1971-08-03 Regular CC MinutesREqULAR-MEETINQ-0E- THE- COUNCIL_OF-THE- CITY, OF. ALAMEDA
FELD' TUESDAY- AUGUST 3 ; 1971
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Longaker and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The
Reverend Milton L. Gire, Pastor of the First Baptist Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (5),
were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held July 20, 1971, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From Mrs. Leonora Luntsford, 1143 Mound Street, with regard to property taxes, property lines and
survey points.
President La Croix stated Mrs. Luntsford had from time to time submitted communications with regard to
methods of determining correct property lines. He commented that the situation she had mentioned with
regard to her neighbor's property was a matter which was out of the jurisdiction of the City.
The communication was referred to the City Attorney's file on the subject.
3.y/ From Alameda Womans Improvement Club, signed by Mrs. Louise Benedetti, Recording Secretary, with
respect to making Willow and Walnut Streets one-way thoroughfares and providing a "Peddle Inn" on
Central Avenue for use by bicyclists.
President La Croix remarked that the City had in the past given consideration to the matter of restrict-
ing traffic on Willow and Walnut Streets to one way. The proposal had been rejected because of pressures
from residents in the general area. He suggested the letter be referred to the Traffic Advisory Com-
mittee for a review and report on this question. It was so ordered.
Speaking of the suggestion that a "Peddle Inn" be created on Central Avenue for bicyclists, President
La Croix stated the Recreation Department, in conjunction with the Planning Department, was in the
process of studying the subject of bicycle lanes. He said he felt the idea was a worthy one and he was
in hopes that definite routes could be designated in the near future.
4. From the Planning Commission of Alameda County, signed by Mr. William H. Fraley, Planning Director,
informing the City Council of a Public Hearing by the Airport Land Use Commission on August 11, 1971,
to consider and establish planning boundaries for the area about Oakland International Airport, pursuant
to the State Public Utilities Code. It was stated that all of the City of Alameda was proposed to be
included within these planning boundaries.
President La Croix stated this matter was one of great importance to the City as the Airport Land Use
Commission had a number of powers with regard to height limitations, restrictions on buildings in
general areas, et cetera, and the people of the City would be involved in its decisions.
Upon invitation to comment, Councilman McCall, a member of the Commission, said he had been greatly
impressed to learn the extent of its powers with regard to noise, air pollution, et cetera.
On request, City Attorney Cunningham stated the Planning Director had scheduled a meeting of staff
members for discussion of the August 11 Hearing. He read from a prepared statement the duties and
powers of the Commission, as follows, adding his comments: (1) To study conditions and make recom-
mendations concerning need for height restrictions on buildings near airports; (2) To make recommenda-
tions for use of land surrounding airports to assure safety of air navigation and the promotion of air
commerce; (3) To hold public hearings on the previous two directions and to make findings of fact, which
are advisory only to the jurisdiction involved, in this case the City of Alameda; (4) To make rules and
regulations for conduct of the business of the Commission. A further, long-range duty, Mr. Cunningham
said, was the formulation of a comprehensive land use plan in conformity with the State Master Airport
Plan, which plan was supposed to reflect the anticipated growth of airports during at least the next
twenty years, each city represented on the Commission to be required to assist in development of the
plan. Mr. Cunningham explained responsibilities of the City in connection with the plan.
5. From Mr. Bill Bostwick, 1149 Bismarck Lane, expressing agreement with the Council's rejection of
Bay View Development Co.'s application for rezoning a parcel of approximately six acres at the north-
,
westerly corner of Mecartney and County Roads, and suggesting that a design review provision be added
to the zoning ordinance.
The members of the Council expressed concern with regard to the design aspect of planning and involve-
ment by the Planning Board in the entire question of aesthetics and design control. On question, Mr.
Johnson stated the Board had given study to the subject and reference to it was included in the revision
of the Planned Development ordinance on which the Hearing would be held at this meeting.
6. V From Miss Jayne H. Langdon, 507 Central Avenue, with regard to the Planning Board's acceptance of
the Ballena Bay Planned Development revision at its meeting held July 26, 1971, criticizing the Board
for its action, in which a twelve-story hotel project had been approved.
281
President La Croix pointed out Planned Developments did not come before the City Council for action
but were matters for the Board's consideration. He said he felt very strongly about the decision and
that the members of the Planning Board and staff should receive copies of the communication. He requested
that Mr. Johnson see that this was done.
7. From Mr. Frank A. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, regarding a catch basin constructed in and on the
public sidewalk in front of his home.
President La Croix commented that this subject had been presented to the City Council on previous occasions,
and that the City Engineer, in concurrence with the Council, had indicated that the catch basin was proper
and there was no action to be taken. The communication was ordered filed.
8. '' From Mr. Kenneth A. Main, informing the City Council of the near - unanimous approval by the Ballena
Bay Homeowners' Association of the Planned Development revision for that area, which had been accepted by
the Planning Board at its meeting held July 26, 1971.
It was directed that the communication be referred to the file on the subject.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
9. Mrs. Luntsford elaborated on her letter, stressing that property owners should inspect their deeds
to be assured they were correct.
10.` ~ ~f Mr. Gottstein said the catch basin about which he had written to the Council was stopped up because
it was only six inches deep whereas the ordinance required a depth of eighteen inches; also he said it was
located over a gas main. He complained that the installation should have been in the private property,
not on City property, that the location of the basin was due to the fact that the people installing it had
only ten feet of pipe whereas a man in business would have had sufficient material to do a proper job.
On request, Mr. Lee Eichelberger, Assistant City Engineer, stated many catch basins in the City were
installed in similar locations to the one under criticism and many were installed farther back, that this
was normal procedure.
11.Y Mrs. Lynn Moll, 467 Santa Clara Avenue, inquired as to the location of the proposed twelve -story
hotel in the Ballena Bay development.
President La Croix stated he was under the impression that the plans indicated the structure would be
located in the water area on the southwest corner of the development. He suggested Mrs. Moll discuss her
questions with the Planning Department.
Mrs. Moll expressed her disapproval of the increased population coming into the City, the resulting addi-
tional traffic congestion and crowded school conditions. She commended Mr. Gottstein on the matters he
brought before the Council.
12. Mrs. Ina Ratto, 1053 Island Drive, said she had been delegated by the Chairman of the Planning Board
to speak during the Hearing on the Planned Development Ordinance revision.
13. Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, stated that records and plans which had been forwarded to the
Planning Department were available in the Department office, Room 315, for any member of the public who
would like to inspect them.
14.V Langdon stated she had been informed that many air patterns crossed just easterly of the Ballena
Bay project, which she felt could create a very unsatisfactory condition for the residents of the area.
She said she felt very strongly about the height of the proposed hotel.
President La Croix said the members of the Council felt great concern about the proposed project and sug-
gested that recourse would be to appeal to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which he
believed had not yet approved the project, in objection to the height limitation granted. He said he felt
the approval of the height would definitely set a precedent and other developers would apply to the Plan-
ning Board for similar exceptions. He suggested Miss Langdon also discuss the matter with Messrs. Johnson
and Cunningham.
15. Mrs. Moll requested the opportunity to speak again and suggested that members of the Council appeal
to the B. C. D. C. on the Ballena Bay matter.
Councilman McCall raised the question that there might be a conflict in the law in this matter. He
expressed the opinion that anything of the magnitude of the proposed development, Planned Development or
otherwise, should come before the City Council, that the Council had the right to at least a preview showing
before presentation to the Planning Board. He pointed out that the land involved was City -owned and leased
to the developer, and the Council was the controlling interest.
HEARINGS:
15. In the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a variance to permit five
dwelling units on a lot 7,285.5 square feet, having a deficiency of 214.5 square feet, on construction at
2050 Buena Vista Avenue. The Appeal had been filed by Harold W. and Elaine D. Hushour.
The Clerk stated the Appellants had been informed that this would be the time and place for. the Hearing in
the matter and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the application was considered had been
sent to the Councilmen.
Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board on this request, as set forth in
his memorandum dated July 19, 1971. The motion to grant the variance had failed by a vote of three to one,
with only four members present, and the variance had been denied by default. He said the Board had noted
that similar and identical variances had been granted in the past, particularly on properties adjacent to
the one involved, and the staff had recommended approval of the request, finding that the variance desired
was not excessive. He said there had been no protests and one letter in support. The Board member voting
against the variance had indicated he felt sufficient findings of hardship, unusual circumstances and
necessity of the request had not been given.
City Attorney Cunningham stated this was a so- called Major Variance as defined in the Municipal Code
amendment covering the Zoning Administrator, No. 1635, New Series. The Appeal came to the Council under
Section 11- 161(f), requiring that the applicant state specifically wherein it was claimed there was an
error or abuse of discretion by the Board or wherein its decision was not supported by the evidence in
the record. The issue to be considered was whether the four conditions required by Section 11- 161(d)
were present.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Stanley D. Whitney, Attorney, came forward to represent Mr. and Mrs.
Hushour. He argued that properties adjacent to that in question, at 2040 and 2048 Buena Vista Avenue,
had had the same problem and the Planning Board had granted variances thereon. He pointed out a similar
action by the Board some months ago for Mr. Donald B. Bitner on property at 1532 -34 Verdi Street and
said it seemed grossly unjust not to allow Mr. and Mrs. Hushour a similar adjustment. He described the
proposed structure and said the appellant proposed to build a fifth unit over the two garages to the
rear of the property. Additional land would not be taken and the setbacks and other exceptions would be
identical to those required for four units. Mr. Hushour planned to provide seven garages for five units.
Mr. Whitney said he felt simply denying Mr. and Mrs. Hushour the right to construct the additional unit
because of the lot deficiency would be a hardship, in view of the rental possibilities they would enjoy
by the additional unit. He said it seemed to be extremely unusual that because of the deficiency the
appeallant could not use the balance of his space. He claimed the necessity for the request was obvious,
that Mr. Hushour must have the variance in order to construct the fifth unit. He expressed the opinion
that there was no defense against the proposal, that the development was good - looking and there had been
no objections to it. Mr. Whitney pointed out all of the conditions had been met, the Planning Depart-
ment had recommended that the variance be allowed and if the Board had had its full membership present,
he felt the variance would have been granted at that level.
Mr. Johnson requested the opportunity to speak and stated this was a case where the widening of Buena
Vista Avenue had not been recorded in connection with the property under discussion. Mr. Whitney expressed
the opinion that this was another element of hardship, he felt the matter was clear and the variance
should be allowed.
On the call for opponents, Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, came forward. She referred to the
League of California Cities Digest of 1970 Legislature, effective November 20, 1970, Senate Bill 23
amending Section 65906 of the Government Code, dealing with zoning and the prohibition of use variances,
and questioned whether the section applied in this matter. Mr. Johnson stated the point had been raised
at the Board Hearing and, in discussing the matter with the City Attorney,-it had been pointed out this
was not a use variance but an intensity variance.
Mr. Cunningham said in his opinion the Section would apply to change in usage and would not control a
charter city, as the same Code provides that local ordinances take precedence over State law.
Mrs. Lane said she objected to allowing any variances where there was shortage of land as she felt,
regardless of the large developments coming into the City, it would be the overbuilding of small parcels
that would ruin the City.
The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman Fore moved the Appeal be granted and the decision of the
Planning Board in this matter be overruled. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion.
Councilman McCall expressed the thought that the Council was not actually overruling the Board as he
felt if the Board had been in full attendance it would have approved the variance.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
17. In the Matter of a Proposal, on the Planning Board's Own Motion, to amend the Planned Development
section of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series).
The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of this time and place
for the Hearing and the minutes of the Planning Board meetings at which the subject was considered had
been sent to the Councilmen.
Mr. Johnson briefly outlined the proposed ordinance, giving its salient points, as set forth in the
Board's letter of June 20 and his memorandum dated July 23, 1971. He said Mr. Bernard Carter, Assistant
Planner, who was the author of the document, was present at this meeting. He said the proposed ordinance
had been through many drafts and revisions and it was a substantial change, updating and enlargement of
the present ordinance, naming the recommended revisions: the minimum land area to be specified as two
acres; the requirement that licensed or registered professionals be employed by the developer or the
owner for preparation of all plans; close control of land uses both as to type and to extended use;
limitation of land use intensity increases, factored by underlying zoning as well as specified design
credits; application fees; public hearings; regulation of modifications, transfers, and improvement
schedules.
President La Croix raised questions with regard to the provision for bonuses to be given the developer
who cooperated and conformed to the ordinance, with Mr. Johnson furnishing the information requested.
Councilman McCall expressed the opinion that the Council should be in the picture on Planned Development
projects at the time of the recommended pre - application conference with the Planning Department. It was
273
pointed out the proposed ordinance did not provide Hearings or appeal before the Council. Councilmen
Longaker and McCall expressed the thinking that the Council should have this right.
There was some discussion on the point. Mr. Cunningham suggested that the Hearing be continued and the
proposed ordinance be referred back with the request that something be developed which would be more
acceptable to the Council. Mr. Johnson expressed his thinking on the subject of Council authority in the
matter.
City Manager Weller suggested that a provision be made for adequate review of the Planning Board's judgment
on Planned Development project applications in the areas where the judgment is objective, such as on
density, open space, percentage of area covered, et cetera, rather than on subjective judgments. He said
he felt the problem, if the matter was to go back for further review, was to attempt to define those areas
which were essentially technical and objective in nature and provide for a more or less standard review
and appeal procedure in these respects but not with regard to color, style, et cetera.
President La Croix xaid he felt the big concern of the moment was that a twelve -story structure had been
approved for development and the Council, as the political body of the City, had had no say in determining
whether or not it was acceptable. He said the term of appeal was not necessary but he would like to see
some way whereby the Council could be made aware of what the total development would ultimately be and
the impact it would have on a given area of the community, with control over certain phases.
Members of the Council indicated their agreement. It was stated their concern was with aspects such as
height limits, density and traffic problems.
There was further discussion on what was desired by the Council and the possibility of referring the pro-
posed revision to the staff for conference with the City Manager's office, Mr. Johnson and the Board for
study of the points discussed, such as the physical problems which could result in great concern to the
members of the Council.
Mrs. Ratto, who had requested the opportunity to speak, addressed the Council with respect to Section 11 -1335
of the proposed ordinance, as follows: "The Board .shall approve a Planned Development only if it finds
that each of the following standards is met: (a) The Planned Development is in furtherance or implementa-
tion of the General Plan. If the development is considered desirable in the public interest, but is in
conflict with the General Plan, amendment of the General Plan shall first be made."
Mrs. Ratto stated the draft of the section by the Board had included the words at the end of the last
sentence: " amendment of the General Plan is in order," for the reason that it felt this would allow
flexibility to the developer; if he felt he had a better plan he could present it and the General Plan
could be amended accordingly.
Mr. Cunningham, on request, said State law prohibits any zoning decision which is not made in conformance
with the General Plan and prohibits zoning in derogation of the General Plan unless the Plan is first
amended. He said he had not caught the sentence until the third time he had reviewed the document. He
suggested that some other language which might satisfy the law be discussed with Mrs. Ratto and other
members of the Board who felt as she did.
It was stated this item should be included in the restudy of the proposed ordinance and the proper nomen-
clature be inserted in the document which would come back to the Council.
Councilman Longaker moved the Hearing be continued and the proposed Planned Development ordinance be
referred back to the staff for study. Councilman Fore seconded the motion.
Councilman McCall, on the question, with regard to Section 11- 1358.6 - Preapplication Conference, said he
felt this was a most important provision. He said he felt when the City wished to welcome good developers
the Council should make them aware of its thinking in the way of height restrictions, plans, aesthetics,
et cetera, so that the development would fit well into the community.
The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes:
None. Absent: None.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
17. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1277,
New Series, concerning uses requiring Use Permits.
The Hearing on this matter was set for the next regular meeting of the Council on August 17, 1971.
18./ From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Painting the
City Hall Trim, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed.
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be followed, that all work be accepted as satisfactorily completed
on the designated project and the Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion
which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
19. The matter was brought up on the Planning Board's recommendation for approval of Parcel Map No. 691,
subject to terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report dated May 21, 1971, and specific exception
on frontage requirements on Parcel 2, on division of property at 1208 St. Charles Street.
It was stated this matter would be continued to the meeting of August 17, 1971, for submission of the
required bond.
RESOLUTIONS:
20.'7 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7816
Appointing Members of Charter Amendment Advisory Committee." (John
Barni, Sr.; Charles A. Briscoe; Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane; Edwin J. Lynch;
C. W. Moore)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
21. ✓ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7817
Authorizing Execution of Contract with Griffenhagen - Kroeger, Inc.,
for Furnishing Personnel Testing and Scoring Services."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7818
Approving Final Map of Condominium Subdivision Known as Tract 3253,
Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction of Public Improve-
ments Therein, Accepting a Certain Easement, and Approving Faithful
Performance Bond as to Sufficiency (West Side of Willow Street Between
Sandcreek Way and Whitehall Place - Wayne H. Craycroft, Bruno G. Santone,
Rovetta M. Santone, Joan P. Alexander, Grant H. Alexander, John Thayer
Fee and Marion S. Fee, Subdividers)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7819
Approving Map Showing Locations of Proposed City Street Construction
Work to be Performed with 1971 -72 Fiscal Year Moneys Payable by County
of Alameda Under 'Mayors' Formula,' and Derived from State Highway
Users Tax Fund."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
24. "Resolution No.
Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction and Completion of
Improvements in Connection with Parcel Map No. 691 and Approving
Faithful Performance Bond as to Sufficiency (Division of Property at
1208 St. Charles Street - Sarah K. Mark, Formerly Sarah K. Pollard,
and Clifford G. Wallace)."
25. "Resolution No.
Approving Parcel Map No. 691 for Division of Property at 1208 St. Charles
Street, Alameda, California, and Permitting Recording Thereof (Sarah K.
Mark, Formerly Sarah K. Pollard, and Clifford G. Wallace)."
The preceding two resolutions were again continued, to the meeting of August 17, 1971.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
26. "Ordinance No. 1648,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4 -215 Thereto,
Relating to Hours of Public Use of Parks."
Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
27. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $23,947.35, was presented to the Council at this meeting.
The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct.
285
Councilman Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on August 3,
1971, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded
by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
28. Mrs. Lane, 1425 Union Street, read a prepared statement suggesting the City Council consider institu-
ting a hotel, motel and boatel tax in view of new developments coming into the City.
President La Croix said this tax had been considered in the past and would undoubtedly be investigated for
the future; however, he said, in view of the manner and cost of collecting, the amount of revenue to be
derived had not been deemed sufficient to warrant adoption of the tax.
29. Mr. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, commented that several cities in the State had protested the rise
in telephone rates and suggested the City do likewise.
30. Mrs. Joy Osborne, 656 Westline Drive, said she was interested in the position of the Councilmen on
high -rise development. She urged that the Council give close and prompt consideration to the question as
applications including this feature would be coming before the Planning Board in the next few weeks.
FILING:
31. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity, as of May 31, 1971 - Verified by George A.
Hackleman.
32. Agreement - Between City and Griffenhagen - Kroeger, Inc. - for furnishing personnel testing and
scoring services.
33. Agreement - Between Wayne H. Craycroft, et al and City - re Tract No. 3253.
MEMORIAL RESOLUTIONS:
34.1/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7820
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to
Glenn A. Baxter, Retired General Manager of the Bureau of Electricity
"IN A SPIRIT OF SADNESS, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one
of its former and most faithful employees, GLENN A. BAXTER.
"WHEREAS, Mr. Baxter had commenced his employment with the City of Alameda on Septem-
ber 25, 1931, as Secretary of the Public Utilities Board and had performed most efficiently
in this position until September 1, 1951, when he was appointed General Manager of the Bureau
of Electricity, in conjunction with his previous duties, in which capacity he was serving at
the time of his retirement on August 18, 1964; and
"WHEREAS, Mr. Baxter had demonstrated his loyalty and competence in the full assumption
of the responsibilities of his office; and
"WHEREAS, Mr. Baxter had earned recognition in the field of public utilities manage-
ment, having brought honor to the City through his service as Secretary and Treasurer, respectively,
of the Northern California Municipal Utilities Association and the California Municipal Utilities
Association, and participation in the work of certain committees of the American Public Power
Association.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda, in acknowledge-
ment of the integrity and expertise extended by this excellent former employee to the mutual
benefit of the citizens and the City, does hereby express its gratitude for the thirty -three
years of noteworthy service rendered by Mr. Baxter.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be spread in full upon the minutes of this
meeting and a copy thereof be forwarded to the family of Mr. Baxter that it might convey to its
members sincere sympathy in their bereavement.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when this meeting of the Council of the City of Alameda
adjourns, it shall do so in respect to the memory of GLENN A. BAXTER."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
35. /' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7821
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to
Eugene G. 'Sam' Rodenborn of the Fire Department.
"WITH DEEP SORROW, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one of
its loyal employees, EUGENE G. 'SAM' RODENBORN.
"WHEREAS, Mr. Rodenborn had been employed by the City of Alameda on July 16, 1946,
as a Fireman and on February 15, 1965, had been assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau of
the Fire Department, in which capacity he was serving at the time of his demise; and
"WHEREAS, 'Sam' Rodenborn, as he was called by all who knew him, had been diligent
and conscientious in the performance of his duties and had been most popular for his quiet,
friendly manner toward his associates and fellow workers, who have been deeply shocked and
saddened by his sudden and untimely death.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby
acknowledge with appreciation the reliable service rendered by this excellent and faithful
employee during his years of City employ and expresses its sense of personal loss in his
passing.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be spread in full upon the minutes of
this meeting and a copy thereof be sent to the family of Mr. Rodenborn to extend to its
members sincere sympathy in their bereavement.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when this meeting of the Council of the City of Alameda
adjourns, it shall do so in respect to the memory of EUGENE G. 'SAM' RODENBORN."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
President La Croix requested that all rise for a moment of silence in observance of the passing of
Messrs. Baxter and Rodenborn.
ADJOURNMENT:
36. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to
the memory of GLENN A. BAXTER and EUGENE G. "SAM" RODENBORN, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday,
August 17, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i
City Clerk