Loading...
Resolution 12110CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. -12110 ADOPTING FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ON ADOPTION OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "CIC ") prepared and submitted to the City Council of the City of Alameda (the "City Council ") a proposed Community Improvement Plan (the "Community Improvement Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on May 21, 1991 on adoption of the Community Improvement Plan and on certification of the Final Environment Impact Report (the "EIR ") on the Community Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all written comments received and all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Community Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that before adopting the Community Improvement Plan, the legislative body shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity and shall respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council has considered all evidence an testimony on the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan and ha responded in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing. Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the written findings in response to each written objection of affected property owners and taxing entities attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. EXHIBIT A WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO OBJECTION FROM CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AND THE PERALTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DATED MAY 21, 1991 Response, Item 1. The Council finds that the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (Project) and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identify the Project's impacts on the Superintendent and the College District and finds the impacts to be insignificant based on the following facts: o State law provides for the formation of a Fiscal Review Committee (FRC), as part of the Community Improvement Plan (the "Plan") adoption process, to identify and evaluate impacts on taxing entities caused by the proposed Project. This process gives the Superintendent and the District the opportunity to submit evidence of increase in services due to economic growth or population growth and financial impacts on the taxing entity (Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5(b), and Pages 154 and 157 of the Final EIR). o Neither the Superintendent nor the District submitted evidence of significant impact as part of the FRC process (Report of the Fiscal Review Committee, April 9, 1991, Page 5). o The CIC has prepared a Written Response, dated May 10, 1991, to the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee. The Written Response evaluates information supplied by the Superintendent and the District to the FRC, and concludes that there is no evidence of significant impact; the potential impact of the BWIP on both the Superintendent and the District would be minor. The tax increment revenue allocated to the CIC during the 40-year BWIP cycle would represent less than a one-tenth of a percent (0.096 percent) loss of potential property tax revenue for the Superintendent and less than four-tenths of a percent (0.369 percent) potential property tax revenue loss for the District (Table 6, Page XVI-11 of the Report to Council, dated April 1991, and Pages 6 and 7 of the May 10, 1991 CIC Response to FRC Report). o Furthermore, according to the FRC Report and supporting documentation, the state "holds harmless" the County Office of Education and the Peralta Community College District from decreases in property tax revenue through the process of increasing the state's apportionment to the schools. "When the District's revenue limit income (sic) is calculated, the state apportionment is increased to replace the lost tax income (if any) due to the Exhibit A Page 2 Written Findings in Response to Objection redevelopment project." (California School Financial Services, Inc. letter, dated March 12, 1991, FRC Report) Consequently, even if the District and/or the Superintendent experience slight impacts, they are thus held harmless from the effect of such impacts. o Since the potential project impact on schools is anticipated to be minimal, the EIR does not require mitigation measures to alleviate the environmental effect of the Project on schools. o The projected property tax increases are based on the investment by the CIC of tax increment. Without this investment the property tax would not increase to this extent and would not be "lost to the Superintendent and the District." Response, Item 2. The Council finds that the Project and the EIR have adequately addressed economic growth and population growth and find that there is no evidence of significant impact on the Superintendent and the District based on the following facts: o Page 30 of the Final EIR concludes a discussion of the estimated population, both of the City of Alameda and of the BWIP Area, in the year 2010. City population would be 81,400 persons, while that of the BWIP would increase by about 1,150 people. This would only represent a 1.5 percent increase in Alameda's 1989 population. Response, Item 3. The Council finds that the EIR sufficiently acknowledged the extent to which state legislated mitigation measures will alleviate environmental effect of the Project on schools based on the following facts: o See response under Item 1. o The Final EIR has been prepared in full compliance with locally adopted environmental review procedures and all applicable requirements and provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). o The FRC report and response to it are incorporated into the EIR by reference (Page 154 of the Final EIR). o The Final EIR contains written responses to all written and oral comments received during the public comment period, including all comments received from California School Financial Services, Inc., written on behalf of the Superintendent and the District. Exhibit A Page 3 Written Findings in Response to Objection Response, Item 4. The Council finds that the Project and the EIR have fully complied with state law requirements to evaluate and respond to potential fiscal burden or detriment that may be caused the Superintendent and the District based on the following facts: o See response under Item 1. o Page 7, of the CIC Written Response to the FRC Report responds to Superintendent and District concerns regarding division of tax increment revenues generated by the Project Area. According to Health and Safety Code Section 33012(b), "The division of taxes pursuant to Section 33670, by itself, shall not constitute financial burden or detriment." Therefore, the mere fact that the CIC would create the BWIP, thereby causing a division of property taxes, would not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of financial burden or detriment. Furthermore, neither the Superintendent nor the District have submitted evidence of significant impact. Response, Item 5. The Council finds that the Project and the EIR have examined projections for increased student enrollment due to the Project and find that there is no evidence of significant impact based on the following facts: o See response under Item 1. o Impacts on school enrollment were independently analyzed by the CIC, and it was concluded that the growth that may occur within the BWIP area would not cause any net impact on schools (See CIC Response to the Report of the FRC, Page 1-4; see also memorandum prepared by Beth Mercer and Jim Musbach of Economic Planning Systems, Appendix F of the Final EIR, and updated April 3, 1991, as Attachment 2 of the CIC Response to the FRC Report). o The Draft General Plan for the City of Alameda anticipated a total of 3,130 dwelling units would be constructed in the entire City of Alameda between 1991 and 2010. Of these units, an estimated 625 dwelling units would be constructed within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP). The CIC's analysis notes that the buildout enrollment for students living in the 625 dwelling units could be 418, while the excess capacity of schools within one half mile of the project boundary, or which would serve the BWIP students is 1,850. For elementary students (K-5), after BWIP buildout there would still be enough excess capacity to allow. for the enrollment of 406 more students. After Exhibit A Page 4 Written Findings in Response to Objection BWIP buildout, middle schools (6 -8) would still have enough excess capacity to allow for the enrollment of 187 more students. After BWIP buildout, high schools would have enough excess capacity to accommodate another 839 students (Attachment 2 of the CIC Response to the FRC Report). o Impacts on school enrollment were also analyzed for commercial /industrial growth that may occur within the BWIP area, and it was concluded that such growth would not cause any net impact on schools. As a result of the 2,630 employees that could be generated by the project, 799 new households may move into Alameda. When the 312 households projected to live in BWIP housing units are netted from this figure, 487 households are left, which are expected to generate 184 new students. There is a system -wide excess capacity which is able to handle 1,982 more students, after subtracting out the students generated by BWIP residential growth. There will still be a generous margin of excess capacity at the elementary, middle, and senior high school levels after BWIP buildout (Attachment 2 of the CIC Response to the FRC Report). o The CIC has not received any evidence from the Superintendent or the District which is inconsistent with these facts or this finding. Response, Item 6. The Council finds that the Project and the EIR adequately address timing and implementation of the Project based on the following facts: o There is no requirement that the Project include a specific schedule for implementation; the Plan is not a specific development plan. o The Community Improvement Plan contains all provisions required under Community Redevelopment Law. Response, Item 7. The Council finds that the Project and the EIR adequately address the Project's low and moderate income housing impacts. This finding is based on the following facts: o Page 33 of the Final EIR discusses low and moderate income housing requirements. o The CIC fully intends to utilize statutorily required portions of tax increment revenues to enhance the supply of affordable housing as required by law. Exhibit A Page 5 Written Findings in Response to Objection o The City has an adopted housing element as part of the General Plan revised in 1991. The CIC intends to utilize housing set-aside funds consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. o Housing set-aside funds may be used for a variety of housing programs including, but not limited to, rehabilitation, acquisition, new construction, etc. But, the location, numbers of units, tenure of units, type of units, nature of housing activity, etc. are all unknown at this time. It would be speculative at this time to attempt to assess impact; CEQA specifically states that level of impact assessment should be matched to the level of program detail available. If program detail is unavailable, then the EIR should avoid speculating about impact (CEQA 15146). Response, Item 8. The Council finds that the Project and the EIR have adequately considered permitting private enterprise acting alone to develop the Project area based on the following facts: o CEQA contains no requirement for the EIR to consider the extent to which private enterprise acting alone could develop the Project Area. o However, Page 91 of the Final EIR, does discuss a "No Project (do nothing)" alternative. "Growth and development within the Project area would continue as it has in the past, without the stimulus that adoption of the plan would provide. In essence, decline, deterioration and blighting conditions would continue throughout the Project area. Adoption of the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project would provide a stimulus to reduce the effects. Without creation of the Project, decline and deterioration would continue. It was found that private actions were insufficient to bring about the necessary improvements within the project area." o Chapter IV, Pages IV-41 through IV-43 of the Report to Council document impaired investments and economic decline and Chapter VI, Pages VI-1 through VI-3 document the inability of alternative financing mechanisms to accomplish the goals of redevelopment through private enterprise acting alone. o Alameda is experiencing an increasing rate of retail sales tax leakage. Retail sales per-capita for these 'areas are only 73% of per capita retail sales in Alameda Exhibit A Page 6 Written Findings in Response to Objection County; and they have been declining steadily over the last five years. In 1985, Alameda per capita retail sales stood at 75.6% of per capita retail sales in Alameda County; by 1989, annual per capita retail sales had declined to a relative 72.8 percent. Although the trend in retail sales on Park Street is positive, Webster Street retail sales declined by eight percent between 1988 and 1989. o While vacancies on Webster Street were very low in 1989, anchor retailers are no longer to be found, including: Lucky Food Stores, Thrifty Drug, Sprouse Reitz, Devon Home Center, and numerous smaller stores. o Park Street Historic District maintains a retail core but will be especially impacted by the need to upgrade 55 unreinforced masonry buildings. In all, 118 of the City's 182 unreinforced masonry buildings lie within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area. o Liability and cost of toxic contamination cleanup has become one of the major issues affecting land ownership and development financing in the 1990's. As is described in the Report to Council, there are a number of sites in the Project area suffering from toxic contamination caused by previous industrial and automotive related uses. Public and private development efforts have been frustrated by the time, cost and risk associated with cleaning up these sites. Only the Community Improvement Commission acting in accordance with redevelopment law affords the ability to reduce liability to future property owners once remediation efforts are complete. o Major new development along the waterfront has not occurred in the absence of significant public intervention. o Bethlehem Steel Shipyards, a 225 acre, abandoned area, located adjacent to the proposed BWIP area, sat vacant for 30 years due to the inability of private enterprise to act alone. It was only the City's creation in 1983 of the West End Community Improvement (a redevelopment) Project that caused the private enterprise to develop the area. o Grand Harbor Marina, a new development in 1989, was developed only because of public financing available to marina operators through the California Division of Boating and Waterways. Exhibit A Page 7 Written Findings in Response to Objection o Park Street Landing, a new development in 1988, only occurred with the City's issuance of development financing through the use of Industrial Development Bonds. o If the City formed a special assessment district, issued bonds in the amount of the total projected cost ($121 million) and assessed each property owner to retire the bonds, an average homeowner in the Project area would have to pay approximately $900 per month, based an a median assumed housing value of $200,000 (based on the 1990 Census). This would be unaffordable under any standard. Businesses and commercial property owners are stymied as to how they are going to finance the cost of upgrading their buildings to meet seismic requirements of the Health and Safety Code, given the existing tapped-out lease rates. There is no margin for added property tax assessments of the magnitude that would be required by formation of a special assessment district. Response, Item 9. The Council finds that the Project area is blighted based on evidence contained in the Report to Council, Chapter III - Project Area, Pages 1-5, and Chapter IV - Blight, Pages 1-42. The District and the Superintendent have not submitted evidence inconsistent with this finding. Response, Item 10. The Council finds that the Project and the EIR have adequately considered "migration (sic) into the area caused by the Project" based on the following facts: o See response under Item 5. o Page 88 of the Final EIR states, "Redevelopment of the mixed-use parcels would contribute to the projected shift in the ratio of Alameda jobs to employed residents as stated in the General Plan Final EIR. This projection is estimated to change from 0.95 in 1990 to 1.33 at buildout (ie, buildout which will occur City-wide under the General Plan) and would create significant environmental impacts associated with longer journeys to work. Because both Northern Alameda County and Alameda County as a whole are projected by ABAG to have a job surplus in the year 2005, travel-related environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated." o The CIC has made written findings set forth in Exhibit A to Resolution No.91-50 adopted by the CIC and Exhibit A Page 8 Written Findings in Response to Objection Recommending Certification of Completion of the Final EIR. o Each mitigation measure is summarized in the Summary Table of the Final EIR and constitutes a change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Plan, thereby avoiding or substantially lessening the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and in Exhibit A to the Resolution Certifying Completion of the Final EIR. o The CIC has found that significant environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level, in that all significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened, except for the potential impact of new development on the jobs/housing balance, resulting from implementation of General Plan policies. o The CIC has found that, although the Final EIR identified certain significant environmental effects that will result if the BWIP is implemented, all significant effects that can be feasibly avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the mitigation measures incorporated in the Final EIR. o The CIC further found that the Final EIR identified one environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the Project is implemented and that this remaining unavoidable significant effect was found to be acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the finding of overriding consideration stated in Section 10 of the CIC Resolution No. 91-50 , Recommending Certification of Completion and Making Findings as to the Final EIR. Response, Item 11. The Council finds that the Project has adequately specified limitations on type, size, height, number and proposed used of buildings consistent with the level of specificity required by statute based on the following facts: o Section 33333 of the Health and Safety Code says, "Every redevelopment plan shall show by diagram and in general terms...." Sections 400 through 429 of the proposed Community Improvement Plan, including the Redevelopment Land Use Map, Attachment 3, show by diagram and in general terms all information required by Section 33333. o Furthermore, the proposed Plan relates all proposed uses and limitations to the 1991 General Plan, and the City's General Plan also contains sufficient specificity to satisfy statutory requirements. Exhibit A Page 9 Written Findings in Response to Objection Response, Item 12. The Council finds that the Project has adequately addressed all provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5 based on the following facts: o There is no need for, or requirement that, the CIC or Project concern itself with implementation of the provisions contained in Section 33353.5, because this section outlines the duties, responsibilities, obligations, and options of the FRC, not the CIC. This section outlines the possible contents of the FRC's final report to the CIC. o The Community Improvement Commission has no standing to sit on the Fiscal Review Committee (Section 33353.2). o California Financial Services, Inc., as agent for the Superintendent and the District, participated in the FRC (Report of the FRC, Page 1). Therefore, both the Superintendent and the District had the opportunity to present evidence of significant impact upon them and they had the opportunity to persuade other members of the FRC to recommend measures discussed in Item 12 (modification of the tax increment cap, life of the plan, etc.). o It is the obligation of the Superintendent and the District to submit evidence of fiscal burden or detriment for inclusion in the FRC Report. If the final FRC Report failed to recommend the types of measures suggested by the Commentor, it is due to the Superintendent and the District's failure to perform, not the CIC's. Response, Item 13. The Council finds that regardless of whether legislative action to continue, discontinue, or modify the current process of paying subventions to schools, no evidence of significant impact has been presented by the Superintendent or the District. This finding is based on the following facts: o Neither the Superintendent nor the District have submitted evidence of significant impact. o The CIC has prepared a Written Response, dated May 10, 1991, to the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee. The Written Response evaluates information supplied by the Superintendent and the District to the FRC, and concludes that there is no evidence of significant impact; the potential impact of the BWIP on both the Superintendent and the District would be minor. The tax increment revenue allocated to the CIC during the 40-year BWIP Exhibit A Page 10 Written Findings in Response to Objection cycle would represent less than a one-tenth of a percent (0.096 percent) loss of potential property tax revenue for the Superintendent and less than four-tenths of a percent (0.369 percent) potential property tax revenue loss for the District (Table 6, Page XVI-11 of the Report to Council, dated April 1991, and Pages 6 and 7 of the May 10, 1991 CIC Response to FRC Report). Response, Item 14. The Council finds that the Project has identified the Project's impacts on the Superintendent and the College District and find the impacts to be insignificant, based on the following facts: o See responses under Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. o On the contrary, the history of redevelopment in California shows that the state ends up with more revenue as a result of redevelopment activities. Redevelopment projects and activities throughout the state have, on the whole, had the effect of increasing revenue to the state. o Upon receipt of evidence of significant impact, the CIC would consider instituting appropriate mitigation measures. Response, Item 15. The Council finds that the Plan contains all elements and provisions required under Redevelopment law. Additionally, see responses under Items 6, 7 and 11. Response, Item 16. The Council finds that the CIC and the Plan provide for the alleviation of impacts based on the following facts: o See response under Item 1. o Legislation provides a process for alleviating significant impacts and the CIC has followed all steps outlined in state law. o The CIC has provided all affected taxing entities with copies of the Statement of Preparation of the Preliminary Plan, a copy of the Preliminary Report, a copy of the Report to Council, and the notice of public hearing. • The County of Alameda convened a FRC, which met and issued a Report, dated April 9, 1991. Exhibit A Page 11 Written Findings in Response to Objection o In compliance with Section 33353.7, the CIC submitted to the FRC Chair a written response, dated May 10, 1991, to the Report of the FRC. o Twelve taxing entities currently collect property tax revenue from property located within the proposed BWIP. The CIC has met with a couple agencies as many as seventeen times each to discuss their concerns. Thus far, the CIC has reached agreement with, or satisfied the concerns of, eight of the 12 agencies. o CIC has met or corresponded with the Superintendent and the District on at least six occasions between December 1990 and the present, to discuss potential fiscal burden or detriment. o The CIC shall continue to meet with any taxing agencies wishing to provide evidence of financial detriment due to the Project, including the Superintendent and the District. o Upon receipt of evidence of significant impact, the CIC would consider instituting appropriate mitigation measures. Response, Item 17. The City Council finds that it is true that the Superintendent and the District do not receive developer fees in partial mitigation of impacts, but this has been taken into account in discussion with the two entities in discussion of mitigating minimal impacts identified thus far. In conclusion, the objections by the Superintendent and the District are conclusionary in nature and do not provide any evidence of fiscal impact or give any reasons for delaying adoption of the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. EXHIBIT #9 BWIP Joint Public Hearing 5/21/91 DELIVERED BY HAND Kay 21, 1991 RE: Alameda Business and Waterfront Improvement Project This is to acknowledge that the City of Alameda and /or the Alameda Community Development Department received the Alameda Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Statement from the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools and the Peralta Community College District. 114 c / / 1r / )7i: _SO21/a/Pret olb NOMOMIIM•MIIMIIMISMMINIM. (signs RECEIVED MP` 119:: H.CDA. OFFICE CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. kooks P. Carne, and Associate. A Proiortaiona4 Corporation May 21, 1991 City of Alameda Community Development Department and City Council City Hall Santa Clara Avenue at Oak Street Alameda, California 94501 Members of the Department and Council: This is written on behalf of the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools (the "Superintendent ") and the Peralta Community College District (the "District ") to object to the adoption of the Project and the corresponding Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") until the impacts of the Project on the Superintendent and the District have been alleviated. GEN' 14) .. 2 1 1991 3s& City Clerk's Office The Superintendent and the District are concerned that the Project and EIR do not adequately address impacts, potential mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives. To the extent that they are not redundant, some of the other concerns are as follows: 1. The Project and EIR do not identify the Project's impacts on the Superintendent and the District as significant. 2. The Project and EIR do not adequately address the fact that economic growth is the primary cause of population growth both historically and today. 3. The EIR does not detail the extent to which state legislated mitigation measures will alleviate the environmental affect of the Project on schools. 4. The Project and EIR do not identify the manner in which the Superintendent and the District would be able to operate in general or meet their needs for school facilities without the superintendent or the District receiving tax revenues generated by the Project. 5. The Project and EIR do not examine projections for increased student enrollment due to the Project. The Project and EIR are therefore lacking in their consideration of all related environmental impacts including population growth, housing, transportation, noise, recreation, fire protection and other public services. 6. The Project and SIR do not adequately discuss the timing for implementation of the Project. The consequential financial and environmental impacts cannot be properly anticipated or planned for. 2100 Rummy Drive. RMrsida. G1110744 $2504 • 17141W-37M Fat: 1714) $U -243$ • Mollie Phone: (714) 3254295 City of Alameda Economic Development Department and City Council May 21, 1991 Page 2 7. The Project and EIR do not adequately address the impact of the Project's compliance with low and moderate income housing requirements. 8. The Project and EIR do not adequately consider the alternative of permitting private enterprise acting alone to develop the Project area. The Community Redevelopment Law ( "CRL ") and applicable law requires that specific alternatives be considered and found not feasible. 9. The Project area is not blighted. 10. The Project and SIR do not adequately consider the migration into the area caused by the Project. 11. The limitations on type, size, height, number, and proposed use of all buildings are not properly defined. The incorporation of Municipal Code provisions is insufficient and does not provide the specificity required by statute. 12. The Project does not adequately identify and evaluate the measures stated in Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5 which would: (a) modify the total mount of tax increment to be received by the Redevelopment Agency; (b) modify the duration of the Redevelopment plan; (c) modify the size of the Project area; (d) modify a kind or number of specific projects proposed to be undertaken by the Agency; (e) include specific actions for projects to be undertaken by the Agency which would reduce or eliminate the detrimental fiscal effects on the Superintendent and District; and (f) involve payments by the Agency to the Superintendent and the District. 13. The Superintendent and District are not guaranteed reimbursement by the state for local property tax revenues diverted to the Agency. City of Alameda Community Development Department and City Council May 21, 1991 Page 3 14. Any diversion of State revenues to offset the local property tax revenues claimed by the Agency is an additional burden on the State which impacts the Superintendent and the District. 15. The proposed Project is uncertain and the Superintendent and the District are therefore hampered in their efforts to accurately quantify the significant impacts expected. 16. The legislature has provided for alleviation of Project impacts. The legislature obviously wants each agency to take care of impacts and not shift that burden to the State. 17. The Superintendent and the District do not receive developer fees in partial mitigation of impacts. The Superintendent and the District will continue to meet with the Agency representatives to resolve mutual concerns. The Superintendent and District request that the Project not be approved until its impacts on the Superintendent and the District can be appropriately alleviated. Sincerely, Br..ks P. Coleman, President BPC:j cc: Mr. A. J. Harrison, II, Vice Chancellor, Financial Services Peralta Community College District Dr. Morris L. Reeves, Associate Superintendent, Business Alameda County Office of Education I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the fourth day of June, 1991, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Roth, and President Withrow - 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: Vice Mayor Lucas - 1. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this fifth day of June, 1991. ate Dian B. Felsch, City Clerk City of Alameda