Union City City Council
October 8, 2024

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNION CITY APPROVING THE CLOSURE AND

VACATION OF THE I STREET RAILROAD CROSSING AS

PART OF THE AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT
BART, CITY PROJECT NO. 14-14
WHEREAS, the City of Union City intends to construct a new at-grade crossing on the Oakland Subdivision to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access between the BART Station and the City’s Intermodal Station District and the neighborhoods east of the Oakland Subdivision known as the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART, City Project No. 14-14 (the “At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project”); and
WHEREAS, in order to move forward with the new At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project, the City is required by the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) Order issued on December 4, 2017, to make various railroad improvements throughout the City, including permanent closure of the existing I Street at-grade railroad crossing between 11th and 12th Street on the Oakland Subdivision tracks (the “I Street Railroad Crossing”) (see Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, detailed information regarding the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project and the requirement to close the I Street Railroad Crossing is set forth in the City Council staff report dated October 8, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has preliminarily considered the proposed I Street Railroad Crossing closure at multiple public meetings; and
WHEREAS, during the month of June 2024, Union City hosted a series of District Dialogue Meetings which included a presentation of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14, detailing the proposed closure of the I Street Railroad Crossing; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2024, the City held a Community Meeting at the Kennedy Youth Center to discuss the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project and required closure of the I Street Railroad Crossing; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Study evaluated the prospective closures of the three (3) existing railroad crossings on the Oakland Subdivision at F Street, H Street, and I Street. determined that the closure of I Street Railroad Crossing would be least impactful to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the closure and vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 8320 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the existing H Street At-Grade Railroad Crossing, one block north of the I Street At-Grade Railroad Crossing, will serve as a convenient alternative to the I Street Crossing; and
City Council/RSA Agenda 596 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
Closure of I Street Railroad Crossing

WHEREAS, the closure and vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing will commence upon the City Manager’s determination that the completion of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project is imminent, thereby requiring the closure and vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing prior to the opening of the new pedestrian crossing at BART; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to reserve public utility easements across the I Street Railroad Crossing in order to further the public convenience and necessity; and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the closure and vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was provided in the manner required by Streets and Highways Code sections 8322 and 8323. In addition, the public hearing notice was published on both Union City’s and New Haven Unified School District’s social media; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the public's oral and written comments, the staff report dated October 8, 2024, and the staff presentation during the public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Union City as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

2. The adoption of the Resolution is statutorily exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.14.

3. The closure of the I Street Railroad Crossing would have the least impact to public access compared to the closure of the railroad crossings at either F Street or H Street. Because of the alternative crossings, the I Street Railroad Crossing is unnecessary for present or prospective public use.

4. The closure and vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved.

5. The City Manager shall determine the timing of the closure and vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing and shall occur before the opening of the new At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART.

6. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8340, the vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing is subject to the reservation of a public utility easement to construct, maintain, operate, replace, remove, and renew public utilities in, upon, under, over, and across the I Street Railroad Crossing.

7. Upon the City Manager’s determination, the closure and vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing in advance of the opening of the new At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART, the City Clerk is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution in the Alameda County Recorder’s Office.

City Council/RSA Agenda 597 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
Closure of I Street Railroad Crossing

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A - Final CPUC Order (Dec. 2017)

2. Exhibit B - I Street Railroad Crossing Closure Exhibit City Council/RSA Agenda 598 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
200032516 - 1 -
ALJ/RWH/ek4 Date of Issuance 12/4/2017
Decision 17-11-014 November 30, 2017

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of the City
of Union City for an order to install one new
Pedestrian at-grade crossing, across and
over the track of the Union Pacific Railroad
Oakland Subdivision, Mile Post 27.10, and
the closure of one existing at-grade crossing
at Mile Post 26.70, in the City of Union City,
County of Alameda, State of California.

Application 17-02-010

DECISION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF UNION CITY, TO CONSTRUCT

AN AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING ACROSS THE UNION
PACIFIC OAKLAND SUBDIVISION, MILE POST 27.10 IN CITY OF

UNION CITY, ALAMEDA COUNTY
City Council/RSA Agenda 599 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
Table of Contents
Title Page
- i -

DECISION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF UNION CITY, TO CONSTRUCT

AN AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING ACROSS THE UNION
PACIFIC OAKLAND SUBDIVISION, MILE POST 27.10 IN CITY OF UNION CITY, ALAMEDA COUNTY ...................................................................................... 1 Summary........................................................................................................................ 2

1. Background............................................................................................................. 2

2. Procedural Issues................................................................................................... 3

3. Jurisdiction.............................................................................................................. 4

4. Discussion............................................................................................................... 5

4.1. Seven-Factor Test for Impracticability Current Seven-Factor Test....... 9

4.1.1. Demonstration of Public Need ............................................................. 10

4.1.2. Convincing Showing that the City has Eliminated All Potential Safety Hazards......................................................................................... 10

4.1.3. Concurrence of Local Community Emergency Authorities, and the General Public. .......................................................................... 11

4.1.4. Recommendation of Staff that it Concurs with the Safety of the .......

Proposed Crossing.................................................................................. 12

4.1.5. Comparative Cost ................................................................................... 12

4.1.6. Commission Precedent .......................................................................... 13

4.1.7. Seven-Factor Standard Supports At-Grade Crossing........................ 16

4.2. Environmental Review and CEQA.......................................................... 16

5. Categorization and Need for Hearing.............................................................. 17

6. Comments on Proposed Decision ..................................................................... 17

7. Assignment of Proceeding ................................................................................. 18 Findings of Fact........................................................................................................... 18 Conclusions of Law .................................................................................................... 20 ORDER ......................................................................................................................... 21 City Council/RSA Agenda 600 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 2 -

DECISION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF UNION CITY, TO CONSTRUCT AN

AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING ACROSS THE UNION PACIFIC OAKLAND SUBDIVISION, MILE POST 27.10 IN CITY OF UNION CITY,

ALAMEDA COUNTY
Summary
This decision grants the City of Union City authorization to construct an at-grade rail pedestrian only crossing over Union Pacific Railroad’s Oakland Subdivision at mile post 27.10 in the City of Union City, Alameda County. The new crossing will be identified as DOT Number 859611R, and California Public Utilities Commission Crossing Number 004-27.08. The decision also grants the City of Union City authorization to close the “I” Street at-grade highway rail crossing identified as DOT Number 834187C, California Public Utilities Commission Crossing Number 004-26.70.

This proceeding is closed.

1. Background
Over the last twenty years the City of Union City (the City) has been working toward creating a Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) and Intermodal Station District. The availability of an approximately 90-acre underutilized and environmentally constrained site within walking distance of the BART Station was seen as an opportunity by the City to create the Transit Oriented Development. The City has spent years cleaning up the site and installing infrastructure to create the Transit Oriented District. Single family homes and town homes were built on the former steel mill site and multi-family housing continues to be built on the remaining 30-acre parcel that has since been subdivided and fitted with public infrastructure to facilitate housing, retail and job centers.

City Council/RSA Agenda 601 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 3 -
The City’s Transit Oriented District and Intermodal Station District is approaching the completion of Phase 2A, which included modifying the circulation and ticketing elements of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station so that pedestrians can enter the BART Station from the residential area to the east (railroad north) once the pedestrian at-grade crossing (Phase 2B) is constructed. The construction of the Pedestrian at-grade crossing under Phase 2B will culminate in establishing a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection to and from the BART station by providing a new east-side opening from the TOD area and proposed parking lot to the east of the BART Station.

The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks are currently inactive with a potential to be reactivated in the future. The projected daily number of pedestrians using the crossing is estimated at 3,040 pedestrians.

2. Procedural Issues
The City of Union City filed this application on February 27, 2017. On March 24, 2017, in Resolution ALJ 176-3394 this proceeding was preliminarily categorized as ratesetting, and it was preliminarily determined that evidentiary hearings would be necessary. On March 29, 2017, this matter was reassigned from Administrative Law Judge Richard Smith to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert Haga.

A telephonic prehearing conference (PHC) was held on June 15, 2017. At the PHC the scope of the issues to be resolved and a possible procedural schedule were discussed. The City agreed that evidentiary hearings would not be necessary and that a Public Participation Hearing would not be needed. On June 29, 2017, the Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) of the Commission submitted a late-filed response and a motion to accept the late-filed response. In its response, SED stated that it does not oppose the application but wishes to City Council/RSA Agenda 602 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 4 -
apprise the Commission of relevant information on this project, including information on SED’s past site visit and the type and location of warning devices that it recommends be implemented at the crossing.

On July 24, 2017, ALJ Haga issued a ruling directing the applicant to provide copies of the Final Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) that include evaluation of the potentially significant impacts and any mitigation measures required to mitigate any such impacts for this project. On August 3, 2017, the City responded to the ruling and providing a copy of the Final EIR and a summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project in the environmental reports.

This proceeding was submitted on October 13, 2017.

3. Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Section 1201 of the California Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util.

Code),1 the Commission must grant permission before an at-grade crossing can be constructed across the track of a railroad corporation. Pub. Util. Code § 1202 gives the Commission exclusive authority to determine the point of crossing, the terms of installation, and the terms of operation. As part of this authority, the Commission is tasked with evaluating proposed warning devices, technology and other safety measures, with the consent of the local jurisdiction.2 The basis of the Commission’s jurisdiction is not limited to Sections 1201 and 1202, the Commission is responsible for a number of different rail safety laws that, when read together give the Commission jurisdiction over railroad

1 All subsequent Section references are to the California Pub. Util. Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Pub. Util. Code § 1202(d).

City Council/RSA Agenda 603 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 5 -
crossings in California. For example, Section 229 defines railroad to include any “commercial, interurban, and other railway, other than a street railroad,” and under Section 99152, “Any public transit guideway planned, acquired, or constructed, on or after January 1, 1979, is subject to regulations of the Public Utilities Commission relating to safety appliances and procedures.” Rule 3.7(c) provides additional details. As summarized in Decision (D.) 14-08-045,
Rule 3.7(c) requires applications to construct a railroad crossing be made by the municipal, county, state or other governmental authority which proposes construction and, if the proposed crossing is at-grade, the applicant must demonstrate that: 1) There is a public need to be served by the crossing; 2) A grade separation of the crossing is not practicable; and 3) There are warning signs, signals, and other devices at the crossing. All three elements of Rule 3.7(c) must be satisfied in order for the application to be approved.

The Commission’s analysis always begins with the presumption that grade separation is appropriate. The City bears the burden of overcoming this presumption with convincing evidence that this particular crossing will be safely operated as an at-grade crossing.

4. Discussion
The City and SED have provided evidence of how the public interest will be served by having the pedestrian crossing at-grade. These reasons are wellsummarized by the City in its Application and supplemental submissions:
a. The construction of an at-grade crossing will establish a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection to and from the BART station for new housing and job centers in the City’s Station District as well as the new 800-stall parking lot. b. The current configuration requires commuters to travel ½ mile from the 800-stall parking lot to the west BART
City Council/RSA Agenda 604 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 6 -
entrance, crossing the railroad tracks at Mile Post 26.90 on a Decoto Road sidewalk without pedestrian signals.
c. The City’s Station District Plan was approved in 2001 to create new multiple points of pedestrian, bicycle, and bus access to the Union City BART Station and included the
new east entrance.
d. The City expended $71 million to remodel the Union City BART station to create the new east entrance.
e. The City has invested $161 million on property
acquisitions, installation of infrastructure for high density housing and offices in the Station District, reconfiguration of the BART Station, and construction of 250 units of
affordable housing.
f. It would cost more than $200 million to create a pedestrian grade-separated crossing to the new east entrance.
g. The City has overseen more than $450 million in private sector investment for construction of 1,300 housing units in the Station District less than ¼ mile from the east entrance.

An additional 443 residential units and 1.2 million square feet of office space are seeking entitlements to construct in the Station District within ¼ mile of the new east entrance. h. The Alameda County Transportation Commission is
specifically funding the construction of the pedestrian at-grade crossing to provide easier access to the Union City BART station.

SED does not dispute the factual truth of the City’s reasoning or that the City’s reasons do not demonstrate that the crossing is in the public interest.

Safety is of paramount importance to the Commission. Ensuring safe rail crossings is in the public interest. But safety and public interest are not synonymous. Evaluating a particular facility for safety is different from evaluating what is in the public interest as a whole. The safest course would be to allow for no rail crossing, however, that would not be practicable nor in the public interest. When a crossing must occur, usually the safest type of crossing is City Council/RSA Agenda 605 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 7 -
a separated grade crossing. However, the public interest requires a more nuanced review that considers the public interest as a whole. This includes safety impacts of a separated grade crossing and the use of the existing crossings.

As discussed below, both of these options are impracticable and present safety concerns.

Those safety concerns include: the nearest crossing is at-grade and not designed for pedestrians and requires pedestrians to walk an additional ½ mile; individuals may choose to cut the fence and walk across the tracks at-grade to avoid walking to the nearest crossing; and the significant amount of time the existing conditions will exist before a grade-separated crossing could be funded and built makes it impracticable that such a grade-separated crossing would be built.

In an effort to improve safety at the new at-grade pedestrian crossing the City has agreed with SED that it will install the following:
a. Two CPUC Standard Number 8 (flashing light signal
assembly) warning devices;
b. Two CPUC Standard Number 9 (flashing light signal
assembly with automatic pedestrian gate) pedestrian
warning devices;
c. Two pedestrian exit swing gates;
d. Advance Americans with Disability Act (ADA) tactile
stripes at each approach;
e. Fencing to channelize pedestrians to the crossing; and f. Precast concrete panel crossing surface.

Further, the applicant agrees to close an existing at-grade crossing, the existing “I” Street at-grade highway rail crossing, DOT Number 834187C, CPUC Number 004-26.70. The City identified this crossing for closure as the nearby BART support columns impair the sight distance from both “I” and 12th Streets.

City Council/RSA Agenda 606 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 8 -
As part of removing the existing “I” Street crossing, a new security fence will be erected on both sides of the track to prevent trespassing. The existing intersection where 12th Street, which parallels the Oakland Subdivision track, meets “I” Street would be rebuilt into a 90 degree turn leading away from the track using new curb, gutter, and barriers. The existing auto and pedestrian traffic would be diverted to either the existing “H” Street or Decoto Road atgrade crossings.

Finally, the City has committed to make a number of improvements to at-grade crossings in the vicinity of the proposed new crossing. Specifically, the City shall:

1. Install mitigation measures at the existing Niles
Subdivision Track Decoto Road at-grade highway-rail
crossing identified as DOT Number 749781G, CPUC
Number 001D-26.60;

2. Install sidewalk improvements at the existing Oakland Subdivision Track Decoto Road at-grade highway-rail
crossing identified as DOT Number 834186V, CPUC
Number 004-26.90;

3. Install mitigation measures at the existing Niles
Subdivision Track Whipple Road at-grade highway-rail
crossing identified as DOT Number 749776K, CPUC
Number 001D-25.60; and

4. Install mitigation measures at the existing Coast
Subdivision Track Smith Street identified as DOT
Number 749927X, CPUC Number 001-L-25.50.

All of the above mitigation measures and sidewalk improvements will be filed separately under General Order (GO) 88-B. The City’s commitment to these improvements is a factor in the consideration of its current request, but we take no action today on the mitigation measures and sidewalk improvements the City has committed to install.

City Council/RSA Agenda 607 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 9 -

4.1. Current Seven-Factor Test for Impracticability
Determining whether a separated grade crossing is or is not practicable is a fact-specific inquiry. The Commission has evaluated practicability of separated grade crossings on numerous occasions. In City of San Mateo v. SoPac Transp. Co., D.82-04-033 (City of San Mateo), the Commission distinguished between impracticable and impractical, focusing primarily on two facts: the physical possibility of constructing the separated grade crossing at the site and the cost of construction. The Commission found in City of San Mateo that the high cost of construction might make the separated grade crossing impractical, but the high cost, by itself, did not make the separated grade crossing impracticable.3 The Commission defined practicable as “being possible physically of performance, a capability of being used, a feasibility of construction.”4 In the years since City of San Mateo was decided, the Commission has laid out more specific factors for the analysis. Currently, the Commission uses a seven-factor test to determine practicability,5 and applies the same test at all at-grade crossing cases no matter whether a rail line is heavy rail or light rail.6

3 City of San Mateo, D.82-04-033, at n.8.
4 Id.
5 See, City of San Diego, D.03-12-018, City of Los Angeles, D.09-02-031, City of Los Angeles, D.14-08-045.
6 See, In the Matter of the Application of the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Constructions Authority for an Order Authorizing the Construction of Two Light Rail Transit Tracks At-Grade Crossing West Avenue 45 in the City and County of Los Angeles, California, and Related Matters, D.02-05-047. See also, City of Bakersfield, D.04-08-013, City of Los Angeles, D.14-08-045, City of San Diego, D.03-12-018, City of Santa Rosa, D.16-09-002.

City Council/RSA Agenda 608 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 10 -
The seven factors, or criteria, for evaluating impracticability of a separated-grade crossing are as follows:

1. A demonstration of public need for the crossing;

2. A convincing showing that all potential safety hazards have been eliminated;

3. The concurrence of local community and emergency
authorities;

4. The opinions of the general public, and especially those who may be affected by an at-grade crossing;

5. A recommendation by Staff that it concurs in the safety of the proposed crossing, including any conditions;

6. Although less persuasive than safety considerations, the comparative costs of an at-grade crossing with a grade
separation; and

7. Commission precedent in factually similar crossings.

We set forth the analysis required by Rule 3.7(c) below, including application of the seven criteria. No party disputes whether the City has met the standard for impracticability using the seven-factor test.

4.1.1. Demonstration of Public Need
Rule 3.7(c)(1) requires the City of Union City demonstrate that there is a public need to be served by the proposed crossing. As explained above, the City and SED have provided evidence of how the public interest will be served by having the pedestrian crossing at-grade. That evidence also demonstrates that there is a public need that will be served by the crossing.

4.1.2. Convincing Showing that the City has
Eliminated All Potential Safety Hazards.

The City has made a convincing showing that it has eliminated all potential safety hazards. The proposed crossing has been designed to comply with numerous legal requirements. The design is ADA compliant. The design City Council/RSA Agenda 609 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 11 -
includes protection and warning devices in compliance with federal and State regulations (including GO 75-D and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices).7 As part of the design process the City consulted with UPRR, Federal Railroad Administration and SED.

The City states that the steps and ramps associated with the crossing on the east side will be constructed outside the railroad right-of-way. However, due to structure constraints at the BART station, these will encroach a few feet into the UPRR right-of-way, though as far from the track as physically possible.8 The City also states the approaches to the new crossing will be totally enclosed with security fencing to direct all pedestrian traffic only to the crossing from each side. In addition, lighting to illuminate the pathway will be installed, and the crossing itself will be equipped with two CPUC No. 8 and two CPUC No. 9 warning devices (gates and lights), escape gates on either side of the crossing, and precast concrete panel crossing surface.9 SED stated that the proposed design meets all legal requirements.10

4.1.3. Concurrence of Local Community Emergency
Authorities, and the General Public.

The local community, emergency authorities, and the general public all support an at-grade crossing at milepost 27.10 of UPRR Oakland Subdivision railroad track to facilitate entrance to the BART station. The City Council

7 Application at 6.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Response of the Safety and Enforcement Division of the Commission, Attachment A at 2.

City Council/RSA Agenda 610 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 12 -
approved the at-grade crossing proposal in a resolution. UPRR supports the at-grade pedestrian crossing.11
No community groups or others came forward to express opposition to the at-grade crossing, or the closing of the at-grade crossing at “I” Street. There is no support in the record for a separated-grade crossing.

4.1.4. Recommendation of Staff that it Concurs with
the Safety of the Proposed Crossing.

As explained above SED submitted a late filed response and a motion to accept the late filed response in June. In its response SED did not oppose the application but sought to apprise the Commission of relevant information on this project, including information on SED’s past site visit and the type and location of warning devices that it recommends be implemented at the crossing. In Attachment A to its response, SED states “the application meets the requirements of CPUC staff and Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 3.7.”12

4.1.5. Comparative Cost
Either type of crossing will cost millions of dollars. Since the adoption of the Station District Plan, the City has invested $161 million on property acquisitions, installation of infrastructure, construction of 250 units of affordable housing, and reconfiguration of the BART Station. The Union City BART Station was designed and remodeled to create a new east entrance at a cost of $71 million paid for by the City and leveraged county, regional, state, and federal grants.

11 Application at Exhibit F.
12 Response of the Safety and Enforcement Division of the Commission, Attachment A at 2.

City Council/RSA Agenda 611 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 13 -
While the City of Union City’s ultimate plan for the Station District is to elevate the Oakland Subdivision tracks sufficiently to facilitate a full multimodal transportation station by allowing the pathway to be grade-separated, funding for such an endeavor is dependent upon future bond measures. The engineers estimated in 2006 it would cost $200 million to elevate the Oakland Subdivision tracks to create a pedestrian grade separation, and that did not include the cost of acquiring the Oakland Subdivision. Installation of a grade-separated pedestrian crossing at the BART station now would increase those estimated costs for the long-term plans to elevate the Oakland Subdivision tracks.

4.1.6. Commission Precedent
The practicability of a separated-grade crossing is a fact-specific analysis that requires a weighing of the factors above. In assessing practicability of a separated-grade crossing, prior cases have considered whether the line is a heavy or light rail, whether the crossing is for pedestrians or vehicles, the number of trains, train speeds, and support of the local community and emergency authorities.

In 2003, the Commission held that a separated-grade crossing was impracticable for a heavy and light rail crossing that was part of a redevelopment project in San Diego. In that case the community was divided, with some supporting an at-grade crossing and others opposing the redevelopment project as a whole.13 Other factors the Commission considered in that case included increased traffic from separate ongoing development near the crossing, a cost of more than $30 million more for the grade-separated crossing, and how the

13 D.03-12-018.

City Council/RSA Agenda 612 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 14 -
separated crossing would have divided the downtown area and interfered with many buildings’ views of San Diego Bay.

In 2014, the Commission found that a two-track light rail crossing for trains not exceeding 35 miles per hour did not warrant an additional $250 to $300 million expenditure on a grade-separated crossing.14 In that case, several community groups opposed the at-grade crossings. When weighing the factors, the Commission emphasized that safety requirements had been met and that the high cost of the separated-grade crossing was not justifiable.

The Commission has also denied at-grade crossing proposals in part because of lack of support from local emergency authorities.15 The Commission has also denied an application for an at-grade crossing where the rail line was used by 14 freight and 32 passenger trains per day and there was an existing unauthorized crossing.
16 In that case, the Commission did not reach the seven factor test because the applicant failed to meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a public need for the crossing. A key factor in the analysis was the existence of a legal crossing just 926 feet away.

At-grade crossings have been authorized most often in situations where, like here, the applicant agrees to close an existing at-grade crossing.17 At-grade crossings have also been approved in situation where it is expected there will be

14 D.14-08-045.
15 See D.09-02-031, D.06-06-032.
16 D.13-02-003.
17 See, e.g., D.15-05-043 (authorizing at-grade crossing in the County of Santa Cruz), D.13-12-044 (authorizing at-grade pedestrian crossing in Fremont).

City Council/RSA Agenda 613 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 15 -
fewer than 10 trains per week and/or trains will be travelling at slow speeds.18 The City argues that the limited freight service19 plus the proposed passenger train service,20 and the closing of the existing public at-grade crossing at “I” Street makes its application closely resemble those that the Commission has approved in the past. Further the significant additional cost of a grade-separated crossing that would require elevating the Oakland Subdivision track, the support of local authorities and the SED and the convincing showing that it has eliminated all potential safety hazards support a finding of impracticability in this case.

Commission precedent demonstrates that a finding of impracticability can be made even when it is physically possible to build a separated-grade crossing.

Important considerations in other cases authorizing at-grade crossings include:
the closure of an existing at-grade crossing, support of local authorities, safe design and train speeds, physical separation of the community, and local development plans. Most of these considerations are found in the instant case.

The facts in the case at hand while similar to D.14-08-045 and D.03-12-018, where the Commission approved at-grade crossings, are most comparable to D.13-12-044 which authorized an at-grade crossing in Fremont where there was strong community support for a crossing and applicant would close an existing crossing.

18 See D.04-08-013 (authorizing at-grade crossing where low volume of trains (2-3 per day) would be travelling at slow speeds (10 mph)). 19 Application, Supplemental Attachment B2, Draft EIR Volume 1 at 3.1-6. 20 Application, Supplemental Attachment B2, Draft EIR Volume 1 at 3.7-5.

City Council/RSA Agenda 614 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 16 -

4.1.7. Seven-Factor Standard Supports At-Grade
Crossing
The City of Union City applied the seven-factor test to the proposed railroad crossing for the east entrance to the BART station and found that a separated-grade crossing was impracticable. SED agreed that the application meets its requirements and Rule 3.7. This decision reaches the same conclusion.

All seven factors are considered in our determination of impracticability. In particular, the long term planning, development, and commitment of financial resources shows the strong local support for an at-grade crossing at this time.

The evidentiary record in this case reflects that at this time implementing a separated-grade crossing is impracticable.

4.2. Environmental Review and California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
The City is the lead agency for this project under CEQA, as amended. In March 2002, the City issued a Final EIR for the Community Redevelopment Project that included the Transit Oriented District. The Final EIR found that potentially significant impacts under the Commission’s purview could result from a pedestrian grade-separated crossing under the BART and UPRR tracks, but that these impacts would be reduced to less-than significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. In June 2005, the City issued a Final EIR for the City Intermodal Station Project. On June 30, 2005, the City filed a Notice of Determination indicating the project will have a significant impact on the environment, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the impacts that could not be fully mitigated.

Regarding impacts from the rail-crossing aspect of the project, mitigations measures require that the City (1) develop and implement construction noise abatement and mitigation plan; (2) ensure construction contractors have City Council/RSA Agenda 615 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 17 -
sound-control devices with all relevant provisions of applicable local noise policies and ordinances; (3) ensure all construction equipment has sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and that no equipment has un-muffled exhaust; and (4) ensure the contractor implements appropriate additional noise mitigation measures including, but not limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, rerouting heavy truck traffic, or installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources or construction sites.

Further mitigation measures related to dust control include limiting traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour and installing sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.

5. Categorization and Need for Hearing
In Resolution ALJ 176-3394 dated March 24, 2017, the Commission preliminarily determined that this proceeding should be categorized as ratesetting and that hearings were required. The Scoping Memo issued on October 13, 2017, confirmed the ratesetting categorization, but concluded that there were no issues of disputed facts requiring evidentiary hearings.

Accordingly, we formally change the preliminary determination to find that no hearings are required.

6. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

No comments were filed.

City Council/RSA Agenda 616 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 18 -

7. Assignment of Proceeding
Clifford Rechtschaffen is the assigned Commissioner and Robert Haga is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. On February 27, 2017, the City filed the instant application (Application 17-02-010) for an order authorizing the construction, maintenance, and operation of a new at-grade crossing to provide pedestrian connection to the City’s Transit Oriented District and BART station.

2. Notice of the application appeared on the Commission’s Daily Calendar on March 6, 2017.

3. On June 21, 2017, the City supplemented its application with additional information regarding its environmental review and report.

4. On August 3, 2017, the City further supplemented its application with additional information regarding the Final EIR and a summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project in the environmental reports.

5. On June 29, 2017, the SED submitted a late-filed response and a motion to accept the late-filed response.

6. The proposed new at-grade crossing would be at mile post 27.10, located approximately 1,000 ft. south (railroad east) of the Decoto Road /Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing, City of Union City, California, mile post 26.90, and will be identified as CPUC Crossing Number 004-27.08 and DOT Number 859611R.

7. The City has committed to install the following at the new at-grade crossing at mile post 27.10:
a. Two CPUC Standard Number 8 (flashing light signal
assembly) warning devices;
City Council/RSA Agenda 617 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 19 -
b. Two CPUC Standard Number 9 (flashing light signal
assembly with automatic pedestrian gate) pedestrian
warning devices;
c. Two pedestrian exit swing gates;
d. Advance Americans with Disability Act (ADA) tactile
stripes at each approach;
e. Fencing to channelize pedestrians to the crossing; and f. Precast concrete panel crossing surface.

8. The existing at-grade crossing at “I” Street at mile post 26.70 (CPUC Crossing Number 004-26.70, DOT Number 834187C) will be closed upon completion of the new at-grade crossing.

9. No protests were filed to the City’s application.

10. The City is the lead agency for this project under CEQA, as amended.

11. In March 2002, the City issued a Final EIR for the Community Redevelopment Project that included the Transit Oriented District.

12. In June 2005, the City issued a Final EIR for the City’s TOD and Intermodal Station Project.

13. On June 30, 2005, the City of Union City filed a Notice of Determination indicating the project will have a significant impact on the environment, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the impacts that could not be fully mitigated.

14. The Final EIR required mitigation measures to address impacts from the rail-crossing aspect of the project.

15. The crossing is necessary to provide a primary access route for the 800 parking stalls east of the BART station as well as the 1300 new housing units less than ¼ mile from the new east entrance to BART.

City Council/RSA Agenda 618 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 20 -

16. The crossing configuration provides a safer alternative over the existing atgrade crossing at I street that will be closed and is more practicable than constructing a grade-separated crossing, given the existing configuration of the Oakland Subdivision and the BART station, environmental impact, and cost exceeding the entire public investment in the Union City Station District.

17. The Commission is a responsible agency for this project and has reviewed and considered the lead agency’s FEIR, and Notice of Determination.

Conclusions of Law

1. The seven-factor test applies to the crossing proposed for the City’s TOD and Intermodal Station District.

2. A rail crossing to allow direct connection to the BART Station with the City’s TOD in the public interest and there is a public need for the crossing.

3. As a matter of policy, the Commission disfavors new at-grade crossings.

4. The unique facts of this crossing overcome the presumption against an at-grade crossing.

5. It is impracticable to construct a grade-separated overcrossing at the Transit Oriented District.

6. The City has convincingly shown that it has eliminated potential safety hazards.

7. The City has convincingly shown that it is in the public interest to close the existing at-grade pedestrian and vehicular crossing at “I” Street, mile post 26.70 (0.4 miles north (railroad west) of the proposed pedestrian crossing.

8. The City has committed to file under GO 88-B its plans to install mitigation measures for the Niles Subdivision Track Decoto Road at-grade highway-rail crossing identified as DOT Number 749781G, CPUC Number 001D-26.60.

City Council/RSA Agenda 619 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 21 -

9. The City has committed to file under GO 88-B its plans to install sidewalk improvements at the existing Oakland Subdivision Track Decoto Road at-grad highway-rail crossing identified as DOT Number 834186V, CPUC Number 004-26.90.

10. The City has committed to file under GO 88-B its plans to install mitigation measures at the existing Niles Subdivision Track Whipple Road at-grade highway-rail crossing identified as DOT Number 749776K, CPUC Number 001D-25.60.

11. The City has committed to file under GO 88-B its plans to install mitigation measures at the existing Coast Subdivision Track Smith Street identified as DOT No. 749927X, CPUC Number 001L-25.20.

12. The Final EIR found that potentially significant impacts under the Commission’s purview could result from a pedestrian grade-separated crossing under the BART and UPRR tracks, but that these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

13. The Commission has reviewed and considered the 2002, 2005, and 2006 Final EIRs and finds that they are adequate for its independent decision-making purposes.

14. Hearings are not necessary in this proceeding.

15. The proceeding should be closed.

O R D E R
IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The application by the City of Union City for an at-grade crossing at mile post 27.10, located approximately 1,000 ft. south (railroad east) of the Decoto City Council/RSA Agenda 620 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 22 -
Road/Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing, City of Union City, California, mile post 26.90, is approved.

2. The new at-grade crossing at mile post 27.10 for the City of Union City’s Transit Oriented Development and Intermodal Station District shall have the crossing treatments and configuration described above and specified in the application. The new public at-grade crossing at mile post 27.10 for the City of Union City’s Transit Oriented Development and Intermodal Station will be identified as DOT Number 859611R, and CPUC Crossing Number 004-27.08.

3. The City of Union City shall install the following at the new at-grade crossing at mile post 27.10:
a. Two CPUC Standard Number 8 (flashing light signal
assembly) warning devices;
b. Two CPUC Standard Number 9 (flashing light signal
assembly with automatic pedestrian gate) pedestrian
warning devices;
c. Two pedestrian exit swing gates;
d. Advance Americans with Disability Act tactile stripes at each approach;
e. Fencing to channelize pedestrians to the crossing; and f. Precast concrete panel crossing surface.

4. Upon completion of the new at-grade crossing at mile post 27.10, the City of Union City shall permanently close the existing at-grade pedestrian and vehicular crossing at “I” Street, mile post 26.70, identified as CPUC Crossing Number 004-26.70, and DOT Number 834187C.

5. We adopt and incorporate by reference the significant environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Union City.

City Council/RSA Agenda 621 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 23 -

6. We adopt and incorporate by reference the Findings of Fact in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Union City.

7. The City of Union City shall provide the Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Section of the Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch of the Safety Enforcement Division finalized engineering crossing designs prior to commencement of construction activities. The Rail Crossings Engineering Section of the Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch of the Safety Enforcement Division will evaluate their conformance with the crossing designs approved in this decision.

8. The City of Union City shall comply with all applicable rules, including Commission General Orders and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

9. The City of Union City shall notify the Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Section of the Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch of the Safety Enforcement Division at least 30 days prior to the opening of the crossing.

Notification should be made by certified U.S. Mail and by e-mail to [email protected].

10. With 30 days after completion of the work authorized by this decision, the City of Union City shall notify the Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Section of the Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch of the Safety Enforcement Division, in writing, by submitting a completed Commission Standard Form G (Report of Changes at Highway Grade Crossing and Separations), of the completion of the authorized work. Form G requirements and forms can be obtained at the California Public Utilities Commission web site. The completed report must be submitted in hard copy and via email to [email protected].

City Council/RSA Agenda 622 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
A.17-02-010 ALJ/RWH/ek4
- 24 -

11. This authorization shall expire if not exercised within three years of the issuance of this decision unless time is extended or if the above conditions are not satisfied. Authorization may be revoked or modified if public convenience, necessity or safety so require.

12. A request for extension of the three-year authorization must be submitted to the Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Section of the Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch of the Safety Enforcement Division at least 30 days before the expiration of that period.

13. The preliminary determination for this proceeding of hearings are necessary is changed to “no hearings necessary.”

14. All motions not previously ruled on in this proceeding are denied.

15. Application 17-02-010 is closed
This order is effective today.

Dated November 30, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL PICKER
President
CARLA J. PETERMAN
LIANE M. RANDOLPH

MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES

CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN
Commissioners
City Council/RSA Agenda 623 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
“I” Street At-Grade Crossing (Oakland Sub)
AFTER
BEFORE
City Council/RSA Agenda 624 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
From: Paul Ferrario
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Hearing City Project No. 14-14; closure of "I" Street Railroad crossing Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:34:24 AM
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.

Dear City Council Members:

When the "I" Street railroad crossing is closed, please ensure on-going resources are dedicated to address these issues at the former crossing and in the vicinity: graffiti, illegal dumping, abandoned cars, derelict "project cars", encampments, etc. Also, southeast of the crossing (toward Decoto Rd.) are a few thick stands of vegetation. I don't know if they are within public or private property. They seem to be outside of any private property fence line.

These areas of vegetation should be removed, or at least "skirted" up to improve lines-of-sight and discourage encampments. Since "skirting-up" stands of vegetation requires continued maintenance, the best course of action would be to remove them and replace with some ground level boulders & landscaping.

Thank you.

Paul Ferrario
Union City
City Council/RSA Agenda 625 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Agenda Item
DATE: 10/8/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL (1) DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO

AUTHORIZE THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES), AND (2) ADOPTING THE BOUNDARY MAP

SHOWING TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED IN THE FUTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES). THESE

RESOLUTIONS BEGIN THE ANNEXATION PROCESS OF THE TURK ISLAND

SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolutions (1) Declaring its intention to authorize the annexation of territory to Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (Attachment 1), and (2) Adopting the boundary map showing the territory proposed to be annexed in the future to Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (Attachment 2).

The property to be annexed is associated with the Turk Island Subdivision project located at the intersection of Westport Way and Carmel Way. See Attachment 1 – Exhibit A for the Boundary Map.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item does not have alignment with the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2007, the City Council formed Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (CFD No. 2006-1) to provide additional funding for certain increased public service costs resulting from new residential development. Attachment 1- Exhibit B includes the “Rate and Method of Apportionment” associated with the formation of CFD No. 2006-01. Since the formation of CFD No. 2006-01, there have been 7 annexations of property into the District. This process is referred to as "Annexation No. 8" as the Turk Island Subdivision project site is the eighth property to be annexed into the District since its formation.

The Turk Island Subdivision project was approved in November 2018. Approvals included a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 7728) to subdivide the site into 33 parcels, Site Development Review (SD-16-006), and Use Permit (UP-16-009) approval. For more City Council/RSA Agenda 626 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
information, you can view the City Council staff report and attachments by clicking here. The City Council approved the Final Tract Map 7728 at its October 11, 2022 meeting. Construction on the homes is underway.

DISCUSSION
City staff engaged the services of NBS Government Finance Group to assist with the annexation.

Significant provisions of the program are as follows:

1. The funding of services to be provided are in addition to those services provided in or required for the territory and will not be replacing services already available. These additional services include costs for public safety (Police and Fire Services) and park maintenance.

2. Beginning with fiscal year 2025/26, the proposed special tax will be levied for all residential units that have been issued a building permit prior to May 1. This special tax does not apply to commercial, office, or industrial space.

3. In fiscal year 2025/26, the annual special tax for Single-Family Units is $717.97 per unit, increasing 2% per year. The special tax shall be levied in perpetuity.

4. Notice is given that on November 19, 2024 the public hearing will be held where this City Council will consider the annexation to CFD No. 2006-1 and may, in fact, conduct the election and tabulate the results.

FISCAL IMPACT
The special tax will provide additional funding for selected increased public service costs within the territory. As detailed above, beginning with fiscal year 2025/26, the proposed special tax will be levied for all residential units that have been issued a building permit prior to May 1.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolutions (1) Declaring its intention to authorize the annexation of territory to Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (Attachment 1), and (2) Adopting the boundary map showing the territory proposed to be annexed in the future to Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (Attachment 2).

Prepared by:

Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director; Greg Ghironzi, NBS Government Finance Group Submitted by:

Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment 1-Annexation No. 8 - Resolution of Intent Resolution City Council/RSA Agenda 627 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Attachment 1 - Exhibit A - Boundary Map Exhibit
Attachment 1 - Exhibit B- CFD2006-01 Rate and Method ofApportionment Exhibit Attachment 2 -Annexation No. 8 -Approval of Boundary Map Resolution City Council/RSA Agenda 628 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS

INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ANNEXATION OF

TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
NO. 2006-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Union City, California (“City Council”), at this time, desires to authorize the annexation of territory to City of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (hereafter referred to as “CFD No. 2006-1”) pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982”, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, CFD No. 2006-1 was formed to finance public services in addition to those provided in or required for the territory within the CFD No. 2006-1 and will not be replacing services already available; and
WHEREAS, certain territory is proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2006-1, and such territory shall be known and designated as Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Annexation No. 8 (Turk Island) (hereafter referred to as “Annexation No. 8”); and WHEREAS, this legislative body now desires to proceed to adopt its Resolution of Intention to annex Annexation No. 8 into CFD No. 2006-1, to describe the territory included within Annexation No. 8 proposed to be annexed, to specify the services to be financed from the proceeds of the levy of special taxes within Annexation No. 8, to set and specify the special taxes that would be levied within the territory to finance such services, and to set a time and place for a public hearing relating to the annexation of Annexation No. 8 into CFD No. 2006-1; and WHEREAS, a map showing the boundaries of Annexation No. 8 proposed to be annexed has been submitted, which map has been previously approved, and a copy of the map shall be kept on file with the transcript of these proceedings.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct.

SECTION 2 Authorization. The proceedings for annexing Annexation No. 8 into CFD No. 2006-1 are authorized and initiated by this legislative body pursuant to the authorization of the Act.

SECTION 3 Intention to Annex. This legislative body hereby determines that the public convenience and necessity requires that Annexation No. 8 be added to CFD No. 2006-1 in order to pay the costs and expenses for the required and authorized new services generated from new development within the City and this City Council declares its intention to annex Annexation No. 8 to CFD No. 2006-1.

SECTION 4 Boundaries. A general description of the boundaries of Annexation No. 8 proposed to be annexed is as follows:

City Council/RSA Agenda 629 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
2006-01 CFD Annexation No. 8 – Intention to Annex

All that territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2006-1, as such property is shown on a map designated as “Annexation Map No. 8 (Turk Island) of Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), City of Union City, County of Alameda, State of California,” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and hereby incorporated by reference.

SECTION 5 Name of District. The name of the district is “City of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services)” and the designation for the territory to be annexed shall be “City of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Annexation No. 8 (Turk Island).”
SECTION 6 Services Authorized to be Financed by CFD No. 2006-1, Annexation No.

8. The services that are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2006-1 are certain services which are in addition to those provided in or required for the territory within CFD No. 2006-1 and Annexation No. 8 and will not be replacing services already available. A general description of the services to be financed by CFD No. 2006-1 and Annexation No. 8 is as follows:

PUBLIC SERVICES
New police services, fire protection and suppression services, paramedic services, and park maintenance, including but not limited to (i) the costs of contracting services, (ii) related facilities, equipment, vehicles, ambulances, fire apparatus and supplies, (iii) the salaries and benefits of City staff that directly provide police services, fire protection and suppression services, paramedic services, and park maintenance respectively, and (iv) City overhead costs associated with providing such services within CFD No. 2006- 1 and Annexation No. 8. The Special Tax provides only partial funding for Public Services.

The same types of services that are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2006-1 are the types of services to be provided in Annexation No. 8. If and to the extent possible, such services shall be provided in common within CFD No. 2006-1 and Annexation No. 8.

SECTION 7 Special Taxes. It is the further intention of this City Council body that, except where funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to pay for such services to be provided in CFD No. 2006-1 and Annexation No. 8 and related incidental expenses authorized by the Act, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in Annexation No. 8, will be levied annually within the boundaries of such Annexation No. 8. For further particulars as to the rate and method of apportionment of the proposed special tax, reference is made to the attached and incorporated Exhibit “B” (the “Rate and Method of Apportionment”), which sets forth in sufficient detail the method of apportionment to allow each landowner or resident within proposed Annexation No. 8 to clearly estimate the maximum amount that such person will have to pay.

The special tax proposed to be levied within Annexation No. 8 for services to be supplied within Annexation No. 8 shall be equal to the special tax levied to pay for the same services in CFD No. 2006-1, except that a higher or lower special tax may be levied within Annexation No. 8 to the extent that the actual cost of providing the services in Annexation No. 8 is higher or lower than the cost of providing those services in CFD No. 2006-1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the special tax may not be levied at a rate that is higher than the maximum special tax authorized to be levied pursuant to the Rate and Method of Apportionment.

City Council/RSA Agenda 630 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
2006-01 CFD Annexation No. 8 – Intention to Annex

The special taxes herein authorized, to the extent possible, shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem taxes. Any special taxes that may not be collected on the County tax roll shall be collected through a direct billing procedure by the Treasurer.

The maximum special tax rate in CFD No. 2006-1 shall not be increased as a result of the annexation of Annexation No. 8 to CFD No. 2006-1.

SECTION 8 Public Hearing. Notice is given that on November 19, 2024, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the regular meeting place of the City Council, being in the Council Chambers, located at 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, California 94587, a public hearing will be held where this City Council will consider the authorization for the annexation of Annexation No. 8 to CFD No. 2006-1, the proposed method and apportionment of the special tax to be levied with Annexation No. 8 and all other matters as set forth in this Resolution of Intention.

At such public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the annexation of Annexation No. 8 or the levying of special taxes within Annexation No. 8 will be heard.

At such public hearing, protests against the proposed annexation of Annexation No. 8, the levy of special taxes within Annexation No. 8, or any other proposals contained in this resolution may be made orally by any interested person. Any protests pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularities or defects to which objection is made. All written protests shall be filed with the City Clerk prior to the time fixed for the public hearing. Written protests may be withdrawn at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing.

SECTION 9 Majority Protest. If (a) 50% or more of the registered voters, or six (6) registered voters, whichever is more, residing within CFD No. 2006-1, (b) 50% or more of the registered voters, or six (6) registered voters, whichever is more, residing within Annexation No. 8, (c) owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the territory included in CFD 2006-1, or (d) owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the territory included in Annexation No. 8, file written protests against the proposed annexation of Annexation No. 8 to CFD No. 2006-1 in the future and such protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than a majority, no further proceedings shall be undertaken for a period of one year from the date of the decision by the City Council on the issued discussed at the public hearing.

SECTION 10 Notice. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given by the City Clerk by publication in the legally designated newspaper of general circulation, said publication pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, with said publication to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for the public hearing.

City Council/RSA Agenda 631 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
2006-01 CFD Annexation No. 8 – Intention to Annex

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments

1. Exhibit A- Annexation No. 8 Boundary Map

2. Exhibit B- Rate and Method of Apportionment
City Council/RSA Agenda 632 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 633 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
1 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT

CITY OF UNION CITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1
(PUBLIC SERVICES)
A special tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on and collected for Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) of the City of Union City (“CFD No. 2006-1”) each Fiscal Year, commencing in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, in an amount determined by the City Council of the City of Union City through the application of the appropriate Special Tax for “Developed Residential Property” as described below. All of the real property in CFD No. 2006-1, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
“Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended. “Administrative Expenses” means any actual ordinary and necessary expense of the City of Union City, or designee thereof or both, to carry out the administration of CFD No. 2006-1 related to the determination of the amount of the levy of the Special Tax, the collection of the Special Tax including the expenses of collecting delinquencies, the payment of a proportional share of salaries and benefits of any City employee whose duties are directly related to the administration of CFD No. 2006-1, fees and expenses for counsel, Special Tax consultant and other consultants hired by the City in relation to CFD No. 2006-1, costs associated with responding to public inquiries regarding CFD No. 2006-1, and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of CFD No. 2006-1. “Annual Escalation Factor” means the Maximum Special Tax shall be increased by two percent (2%) each subsequent year following the Base Year. “Assessor's Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned assessor's parcel number.
“Assessor's Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by assessor's parcel number.
“Base Year” means Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2010.
“Building Permit” means a permit for new construction for a residential dwelling or nonresidential structure. For purposes of this definition, “Building Permit” shall not include

EXHIBIT B
City Council/RSA Agenda 634 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
2 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
permits for construction or installation of retaining walls, utility improvements, or other such improvements not intended for human habitation.
“CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes.
“CFD No. 2006-1” means Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) established by the City under the Act.
“City” means the City of Union City.
“Council” means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2006-1.
“County” means the County of Alameda, California.
“Developed Residential Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2006-1 for which a Building Permit was issued for purposes of constructing Single-Family Residential, Duplex, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, or High Density Multi-Family Residential dwelling Units prior to May 1 preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special Tax is being levied.
“Duplex” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a residential structure or structures consisting of two Residential Units.
“Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. “High Density Multi-Family Residential” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a Multi-Family Residential Unit within a structure consisting of four or more stories of livable units. For purposes of this definition, non-livable areas such as parking garages and common areas are not considered to be livable units.
“Homeowner Association Property” means any property within the boundaries of the District that is owned by, or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an instrument recorded with the County Recorder to, a property owner association, including any master or sub-association. “Land Use Class” means any of the classes listed in Table 1 of Section C. “Low Density Multi-Family Residential” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a Multi-Family Residential Unit within a structure consisting of less than four stories of livable units. For purposes of this definition, non-livable areas such as parking garages and common areas are not considered to be livable units.
“Maximum Special Tax” means the maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance with Section C below that can be levied by CFD No. 2006-1 in any Fiscal Year on Developed Residential Property within CFD No. 2006-1.
“Mixed-Use Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2006-1 for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a structure or structures that consists of one or more Residential Units, but also has dedicated space for non-residential use.

Residential Units on Mixed-Use Property shall be classified as Low Density Multi-Family Residential.

City Council/RSA Agenda 635 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
3 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
“Multi-Family Residential” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a residential structure consisting of more than two Residential Units, including, but not limited to, triplexes, condominiums, and apartment Units.
“Non-Residential Property” means all Assessors’ Parcels for which a Building Permit(s) has been issued for non-residential use and does not contain any Residential Units. “Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2006-1 that is owned by or irrevocably dedicated to the City, the federal government, the State of California, the County, or other public agency or is used for public purposes. For purposes of this definition, property owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Union City is not considered Public Property and any property owned by the Redevelopment Agency will be subject to the levy of a Special Tax in accordance with Section C and D herein. “Public Services” means new police services, fire protection and suppression services, paramedic services, and park maintenance, including but not limited to (i) the costs of contracting services, (ii) related facilities, equipment, vehicles, ambulances, fire apparatus and supplies, (iii) the salaries and benefits of City staff that directly provide police services, fire protection and suppression services, paramedic services, and park maintenance respectively, and (iv) City overhead costs associated with providing such services within CFD No. 2006-1.

The Special Tax provides only partial funding for Public Services. “Residential Unit” or “Unit” means any separate residential dwelling unit in which a person or persons may live, which comprises an independent facility capable of conveyance separate from adjacent residential dwelling units and is not considered to be for commercial or industrial use.
“Single-Family Residential” means all Assessors’ Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit(s) has been issued for purposes of constructing one single-family residential dwelling unit.
“Special Tax” means the special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Residential Property, and shall include special taxes levied or to be levied under Sections C and D.
“State” means the State of California.
“Tax-Exempt Property” means an Assessor's Parcel not subject to the Special Tax as defined under Section E.
“Undeveloped Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2006-1 for which a Building Permit has not been issued and is not classified as Public Property or Homeowner Association Property.

B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year, commencing with Fiscal Year 2009-2010, all Assessor’s Parcels within CFD No. 2006-1 shall be classified as either Developed Residential Property or Tax-Exempt Property, using the definitions in Section A. In addition, Developed Residential Property shall be further classified as Single-Family Residential, Duplex, Low Density Multi-Family City Council/RSA Agenda 636 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
4 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
Residential or High Density Multi-Family Residential. All Developed Residential Property shall be subject to Special Taxes pursuant to Sections C and D.

C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE

1. Developed Residential Property
TABLE 1
Maximum Special Tax for Developed Residential Property
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
Land Use
Class
Description Maximum Special Tax
Per Unit 1
1 Single-Family Residential $523 per Unit
2 Duplex $367 per Unit
3 Low Density Multi-Family Residential $262 per Unit
4 High Density Multi-Family Residential $200 per Unit
1 Maximum Special Tax includes the costs for Administrative Expenses On each July 1 following the Base Year, the Maximum Special Tax in Table 1 shall be increased in accordance with the Annual Escalation Factor.

2. Tax-Exempt Property
No Special Tax shall be levied on Tax-Exempt Property.

3. Multiple Land Use Classes
In some instances an Assessor’s Parcel may contain more than one Land Use Class.

The Maximum Special Tax levied on such an Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax levies that can be imposed on all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor’s Parcel.

D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2009-2010, and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, the Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Residential Property at the applicable Maximum Special Tax as set forth in Section C.

City Council/RSA Agenda 637 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
5 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
E. EXEMPTIONS
No Special Tax shall be levied on Undeveloped Property, Homeowner Association Property, Non-Residential Property or Public Property.

F. APPEALS
Any taxpayer who believes that the amount of the Special Tax assigned to a parcel is in error may file a written notice with the CFD Administrator appealing the levy of the Special Tax.

This notice is required to be filed with the CFD Administrator during the Fiscal Year in which the error is believed to have occurred. The City and/or CFD Administrator will then promptly review the appeal and, if necessary, meet with the taxpayer. If the City and/or CFD Administrator verifies that the tax should be changed, the Special Tax levy shall be corrected and, if applicable in any case, a refund shall be granted.

G. MANNER OF COLLECTION
The Special Tax, as levied pursuant to Section D above, shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that CFD No. 2006-1 may direct bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary, to meet the financial obligations of CFD No. 2006-1, or as otherwise determined appropriate by the City.

H. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity to fund Public Services provided to CFD No. 2006-1.

City Council/RSA Agenda 638 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
ATTACHMENT 2

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION

CITY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING

TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED IN THE FUTURE TO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Union City, California, (“City Council”), formed a Community Facilities District, designated as Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (hereafter referred to as “CFD No. 2006-1”), pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982”, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate proceedings to annex certain territory to CFD No. 2006-1; and,
WHEREAS, there has been submitted a map showing the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2006-1, said area to be designated as Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Annexation No. 8 (Turk Island) (hereafter referred to as “Annexation No. 8”).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct.

SECTION 2 Annexation Map. The map showing Annexation No. 8 and to be subject to the levy of a special tax by CFD No. 2006-1 upon the annexation of such territory to CFD No. 2006-1 is hereby approved and adopted. Such map is designated by the name of “Annexation Map No. 8 (Turk Island) of Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), City of Union City, County of Alameda, State of California.”
SECTION 3 Certificate. A certificate shall be endorsed on the original and on at least one (1) copy of the map of Annexation No. 8, evidencing the date and adoption of this Resolution, and within fifteen days after the adoption of the Resolution fixing the time and place of the Public Hearing on the intention to annex Annexation No. 8 to CFD No. 2006-1, a copy of said map shall be filed with the correct and proper endorsements thereon with County Recorder, all in the manner and form provided for Section 3111 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State California.

City Council/RSA Agenda 639 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
2006-01 CFD Annexation No. 8 – Adoption of Boundary Map

2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 640 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Agenda Item
DATE: 10/8/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL (1) DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO

AUTHORIZE THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES), AND (2) ADOPTING THE BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING

TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED IN THE FUTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES). THESE RESOLUTIONS BEGIN THE

ANNEXATION PROCESS OF THE FLORENCE STREET SUBDIVISION PROJECT Staff recommends that the City Councilapprove the attached resolutions (1) Declaring its intention to authorize the annexation of territory Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (Attachment 1), and (2) Adopting the boundary map showing the territo proposed to be annexed in the future to Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (Attachment 2).

The property to be annexed is associated with the Florence Street Subdivision project located at the end of Florence Street in the Sev Hills neighborhood. See Attachment 1 – Exhibit A for the Boundary Map.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item does not have alignment with the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2007, the City Council formed Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (CFD No. 2006-1) to provide additional fund for certain increased public service costs resulting from new residential development. Attachment 1- Exhibit B includes the “Rate a Method of Apportionment” associated with the formation of CFD No. 2006-01. Since the formation of CFD No. 2006-01, there have be 7 annexations of property into the District. This process is referred to as "Annexation No. 9" as the Florence Street project site is the nin property to be annexed into the District since its formation.

The Florence Street Subdivision project was approved in July 2021. Approvals included a Tentative Tract Map (TTM-19-001) to subdiv the lot into six (6) parcels, Site Development Review (SD-19-002), Use Permit (UP-19-004), and a Development Agreement (DA-20-00 For more information, you can view the City Council staff report and attachments by clicking here. The City Council approved the Fi Tract Map 8349 at its June 27, 2023 meeting.

City Council/RSA Agenda 641 Tuesday, October 8, 2024

DISCUSSION
City staff engaged the services of NBS Government Finance Group to assist with the annexation.

Significant provisions of the program are as follows:

1. The funding of services to be provided are in addition to those services provided in or required for the territory and will not be replacing services already available. These additional services include costs for public safety (Police and Fire Services) and park maintenance.

2. Beginning with fiscal year 2025/26, the proposed special tax will be levied for all residential units that have been issued a building permit prior to May 1. This special tax does not apply to commercial, office, or industrial space.

3. In fiscal year 2025/26, the annual special tax for Single-Family Units is $717.97 per unit, increasing 2% per year. The special tax shall be levied in perpetuity.

4. Notice is given that on November 19, 2024 the public hearing will be held where this City Council will consider the annexation to CFD No. 2006-1 and may, in fact, conduct the election and tabulate the results.

FISCAL IMPACT
The special tax will provide additional funding for selected increased public service costs within the territory. Beginning in fiscal year 2026/27, it is anticipated that the special tax will generate $4,307.82 per year (i.e., 6 units multiplied by the yearly rate of $717.97), increasing 2% per year thereafter.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolutions (1) Declaring its intention to authorize the annexation of territory to Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (Attachment 1), and (2) Adopting the boundary map showing the territory proposed to be annexed in the future to Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (Attachment 2).

Prepared by:

Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director; Greg Ghironzi, NBS Government Finance Group Submitted by:

Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution -Annexation No. 9 - Intent to AuthorizeAnnexation Resolution Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Boundary Map Exhibit
Attachment 1 - Exhibit B- CFD2006-01 Rate and Method ofApportionment Exhibit Attachment 2 - Draft Resolution -Annexation No. 9 -Approval of Boundary Map Resolution City Council/RSA Agenda 642 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS

INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ANNEXATION OF

TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
NO. 2006-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Union City, California, (“City Council”), at this time, desires to authorize the annexation of territory to City of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (hereafter referred to as “CFD No. 2006-1”) pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982”, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, CFD No. 2006-1 was formed to finance public services in addition to those provided in or required for the territory within the CFD No. 2006-1 and will not be replacing services already available; and
WHEREAS, certain territory is proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2006-1 and such territory shall be known and designated as Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Annexation No. 9 (Florence Street) (hereafter referred to as “Annexation No. 9”); and WHEREAS, this legislative body now desires to proceed to adopt its Resolution of Intention to annex Annexation No. 9 into CFD No. 2006-1, to describe the territory included within Annexation No. 9 proposed to be annexed, to specify the services to be financed from the proceeds of the levy of special taxes within Annexation No. 9, to set and specify the special taxes that would be levied within the territory to finance such services, and to set a time and place for a public hearing relating to the annexation of Annexation No. 9 into CFD No. 2006-1; and WHEREAS, a map showing the boundaries of Annexation No. 9 proposed to be annexed has been submitted, which map has been previously approved and a copy of the map shall be kept on file with the transcript of these proceedings.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct.

SECTION 2 Authorization. The proceedings for annexing Annexation No. 9 into CFD No. 2006-1 are authorized and initiated by this legislative body pursuant to the authorization of the Act.

SECTION 3 Intention to Annex. This legislative body hereby determines that the public convenience and necessity requires that Annexation No. 9 be added to CFD No. 2006-1 in order to pay the costs and expenses for the required and authorized new services generated from new development within the City and this City Council declares its intention to annex Annexation No. 9 to CFD No. 2006-1.

SECTION 4 Boundaries. A general description of the boundaries of Annexation No. 9 proposed to be annexed is as follows:

City Council/RSA Agenda 643 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
2006-01 CFD Annexation No. 9 – Intention to Annex

All that territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2006-1, as such property is shown on a map designated as “Annexation Map No. 9 (Florence Street) of Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), City of Union City, County of Alameda, State of California,” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and hereby incorporated by reference.

SECTION 5 Name of District. The name of the district is “City of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services)” and the designation for the territory to be annexed shall be “City of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Annexation No. 9 (Florence Street).”
SECTION 6 Services Authorized to be Financed by CFD No. 2006-1, Annexation No.

9. The services that are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2006-1 are certain services which are in addition to those provided in or required for the territory within CFD No. 2006-1 and Annexation No. 9 and will not be replacing services already available. A general description of the services to be financed by CFD No. 2006-1 and Annexation No. 9 is as follows:

PUBLIC SERVICES
New police services, fire protection and suppression services, paramedic services, and park maintenance, including but not limited to (i) the costs of contracting services, (ii) related facilities, equipment, vehicles, ambulances, fire apparatus and supplies, (iii) the salaries and benefits of City staff that directly provide police services, fire protection and suppression services, paramedic services, and park maintenance respectively, and (iv) City overhead costs associated with providing such services within CFD No. 2006- 1 and Annexation No. 9. The Special Tax provides only partial funding for Public Services.

The same types of services that are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2006-1 are the types of services to be provided in Annexation No. 9. If and to the extent possible, such services shall be provided in common within CFD No. 2006-1 and Annexation No. 9.

SECTION 7 Special Taxes. It is the further intention of this City Council body that, except where funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to pay for such services to be provided in CFD No. 2006-1 and Annexation No. 9 and related incidental expenses authorized by the Act, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in Annexation No. 9, will be levied annually within the boundaries of such Annexation No. 9. For further particulars as to the rate and method of apportionment of the proposed special tax, reference is made to the attached and incorporated Exhibit “B” (the “Rate and Method of Apportionment”), which sets forth in sufficient detail the method of apportionment to allow each landowner or resident within proposed Annexation No. 9 to clearly estimate the maximum amount that such person will have to pay.

The special tax proposed to be levied within Annexation No. 9 for services to be supplied within Annexation No. 9 shall be equal to the special tax levied to pay for the same services in CFD No. 2006-1, except that a higher or lower special tax may be levied within Annexation No. 9 to the extent that the actual cost of providing the services in Annexation No. 9 is higher or lower than the cost of providing those services in CFD No. 2006-1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the special tax may not be levied at a rate that is higher than the maximum special tax authorized to be levied pursuant to the Rate and Method of Apportionment.

City Council/RSA Agenda 644 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
2006-01 CFD Annexation No. 9 – Intention to Annex

The special taxes herein authorized, to the extent possible, shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem taxes. Any special taxes that may not be collected on the County tax roll shall be collected through a direct billing procedure by the Treasurer.

The maximum special tax rate in CFD No. 2006-1 shall not be increased as a result of the annexation of Annexation No. 9 to CFD No. 2006-1.

SECTION 8 Public Hearing. Notice is given that on November 19, 2024, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the regular meeting place of the City Council being in the Council Chambers, located at 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, California 94587, a public hearing will be held where this City Council will consider the authorization for the annexation of Annexation No. 9 to CFD No. 2006-1, the proposed method and apportionment of the special tax to be levied with Annexation No. 9 and all other matters as set forth in this Resolution of Intention.

At such public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the annexation of Annexation No. 9 or the levying of special taxes within Annexation No. 9 will be heard.

At such public hearing, protests against the proposed annexation of Annexation No. 9, the levy of special taxes within Annexation No. 9 or any other proposals contained in this resolution may be made orally by any interested person. Any protests pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularities or defects to which objection is made. All written protests shall be filed with the City Clerk prior to the time fixed for the public hearing. Written protests may be withdrawn at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing.

SECTION 9 Majority Protest. If (a) 50% or more of the registered voters, or six (6) registered voters, whichever is more, residing within CFD No. 2006-1, (b) 50% or more of the registered voters, or six (6) registered voters, whichever is more, residing within Annexation No. 9, (c) owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the territory included in CFD 2006-1, or (d) owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the territory included in Annexation No. 9, file written protests against the proposed annexation of Annexation No. 9 to CFD No. 2006-1 in the future and such protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than a majority, no further proceedings shall be undertaken for a period of one year from the date of the decision by the City Council on the issued discussed at the public hearing.

SECTION 10 Notice. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given by the City Clerk by publication in the legally designated newspaper of general circulation, said publication pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, with said publication to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for the public hearing.

City Council/RSA Agenda 645 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
2006-01 CFD Annexation No. 9 – Intention to Annex

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 8
th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments

1. Exhibit A- Annexation No. 9 Map

2. Exhibit B- Rate and Method of Apportionment
City Council/RSA Agenda 646 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 647 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
1 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT

CITY OF UNION CITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1
(PUBLIC SERVICES)
A special tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on and collected for Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) of the City of Union City (“CFD No. 2006-1”) each Fiscal Year, commencing in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, in an amount determined by the City Council of the City of Union City through the application of the appropriate Special Tax for “Developed Residential Property” as described below. All of the real property in CFD No. 2006-1, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
“Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended. “Administrative Expenses” means any actual ordinary and necessary expense of the City of Union City, or designee thereof or both, to carry out the administration of CFD No. 2006-1 related to the determination of the amount of the levy of the Special Tax, the collection of the Special Tax including the expenses of collecting delinquencies, the payment of a proportional share of salaries and benefits of any City employee whose duties are directly related to the administration of CFD No. 2006-1, fees and expenses for counsel, Special Tax consultant and other consultants hired by the City in relation to CFD No. 2006-1, costs associated with responding to public inquiries regarding CFD No. 2006-1, and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of CFD No. 2006-1. “Annual Escalation Factor” means the Maximum Special Tax shall be increased by two percent (2%) each subsequent year following the Base Year. “Assessor's Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned assessor's parcel number.
“Assessor's Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by assessor's parcel number.
“Base Year” means Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2010.
“Building Permit” means a permit for new construction for a residential dwelling or nonresidential structure. For purposes of this definition, “Building Permit” shall not include

EXHIBIT B
City Council/RSA Agenda 648 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
2 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
permits for construction or installation of retaining walls, utility improvements, or other such improvements not intended for human habitation.
“CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes.
“CFD No. 2006-1” means Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) established by the City under the Act.
“City” means the City of Union City.
“Council” means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2006-1.
“County” means the County of Alameda, California.
“Developed Residential Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2006-1 for which a Building Permit was issued for purposes of constructing Single-Family Residential, Duplex, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, or High Density Multi-Family Residential dwelling Units prior to May 1 preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special Tax is being levied.
“Duplex” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a residential structure or structures consisting of two Residential Units.
“Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. “High Density Multi-Family Residential” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a Multi-Family Residential Unit within a structure consisting of four or more stories of livable units. For purposes of this definition, non-livable areas such as parking garages and common areas are not considered to be livable units.
“Homeowner Association Property” means any property within the boundaries of the District that is owned by, or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an instrument recorded with the County Recorder to, a property owner association, including any master or sub-association. “Land Use Class” means any of the classes listed in Table 1 of Section C. “Low Density Multi-Family Residential” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a Multi-Family Residential Unit within a structure consisting of less than four stories of livable units. For purposes of this definition, non-livable areas such as parking garages and common areas are not considered to be livable units.
“Maximum Special Tax” means the maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance with Section C below that can be levied by CFD No. 2006-1 in any Fiscal Year on Developed Residential Property within CFD No. 2006-1.
“Mixed-Use Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2006-1 for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a structure or structures that consists of one or more Residential Units, but also has dedicated space for non-residential use.

Residential Units on Mixed-Use Property shall be classified as Low Density Multi-Family Residential.

City Council/RSA Agenda 649 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
3 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
“Multi-Family Residential” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing a residential structure consisting of more than two Residential Units, including, but not limited to, triplexes, condominiums, and apartment Units.
“Non-Residential Property” means all Assessors’ Parcels for which a Building Permit(s) has been issued for non-residential use and does not contain any Residential Units. “Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2006-1 that is owned by or irrevocably dedicated to the City, the federal government, the State of California, the County, or other public agency or is used for public purposes. For purposes of this definition, property owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Union City is not considered Public Property and any property owned by the Redevelopment Agency will be subject to the levy of a Special Tax in accordance with Section C and D herein. “Public Services” means new police services, fire protection and suppression services, paramedic services, and park maintenance, including but not limited to (i) the costs of contracting services, (ii) related facilities, equipment, vehicles, ambulances, fire apparatus and supplies, (iii) the salaries and benefits of City staff that directly provide police services, fire protection and suppression services, paramedic services, and park maintenance respectively, and (iv) City overhead costs associated with providing such services within CFD No. 2006-1.

The Special Tax provides only partial funding for Public Services. “Residential Unit” or “Unit” means any separate residential dwelling unit in which a person or persons may live, which comprises an independent facility capable of conveyance separate from adjacent residential dwelling units and is not considered to be for commercial or industrial use.
“Single-Family Residential” means all Assessors’ Parcels of Developed Residential Property for which a Building Permit(s) has been issued for purposes of constructing one single-family residential dwelling unit.
“Special Tax” means the special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Residential Property, and shall include special taxes levied or to be levied under Sections C and D.
“State” means the State of California.
“Tax-Exempt Property” means an Assessor's Parcel not subject to the Special Tax as defined under Section E.
“Undeveloped Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2006-1 for which a Building Permit has not been issued and is not classified as Public Property or Homeowner Association Property.

B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year, commencing with Fiscal Year 2009-2010, all Assessor’s Parcels within CFD No. 2006-1 shall be classified as either Developed Residential Property or Tax-Exempt Property, using the definitions in Section A. In addition, Developed Residential Property shall be further classified as Single-Family Residential, Duplex, Low Density Multi-Family City Council/RSA Agenda 650 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
4 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
Residential or High Density Multi-Family Residential. All Developed Residential Property shall be subject to Special Taxes pursuant to Sections C and D.

C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE

1. Developed Residential Property
TABLE 1
Maximum Special Tax for Developed Residential Property
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
Land Use
Class
Description Maximum Special Tax
Per Unit 1
1 Single-Family Residential $523 per Unit
2 Duplex $367 per Unit
3 Low Density Multi-Family Residential $262 per Unit
4 High Density Multi-Family Residential $200 per Unit
1 Maximum Special Tax includes the costs for Administrative Expenses On each July 1 following the Base Year, the Maximum Special Tax in Table 1 shall be increased in accordance with the Annual Escalation Factor.

2. Tax-Exempt Property
No Special Tax shall be levied on Tax-Exempt Property.

3. Multiple Land Use Classes
In some instances an Assessor’s Parcel may contain more than one Land Use Class.

The Maximum Special Tax levied on such an Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax levies that can be imposed on all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor’s Parcel.

D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2009-2010, and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, the Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Residential Property at the applicable Maximum Special Tax as set forth in Section C.

City Council/RSA Agenda 651 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
5 City of Union City
Community Facilities District No. 2006-1
(Public Services)
E. EXEMPTIONS
No Special Tax shall be levied on Undeveloped Property, Homeowner Association Property, Non-Residential Property or Public Property.

F. APPEALS
Any taxpayer who believes that the amount of the Special Tax assigned to a parcel is in error may file a written notice with the CFD Administrator appealing the levy of the Special Tax.

This notice is required to be filed with the CFD Administrator during the Fiscal Year in which the error is believed to have occurred. The City and/or CFD Administrator will then promptly review the appeal and, if necessary, meet with the taxpayer. If the City and/or CFD Administrator verifies that the tax should be changed, the Special Tax levy shall be corrected and, if applicable in any case, a refund shall be granted.

G. MANNER OF COLLECTION
The Special Tax, as levied pursuant to Section D above, shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that CFD No. 2006-1 may direct bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary, to meet the financial obligations of CFD No. 2006-1, or as otherwise determined appropriate by the City.

H. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity to fund Public Services provided to CFD No. 2006-1.

City Council/RSA Agenda 652 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
ATTACHMENT 2

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BOUNDARY

MAP SHOWING TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE

ANNEXED IN THE FUTURE TO COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Union City, California (“City Council”), formed a Community Facilities District, designated as Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) (hereafter referred to as “CFD No. 2006-1”), pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982”, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate proceedings to annex certain territory to CFD No. 2006-1; and
WHEREAS, there has been submitted a map showing the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 2006-1, said area to be designated as Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Annexation No. 9 (Florence Street) (hereafter referred to as “Annexation No. 9”).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct.

SECTION 2 Annexation Map. The map showing Annexation No. 9 and to be subject to the levy of a special tax by CFD No. 2006-1 upon the annexation of such territory to CFD No. 2006-1 is hereby approved and adopted. Such map is designated by the name of “Annexation Map No. 9 (Florence Street) of Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), City of Union City, County of Alameda, State of California.”
SECTION 3 Certificate. A certificate shall be endorsed on the original and on at least one (1) copy of the map of Annexation No. 9, evidencing the date and adoption of this Resolution, and within fifteen days after the adoption of the Resolution fixing the time and place of the Public Hearing on the intention to annex Annexation No. 9 to CFD No. 2006-1, a copy of said map shall be filed with the correct and proper endorsements thereon with County Recorder, all in the manner and form provided for Section 3111 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State California.

City Council/RSA Agenda 653 Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
2006-01 CFD Annexation No. 9 – Adoption of Boundary Map

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 654 Tuesday, October 8, 2024