different opinions concerning MoPac that there needed to be an unbiased opinion. The $97,900 study is needed to give this opinion and recommended its approval. MIKE MCCORMICK, representing Citizens for MoPac, supported the completion of MoPac as soon as possible before any funds are taken away and the City has to pay the County. He stressed that relief was needed now. 99 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 The Council took the following action on the MoPac Study: Motion Councilmember Linn moved that the Council authorize the study to proceed with the $97,900.00 appropriated to the firm of Skidmore and Ownings and Merrill and develop the program with A.T.S. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Snell. Substitute Motion Councilmember Himmelblau made a substitute motion, that the Council terminate the contract with the consultants, and urge the Highway Department to proceed with Loop 1 with the utmost expediency with particular attention to 183 to the north and 360 to the south. Councilmember Lebermann offered an expansion to the motion, that the MoPac study be melded into the total Transportation Study, and be a part of the total transportation network continuing review procedure; and second, that the environmental aspects become the obligation and responsibility of our own Environmental Office of Resource Management and also under the guidance and direction of Urban Transportation Department. With that expansion, Councilmember Lebermann seconded Councilmember Himmelblau's motion. Councilmember Himmelblau accepted the expansion to her motion. Ayes: Noes: Roll Call on Substitute Motion Councilmembers Lebermann, Himmelblau Councilmembers Hofmann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell The Mayor announced that the motion had failed to carry. Roll Call on Original Motion Ayes: Councilmember Linn, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell Noes: Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Trevino The Mayor announced that the motion had failed to carry. Motion Councilmember Linn moved that the Council postpone the action. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion Councilmember Hofmann moved that the Council endorse the study to the expense of $50,000. Councilmember Trevino seconded the motion, stating this would look at the extension to 183 to the north and to 360 to the south. Roll Call on Motion Ayes: Councilmember Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Councilmember Hofmann Noes: Councilmember Linn, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Lebermann 100 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS: January 22, 1976 The Mayor announced that the motion had failed to carry. Motion Councilmember Trevino moved that the Council reconsider Councilmember Linn's motion for the $97,900.00 study. The motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Snell, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmember Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Hofmann, Linn Noes: Councilmembers Himmelblau, Lebermann Motion Councilmember Himmelblau moved that the Council reconsider Councilmember Hofmann's motion to endorse the study to the expense of $50,000.00. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Hofmann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Friedman, Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Trevino Noes: Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Lebermann, Linn Motion Councilmember Trevino moved the Council endorse the $50,000.00 Study which would include a look at the extension to 183 to the north and to 360 to the south The motion was seconded by Councilmember Hofmann. Substitute Motion Councilmember Linn made substitute motion that the Council authorize the study to proceed with the firm of Skidmore & Owings and Merrill in the amount of $97,900, with the extension of the necessary data to the Austin Transportation Study. The motion was seconded by Mayor Friedman. Roll Call on Substitute Motion Ayes: Councilmember Linn, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell Noes: Councilmembers Himmelblau, Hofmann, Lebermann, Trevino The Mayor announced that the motion had failed to carry. Ayes: Roll Call on Original Motion Councilmember Himmelblau, Hofmann, Trevino, Mayor Friedman Noes: Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmembers Lebermann, Linn The Mayor announced that the motion had carried. Mayor Friedman stated that the study means very clearly not a commitment to build anything, nor a commitment not to build. It is a commitment to get the proper information and to make a decision that in 20 years from now will not be looked upon as the thing that destroyed Austin. The ramps, although it has been a very nice issue for certain individuals and organizations to rally around, has never been, either by the Council nor by the Coalition of Austin Neighborhoods, the main impetus for a study. The Council has the responsibility of approving the design on how the structure is completed. CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS January 22, 1976 He indicated that there was not any information as to what to expect with or without an extension to Loop 360. No funds, had they been approved by the Federal government at this time, are anticipated to be spent before some time in 1978 for any extension to the south. Mayor Friedman commented that he has supported the $97,900 study and felt today is the day for decision regarding this issue. The function of the Council is to make decisions, decisions that in our judgment are going to help the community. We can only help the community by getting the proper data, and if it is only data that we can acquire with the Austin Transportation Study and the expenditure of $50,000, then he felt that data must be obtained. SIGN ORDINANCE At this time, Mayor Friedman reviewed action that was taken by the Council concerning the Sign Ordinance since there seems to be some confusion. It was adopted by the Council with the recommended amendments of the Sign Committee. Mr. Bob Miller, a member of the Sign Committee, reviewed the amendments that were made to the Sign Ordinance. They were as follows: 1. The size of the exempted yard signs was raised to 5.5 square feet. The height was raised from 40 to 54 inches and no permit will be required for these signs. 2. The large commercial signs, which are larger than 5.5 square and up to 32 square feet, were given a blanket yearly permit. Mr. Miller noted that the representatives of the real estate companies and the Board of Realtors were included in the discussion of these amendments and they agreed to these changes. Mr. Lonnie Davis, Director of Building Inspection, commented that he was contacted by Mr. Doug Morris concerning the Optimist signs that are placed in Little League Ball Parks on the backside of the fence. Under this Ordinance the signs would have to be permitted and requested that some consideration be given for this type of sign. Since the signs are removed after the ball season is finished, this would mean a new permit everytime they were erected for a new season. Mr. Miller noted that the Sign Committee did not discuss this, but that there could be an exemption if the signs faced inwardly and felt it would be no problem. Mayor Friedman requested that the City Attorney prepare an amendment to the Sign ordinance that would establish a fee schedule for such signs facing inward and an amendment exempting the Optimist Club from such situations involving the ball parks. He noted this would be on the January 29, 1976, agenda for approval. 102 January 22, 1976 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS HEARING ON INTERIM CONTROLS ON LAKE AUSTIN Mayor Friedman opened the public hearing scheduled for 2:30 p.m. to consider Interim Controls on Lake Austin. He pointed out that there would not be a decision made by the Council today due to some confusion as to the posting of the item. Mayor Friedman commented that the Lake Conservation District was not being discussed today. He noted that he lived on the Lake and obviously would have direct conflict with what might occur on the Lake and would not participate in any determination or decision on this issue. Councilmember Lebermann stated that he also lived on the Lake but as a renter and would participate in the discussion. MR. DICK LILLIE, Director of the Planning Department, began his review by stating that Texas cities have little or no land use authority outside the City limits; however, as shown on the map that Mr. Lillie presented, all subdivisions that occur within a five-mile jurisdiction of the City are subject to the City for review and approval. These subdivisions must be in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan. Subdivisions require standards including density which must be met in conversion of raw land to a finished lot that individuals can buy and be confident of getting good service. However, subdivisions do not include land use controls. The amendment before the Council today for consideration would only apply to property owners who wish to subdivide their property and would not have any bearing on owners who are currently using their property or planning to use their property as long as they do not subdivide. As regarding notice, there is not a legal notice required but the Council requested that notices be placed in the newspaper so property owners could be advised of matters coming before the Council for consideration. The intent of the proposal before the Council is to provide interim controls in the area covered by the Lake Austin Study until that plan is completed. At the present time, the plan is scheduled for completion in April. Prior to 1973 the majority of the Lake Austin Study was beyond the coverage of the City Master Plan and was unclassified. There was a limited area along Bull Creek that was classified at a density of 5 units per gross acre. In 1973, the Council amended the Master Plan relating to density and took the coverage of the comprehensive plan to the full five-mile jurisdiction. The current Master Plan provides for a 3-unit per acre density in the Bull Creek area as shown on the map and in the remainder of the area it is limited to 5 units per acre. All of the development that has occurred in the Bull Creek area has been developed at about 3 units per acre and is on the City's water and wastewater system. Plans for the Courtyard and Lakewood Planned Unit Developments have already been approved, and the next section of the Great Hills program includes a density range from 2.5 to about 4 units per acre. These proposals will be using the municipal water and wastewater system. 103 _CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS January 22, 1976 The Council's action in 1973 also included the following language: "That subdivisions within the suburban residential area that meet City and State requirements for a water supply, wastewater system including septic tank requirements, drainage and power facilities be permitted to develop under Low Density Residential. (Three dwelling units per gross acre.)" This provision permits development at greater than 5 units per acre in areas classified suburban residential only when certain performance can be proven by the developer. If performance tests are not successful, density will be limited to .5 units per acre, or lower, depending on City-County Health requirements and the circumstances of each application. If the Council so desires, it can: 1. Roll back the density in the Bull Creek area from 3 to .5 and the Council could: 2. Delete the provision that was placed in 1973 that allows a developer to exceed 5 if he meets performance. The Environmental Board has recommended that interim controls be adopted by the Council until the Lake Austin Study has been completed; that the entire study area be limited to a density to 5 units per gross acre. The Planning Commission voted in October that the Master Plan not be amended and the staff recommends that the provisions adopted by the Council in 1973 are still appropriate and should not be amended for the interim time pending completion of the Lake Austin Study. Mr. Lillte noted that from their experience with the Lake Austin Study area reflects that the existing provisions are reasonable and workable. Development activity is low in the entire watershed with only six subdivision plats being recorded during 1975. Five of the six plats are located near U.S. 183 about five miles from the lake and three of the six plats were approved within a density of .5 units per acre or less. Mr. Lillie recommended that the plan not be amended during this interim period and felt that the work that has been done to discourage applicants from submitting plans have proved to be adequate. Dr. Maureen McReynolds, Director of the Environmental Resource Management, commented that she supported the proposed interim amendment to the Master Plan. The Citizens Board has recommended that the Master Plan and map be amended as an interim measure so that the Lake Austin Study area is designated at a maximum density of 5. The Master Plan changes that are before the Council today would effect future subdivisions only. She felt there were two issues involved. 1. A proposed change in the designation of a portion of the study area in the Bull Creek watershed from low density residential to suburban residential. 2. A change in the text of the Master Plan regarding the criteria in suburban residential. Although she agreed with the Planning Department that the level of subdivision activity in this area is low, it is not non-existent. She felt that interim controls are desirable until the Lake Austin Plan is completed and can be implemented. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- 104 January 22, 1976 In response to Councilmember Lebermann's question regarding the use of effective controls, Dr. McReynolds was not in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Department and felt that interim controls should be adopted. Dr. McReynolds noted that the Environmemtal Board held a public hearing to consider the controls after they were first recommended and no subsequent hearings have been conducted since then to discuss them again. In response to Councilmember Hofmann's question concerning the study, Mr. Lillie commented that it is being prepared and hopefully ready by April. DON STRAUBASS lived in the Bull Creek watershed and favored the change to the Master Plan. This was also the consensus of the Spicewood Spring Road Valley Association members. A. A. HILL, a member of the "Save our Lake Association," read a letter from the association and hoped that Austin would make every effort to protect their water supply. BETTY CLELAND was deeply concerned with the future of the lake and asked that the Council take whatever measures necessary to prevent additional damage until the situation can be measured, evaluated and a careful plan adopted for the preservation of the lake. CARWIN JOHNSON, 3425 Monte Vista Drive, commented he is a member of the "Save Our Lake Association" and recommended that the Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Master Plan on building density in the Lake Austin watershed as an interim measure pending the completion of the Lake Austin Development Plan. HOYLE OSBORNE, a planning consultant, commented that he was in favor of the proposed controls. JOE RIDDELL clarified that if the interim measures were adopted, the only people being involved would be those who would subdivide land before the Lake Austin Development Plan is implemented. DON CAULDON was opposed to Master Plan change and felt that this action was not necessary. CHARLENE KRUMP noted that she lived on Lake Austin and was concerned that she could not obtain electricity for her family. Mayor Friedman noted that this would be checked. VIRGINIA KRAYE commented that she owned land on Lake Austin and wanted to build on it but has found out that she would have to subdivide to obtain City electricity, and if the interim controls are established on subdivisions then it would include her property. E. P. SCHOCK stated that he was not personally involved with the proposed regulations but felt that some of his neighbors were being unjustly involved by this proposal. RANDY MILLER was interested in Lake Austin and felt that developers would be discouraged if the density was "shut down." EMMET SHELTON, SR., supported the comments that Mr. Lillie presented. EDWIN GOLDMAN was not in favor of the proposed changes. 105 January 22, 1976 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS DAVID BARROW, JR., appeared on behalf of landowners in Northwest Hills, felt the changes were not necessary. He noted that there was a tremendous area that would be involved in this and felt it was not reasonable. BOB BRIGHT appeared in opposition to the provision having one house per two acres, and urged the Council to reject the plan. ROBERT MORRIS, a consulting engineer representing Lakeway, supported staying with the present controls. MAURY HOOD requested that subdivisions that have municipal sewer and water system be allowed to be built at 3 units per acre. EUGENA LEE stated that she did not agree with the interim arrangement. H. T. McBRAYER, 2504 Westlake Drive, opposed any ordinances that would dictate to the residents on the lake as to what they should do with their property. I. L. HARRIS commented that he was opposed to having people come from another city to tell the property owners on the lake what to do with their property. MR. HAZEEWOOD indicated that he had sent a letter to the Council and was concerned with the land that he had given to the Boys' Ranch being effected by these changes, and Mayor Friedman informed him that if the land was subdivided it would not be involved; however, there could not be a definite answer until the Council acted upon the proposed changes. HARRY MONTANDON indicated that he was opposed to any interim controls and urged the Council to vote against interim controls. DUDLEY FOWLER felt that this proposal should not be trusted and felt that residents living on Lake Austin were under constant attack regarding various matters. He felt that the Council should wait until the planners and the people this matter involves have been fully heard from on the basis of a full plan and not on an interim control. BOB FOWLER felt that the wage owner was being driven to live in apartments because the lots will not be affordable. FRED EBY felt that interim controls have a tendency of becoming permanent. RANDY SMITH expressed that some people could be hurt by implementing the interim controls. MRS. FRANCES DANFORTH sent a letter in opposition to the proposals. JERYL HART felt that Mr. Lillie was doing a fine job with the present regulations and opposed implementation of the controls. ROBERT WILSON appeared in opposition to the interim controls and urged the Council not to act out of fear. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS. 106 January 22, 1976 Mayor Friedman commented that there would not be any action taken today and suggested that the hearing be recessed so proper notification can be given and action can be taken on the proposal. Councilmember Linn moved that the Council recess the public hearing until January 29 at 10:30 a.m. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Hofmann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hofmann, Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell Noes: None Absent: Councilmembers Lebermann, Himmelblau Mayor Friedman announced that Councilmembers Lebermann and Himmelblau had to leave the Council meeting due to prior commitments. ST. JOHN'S NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER City Manager Davidson noted that the report signed by Mr. Andy Ramirez was involving the dilemma that was being incurred by the St. John's Neighborhood Center involving a project that was not completed. It now requires additional funding for completion. Mr. Ramirez commented that the amount of money involved would have to be obtained from the Capital Improvements Program and recommended the CIP account from Parks. He hoped in the future that adequate provisions could be made to prevent this from occurring. Mayor Friedman instructed the staff to prepare the proper ordinance to transfer the requested funds and that it would be presented to the Council at the January 29, 1976, meeting. COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN FUNDING REQUEST Councilmember Hofmann moved that the Council authorize the newsletter as proposed and that the administration be directed to provide the funds from the existing Human Resources budget at their discretion. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Linn, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Linn, Trevino, Mayor Friedman, Mayor Pro Tem Snell, Councilmember Hofmann Noes: None Absent: Councilmember Lebermann, Himmelblau INTERIM FUNDING OF EEOC Mayor Friedman stated that the Federal people were scheduled to vote regarding this but it was postponed. He noted that he would be in Washington and would know if this was approved; therefore, Father Joe Znotas felt that there was no reason to have a motion regarding it today. 107 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- January 22, 1976 ZONINGS SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager reported that the following zoning applications had been referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation and had been set for public hearing on March 4, 1976: CARLOS J. CACERES C14-75-119 (Concerned Citizens of East Austin; East Austin Civic Associa- tion) CAROLYN KNAPE MARTIN C14-75-132 By J. C. Martin 0. D. KENDRICK C14-76-001 (North University Neighborhoods Associa- tion) JACK SULLIVAN C14-76-002 (No formal neigh- borhood group) DAVID C. T. WOOLLETT and RUTH ESTELLE WOOLLETT By Roane Puett C14-76-003 (North University Neighborhoods Association) JACK AND LUCILLE KELLY C14-75-114 (Hyde Park Neigh- borhood Associa- tion) 1714 East 38th Street From "A" Residence 1st Height and Area To "C" Commercial 1st Height and Area 600 West 8th Street, also From "B" Residence 2nd Height and Area bounded by To "0" Office Nueces Street 2nd Height and Area (Old Austin Neighborhood) 500-504 West 37th To Street Rear of 1401 Morgan Lane 501 West 38th Street 300-302 West 42nd Street 4200 Avenue C From "B" Residence 2nd Height and Area "0" Office 1st Height and Area From "A" Residence To 1st Height and Area "0" Office 1st Height and Area From "A" Residence To 1st Height and Area "B" Residence 2nd Height and Area From "A" Residence To 1st Height and Area "B" Residence 2nd Height and Area 108 EAST INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (excluding Tracor and Motorola) by the Planning Department C14-75-126 (Concerned Citizens of East Austin; Stonegate Neighborhood Association) CROW AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By Roy Bechtol C814-76-001 (Spicewood Springs Road Valley Associa- tion) (Spicewood Springs Valley Area) DRISKILL HOTEL Highland Resources, owner C14h-74-018 (East Sixth Street Conservation Association) MRS. W. T. CASWELL By Wilmer Allison C14-75-113 (Concerned Citizens of East Austin) BALCOR REALTY INVESTORS By Dan Cates C14-75-131 (No formal neighborhood group) CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 3000-4800 Blocks of Ed Bluestein Boulevard 6000-6807 Martin Luther King Boulevard Loop 360 and Great Hills Drive 117 East 7th Street 410 Chicon Street, also bounded by East 4th Street 400 East Anderson Lane (U.S. 183) also bounded by Gessner Drive January 22, 1976 From Interim "AA" Residence 1st Height and Area "D" Industrial 1st Height and Area to To a Planned Unit Development of 259 detached single-family units, 120 townhouse units with additional proposed commercial and multi-family acreage and common open space, called "GREAT HILLS" #2 From "C-2" Commercial 4th Height and Area Το "C-2-H" Commercial-Historic 4th Height and Area From "B" Residence To 2nd Height and Area "D" Industrial 2nd Height and Area From "GR" General Retail 3rd Height and Area Το "C-2" Commercial 3rd Height and Area ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 6:48 p.m. ATTEST: Gran Monroe City Clerk 1 APPROVED Mayor