Union City City Council
May 23, 2023

accept the grant, in a form approved by the City Attorney, and take any other such action as is necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ ___________________________
ANNA M. BROWN KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 423 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
1 Mario Vallejo
From: Hernandez, Lucio@Energy <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 9:07 AM
To: Mario Vallejo; Joan Malloy
Cc: Dodson, Geoffrey@Energy; Cook, Jeff; Gibbs, Patrick; Rivard, Tim Subject: CalAPP Grant Next Steps - City of Union City
Attachments: Getting Started with SolarAPP+.pdf; CalAPP Invoice Supporting Documentation (1).xlsx; CalAPP Grant Invoice template - City of Union City.xlsx WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.

Greetings,
Thank you for participating in the California Automated Permit Processing (CalAPP) Program, and congratulations on the approval and execution of your grant for the City of Union City. This email is to provide information on the next steps to ensure the successful completion of all grant activities and receive payment in a timely manner.

As of the official date of grant agreement execution, you may track eligible expenses towards the completion of CalAPP grant requirements and submit on an invoice to the CEC when ready. As a reminder, a full list of allowable reimbursable costs can be found in the CalAPP Solicitation Manual, Chapter 1, Section D.4. The CEC can reimburse allowable costs up to the maximum grant amount awarded to your jurisdiction.

Invoicing
There are two Excel spreadsheet documents attached to this email which you will use to submit invoices to the CEC for reimbursement.

1. CalAPP Grant Invoice Template – One page document to summarize total reimbursable expenses, including mandatory signature with certification.

2. CalAPP Invoice Supporting Documentation – Spreadsheet with multiple tabs to input line-item expenses for eligible reimbursable costs. Please retain documentation in case it is requested by CEC staff prior to the approval of invoice.

Following successful adoption of a qualifying solar permitting platform, you may submit your first invoice to the CEC using the attached documents. The CEC will verify successful adoption prior to approving payment. You may submit additional invoices as needed for eligible reimbursable costs. When no additional invoices are expected, please select the “Final Project Invoice” box in the Grant Invoice Template to indicate that project activities are complete.

Additional Help
CalAPP staff are interested in the successful completion of your grant requirements and are available to assist with any questions should they arise. Please reach out to our program email, [email protected], for assistance with questions. Staff are able to schedule a virtual video-call meeting if requested.

SolarAPP+
If your jurisdiction plans to adopt SolarAPP+ (as indicated in the Application Form), the attached document titled “Getting Started with SolarAPP+” is provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to assist with moving forward.

The CalAPP team looks forward to your successful completion! Thanks,
City Council/RSA Agenda 424 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
2 Lucio Hernandez
California Energy Commission
916-477-1799
www.energy.ca.gov
City Council/RSA Agenda 425 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Agenda Item
City Council/RSA Agenda 426 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Agenda Item
DATE: 5/23/2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS 1) ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN EIR, AND 2) AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN (AG-23-001) TO ADOPT THE 2023-2031 HOUSING

ELEMENT AND SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE
Staff report attached.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

FISCAL IMPACT

RECOMMENDATION
Prepared by:

Coleman Frick, Senior Planner
City Council/RSA Agenda 427 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Submitted by:

Coleman Frick, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Staff Report 2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update Staff Report Attachment 1: Resolution Adopting an Addendumto the 2040 General Plan EIRfor the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update
Resolution
Attachment 1 Exhibit A:Addendumto the 2040 General Plan EIR Exhibit Attachment 2: Resolution Adopting The 2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update (AG-23-001)
Resolution
Attachment 2 Exhibit A: 2023-2031 Housing Element Exhibit Attachment 2 Exhibit B: Safety Element Amendments (including AppendixA: Senate Bill 99 Evacuation RouteAnalysis and
AppendixB: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment)
Exhibit
Attachment 2 Exhibit C: Redlined Housing Element (changes since July 2022 submittal to HCD)
Exhibit
Attachment 3: Response Letter #1 to HCDComments, January 2023 Attachment Attachment 4: Response Letter #2 to HCDComments,April 2023 Attachment Attachment 5:April 20, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment Attachment 6: Planning Commission Desk Item,April 20, 2023 Attachment Attachment 7: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes,April 20, 2023
Attachment
Attachment 8: Planning Commission Resolution 07-23
Recommending the City CouncilAdopt an Addendumto the 2040 General Plan EIR
Attachment
Attachment 9: Planning Commission Resolution 08-23
Recommending the City CouncilApprove the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update (AG-23-001)
Attachment
Power Point Attachment
Desk Item- Item6.a. Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 428 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Agenda Item
DATE: 05/23/2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS 1) ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN EIR, 2) AMENDING
THE GENERAL PLAN (AG-23-001) TO ADOPT THE 2023-2031

HOUSING ELEMENT AND SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Union City (“City”) is proposing amendments to the 2040 General Plan, which include the 2023-2031 Sixth Cycle Housing Element and an update to the Safety Element. The City, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has also prepared an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with the amendments.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt two resolutions 1) Adopting an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR (Attachment 1); and 2) Amending the General Plan (AG-23-001) (Attachment 2), to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Attachment 2 Exhibit A) and Safety Element Update (Attachment 2 Exhibit B). These actions are referred to as the “Project.” The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project to the City Council at its April 20, 2023, meeting on a 4-0 vote. The following are attached to this report: the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5), Planning Commission Desk Item (Attachment 6), Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes (Attachment 7), and Planning Commission Resolutions (Attachment 8 and 9) associated with that action.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item is in alignment with the following:

Goal C, Strategy 5: Promote housing development for all income levels in the community by updating the zoning ordinance to include objective standards for new multi-family residential development in order to streamline the review of applications for housing developments, and update the Housing Element, to facilitate the development of affordable housing.

City Council/RSA Agenda 429 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 2

BACKGROUND
Housing Element
The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements that must be included in Union City’s General Plan and, unlike the other elements, is required to be updated every eight years. This element evaluates housing needs and issues in the City, and contains goals, policies, objectives, and implementation programs that the City uses to guide actions related to housing.

The City’s existing 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted in January 2015. On July 27, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution 5811-2021 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Ascent Environmental, Inc. (“Ascent”) for preparation of the Housing Element update and related update to the General Plan Safety Element.

An important part of State housing element law is the determination of the City’s ability to accommodate State forecasted housing demand for all income levels. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) manages the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, which assigns a “fair share” of housing to the jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Each jurisdiction is required to report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on how the fair share allocation can be accommodated within the planning period.

For the 2023-2031 (i.e., sixth cycle) planning period, Union City’s RHNA is 2,728 units, a 137 percent increase from the prior (fifth cycle) planning period of 1,152 units. The majority of jurisdictions in the Bay Area saw similar increases. Table 1 shows the City’s final RHNA by household income category for the 2023–2031 planning period. The total allocation is broken down into four Area Median Income (AMI) categories: above moderate, moderate, low, and very low-income. The lower two income categories (“Low Income” and “Very Low Income”) must be accommodated on sites zoned for higher density residential development (i.e., >30 dwelling units per acre).

Table 1: 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
UNION CITY 2023-2031 RHNA ALLOCATION
Very LowIncome Units
(0-50% AMI)
Low-Income
Units
(50-80% AMI)
ModerateIncome
Units
(80-120%
AMI)
Above
ModerateIncome Units
(120%+ AMI)
TOTAL
UNITS
Housing
units 862 496 382 988 2,728
Percent
(%) of
total
32% 18% 14% 36% 100%
Through the Sites Inventory analysis in the Housing Element, the City must demonstrate that there are adequate sites with the appropriate zoning in place to accommodate its RHNA. However, it does not dictate when or how much housing is built since new housing construction is based on a variety of City Council/RSA Agenda 430 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 3 factors outside of the City’s control such as demand, available financing, land availability, and construction costs, and is ultimately driven by private property owners.

Draft Housing Element General Plan Amendments and Rezoning Staff brought forward amendments associated with the Draft Housing Element in November 2022.

These included rezoning sites included in the Housing Element to accommodate the RHNA; text amendments and revisions to specific figures in the Land Use, Special Areas, and Economic Development Elements of the 2040 General Plan; amending the Zoning Map for consistency; and amending the Municipal Code to implement the 2040 General Plan VMU designation, and revise Chapter 18.35 Corridor Mixed Use Commercial (CMU) District and Chapter 18.36 Commercial Districts for consistency with the Housing Element. The City Council adopted the amendments at its November 8, 2022 meeting (with a second reading at the November 22, 2022 meeting). For more information regarding the amendments, see City Council staff report dated November 8, 2022.

Housing Element Revision Process
The Housing Element has been developed through an extensive planning and collaboration process involving various City departments, the consultant team, property owners and stakeholders throughout Union City, and HCD. The Planning Commission reviewed the first Draft Housing Element at their July 7, 2022 meeting and recommended submittal to HCD with minor revisions (See the July 7, 2022 Planning Commission staff report). Staff received a comment letter from HCD on October 26, 2022.

A second draft Housing Element, responsive to HCD’s comments, was submitted to HCD on January 30, 2023. For more information, see Attachment 3 for an overview of HCD’s comments and City responses. Staff also met with HCD to discuss further requested revisions during the review period.

HCD’s second review concluded on March 10, 2023 and they provided a second comment letter. In April 2023, the Housing Element was revised in response to the comments. The Planning Commission reviewed the third draft of the Housing Element at their April 20, 2023 meeting and the Housing Element was sent to HCD on April 21, 2022, along with a response letter (Attachment 4). Since that time, staff and the consultant team have met with HCD staff regarding the latest draft, which resulted in further revisions based on these conversations. The Housing Element and Safety Element webpage (https://www.unioncity.org/604/Housing-and-Safety-Element-Update) contains each draft of the Housing Element. The track changes are color coded to show different rounds of revisions.

Attachment 2 Exhibit C is a version of the Housing Element with tracked changes which include all revisions to the July 2022 draft Housing Element, including revisions based on HCD’s comments following the April 20, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. Whereas Attachment 2 Exhibit A is a clean version of the Housing Element.

Safety Element
The Safety Element is another mandatory element of the General Plan. Recent state laws (SB 1035, AB 747, SB 99) now require cities to conduct a climate change vulnerability assessment and to integrate climate adaptation and resiliency strategies into their Safety Elements upon each revision of a jurisdiction’s Housing Element or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan with the goal of identifying new information relating to flood and fire hazards, climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. The Safety City Council/RSA Agenda 431 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 4 Element is being updated in accordance with these provisions as part of the Housing Element update process. The Safety Element amendments are included as Attachment 2, Exhibit B.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Housing Element Components
The Housing Element consists of nine chapters, which include an introduction, assessment and analysis existing housing conditions, inventory of approved housing sites and opportunity sites, assessment of fair housing issues and practices, analysis of potential housing constraints, opportunities for residential energy conservation, evaluation of the last housing element, available programs and resources, and goals, policies, and implementation over the next eight years. A detailed description of each chapter is included in Attachment 5.

Key Housing Element Considerations
As described above, the Housing Element contains nine chapters which focus on many aspects of Union City’s existing and future housing stock and policies and programs which support the development of housing for all. The following describes some key considerations which informed the Housing Element content and were unique to the sixth cycle Housing Element.

Use of Non-vacant Sites
Because Union City, like the region, is mostly built out, a large portion of new residential development in the City occurs on non-vacant sites that have existing uses. For the purposes of the Housing Element, these sites are referred to as “underutilized.” The project team conducted a thorough analysis of these sites evaluating multiple factors including site conditions, staff knowledge of existing uses, property owner interest, and nearby development activity. Through that process, the team refined the list of potential sites for inclusion in the sites inventory.

Because the Housing Element is relying on these sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the lower-income RHNA, the Housing Element must include evidence that the existing use on each nonvacant site in the inventory does not create an impediment to development during the planning period.

Some of HCD’s comments on the Housing Element drafts focused on this requirement.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), passed in 2018, created new requirements for jurisdictions to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) and not take any action that is inconsistent with this obligation. AFFH means to take “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” As of the sixth cycle, all housing elements must now include an AFFH component and are required to examine the relationship of available sites to several fair housing factors and include actions to affirmatively further fair housing. The AFFH requirement is one of the most substantial changes between the fifth and sixth Housing Element cycles. It is also one of the Housing Element components that has been most scrutinized by HCD during the review process for the City’s Housing Element drafts and those of other jurisdictions.

City Council/RSA Agenda 432 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 5 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count
Starting in 2003, Alameda County Housing and Community Development started conducting a biennial point-in-time (PIT) homeless count. The most recent PIT count was completed in February 2022 where 7,135 unsheltered homeless individuals were counted in Alameda County. In Union City, 489 unsheltered homeless persons were counted compared to 106 homeless persons in 2019, which was the last time the PIT count took place. The updated count for Union City represents seven percent of the total unsheltered population in the County.

A review of the unsheltered population by location shows that Union City had 69 percent of individuals living in a car/van, compared to 32 percent in the County. The PIT count directly informed homeless policies and programs included in the City’s Housing Element.

RHNA Analysis and Sites Inventory
In order to demonstrate that the City can accommodate the number of units assigned by ABAG as part of the RHNA allocation process, the City is relying on a mix of approved but not yet constructed sites and future opportunity sites. Approved sites, shown in Figure 1 in blue, include Seven Hills Estates, Lazuli Landing, Horner Street Mixed Use, Turk Island, Station East Residential Mixed Use Project, and the Dyer Meteor Townhome project. In total, 1,491 units are included in the approved projects category.

To meet the remaining RHNA, and account for a buffer, capacity for an additional 2,187 units is included in the sites inventory. This includes vacant and underutilized sites, and projected accessory dwelling units over the eight year period. In total, the capacity identified in the Housing Element is 3,678 units as detailed in Table 2 below. The location of these sites is shown in Figure 1.

Table 2: Sites Inventory Capacity Summary
Lower1 Moderate  AboveModerate  Total
Regional Housing Needs Allocation  1,358  382  988  2,728 Approved Projects  202  440  849  1,491
Station District Specific Plan Sites  668  570  200  1,438 Citywide Vacant Sites  0  6  25  31
Citywide Underutilized Sites2627  18  0  645
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)  44  22  7  73
Total Capacity 1,541 1,056 1,081 3,678
Surplus (+)  183  674  93  950
1 Lower-income includes extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. 2 Non-vacant sites that have the potential for redevelopment.

A total of 36 housing opportunity sites, excluding approved projects which are listed above, are analyzed in detail in the Housing Element. This includes rezoned sites approved by the City Council last fall. Of the 2,114 total units included on the opportunity sites, 68 percent of units are located on four sites in the Station District. The vast majority of sites, especially outside of the Station District, are located on underutilized parcels with existing uses. Additional details are provided for these sites in Attachment 5 and within Chapter 3 of the Housing Element (Attachment 2 Exhibit A).

City Council/RSA Agenda 433 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 6 Figure 1: Sites Inventory Map
City Council/RSA Agenda 434 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 7 Housing Element Policies and Programs
Chapter 9 of the Housing Element includes policies and implementation programs. The policies and programs are either 1) new, 2) identical to what is included in the existing Housing Element, or 3) a revised version of what is included in the existing Housing Element. Several of the policies and programs are required by state law (i.e., By-right Housing on Prior Housing Element Sites, Requirement for Replacement Housing When Housing Element Sites are Redeveloped, Rezoning for Special Needs Housing) while others reflect activities (i.e., Development of Objective Standards for Residential Development) and programs (CAREavan), which are existing or currently underway by the City.

Key Policies, Programs, and Revisions
A summary of key policies and programs are included below. Many of these were revised based on HCD comments and a few were added based on HCD comments. Please note that this list does not encompass all revisions based on HCD comments:
 City-owned Properties. Two programs are related to the development of City-owned land including the Restoration Site along 11th Street (Program HE-1.C) and the Gateway Site the former Caltrans site) (Program HE-1-E). Programs were added to ensure that the City takes action to support the development of these sites in a timely manner.  Development and Design Standards to Streamline Housing Production. Program HE-1.F (Objective Design Standards) and Program HE-1-H (Development Standards for Missing Middle Housing Types): These programs relate to the creation of development and design standards through Zoning Ordinance amendments. Program HE-1.F addresses the development of objective design standards for the City’s multi-family districts, which is currently underway and anticipated for Council consideration in summer/fall 2023. Program HE-1-H relates to the creation of development standards (e.g., minimum lot size, lot coverage, setbacks, height) that facilitate missing middle1housing in traditionally single-family zones.  Zoning Ordinance Updates. Program HE-2.E requires the City to adopt a Religious Facility Housing Overlay zone to allow, and provide incentives for, developing affordable housing on religious facility properties, including transitional housing and emergency shelters.  Program HE7.A requires updates to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to address special needs housing including amendments which will serve the homeless, very low income, and other vulnerable populations.

These include amendments to facilitate the establishment of low barrier navigation centers, emergency shelters, and single-room occupancy units. Some of the proposed amendments are required by state law.
 Homelessness. Program HE-7.F (Scattered Site Housing for Persons Experiencing Homelessness) builds on the City’s current efforts to partner with other Alameda County cities and Bay Area Community Services (BACS) to apply for Project Homekey funds to support the acquisition and conversion of single-family homes to supportive shared housing for people experiencing homelessness. The City was not awarded funding during the last Homekey cycle

1 Small-scale multifamily housing such as duplexes, townhouses, triplexes, or smaller apartment buildings.

City Council/RSA Agenda 435 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 8 but will be applying again when the next Homekey grant cycle opens up.

The full list of Policies and Programs included in the Housing Element can be found in Chapter 9 of Attachment 2 Exhibit A.

Housing Element Revisions
As described above, the Housing Element has been updated in response to several rounds of HCD feedback. A detailed summary of the requested revisions by HCD and edits by the project team is included in Attachment 5; with all revisions shown in Attachment 2 Exhibit C. The attached Housing Element (Attachment 2 Exhibit A) is responsive to HCD’s comments and in substantial compliance with state law. However, minor revisions may be required based on discussions with HCD, after adoption by the City Council and the draft City Council Resolution (Attachment 2) allows for this.

Staff is working with HCD to receive conditional approval prior to Council adoption. Should that occur after publication of the staff report, staff will provide a copy of the conditional approval as a Desk Item. See below for a high-level overview of HCD feedback broken down by topic.  Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): As a result of this recent legislation HCD has enhanced its focus on fair housing issues in the sixth cycle. Union City, and the vast majority of other jurisdictions, received many comments regarding AFFH, and HCD requested changes to the Housing Element drafts based on potential fair housing issues.  Sites Inventory: The City received multiple comments on the opportunity sites and approved projects listed in the Housing Element to meet the City’s RHNA. This included providing additional information, adding non-vacant site factors, summarizing characteristics of projects approved in the past, and providing more information on the status and timing of approved development projects.
 Housing Constraints: HCD requested additional information on a number of items related to processes or requirements that they believed could have the potential to make approving and constructing housing more difficult.
 Policies and Programs: HCD requested revisions to policies and programs included in the Housing Element to make the projected impact more clearly defined.  Miscellaneous: Additional revisions were requested by HCD in areas not listed above to include data related to housing costs, public participation, history of lot consolidation for approved projects, outreach to historic underrepresented populations, and emergency shelters programs.

Safety Element
The Safety Element amendments (Attachment 2 Exhibit B) are intended to enhance resiliency and include new policies and programs generally focused on climate adaptation, public education, enhanced infrastructure, and emergency preparedness. Three new implementation programs are included in the amendments:
 S-2.H Implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 747 and Senate Bill (SB) 99: The City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) describes how the City will effectively prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against all hazards. As part of the CEMP, the City will include capacity-based analysis of its evacuation network to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. This will process City Council/RSA Agenda 436 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 9 will also address evacuation of existing residential developments within hazard areas with limited accessibility (i.e., less than two points of access).  S-6.A External Adaptation Coordination: Coordination with neighboring jurisdictions, regional agencies, and community-based organizations, to identify, plan for, and implement adaptation strategies to address the potential impacts of climate hazards.  S-6.B Public Climate Hazard Education and Awareness: The City will develop a multi-pronged outreach and awareness strategy, partnering with regional and local jurisdictions and organizations to educate residents on their level of risk to climate hazards and actions they could take to become more climate resilient, including the promotion of existing incentive programs.

Public Outreach
To solicit community participation in the Housing Element, the City engaged in extensive public outreach efforts throughout the process. This included conducting two virtual workshops (one in English and in Spanish), an online community survey, and a booth at the Farmer’s Market in Old Alvarado Park. The survey was available in English, Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog, and Hindi. The City received 487 responses in the five languages listed above.

Staff also created a dedicated Housing Element webpage on the City’s website where community members can find up to date information on the process, contact information for staff, and review the Housing Element and Safety Element information, documents, and response letters to HCD.

Notification was sent through the City’s outreach channels informing community members of the release of the various Housing Element drafts and upcoming meetings, and how to provide feedback.

In addition, property owners of sites included in the inventory were notified by mail.

Public comments received on the Housing Element are included in Appendix A of the Housing Element. A comment letter was received from Greenbelt Alliance and YIMBY Law on April 21, 2022, prior to the beginning of the public comment period, urging the City to include a rezoning component as part of the Housing Element (completed) to be able to realistically meet the City’s RHNA target while also complying with AFFH guidelines. Staff also received some feedback from property owners in response to the sites inventory letter that was sent out. The majority of responses received from property owners were either in support or did not object to their property being included in the Housing Element. Comments received from members of the public included a wide range of feedback. Some of the feedback received was supportive of the need for more housing. Other comments focused on concerns with adding additional housing, especially high-density housing, and related impacts such as traffic. Additional feedback focused on the high cost of new housing, development costs generally, and ideas of where in the City to add additional housing.

For consideration of the final Housing Element, notices were sent to all interested parties via e-mail.

Newspaper notices for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings were published in the Tri-City Voice as required by state law.

Addendum to Previously Certified EIR
The proposed project is within the scope of the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2018102057) certified on December 10, 2019, and staff recommends City Council/RSA Agenda 437 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 10 adoption of the Addendum (Attachment 1 – Exhibit A). The Addendum evaluated whether the project would result in any changes in circumstances or substantial new information as compared to the environmental impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Regarding each potential environmental impact analyzed, the Addendum established that no substantial changes in circumstances had occurred, nor had any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification, and no new or more severe impacts would occur beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Additionally, the impact analysis concluded that since no new or more severe impacts were identified, no changes or modifications to the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were required. Attachment 1 is a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund associated with this item.

RECOMMENDATION
Consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation, staff recommends that the City Council adopt two resolutions 1) Adopting an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR, 2) Amending the General Plan (AG-23-001) to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, and authorize the City Manager to make minor revisions to the Housing Element based on any further nonsubstantive changes required by HCD.

Prepared by:

Coleman Frick, Senior Planner
Submitted by:

Coleman Frick, Senior Planner

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1: Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR for the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update
o Exhibit A: Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR

2. Attachment 2: Resolution Adopting The 2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update (AG-23-001)
o Exhibit A: 2023-2031 Housing Element
o Exhibit B: Safety Element Amendments (including Appendix A: Senate Bill 99 Evacuation Route Analysis and Appendix B: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment)
o Exhibit C: Redlined Housing Element (changes since July 2022 submittal HCD)

3. Attachment 3: Response Letter #1 to HCD Comments, January 2023

4. Attachment 4: Response Letter #2 to HCD Comments, April 2023

5. Attachment 5: April 20, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report

6. Attachment 6: Planning Commission Desk Item, April 20, 2023 City Council/RSA Agenda 438 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council Staff Report, May 23, 2023
2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Page 11

7. Attachment 7: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, April 20, 2023

8. Attachment 8: Planning Commission Resolution 07-23 Recommending the City Council Adopt an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR

9. Attachment 9: Planning Commission Resolution 08-23 Recommending the City Council Approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Safety Element Update (AG-23-001) City Council/RSA Agenda 439 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-23

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT AND SAFETY ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2018102057) for the 2040 General Plan, dated November 2019, was prepared; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, by Resolution No. 5548-19, the City Council certified the EIR, adopted required CEQA Findings Regarding Mitigations and Alternatives, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2040 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, by Resolution No. 5549-19, the City Council adopted documents consisting of text, maps, and charts, entitled Union City 2040 General Plan, dated December 10, 2019, which included the reports in support thereof as the General Plan of Union City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302, the General Plan includes seven mandatory elements, including the Housing Element and Safety Element; and WHEREAS, state law requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Union City (City) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 2,728 housing units, comprised of 862 very-low income units, 496 low-income units, 382 moderate-income units, and 988 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, the Safety Element serves as a policy guide to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, economic loss, and social dislocation resulting from natural and human-made hazards, such as earthquakes, fire, flood, extreme heat, and drought; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the 2023-2031 Union City Housing Element (“Housing Element”) for the sixth cycle planning period in compliance with state law; and an update to the Safety Element pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 1035, Senate Bill 99, and Assembly Bill 747 (AG-23-001); and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022 the City Council, on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, adopted Resolution 6034-22 adopting an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR and Resolution 6035-22 amending the General Plan (AG-22-003), and introduced two Ordinances (906-22 and 907-22) for consistency with the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element; including rezoning Housing Element Sites to increase capacity and accommodate the City’s RHNA; these ordinances amended Title 18 Zoning, of the Union City Municipal Code (AT-22- 006), and amended the Zoning Map (A-22-003); and
City Council/RSA Agenda 440 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Resolution No. XXXX-23

WHEREAS, Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an addendum to a previously adopted environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions to the project are necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or negative declaration have occurred; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR for the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments (“Addendum”), which determined that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 will occur; and WHEREAS, the Addendum was posted to the City’s website and referenced in the public notice for the April 20, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 20, 2023 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments and Addendum for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 7-23 recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated May 23, 2023, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments and Addendum for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report, and the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments and Addendum at a noticed public hearing on May 23, 2023, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Addendum, reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, and that the changes that are part of the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments identified in the Addendum would not result in any significant impacts not considered under the original 2040 General Plan EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum is available for review on the City’s website at https://www.unioncity.org/347/Planning-Documents, and at the Economic and Community Development Department at City Hall during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Addendum and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for Housing Element and Safety Element amendments is the City of Union City Economic and Community Development Department, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.

City Council/RSA Agenda 441 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Resolution No. XXXX-23

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby certifies and declares as follows:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

B. The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR, as well as all other information (both written and oral) provided by City staff, City consultants, and the public to the City Council at its May 23, 2023 meeting relating to the Addendum, prior to making its decision regarding the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments.

C. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report and finds that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, and that the changes that are part of the project would not result in any significant impacts not considered under the original EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts.

D. The Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate CEQA document for the project and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Addendum has been prepared as required by law and the document reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City of Union City, which has exercised overall control and direction of its preparation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the City Council hereby adopts the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report for AG-23-001 in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

City Council/RSA Agenda 442 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Resolution No. XXXX-23

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 23
th day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
ANNA M. BROWN KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 443 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 1-1
Addendum to the Union City 2040 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2018102057) for the Sixth Cycle (2023-2031) Housing
Element and Safety Element Update
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
In November 2019, the City of Union City (City) certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2018102057) for the Union City 2040 General Plan (2040 General Plan). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000, et seq.), the EIR for the 2040 General Plan (General Plan EIR) evaluated the potential environmental impacts that would result from the 2040 General Plan update.

The City is currently in the process of updating the Housing Element for the 2023 to 2031 planning period, as well as the Safety Element. State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan containing at least eight mandatory elements, including a Housing Element and Safety Element. The Housing Element is the only element that is required by law to be updated every eight years and must be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This Housing Element is an update of the City’s previous housing element, which was adopted by the City Council on January 27, 2015. This update will cover the 2023-2031 planning period, from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2031.

Housing element law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, including their share of the regional housing need. Housing element law is the State’s primary market-based strategy to increase housing supply, choice, and affordability. The law recognizes that in order for the private for-profit and non-profit sectors to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory requirements that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.

An important part of State housing element law is the determination of the City’s ability to accommodate forecasted housing demand for all income levels, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA quantifies the need for housing in each region statewide and is determined by HCD. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for allocating the RHNA to each city and county in its region, which includes the City of Oakley. On December 16, 2021, ABAG adopted the 2023-2031 RHNA Plan. Through the RHNA Plan, ABAG allocates a “fair share” by income category based on projected housing needs for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction is required to report to HCD on how the fair share allocation can be accommodated within the planning period. It should be noted that the RHNA projection period is June 30, 2022 – December 31, 2030, which differs slightly from the Housing Element planning period of January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031. The allocations are intended to be used by jurisdictions when updating their housing elements as the basis for assuring that adequate sites and zoning are available to accommodate at least the number of units allocated.

Table 1 shows the RHNA assigned to the City for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. As shown in the table, ABAG allocated 2,728 new housing units to the City, which includes 862 very low-, 496 low-, 382 moderate-, and 998 above moderate-income units. State law also requires the City to identify the projected need for extremely low-income Attachment 1 Exhibit A
City Council/RSA Agenda 444 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
1-2 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
housing. The City assumes that 50 percent of the very low-income housing need is equal to the extremely lowincome housing need1 .

Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Union City 2023-2031 Very-Low-Income
Units Low-Income Units Moderate-Income Units Above-ModerateIncome Units Total 2023-2031 RHNA 862 496 382 988 2,728
Percent of Total 32% 18% 14% 36% 100%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031 (Adopted December 2021).

The Safety Element is being updated pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 379 and SB 1035, along with Assembly Bill (AB) 747 and SB 99. SB 379 and SB 1035 require cities and counties to conduct a climate change vulnerability assessment and to integrate climate adaptation and resiliency strategies into their general plan safety elements. AB 747 requires that local jurisdictions update their local hazard mitigation plan or safety element to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. SB 99 requires that local jurisdictions review and update their safety element as necessary to identify residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.

As the lead agency under CEQA, the City has prepared this Addendum in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 to evaluate whether the proposed project’s effects were adequately examined in the previous environmental analysis in the General Plan EIR or whether any changes trigger supplemental or subsequent review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. This Addendum considers whether the environmental conditions that exist today have changed such that new or substantially more severe environmental impacts would occur compared to that evaluated in the General Plan EIR. As described below, no changes associated with the proposed project, and no changes in circumstances, trigger subsequent or supplemental review.

1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
The environmental process for the General Plan involved the preparation of the following documents that are relevant to the consideration of the proposed project.
 Draft EIR for the Union City 2040 General Plan, June 2019;  Final EIR for the Union City 2040 General Plan, November 2019;  Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Union City 2040 General Plan EIR, November 2019;  Addendum to the Union City 2040 General Plan for the Sixth Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Related Amendments to the Union City 2040 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, November 2022.

1.3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES

REGARDING AN ADDENDUM TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
Altered conditions, changes, or additions to the description of a project that occur after certification of an EIR may require additional analysis under CEQA. The legal principles that guide decisions regarding whether additional environmental documentation is required are provided in the State CEQA Guidelines, which establish three mechanisms to address these changes: 1) a subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR), 2) a Supplement to an EIR, or 3) an Addendum to an EIR.
1 A total of 50 percent very low-income units would equate to a projected need for 431 extremely low-income housing units.

City Council/RSA Agenda 445 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 1-3
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the conditions under which a SEIR would be prepared. In summary, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no Subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a Subsequent EIR if:
(1) any of the conditions described above for Section 15162 would require the preparation of a SEIR; and (2) only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.

Under Section 15164, an addendum is appropriate where a previously certified EIR has been prepared and some changes or revisions to the project are proposed, or the circumstances surrounding the project have changed, but none of the changes or revisions would result in significant new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, consistent with CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15168.

Based on the criteria above and the results of the following EIR conformity evaluation, the City has determined that an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate CEQA document. The EIR conformity evaluation is intended to review relevant environmental topic areas for any changes in circumstances or the substantial new information as defined under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (stated above), as compared to the environmental impacts identified in the certified EIR prepared for the General Plan.

City Council/RSA Agenda 446 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
1-4 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 447 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

SAFETY ELEMENT
Regarding the Safety Element, the City developed a supplemental vulnerability assessment, conducted an evacuation route analysis, and developed a set of goals, policies, and implementation programs to address climate adaptation and resilience. The supplemental vulnerability assessment is a tailored update to Section 10.8, “Climate Change” of the Hazards and Public Safety Chapter of the City’s General Plan Update 2019 Background Report. It follows guidance from the California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) to allow the City to assess locally specific climate risks. Future projections of climate hazards including extreme heat, wildfire, sea level rise, extreme precipitation and flooding, and drought were determined as part of the supplemental vulnerability assessment using Cal-Adapt, an interactive tool that helps users assess their climate risk, along with other tools. The findings of the supplemental vulnerability assessment were then used to inform the goal, policies, and implementation programs that were updated in the Safety Element. The updated Safety Element policies and programs focus on: consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation in long-range planning decisions; collaboration with community organizations, neighboring jurisdictions, and regional agencies in support of adaptive efforts and reducing climate impacts; promoting community awareness and public education for improving climate resilience; protecting vulnerable population from climate impacts; prioritizing climate adaption through use of natural infrastructure; and updating and implementing the City’s Climate Action Plan.

Pursuant to SB 99, the City conducted analysis to identify residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. The identification of residential developments considered vulnerable due to limited accessibility (i.e., less than two points of access) were summarized in Appendix A, Senate Bill 99 Evacuation Route Analysis to the Safety Element update. The findings of this analysis were then used to inform a new implementation program included in the Safety Element update. The new program ensures that the next update of the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) (which addresses how the City will effectively prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against all hazards) includes capacitybased analysis of its evacuation network, consistent with the statutory requirements of AB 747. Additionally, this program ensures that the City addresses evacuation of existing residential developments within hazard areas with limited accessibility (i.e., less than two points of access) consistent with SB 99. 2023- 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
In accordance with State law, the City has prepared the 2023-2031 Housing Element to ensure that the City grows in a manner that meets the housing needs of residents. As part of this update, the City is obligated under State law to develop an inventory of vacant and underutilized land suitable for residential development that can accommodate the 2,728 housing units allocated through the RHNA, which includes a total of 1,358 lower-income units (includes very low- and low-income units). The City has created significant new housing capacity through the recent 2040 General Plan Update and the Station District Specific Plan, which was adopted in October 2022. The City also rezoned several sites in late 2022 to increase capacity in the lower-incomes sites inventory. All of these actions taken together have helped to ensure that the City has adequate housing capacity to meet the RHNA for this Housing Element planning period.

Table 2 provides a summary of the City’s ability to meet the 2023-2031 RHNA. Based on the housing units in approved projects, capacity on vacant and underutilized sites, and projection of ADUs, the City has a surplus of 183 City Council/RSA Agenda 448 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
2-2 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
lower-income units, 674 moderate-income units, and 93 above moderate-income units. These sites are mapped and shown below in Figure 1.

Table 2: Sites Inventory Capacity Summary, Union City (2023-2031) Lower1
Moderate Above-Moderate Total
Regional Housing Needs Allocation 1,358 382 988 2,728
Approved Projects 202 440 849 1,491
Station District Specific Plan Sites 668 570 200 1,438
Citywide Vacant Sites 0 6 25 31
Citywide Underutilized Sites 627 18 0 645
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 44 22 7 73
Total Capacity 1,541 1,056 1,081 3,678
Surplus (+) 183 674 93 950
1 Lower-income includes extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.

Source: Ascent 2022
The City also developed a set of goals, policies, and implementation programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The focus of the goals, policies, and programs in this Housing Element is to meet the housing needs of all income groups while preserving and enhancing existing neighborhoods, creating standards for high quality housing, removing impediments to housing growth, and reducing living expenses that are indirectly related to housing, such as transportation costs and energy costs.

This Housing Element includes eight goal statements:
 Goal HE-1: Housing Production. Provide opportunities for and facilitate the development of a broad range of housing types to meet the needs of all Union City residents.  Goal HE-2: Affordable Housing Production. To assist in the production of affordable housing to meet the needs of lower-income residents.
 Goal HE-3: Housing Preservation. To preserve and maintain existing housing to promote continued housing affordability and stability.
 Goal HE-4: Housing Services and Assistance. To assist Union City households in obtaining and maintaining adequate housing.
 Goal HE-5: Neighborhood Preservation. To maintain healthy neighborhoods by improving the condition of the existing housing stock and the integrity of residential neighborhoods.  Goal HE-6: Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity. To ensure fair and equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community.
 Goal HE-7: Special Needs. Provide a range of housing services to meet the needs of special needs groups within Union City.
 HE-8: Energy Conservation and Sustainability. Encourage sustainability practices in all new and existing housing through green building, achieving residential energy efficiency, and promotion and education.

Under each goal statement, the element sets out policies that guide the City toward reaching its goals.

Implementation programs are listed at the end of each goal section and describe the proposed action, the City departments with primary responsibility for carrying out the program, the timeframe for accomplishing the program, and the program objectives.

City Council/RSA Agenda 449 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 2-3
Figure 1: Sites Inventory Map, Union City, December 2022 Source: Union City and Ascent, December 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 450 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
2-4 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 451 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 2-5
State law requires the City to identify quantified objectives for the maintenance, preservation, and construction of housing from 2023-2031. These objectives set a target goal for the City based on needs, resources, and constraints.

The quantified objectives are based largely upon implementation programs that have measurable outcomes.

However, the Housing Element contains several policies and implementation programs essential to meeting the City’s housing needs that reduce barriers and create opportunities for affordable housing but are more qualitative and difficult to quantify. The quantified objectives are shown below in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives, Union City (2023-2031) Program Types Extremely
Low-Income
Very LowIncome Low-Income ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
New Construction1 431 431 496 382 988 2,728
Rehabilitation2 50 150 200
Preservation (At Risk Housing)3 103 103 206
Rental Assistance (Section 8 and Local Rental
Assistance Programs)4 300 300 300 900
Homeowner Assistance5 15 15
Notes:
1 New Construction objective is equal to the RHNA
2 See Program HE-5.A 3
There are 206 assisted units considered “at risk” of converting to market rate. See Program HE-3.A 4 See Programs HE-4.B and HE-4.D. 5
See Program HE-4.A

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
Union City is located in southern Alameda County on the east side of the San Francisco Bay. Union City is bounded by the City of Hayward to the north and west, the City of Fremont to the south, and unincorporated lands of Alameda County to the east. Union City encompasses approximately 18 square miles (11,520 acres).

City Council/RSA Agenda 452 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
2-6 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 453 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 3-1
3 EIR CONFORMITY EVALUATION
As described in the Introduction, the purpose of this EIR conformity evaluation is to review environmental topic areas included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines for any changes in circumstances or the substantial new information as defined under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (stated above), as compared to the environmental impacts identified in the certified EIR prepared for the 2040 General Plan. The proposed project consists of updates to the Safety and Housing Elements of the Union City 2040 General Plan, as described in Section 2. Updates to the Safety and Housing Elements do not include any actions that would result in ground disturbing activity or a physical impact on the environment that was not already analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR (2019). Implementation of the project would be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted as part of the Final EIR in November 2019. As discussed below the project would not result in any new impacts or severity of impacts previously identified, therefore the project would not require amending the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The following discussion contains an analysis of the potential project impacts in relation to impacts identified in the approved 2040 General Plan EIR.
 Aesthetics. The General Plan EIR anticipated that development under the 2040 General Plan would have significant and unavoidable impacts on the visual resources in some areas of the city, specifically those with a view of the hillside area, marshlands along the bay, or other open space areas and in the existing urbanized areas of the city. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals that would result in physical changes to the existing visual character in Union City or conflict with zoning or other regulations adopted to protect scenic quality or include new sources of light and glare. Future development would continue to comply with General Plan policies and would be reviewed through the City’s development standards (e.g., Municipal Code and design review process), entitlement process and the CEQA process to ensure consistency with all relevant federal and State policies and related to aesthetic resources.

Similar to the conclusion identified in the November 2022 “Addendum to the Union City 2040 General Plan for the Sixth Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Related Amendments to the Union City 2040 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,” the project would not result in visual impacts that would be more severe than the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification. Aesthetic impacts would not be more severe than identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond those evaluated in the EIR.
 Agriculture/Forestry. While no areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance occur within Union City, the 2040 General Plan designates agricultural land uses in the southwest corner of the city, and throughout much of the hillside area east of State Route 238. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals that would result in physical changes that would affect the land use pattern of the city or result in any physical change to the environment.

The policy framework proposed by the project would not result in any new physical impacts on the environment not disclosed in the EIR prepared for the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.  Air Quality. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan. In addition, the rate of increase for vehicle miles travelled (VMT) during buildout of the 2040 General Plan would not exceed the rate of service population increase associated with the 2040 General Plan. The EIR indicated that there would be less than significant impacts related to the following: additional sources of toxic air contaminants exposed during buildout of the 2040 General Plan, generation of air pollutants during construction, and the introduction of new odorgenerating land uses. The project includes updates to the General Plan Housing Element and Safety Element policy framework. New and updated policies would not result in physical effects to the environment, and the City Council/RSA Agenda 454 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
3-2 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
updates to these General Plan elements would not include or otherwise result in development projects that could result in physical effects to the environment. Implementation of the project would not increase development beyond that which was planned for and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The project would not result in physical changes affecting implementation of air quality plans, increases in criteria air pollutants, exposure to pollutant concentrations, or result in in exposure of other emissions, such as odors. Applicable projects under the 2040 General Plan would continue to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires Health Risks Assessments to reduce impacts related to community health risk. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification. With the project’s approval, no new or more severe significant impacts related to air quality would occur beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.  Biological Resources. As described in the General Plan EIR, there are a variety of vegetation communities in Union City. Areas that may provide habitat for special-status species are primarily located in the open space and undeveloped hillside area of the City and the marshes and wetlands adjacent to the Bay in the western part of the City (Union City 2019). The General Plan EIR found that implementation of the 2040 General Plan development pursuant to other local and regional planning efforts within the greater cumulative impact area (adjoining cities such as Fremont and Alameda County) could result in regional impacts on special-status species, riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural communities, as well as wildlife movement. The 2040 General Plan sets forth goals and policies for surveys and required actions to be taken if biological resources have potential to be impacted by development. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that would impact biological resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

There have been no substantial changes in the circumstances in the city with regard to biological resources that would warrant changes to the EIR. The policy framework proposed by the project would not result in any new physical impacts. Therefore, the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
 Cultural Resources. Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the 2040 General Plan — and future development activities facilitated by the plan — would have a significant impact on historical cultural resources if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical cultural resource. The General Plan EIR found that development under the proposed 2040 General Plan could affect known or unknown historical and/or archaeological resources. Goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the Resource Conservation element of the 2040 General Plan would reduce the potential for cultural resources to be adversely impact from development. In addition, the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR‐1 would reduce impacts to historical and unique archeological resources to a less than significant level by including an implementation program in the 2040 General Plan requiring cultural resource studies for projects within the city and implementation of further requirements to avoid or reduce impacts to such resources on a project by‐project basis. Moreover, the 2040 General Plan requires compliance with existing regulations relating to the treatment of human remains should ground-disturbing activities associated with development result in damage to or destruction of human burials. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that would impact cultural resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Future development under the 2040 General Plan would continue to comply with the required policies and procedures from the 2040 General Plan and General Plan EIR and would not result in any additional ground disturbance beyond what was previously analyzed. Therefore, the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.  Energy. The General Plan EIR indicated that the 2040 General Plan would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts related to consumption of energy and conflicts with applicable plans. The development and population growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in overall consumption of energy beyond existing conditions. However, the 2040 General Plan is based on a land-use strategy that promotes greater overall City Council/RSA Agenda 455 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 3-3
energy efficiency in community and municipal operations. The 2040 General Plan policies and implementation programs would ensure that development under the 2040 General Plan would comply with existing energy efficiency regulations and would encourage new development to take advantage of voluntary energy efficiency programs. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would substantially alter energy demand and use beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification. With the project’s approval, the impact on energy resources would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond what was evaluated in the EIR.  Geology/Soils. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impacts of development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan includes goals and policies in the Safety Element to minimize the risks associated with geologic and soil hazards. Implementation of these policies, in addition to compliance with applicable laws and regulations, would minimize the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil (Union City 2019).

Chapter 15.85 of the Union City Municipal Code also contains erosion control requirements that include slope protection and dust control. Additionally, growth and development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would occur in the urbanized areas of Union City west of State Route 238, which is relatively flat with low potential for soil erosion. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan may result in the construction of structures on expansive soils, which could create a substantial risk to life or property (Union City 2019a). However, development would be required to comply with the California Building Code, which would ensure that expansive soils are remediated or that foundations and structures are engineered to withstand the forces of expansive soil. The implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level by including an implementation program requiring paleontological resource studies for projects in high sensitivity geological units within Union City and implementation of further requirements to avoid or reduce impacts to such resources on a project-by-project basis. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that would impact geology and soil resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The policy framework proposed by the project would not result in any new physical impacts on the environment not disclosed in the EIR prepared for the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The General Plan EIR indicated that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts associated with development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan and the overall generation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Emissions facilitated through the 2040 General Plan would exceed the 2040 efficiency threshold of 1.12 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per service population per year.

Likewise, construction activities associated with buildout of the 2040 General Plan would generate temporary short-term GHG emissions primarily due to the operation of construction equipment and worker and hauling trips. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 from the General Plan EIR requires updating the City’s CAP to reflect the most recent GHG reduction regulations and establish a Citywide GHG reduction target. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that would result in GHG emissions or conflicts with adopted climate action plans beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Proposed policies would increase safety and climate resiliency in Union City. There has been no change in the circumstances in the city with regard to GHG emissions that would warrant changes to the EIR. With the project’s approval, the impact on GHG emissions would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond what the EIR evaluated.  Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The General Plan EIR indicated that there would be less than significant impacts resulting from: the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; reasonably foreseeable City Council/RSA Agenda 456 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
3-4 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; and being located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites and, as a result, creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment. There are no airports within two miles of Union City, and the city is not within the influence area of an airport. The General Plan EIR also determined that there would be less than significant impacts related to hazards from wildfires because the 2040 General Plan policies address maintaining a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan along with emergency access implementation. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that result in hazards beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The Safety Element Update would address hazard impacts as it includes goals and policies to address climate adaptation and resilience, such as wildfire, seal level rise, and extreme precipitation and flooding. A new program in the Safety Element Update would ensure that the next update of the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan includes capacitybased analysis of its evacuation network and that the City addresses evacuation of existing residential developments within hazard areas with limited accessibility. There has been no change in the circumstances in the city with regard to hazardous materials that would warrant changes to the EIR. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification. With the project’s approval, the impact on hazards and exposure to hazardous materials would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond what the EIR evaluated.
 Hydrology/Water Quality. The General Plan EIR indicated that development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan could potentially result in violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, and increased risk of pollutant release in flood hazard areas. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations and implementation of goals and policies from the Safety Element, Public Facilities and Services Element, Resource Conservation Element, and Special Areas Element of the 2040 General Plan would reduce hydrology/water quality impacts associated with new development to the maximum extent practicable. The 2040 General Plan facilitates development within urbanized areas of the city, primarily as infill and redevelopment. Wetlands, streams, and rivers do not occur on parcels that have previously or are currently developed and that may be redeveloped. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that result in hydrology or water quality impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. There has been no change in the circumstances in the city with regard to hydrology and water quality that would warrant changes to the EIR.

Therefore, the project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
 Land Use and Planning. The General Plan EIR determined that the 2040 General Plan would have less than significant impacts on land use and planning. Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would provide for orderly development in Union City. Because the majority of new development in existing neighborhoods would occur within existing subdivisions or other approved project areas, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not physically divide an existing established community. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that result in land use or planning impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Rezoning of Housing Element sites was evaluated in the November 2022 “Addendum to the Union City 2040 General Plan for the Sixth Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Related Amendments to the Union City 2040 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,” ; land use changes and rezoning would not occur as part of the proposed project. There has been no change in the circumstances in the city with regard to land use that would warrant changes to the EIR. No substantial changes in circumstances have City Council/RSA Agenda 457 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 3-5
occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification. With the project’s approval, the impact on land uses would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond what was evaluated in the EIR.  Mineral Resources. While development on areas containing mineral resources could result in the permanent loss of those minerals, the General Plan EIR determined that there would be no impact because mining does not occur in Union City and there is only one hillside area with known mineral resources. The 2040 General Plan would not facilitate new or additional development within the area of the mineral deposit. The proposed project would not propose a change in land use designations in the hillside area where there are mineral resources.

Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
 Noise. The General Plan EIR indicated that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts related to development projected under the 2040 General Plan and the temporary generation of increased noise levels and groundborne vibrations during construction. Mitigation Measure N-1 Construction Noise Reduction was included in the General Plan EIR analysis to reduce construction noise to the extent feasible and would continue to apply to subsequent development. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that would generate noise. Therefore, implementation of the project would not increase development beyond that which was planned for and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There has been no change in the circumstances in the City with regard to noise that would warrant changes to the EIR. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification. With the project’s approval, the impact on noise and vibration would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond what the EIR evaluated.
 Population and Housing. The General Plan EIR indicated that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would facilitate the construction of new housing in the city which would increase the City’s population over time.

However, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2040 General Plan accommodates and plans for population growth and includes policies to manage new development. The General Plan EIR indicated that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of persons or housing and concluded the impact to be less than significant. In accordance with State law and local housing requirements, the purpose of the Housing Element in a local General Plan is to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs in order to preserve, improve, and develop housing for all economic segments of the community, consistent with the RHNA requirements. The General Plan EIR evaluated the 2015-2023 Housing Element, certified by HCD on February 19, 2015. At the time the EIR was prepared for the 2040 General Plan, no substantive changes were being proposed to the Housing Element as part of its incorporation into the 2040 General Plan. Since adoption of the 2040 General Plan in 2019 the City has rezoned sites to increase residential capacity to meet the projected need identified in the RHNA and in 2022 adopted an addendum to the General Plan EIR that concluded the rezone would not result in new significant impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The project includes General Plan updates that would assist the City in meeting housing goals, but would not result in increased development or ground disturbing activities. The project would amend General Plan policies and does not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in growth or removal of existing housing beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR, but would further housing goals of Union City. With the project’s approval, the impact on population and housing would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond what the EIR evaluated.
 Public Services and Recreation. The General Plan EIR indicated that there would be less than significant impacts related to the construction of fire and police protection facilities, school facilities, libraries, and park facilities. The General Plan EIR found that development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would increase the overall population in Union City, which would generate additional need for fire protection and police protection services.

City Council/RSA Agenda 458 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
3-6 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
With an increase in the population, there would be a subsequent increase in the population of school-aged children in the city, increasing demand for school services and potentially creating the need for new school facilities. The increase in population from implementing the 2040 General Plan would further increase the demand for library services and potentially the need for new library facilities in addition to increased demand for parks with the potential need for new park facilities. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in growth that could impact public services beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. There has been no change in the circumstances in the city with regard to public services that would warrant changes to the EIR. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification. With the project’s approval, the impact on public services would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond what the EIR evaluated.
 Transportation and Traffic. The General Plan EIR indicated that the 2040 General Plan would be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (B) and have significant and unavoidable impacts on Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) in Union City. New development would also have significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic on roadways in and surrounding the city. Additionally, the General Plan EIR indicated that the 2040 General Plan would have less than significant impacts related to the provision of emergency access, as well as conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and the performance or safety of such facilities. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that would generate traffic or otherwise result in increased VMT.

Therefore, implementation of the project would not increase development beyond that which was planned for and analyzed in the General Plan EIR that could result in new or increased VMT, bicycle, pedestrian, safety, or transit impacts, and the project would not result in any new trips on area roadways or changes to the Draft EIR’s analysis and conclusion related to hazardous design features, inadequate emergency access, or conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification. With the project’s approval, the impact on transportation would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR. There would be no new impacts beyond what was evaluated in the EIR.  Tribal Cultural Resources. The General Plan EIR indicated that development projected by General Plan 2040 would have less than significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources (TCR). The General Plan EIR anticipates some development projects that may involve excavation, which would have the potential to impact previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. Effects on tribal cultural resources can only be known once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on the individual project site conditions, and the characteristics of the proposed activity, including but not limited to the level of ground disturbance associated with construction activities. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, Union City prepared and mailed letters to local Native American contacts informing them of the General Plan 2040 on October 8, 2018. None of the tribes contacted responded to request consultation. Also, in accordance with SB 18, the City mailed notices to tribes in September 2022 regarding the housing-related zoning changes and General Plan amendments approved by the City in 2022 and also mailed SB 18-related notices to tribes in October 2022 regarding the currently proposed Housing and Safety Element Updates. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in construction and operation of facilities that result in TCR impacts beyond what would already occur under the General Plan EIR. Impacts would be of similar type and severity as what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification.

City Council/RSA Agenda 459 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental EIR Conformity Evaluation
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 3-7
 Utilities and Service Systems. The General Plan EIR determined that there would be less than significant impacts related to wastewater treatment, new or expanded utility infrastructure, wastewater generation, water supply, solid waste generation, and demand for utility services. The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result in growth that could impact utility services or a substantial increase in severity of impacts than were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in a need for additional utilities.

Impacts would be of similar type and severity as what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, nor has any new information of substantial importance been identified requiring new analysis or verification.
 Wildfire. Wildfire risk in Union City is limited to the hillside area east of State Route 238 because this area is undeveloped and contains large tracts of vegetation cover that can act as fire fuel. The General Plan EIR concluded that the impact related to wildland fires under the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

The project would amend General Plan policies in a manner that would not result in physical changes to the environment, and adoption of these updated General Plan elements would not include any development proposals or land use designation changes that would directly result increased potential for wildfire impacts.

Updates to the project Safety Element would improve evacuation preparedness in Union City. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred and no new or more severe significant impacts related to wildfire risk would occur beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

City Council/RSA Agenda 460 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
EIR Conformity Evaluation Ascent Environmental
Union City
3-8 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 461 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental List of Preparers and Persons Consulted Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 4-1
4 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
City Staff
Carmela Campbell…………………………………………………………………..………… Economic and Community Development Director Derek Farmer…………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………. Planning Manager Francisco Gomez…………………………………….………………………………………………. Housing & Community Development Manager Coleman Frick……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Senior Planner Ascent Environmental
Mike Parker, AICP.......................................................................................................................................................... Principal-in-Charge Chelsey Payne, AICP ....................................................................................................................Urban Design and Planning Director Heidi Gen Kuong, AICP .....................................................................................................................................................Project Manager Kari Zajac................................................................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner City Council/RSA Agenda 462 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
List of Preparers and Persons Consulted Ascent Environmental Union City
4-2 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 463 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Ascent Environmental References
Union City
General Plan Housing and Safety Elements 5-1
5 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2022 (March). Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Available: https://abag.ca.gov/tools-resources/digitallibrary/finalrhnaallocationreport2023-2031-approved0pdf. Accessed: September 2022.

ABAG. See Association of Bay Area Governments.

City of Union City. 2019 (June). 2040 Union City General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available:
https://www.unioncity.org/356/General-Plan. Accessed: September 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 464 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
References Ascent Environmental
Union City
5-2 General Plan Housing and Safety Elements
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 465 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-23

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AG-23-001, TO ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2023-2031 PLANNING PERIOD, AND SAFETY ELEMENT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH

STATE HOUSING ELEMENT AND SAFETY ELEMENT LAW
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, by Resolution No. 5549-19, the City Council adopted documents consisting of text, maps, and charts, entitled Union City 2040 General Plan, dated December 10, 2019, which included the reports in support thereof as the General Plan of Union City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302, the General Plan includes seven mandatory elements, including the Housing Element and Safety Element; and WHEREAS, state law requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Union City (City) Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) of 2,728 housing units, comprised of 862 very-low income units, 496 low-income units, 382 moderate-income units, and 988 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element must be adopted to comply with state law, accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, affirmatively further fair housing, and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Element serves as a policy guide to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, economic loss, and social dislocation resulting from natural and human-made hazards, such as earthquakes, fire, flood, extreme heat, and drought; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 1035 requires jurisdictions to review their Safety Element at least every eight years and revise it as necessary to address climate change and resiliency strategies; and
WHEREAS, SB 99 requires jurisdictions to review their Safety Element and revise it as necessary to identify residential developments in any hazard area identified in the Safety Element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill (AB) 747 requires jurisdictions to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an update to the Safety Element pursuant to the requirements of SB 1035, SB 99, and AB 747; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the 2023-2031 Union City Housing Element for the sixth cycle planning period (“Housing Element”) in compliance with state law; and City Council/RSA Agenda 466 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Resolution No. XXXX-23

WHEREAS, the City circulated the draft Housing Element for a 30-day public review period from June 13, 2022 to July 13, 2022 in compliance with Government Code Section 65583.

The draft Housing Element was available for review on the City’s website, and at City Hall and the Union City Library; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Housing Element at their July 7, 2022 meeting and recommended submittal, with minor amendments, to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for state mandated review; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b), on July 28, 2022, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to HCD for its review; and WHEREAS, in September, 2022, the City referred the draft Housing Element to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed. No California Native American tribe requested consultation; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2022, the City received a letter from HCD providing comments regarding the draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City revised the Housing Element based on the comments received from HCD; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022 the City Council, on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, adopted Resolution 6034-22 adopting an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Resolution 6035-22 amending the General Plan (AG-22-003), and introduced two Ordinances (906-22 and 907-22) for consistency with the draft Housing Element; including rezoning Housing Element Sites to increase capacity and accommodate the City’s RHNA; these ordinances amended Title 18 Zoning, of the Union City Municipal Code (AT-22-006), and amended the Zoning Map (A-22-003); and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2023 the City submitted a revised draft Housing Element and annotated response letter to HCD for its review; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2023, the City received a letter from HCD providing its comments regarding the revised draft Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2023, the City posted a second revised draft Housing Element and annotated response letter to HCD on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City posted an Errata to the City’s website showing additional revisions, and submitted the revisions to HCD for review on May 16, 2023; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment, AG 23-001, amends the 2040 General Plan by adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element, labeled as Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, incorporating all revisions made to date, and updating the Safety Element, labeled as City Council/RSA Agenda 467 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Resolution No. XXXX-23

Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and repealing the 2015-2023 Housing Element in its entirety; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof, includes redlined revisions to the Draft Housing Element submitted to HCD on July 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR (Addendum) was prepared for the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach regarding the Housing Element using a variety of approaches, including two virtual workshops in Spanish and English, a web-based survey in five languages, an informational table was located at the Old Alvarado Park Farmer’s Market, and notices were sent to all interested parties when revisions to the Housing Element were posted to the website; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65854 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the amendments on April 20, 2023, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments, HCD’s comments, the City’s response to HCD’s comments, an Addendum, a staff report dated April 20, 2023, and all written and oral testimony, and determined the Housing Element and Safety Element update to be consistent with State law and the 2040 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 20, 2023, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments and Addendum for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 7-23 recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2023 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 8-23 recommending that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment, AG-23-001, to update the Housing Element for the 2023-2031 Planning Period, and Safety Element, in compliance with State Housing Element and Safety Element Law; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated May 23, 2023, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments and Addendum for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, pursuant to CEQA, the City Council adopted Resolution No. XXXX-23 adopting an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR, which determined that any potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments were within the scope of the previously certified EIR; and City Council/RSA Agenda 468 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Resolution No. XXXX-23

WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, the City Council reviewed the staff report, and the Housing Element and Safety Element amendments at a noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby certifies and declares as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

2. That the proposed General Plan amendment is in the public interest because the amendment will further the goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element, to promote a mix of housing types and affordability throughout the city that meets the needs of existing and future residents, and includes a mix of housing types within neighborhoods to promote a diversity of household types and housing choices for residents of all ages and income levels, and the General Plan Safety Element to minimize risks to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community and minimize damage to structures, property, and infrastructure resulting from natural and manmade hazards through disaster preparedness and emergency response, and to plan for and adapt to climate change by increasing resiliency to risks including sea-level rise, temperature change, and other impacts.

2. In accordance with Government Code Section 65583.2, the City finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the location, existing uses, potential for intensification based on building value to land value ratios, the City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, current market demand for the existing and proposed uses, development trends, regulatory incentives, and similarity to other commercial and low density residential sites on which residential development applications have been filed, that the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and therefore do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

3. As required by Government Code Section 65585(e), the City has considered the findings made by the HCD, including those incorporated in letters to the City dated October 26, 2022 and March 10, 2023, consistent with Government Code Section 65585(f), and has changed the Housing Element in response to the findings of the Department to substantially comply with the requirements of State Housing Element Law as interpreted by HCD.

4. The 2023-2031 Housing Element substantially complies with state law, including Article

10.6 (Housing Elements) of the Government Code, and contains, as required by Government Code Section 65583, the following:
a. An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting these needs;
b. A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; City Council/RSA Agenda 469 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Resolution No. XXXX-23

c. A program that sets forth an 8-year schedule of actions to implement the policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives;
d. Identification of adequate sites with appropriate zoning densities and infrastructure to meet the community’s need for housing, as reflected in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2023-2031;
e. The removal of governmental constraints to housing development where appropriate and legally possible;
f. A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; and g. An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the City Council hereby adopts a resolution approving General Plan Amendment, AG 23-001, to amend the 2040 General Plan as contained in Exhibit A and B and repeal the 2015-2023 Housing Element in its entirety, and authorizes the City Manager or designee to file all necessary material with the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Department to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law and is further directed and authorized to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by the Department to achieve certification. Such changes by the City Manager shall not change the policy of the City or include any legislative action.

City Council/RSA Agenda 470 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Resolution No. XXXX-23

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 23
th day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
ANNA M. BROWN KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 471 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
HOUSING ELEMENT 2023–2031
Final | May 2023
Attachment 2 Exhibit A
City Council/RSA Agenda 472 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 473 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements
City Council
Carol Dutra-Vernaci, Mayor
Gary Singh, Vice-Mayor
Jaime Patiño, Councilmember
Jeff Wang, Councilmember
Scott Sakakihara, Councilmember
Emily Duncan, Councilmember (former)
Pat Gacoscos, Councilmember (former)
Planning Commission
Seyi Mclelland, Commissioner
Lee (Presley) Guio, Commissioner
Jo Ann Lew, Commissioner
Amandeep Sandhu, Commissioner
Ed Mack Agbuya, Commissioner
Kevin Finnerty, Alternate Commissioner
Harpel Mann, Commissioner (former)
City Staff
Joan Malloy, City Manager
Mark Evanoff, Deputy City Manager (former)
Carmela Campbell, AICP, Economic &
Community Development Director
Derek Farmer, Planning Manager
Francisco Gomez Jr., Housing & Community
Development Manager
Coleman Frick, Senior Planner and
Project Manager
Valerie Avendano, Building/Code
Compliance Coordinator
Farooq M. Azim, City Engineer
Ascent - Consultant
Chelsey Payne, AICP, Project Director
Heidi Gen Kuong, AICP, Project Manager
Rebecca Pope, Urban Planner
Lisa Merry, GIS Specialist
Corey Alling, Graphics Specialist
Michele Mattei, Publishing Specialist
City Council/RSA Agenda 474 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 475 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE OF CONTENTS | 1 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1 Overview of State Requirements..................................................................................... 1-1 Housing Element Organization........................................................................................ 1-2 General Plan and Housing Element Consistency ........................................................ 1-3 Public Participation............................................................................................................ 1-4 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 2-1 Demographic and Employment Profile.......................................................................... 2-1 Population, Household, and Employment Projections.............................................. 2-12 Household Characteristics............................................................................................. 2-13 Housing Stock Characteristics...................................................................................... 2-20 Housing Affordability....................................................................................................... 2-25 Special Housing Needs................................................................................................... 2-35 Assisted Housing Projects Eligible for Conversion ................................................... 2-52 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY ...................................................................................................... 3-1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ............................................................................... 3-1 Approved Residential Projects ........................................................................................ 3-2 Vacant and Underutilized Sites Inventory...................................................................... 3-9 Site LM-1: Restoration Site............................................................................................. 3-25 Site LM-2: 34015 7th Street Site.................................................................................... 3-26 Site LM-3: ANR Near BART Site..................................................................................... 3-27 Site LM-4: Gateway Site* ................................................................................................ 3-28 Sites AM-1 through AM-18: Decoto Neighborhood Vacant Lots ............................ 3-29 Sites AM-19 through AM-21: Historic Alvarado District Vacant Lots..................... 3-30 Site LM-5: Alvarado Niles Road Site ............................................................................. 3-31 Site LM-6: 854 Whipple Rd Site ..................................................................................... 3-32 Site LM-7: Whipple and Liston Way Site ...................................................................... 3-33 Site LM-8: Whipple and Medallion Drive Site .............................................................. 3-34 Site LM-9: Whipple/Cemex Site..................................................................................... 3-35 Site LM-10: Mission and Tamarack Drive Site............................................................ 3-36 Site LM-11: Mission and F Street Site .......................................................................... 3-37 Site LM-12: Vallejo St. and Granger Ave. Site ............................................................. 3-38 Site LM-13: Smith Street Site ......................................................................................... 3-39 Site LM-14: Diamond Mine Mini-Storage Site............................................................. 3-40 Site LM-15: Union City Boulevard Site.......................................................................... 3-41 Future Opportunity Sites................................................................................................. 3-42 City Council/RSA Agenda 476 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2 | TABLE OF CONTENTS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Projection of Accessory Dwelling Units....................................................................... 3-43 RHNA Summary ............................................................................................................... 3-44 Infrastructure Adequacy ................................................................................................. 3-44 CHAPTER 4 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 4-1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4-1 Fair Housing Assessment................................................................................................ 4-2 Assessment of Sites Inventory and Fair Housing...................................................... 4-54 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Actions .......................................... 4-68 CHAPTER 5 PROGRAM RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 5-1 Local Funding and Housing Programs .......................................................................... 5-1 State and Federal Programs............................................................................................ 5-3 CHAPTER 6 POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................... 6-1 Potential Governmental Constraints.............................................................................. 6-1 Potential Non-Governmental Constraints ................................................................... 6-38 CHAPTER 7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION .................................................... 7-1 Energy Efficiency Building Requirements...................................................................... 7-1 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs............................................................ 7-2 CHAPTER 8 EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS (2015-2023) HOUSING ELEMENT ................... 8-1 Summary of Key Accomplishments............................................................................... 8-1 Progress Toward Meeting the 2015-2023 RHNA ........................................................ 8-2 Program Evaluation........................................................................................................... 8-3 CHAPTER 9 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS ............................................................................... 9-1 Housing Production........................................................................................................... 9-2 Affordable Housing Production....................................................................................... 9-8 Housing Preservation...................................................................................................... 9-12 Housing Services and Assistance................................................................................. 9-13 Neighborhood Preservation ........................................................................................... 9-16 Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity ............................................................................ 9-18 Special Needs ................................................................................................................... 9-21 Energy Conservation and Sustainability ...................................................................... 9-25 Quantified Objectives ...................................................................................................... 9-27 Appendices
Appendix A Public Engagement Materials
Appendix B Glossary
City Council/RSA Agenda 477 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE OF CONTENTS | 3 Figures
Figure 1-1: Survey Responses to “What do you feel is the most significant housing problem facing Union City residents? (Choose up to three)” .............................................................. 1-5 Figure 1-2: Survey Responses to “Have you or are you experiencing any of the following housing issues?”.......................................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 1-3: Survey Responses to “Which strategies do you think the City should prioritize? (Choose up to three)”.................................................................................................................. 1-6 Figure 1-4: Farmer’s Market Activity Boards............................................................................................... 1-7 Figure 1-5: Results from Activity Board 1: What are the greatest housing issues facing our community?.................................................................................................................................. 1-8 Figure 1-6: Results from Activity Board 2: Which strategies do you think the City should prioritize?....................................................................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 1-7: Flyers to Advertise Outreach Events in English and Spanish .............................................. 1-9 Figure 2-1: Regional Population Trends, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area,1990- 2020 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2: Population by Age, Union City, 2000 and 2019 ...................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3: Population by Race and Ethnicity*, Union City, 2000-2019 .................................................. 2-4 Figure 2-4: Regional Population by Race and Ethnicity, * Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5: Population with Limited English Proficiency, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-6: Household Income Distribution, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2017 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-7: Jobs in Union City, 2002-2018 .................................................................................................. 2-8 Figure 2-8: Job Growth by Industry, Union City, 2002-2018..................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-9: Resident Employment by Industry, Union City, Alameda County, Bay Area, 2019 ........ 2-10 Figure 2-10: Jobs-Household Ratio, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2002-2018 ........ 2-11 Figure 2-11: Average Unemployment Rates, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2010-2021 ........................................................................................................................................ 2-12 Figure 2-12: Housing Tenure, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019 .............................. 2-14 Figure 2-13: Housing Tenure 2000-2019 ................................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-14: Housing Tenure by Race* of Householder, Union City, 2019.......................................... 2-15 Figure 2-15: Housing Tenure by Age, Union City, 2019........................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-16: Housing Tenure by Housing Type, Union City, 2019......................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-17: Household Income Level by Tenure, Union City, 2017..................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-18: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity, Union City, 2017 ................................................. 2-18 Figure 2-19: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity, Union City, 2017...................................... 2-19 Figure 2-20: Overcrowding by Race*, Union City, 2019........................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-21: Housing Unit Trends, Union City, 2010 and 2020.............................................................. 2-21 Figure 2-22: Housing Units by Year Structure was Built*, Union City................................................... 2-22 Figure 2-23: Vacancy Rates, Union City, Alameda County, Bay Area, 2019........................................ 2-23 City Council/RSA Agenda 478 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4 | TABLE OF CONTENTS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-24: Vacant Units by Type, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019..................... 2-23 Figure 2-25: Substandard Housing Conditions, Union City, 2019......................................................... 2-24 Figure 2-26: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019......................................................................................................................................... 2-29 Figure 2-27: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2001-2019 ........................................................................................................................................ 2-29 Figure 2-28: Median Contract Rent, Union City, Alameda County, Bay Area, 2009-2019 ................. 2-30 Figure 2-29: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, Union City, Alameda County, Bay Area, 2019......................................................................................................................................... 2-31 Figure 2-30: Cost Burden by Income Level, Union City, 2019................................................................ 2-32 Figure 2-31: Cost Burden by Tenure, Union City, 2019 ........................................................................... 2-33 Figure 2-32: Cost Burdened Lower-Income Households by Tenure, Union City, 2019..................... 2-34 Figure 2-33: Cost Burden by Race, Union City, 2017............................................................................... 2-34 Figure 2-34: Household Size by Tenure, Union City, 2019...................................................................... 2-35 Figure 2-35: Cost Burden by Household Size, Union City, 2017............................................................ 2-36 Figure 2-36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Union City, 2019.............................................. 2-37 Figure 2-37: Household Composition, Union City, 2019......................................................................... 2-38 Figure 2-38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status, Union City, 2019 ................................ 2-38 Figure 2-39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, Union City, 2017......................................... 2-39 Figure 2-40: Cost-burdened Senior Households by Income Level, Union City, 2017 ........................ 2-40 Figure 2-41: Disability by Type, Union City, 2019 ..................................................................................... 2-42 Figure 2-42: Total Homeless Population in Alameda County, 2009-2022 .......................................... 2-45 Figure 2-43: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Alameda County, 2019........ 2-45 Figure 2-44: Race and Ethnicity of Homeless Populations vs General Population, Alameda County, 2019 .................................................................................................................................... 2-46 Figure 2-45: Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Alameda County, 2019.................................................................................................................................... 2-47 Figure 2-46: Permanent and Seasonal Farm Labor, Alameda County, 2002-2017 ........................... 2-50 Figure 2-47: Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure, Union City, 2017 ................................. 2-52 Figure 2-48: Extremely Low-Income Households and Level of Cost Burden, Union City, 2017 ................................................................................................................................................... 2-52 Figure 3-1: Sites Inventory Map, Union City, December 2022................................................................ 3-21 Figure 4-1: Neighborhood Map, Union City ................................................................................................. 4-3 Figure 4-2 Regional Racial Dot Map, 2020 .................................................................................................. 4-8 Figure 4-3: Regional Income Dot Map, 2015............................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-4: Racial Dot Map, Union City....................................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-5: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Union City and Vicinity to the Bay Area, 2020......................................................................................................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-6: Comparison of Racial Isolation Index Values, Union City and all Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019.......................................................................................................................... 4-14 City Council/RSA Agenda 479 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE OF CONTENTS | 5 Figure 4-7: Comparison of Racial Dissimilarity Index Values, Union City vs All Other Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019 ................................................................................................................ 4-14 Figure 4-8: Comparison of Income Demographics, Union City and All Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2015.......................................................................................................................... 4-15 Figure 4-9: Income Dot Map, Union City, 2015......................................................................................... 4-16 Figure 4-10: Comparison of Income Isolation Index Values, Union City and all Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2015.......................................................................................................................... 4-18 Figure 4-11: Comparison of Income Dissimilarity Index Values, Union City vs All Other Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2015 ................................................................................................................ 4-18 Figure 4-12: Distribution of Median Income, Union City, 2019 .............................................................. 4-19 Figure 4-13: Households by Presence of Children................................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-14: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households, Union City, 2019 .......................... 4-21 Figure 4-15: Percent of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, Union City, 2019 ............. 4-22 Figure 4-16: Population with a Disability, Union City, 2014 and 2019.................................................. 4-24 Figure 4-17: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, Bay Area, 2017.............................. 4-26 Figure 4-18: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Composite Score, Region, 2022............................................ 4-28 Figure 4-19: TCAC Opportunity Areas- Composite Score, Union City, 2020 and 2022..................... 4-29 Figure 4-20: TCAC Opportunity Areas- Education Score, Union City, 2021......................................... 4-30 Figure 4-21: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic Score, Union City, 2022........................................ 4-31 Figure 4-22: Jobs Opportunity Index, Union City, 2022........................................................................... 4-32 Figure 4-23: Jobs Opportunity Index, Bay Area, 2022 ............................................................................. 4-33 Figure 4-24: Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Weekday System Map.................................................... 4-34 Figure 4-25: Transit System Map – Union City......................................................................................... 4-35 Figure 4-26: Transportation Index, Union City, 2017 ............................................................................... 4-36 Figure 4-27: Transportation Index, Bay Area Region, 2017.................................................................... 4-37 Figure 4-28: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score, Union City, 2022 .............................. 4-39 Figure 4-29: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores, Union City .............................................................................. 4-39 Figure 4-30: Percent of Households in Renter-Occupied Units, Union City, 2016 ............................. 4-43 Figure 4-31: Cost Burden Severity, Union City, Alameda County, and the Bay Area, 2019............... 4-45 Figure 4-32: Overpayment by Renters, Union City, 2014 and 2019 ...................................................... 4-46 Figure 4-33: Overpayment by Homeowners, Union City, 2014 and 2019............................................ 4-47 Figure 4-34: Overcrowding by Severity, Union City, Alameda County, and the Bay Area, 2017 ...... 4-48 Figure 4-35: Overcrowded Households, Union City ................................................................................. 4-49 Figure 4-36: Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract, Union City, 2019 ....................................... 4-50 Figure 4-37: Location Affordability Index, Union City, 2016 ................................................................... 4-51 Figure 4-38: Communities Sensitive to Displacement, Union City, 2017 ............................................ 4-52 Figure 4-39: Census Tract and Sites Inventory Map, Union City........................................................... 4-59 Figure 4-40: Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Census Tract, Union City................ 4-60 Figure 4-41: Sites Inventory Income Distribution by Median Income of Census Tract, Union City ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-62 Figure 4-42: Vacant and Underutilized Sites by Median Income of Census Tract, Union City........ 4-63 City Council/RSA Agenda 480 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
6 | TABLE OF CONTENTS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-43: Sites Inventory and TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, Union City...................................... 4-64 Figure 4-44: Vacant and Underutilized Sites Inventory Vs. TCAC Opportunity Areas....................... 4-65 Figure 4-45: Sites Inventory and Areas at Risk of Displacement, Union City...................................... 4-66 Figure 4-46: Vacant and Underutilized Sites Inventory vs. Displacement Sensitivity ....................... 4-67 Figure 6-1: Station District Subareas.......................................................................................................... 6-10 Figure 6-2: Development Application Submittal and Review Process ................................................. 6-25 Tables
Table 2-1: Population Growth, Union City and Selected Areas (2000-2020) ........................................ 2-2 Table 2-2: Population Projections, Union City and Alameda County, 2020-2040 .............................. 2-13 Table 2-3: Employment Projections, Union City and Alameda County, 2020-2040 ........................... 2-13 Table 2-4: HCD Income Limits by Persons Per Household, Alameda County (2021)....................... 2-26 Table 2-5: Ability to Pay for Housing Based on HCD Income Limits, Alameda County (2021)............................................................................................................. 2-27 Table 2-6: HUD Fair Market Rent By Unit Bedroom1, Alameda County (2021).................................. 2-28 Table 2-7: Median Monthly Rents, Union City (2022).............................................................................. 2-31 Table 2-8: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Place of Residence, Union City, 2020 ............................................................................................................................................... 2-43 Table 2-9: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2016-2020 ........................................................................... 2-47 Table 2-10: Migrant Worker Student Population, 2016-2020 ................................................................ 2-50 Table 2-11: Subsidized and Restricted Affordable Housing Projects, Union City (2022)................. 2-54 Table 2-12: Estimated Cost to Subsidize Rents, Union City (2021)...................................................... 2-56 Table 2-13: Qualified Entities, Alameda County (2021) .......................................................................... 2-57 Table 3-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Union City (2023-2031) .............................................. 3-2 Table 3-2: Approved residential Developments, Union City (As of June 2022).................................... 3-3 Table 3-3: Analysis of Market Rate Rental Affordability ........................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-4: Residential Land Use Categories and Estimated Affordability Level, Union City (2022) ............................................................................................................................ 3-10 Table 3-5A: Examples of Recent Housing Developments Union City (2012-2022) ........................... 3-15 Table 3-5B: Examples of Recent Housing Developments in Surrounding Jurisdictions (Fremont and Hayward)................................................................................................................. 3-18 Table 3-6: Vacant and Underutilized Sites, Union City (2022) ............................................................... 3-22 Table 3-7: Future Opportunity Sites............................................................................................................ 3-42 Table 3-8: ADU Building Permits, Union City (2018-2022)...................................................................... 3-43 Table 3-9: Sites Inventory Capacity Summary, Union City (2023-2031) .............................................. 3-44 Table 4-1: Fair Housing Complaints Forwarded to HUD FHEO Alameda County, January 2017- June 2020................................................................................................................ 4-4 City Council/RSA Agenda 481 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE OF CONTENTS | 7 Table 4-2: Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, Alameda County, 2022......................................... 4-5 Table 4-3: Population by Racial Group Union City, 2000-2019 .............................................................. 4-10 Table 4-4: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Measures Union City, 2000-2019 ............................... 4-11 Table 4-5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures, 2015 ....................................................................... 4-12 Table 4-6: Population by Income Group Union City, 2010 and 2015.................................................... 4-15 Table 4-7: Neighborhood Income Segregation Measures Union City, 2010 and 2015..................... 4-17 Table 4-8: Regional Income Segregation Measures, 2015 .................................................................... 4-17 Table 4-9: Disability Status by Race and Ethnicity, Union City, 2020 ................................................... 4-22 Table 4-10: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps ...................................................... 4-27 Table 4-11: Disproportionate Housing Needs, Union City and Bay Area Region, 2010 .................... 4-41 Table 4-12: Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity of Householder, Union City, 2019............................ 4-42 Table 4-13: Mortgage Applications by Race, 2018-2019 ........................................................................ 4-44 Table 4-14: Distribution of Housing Capacity by Census Tract ............................................................ 4-57 Table 4-15: Sites Inventory Vs. Distribution of Median Income ............................................................ 4-62 Table 4-16: Sites Inventory Vs. TCAC Opportunity Areas....................................................................... 4-65 Table 4-17: Sites Inventory Vs. Displacement Sensitivity....................................................................... 4-67 Table 4-18: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Actions Union City, 2022 .................... 4-69 Table 5-1: Housing Choice Vouchers By Household Income, Alameda County, 2022....................... 5-1 Table 5-2: Federal and State Funding Programs ....................................................................................... 5-5 Table 6-1: Residential Land Uses by Zoning District, Union City, 2022.................................................. 6-5 Table 6-2: Minimum Development Standards for Zones that Allow for Residential Development, Union City (2022)..................................................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-3: Station District Off-Street Vehicle Parking Requirements ................................................... 6-11 Table 6-4: Potential Sites for Emergency Shelters in Private Institutional (PI) District, Union City (2022) ............................................................................................................................ 6-15 Table 6-5: Inclusionary Units as of May 2022, Union City ...................................................................... 6-22 Table 6-6: Average Permit Processing Time, Union City (2022) ........................................................... 6-26 Table 6-7: Planning Fee Schedule, Union City (FY 2022/2023) ............................................................. 6-28 Table 6-8: Residential Development Impact Fees, Union City (FY 2022/2023) ................................. 6-30 Table 6-9: Off-Street Parking Requirements, Union City (2022)............................................................ 6-33 Table 6-10: Statewide Parking Standards for Affordable Housing, California (2022)....................... 6-35 Table 6-11: Building and Housing Codes, Union City (2022) ................................................................. 6-37 Table 8-1: RHNA Progress - Permitted Units Issued by Affordability .................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2: Evaluation of Union City 2015 -2023 Housing Element Implementation Programs........ 8-5 Table 9-1: Summary of 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives, Union City (2023-2031).......................... 9-27 City Council/RSA Agenda 482 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
8 | TABLE OF CONTENTS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 483 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 INTRODUCTION | 1-1 Chapter 1 | Introduction
The Housing Element is one of eight mandatory elements of the City of Union City’s General Plan and sets forth the policies and programs to address the housing needs of all households in Union City. It is the City's principal guide for how it will meet the housing needs and priorities of everyone in the community. The Housing Element offers a way to ensure there are enough sites for safe, accessible, and diverse housing throughout the city. Through the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the Housing Element, the City aims to address existing and future housing needs for the people of Union City.

Overview of State Requirements
The Housing Element identifies the
City’s housing needs; states the City’s
goals and objectives with regard to
housing production, rehabilitation, and
conservation to meet those needs; and
defines the policies and programs that
the City will implement to achieve the
stated goals and objectives. All cities
and counties in California are required to
have a compliant Housing Element as
one of the eight mandated elements of
a general plan.

Each city and county in the State must
submit their Housing Element to the
California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for
review to ensure that it meets the
minimum requirements under State
Housing Element law and is also
required to prepare an annual progress
report (APR) on the status and progress
of implementing its Housing Element.

Most cities and counties, including
Union City, are required to update their
Housing Element every eight years.

Union City’s prior Housing Element
covered the 2015-2023 planning period,
while this update will cover the 2023-

HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS
 An analysis of existing and projected housing
needs
 An inventory of land suitable for housing and
emergency shelters with a projected capacity
for each site
 A summary of housing-related programs and
funding
 An analysis of potential constraints to the
production and maintenance of housing
 An assessment of fair housing and an analysis
of how the city can affirmatively further fair
housing (AFFH)
 An analysis of any special housing needs
groups, as identified under State law
 An evaluation of the previous Housing Element
 A summary of opportunities for residential
energy conservation
 An analysis of assisted housing developments
that are at-risk of converting to market rate
 Goals, policies, and implementation programs
City Council/RSA Agenda 484 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
1-2 | INTRODUCTION UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2031 planning period, from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2031. State law (Government Code Section 65583) requires the City to adopt a Housing Element that addresses the needs of everyone in the community, at all income levels.

Housing Element Organization
This Housing Element satisfies the requirements of State law (Government Code Section 65583(a)) and is organized as follows:
 Chapter 1 - Introduction. This chapter includes an introduction to the Housing Element, description of State Housing Element law, general plan consistency, and a summary of community participation.
 Chapter 2 - Existing Needs Assessment. This chapter analyzes demographic and socioeconomic conditions; existing housing stock characteristics; housing affordability, overpayment, and overcrowding; and special needs for persons experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, seniors, large families, and female-headed households.  Chapter 3 - Sites Inventory. This chapter identifies opportunities for housing production to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing needs, as determined by the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). It includes a description of the City’s RHNA and the results of the inventory of sites within the city that are suitable for residential development during the eightyear planning period.  Chapter 4 - Fair Housing Assessment. This chapter provides an analysis of fair housing issues and practices in Union City, including patterns of integration and segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. It also examines the relationship between the sites inventory and its potential impact on fair housing issues in the city. The chapter also includes a summary of strategies to affirmatively further fair housing.  Chapter 5 - Program Resources. This chapter summarizes staff resources and funding available to support City housing programs.
 Chapter 6 - Potential Housing Constraints. This chapter analyzes potential constraints on the production, maintenance, or improvement of housing, including governmental constraints like land use controls, permits and processing procedures, fees, and zoning for a variety of housing types as well as non-governmental constraints such as land and development costs and the availability of financing.
 Chapter 7 - Opportunities for Energy Conservation. This chapter analyzes opportunities for energy conservation in residential development including green building and energy-efficiency requirements, and energy conservation programs.
 Chapter 8 - Evaluation of the Previous (2015-2023) Housing Element. This chapter summarizes the City’s accomplishments during the previous (2015-2023) Housing Element planning period and evaluates each of the previous programs.
 Chapter 9 - Goals, Policies, & Programs. This chapter establishes goals, policies, and implementation programs that will provide direction to help the City meet its housing goals.

City Council/RSA Agenda 485 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 INTRODUCTION | 1-3 General Plan and Housing Element Consistency
Union City’s 2040 General Plan, adopted in 2019, is the City’s long-term blueprint for future growth and includes goals, policies, and programs that convey a long-term vision for the community and guides local decision-making to advance that vision.

The Housing Element is closely linked with the following General Plan elements: Land Use Element; Community Design Element; Mobility Element, Health and Quality of Life Element; Public Facilities and Services Element; and the Special Areas Element.
 The Land Use Element seeks to encourage redevelopment and promote infill in strategic areas to create new high-density, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development, especially around the Greater Station District. The Land Use Element and the Community Design Element seek to ensure that new development boosts the local economy in a manner that is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Elements seek to provide new housing opportunities for all residents and bring quality jobs and services to increase access to opportunity. Since the city’s residential neighborhoods are mostly built out, a key principle of the General Plan is preserving the character of established neighborhoods (i.e., the Historic Alvarado District, along Union City Boulevard and Mission Boulevard, and Decoto neighborhoods).  The Health and Quality of Life Element provides a policy framework to better support traditionally underserved populations in Union City including seniors, at-risk youth, and residents experiencing homelessness. The Element also identifies the City’s environmental justice communities, policies to address environmental justice in the city, and policies for neighborhood involvement in land use decisions that affect residential development.  The Public Facilities and Services Element ensures the provision of adequate services (e.g., water, wastewater, and solid waste services, school facilities) to support existing and future residential development.
 The Special Areas Element contain policies specific to a number of distinctive districts in Union City. These districts are either key infill areas that provide unique opportunities for redevelopment (e.g., in the Greater Station District) or have important existing features that require special attention to preserve and protect (e.g., the Decoto neighborhood, one of the first neighborhoods built in Union City).

Upon adoption, this Housing Element will be incorporated into the 2040 General Plan, updating the existing Housing Element. This Housing Element was prepared to maintain internal consistency with other elements of the General Plan.

In addition, State law requires that other General Plan elements be reviewed and/or modified upon adoption of the Housing Element. Senate Bill (SB) 1035 requires the safety element to be revised upon update of the Housing Element to include new information on fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resilience strategies. The City will be updating the Safety Element in conjunction with the 2023-2031 Housing Element update.

The City will maintain consistency between the Housing Element and the other General Plan elements so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with other elements.

City Council/RSA Agenda 486 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
1-4 | INTRODUCTION UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Public Participation
Housing Element law requires that jurisdictions “make a diligent effort” to achieve representative participation of the community in the development of the Housing Element. As part of the Housing Element update process, the project team (including City staff and Consultants) began early in the process, to promote community ownership of the plan, and continued through plan adoption.

Union City has a diverse linguistic population, so community engagement activities were conducted in multiple languages including Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog, and Hindi to provide opportunities for a broad segment of the community to participate. The following is a brief description of public participation efforts used throughout the Housing Element update process to engage and inform the community.

Summary of Engagement Activities
Regional Outreach Efforts
In addition to outreach conducted for the Housing Element, Union City participated in a regional collaborative to assess barriers to fair housing choice through an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The 2020 Alameda County Fair Housing Collaborative had a community engagement process including stakeholder meetings, community engagement meetings, and a resident survey as part of research to inform the Alameda County AI. Findings from the 2020 AI Community Participation process were used to inform Union City’s Fair Housing Assessment and the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the Housing Element update. See Chapters 4 (Fair Housing Assessment) and 8 (Goals, Policies, & Programs) for more information.

Project Webpage
The City hosted a project webpage about the Housing Element update at www.unioncity.org/HousingElement. The webpage included an overview of the project and schedule, contact information for the project team, and a sign-up link for the project mailing list.

The webpage was maintained throughout the Housing Element update process and routinely updated to include announcements of future engagement events, frequently asked questions (FAQs), community engagement materials and draft documents.

Online Community Survey
From February 8, 2022 to March 31, 2022, the City distributed a web-based survey to gather information from the community on housing needs and housing policy priorities. The survey included questions related to household demographics, housing conditions, and housing issues and priorities. The survey was provided in English, Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog, and Hindi.

The survey was distributed through an online link and QR code via email to the mailing list from the project website. It was also advertised through flyers, the farmers market, the public library, and broadcast on the City’s social media outlets.

The City received over 487 responses to the survey, including 451 responses in English, 6 in Spanish, 21 in Mandarin, 4 in Hindi, and 5 in Tagalog. Of all respondents, approximately two-thirds (67 percent) are homeowners while the other 30 percent are renters. About 8 percent of City Council/RSA Agenda 487 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 INTRODUCTION | 1-5 respondents specified a different type of living situation. Of those who chose to specify, living with parents or a family member was one of the most common responses. More than 75 percent of respondents live in a single-family home while another 20 percent reported living in an apartment or condominium/townhouse. Summaries of key survey responses are shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-3. See Appendix A for the complete survey and participant responses.

Figure 1-1: Survey Responses to “What do you feel is the most significant housing problem facing Union City residents? (Choose up to three)”
Source: Housing Element Online Community Survey Responses, March 2022.

Figure 1-2: Survey Responses to “Have you or are you experiencing any of the following housing issues?”
Source: Housing Element Online Community Survey Responses, March 2022. 2%
3%
4%
4%
7%
8%
9%
10%
20%
32%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Housing conditions are poor
Housing sizes don’t meet family needs
Not enough places to rent
Other
Not enough housing for seniors or people with disabilities Too expensive to maintain my home as a property owner
Not enough shelters or services for people experiencing homelessness
Not enough homes for sale
Rents are too high
Buying a house is too expensive
3%
7%
8%
9%
11%
15%
24%
24%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Other
Too many people living in one home (overcrowding)
Significant rent increase
Struggle to pay rent or mortgage (e.g., sometimes paying late, not paying other bills to pay rent, not buying food or medicine) Lack funding to make necessary home repairs
Adult child living at home due to inability to afford housing None of the above
Want to move but can’t find or afford a home that meets my and my family’s needs
City Council/RSA Agenda 488 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
1-6 | INTRODUCTION UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 1-3: Survey Responses to “Which strategies do you think the City should prioritize? (Choose up to three)”
Source: Housing Element Online Community Survey Responses, March 2022.

Outreach at the Farmers Market
To reach a broader audience and more non-English speakers, the project team attended the local farmers market in Old Alvarado Park on Saturday, February 26, 2022. This also allowed the project team to reach stakeholders on site in the
community. Outreach was conducted outside, in
compliance with COVID protocols. Two
interactive activity boards were used which
included information about housing issues and
potential strategies for the public to provide
feedback on the Housing Element (see Figure 1-
4). All content on the boards was translated into
five languages to encourage inclusion and
participation: English, Spanish, Mandarin,
Tagalog, and Hindi. The project team were on
hand to provide an overview of the Housing
Element update, answer any questions, and
distribute information on housing-related
resources and programs.
1%
5%
8%
10%
11%
12%
12%
18%
23%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
None of the above
Other
Tenant protections for renters
Accessible housing for seniors or people with disabilities Minor home repair programs
Promote accessory dwelling units (granny flats/second units/ guest houses)
Programs for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness Downpayment assistance for homebuyers
Support development of affordable housing
City staff and residents at the Union City Farmer’s Market in Old Alvarado Park
City Council/RSA Agenda 489 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 INTRODUCTION | 1-7 Figure 1-4: Farmer’s Market Activity Boards
Source: Union City and Ascent, 2022.

In response to “What are the greatest housing issues facing our community,” the highest ranked issues are that:
 Buying a house is too expensive (29 votes);
 Rents are too high (26 votes);
 There are not enough homes for sale (26 votes); and
 There are not enough shelters or services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness (21 votes).

These were followed by its’ too expensive to maintain a home as a homeowner (15 votes), a reason not listed (12 votes) and not enough housing for seniors or persons with disabilities (9 votes). The least common issues identified are housing sizes (5 votes), availability of places to rent (3 votes) and, housing conditions (1 vote). See Figure 1-5 for a visual representation of these results.

In response to “Which strategies do you think the City should prioritize,” the highest ranked strategies included:
 Programs for people at risk of or experiencing homelessness (20 votes);  Supporting the development of affordable housing (20 votes);  Down payment assistance for homebuyers (16 votes); and  Accessible housing for seniors and residents with disabilities (12 votes).

Promoting accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, (10 votes), and programs for minor home repairs (10 votes) were also favored. See Figure 1-6 for a visual representation of these results.

City Council/RSA Agenda 490 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
1-8 | INTRODUCTION UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 1-5: Results from Activity Board 1: What are the greatest housing issues facing our community?
Source: Farmer’s Market Activity Board Responses, February 2022 Figure 1-6: Results from Activity Board 2: Which strategies do you think the City should prioritize? Source: Farmer’s Market Activity Board Responses, February 2022 1 3
5 9
12 15
21 23
26 29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Housing conditions are poor
Not enough places to rent
Housing sizes don’t meet family needs
Not enough housing for seniors or people with disabilities Other
Too expensive to maintain my home as a property owner
Not enough shelter or services for people experiencing
homelessness
Not enough homes for sale
Rents are too high
Buying a house is too expensive
4 7
10 11
12 16
20 20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Tenant protections for renters
Other
Minor home repair program
Promote accessory dwelling units (i.e., granny flat, second units, backyard cottage)
Accessible housing for seniors and people with disabilities Down payment assistance for homebuyers
Support development of affordable housing
Programs for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness City Council/RSA Agenda 491 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 INTRODUCTION | 1-9 Community Workshops
The project team conducted two virtual workshops on February 24, and February 28, 2022, to educate the community on the purpose of the Housing Element and to collect input on community needs and key housing issues facing residents. A presentation of Housing Element requirements, overall process, and preliminary analysis of housing needs and opportunities was provided. Both workshops were held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Alameda County health orders in place at the time. The workshop on February 28 was presented in English and Spanish with a translated presentation and live interpretation.

To advertise the workshop, the City employed the same strategy as the online survey. City staff provided information on the project webpage, sent email notices to the project listserv (i.e., individuals signing up through the project website), local agencies, community organizations, and other stakeholders in the city. The City also engaged with both the New Haven Unified School District and the City’s Pastor’s Alliance to broaden the outreach strategy to include families and faith based organizations. In addition, the City distributed flyers (as shown in Figure 1-7) at City Hall and the Union City Library; and coordinated with a local organization, Centro de Servicios, to distribute flyers in the Decoto neighborhoods.

Following the workshops, both the English and Spanish presentations and recordings were posted on the City website for people to watch on their own time.

Figure 1-7: Flyers to Advertise Outreach Events in English and Spanish Source: Union City and Ascent, 2022. See Appendix A for flyers in English, Spanish, Mandarin, Hindi, and Tagalog.

Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions
After the release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element on June 13, 2022, the Planning Commission held a meeting July 7, 2022 to review the plan and solicit feedback before submitting the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for State-mandated review.

City Council/RSA Agenda 492 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
1-10 | INTRODUCTION UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Public Comment Received During HCD Review
During the HCD Review process, the City received two comment letters from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance. The comments were generally focused on the lack of housing production during the 5th Cycle RHNA period. The City acknowledges that housing production fell short of the 5th cycle RHNA and anticipates that housing production will be much higher in the upcoming cycle.

There are several housing projects that have been approved and are in the pipeline and the City has created more capacity for additional housing development through the recently adopted General Plan (2019) and Station District Specific Plan (2022). Comments received on the Housing Element can be found in Appendix A.

Additional Outreach During Housing Element Adoption
Leading up to adoption Housing Element adoption, the City will focus its community engagement strategy with established community-based organizations at community focal points to involve residents in specific neighborhoods, particularly the City’s Decoto and Historic Alvarado District neighborhoods. By partnering with local service providers and non-profits in and around these neighborhoods who play key roles in community advocacy and outreach the City will achieve more direct targeted outreach in distinct geographies. Specifically, the City will target local faith-based organizations in these neighborhoods through the City’s Pastor Alliance to foster engagement with these organizations throughout specific neighborhoods and communities in the City. The City will also look to partner with local nonprofits like Centro de Servicios, whose main office is located in the heart of the Decoto neighborhood, Union City Family Center, and the Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center, which are also located in the Decoto neighborhood, to engage the surrounding community.

Further, the City will partner with the local Farmer’s Market located in the Historic Alvarado District as well as the City’s local community centers throughout the City to provide information and engage local residents attending the market, and those who access those community centers, about the Housing Element update process. After adoption of the Housing Element, the City through Program HE-6.E, will continue to work to increase awareness and build capacity among historically underrepresented populations and look for opportunities to expand its outreach and public education on available housing services and programs to reach vulnerable and at-risk households.

Summary of Community Feedback
The input received from community stakeholders was used to inform and understand the needs and priorities in Union City and has been incorporated into the Housing Element. This local knowledge has helped to identify local fair housing issues and constraints and has been used to inform the development of policies and programs presented in the Housing Element. See Chapters 4 (Fair Housing Assessment), 6 (Potential Housing Constraints), and 8 (Goals, Policies, & Programs) for more information. The following is a summary of the feedback heard during the public participation process for the Housing Element update.

City Council/RSA Agenda 493 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 INTRODUCTION | 1-11 Top Housing Issues Facing Union City Residents
 Buying a house is too expensive in the city. Housing costs are too high (specifically mentioned property taxes, utility bills, permitting fees)
 Fees are high, but schools are rated poorly
 Rents are too high
 Not enough homes are for sale
 Want to move but can’t find or afford a home that meet’s family’s needs  It is more common for adults to live with parents or other family members due to inability to afford a home on their own
 Lack funding to be able to maintain home or make necessary repairs Top Suggested Strategies to Prioritize
 Lower housing rental and sales prices
 Streamline the process for homeowners to make home improvements  Strengthen programs for income-based assistance for housing rehabilitation and maintenance  Strengthen down payment assistance programs
 Provide education and support for first-time homebuyers who may not qualify for incomebased assistance  Provide more assistance for seniors
 Provide programs to support people at risk of or experiencing homelessness  Support development of affordable housing
 Encourage mixed income developments
 Encourage higher density housing near public transportation and shopping Other Community Concerns
 Concern about growing increase in homelessness
 Concern about traffic, parking, and road improvements  Concern about infrastructure capacity
 Concern about losing green space, open space, farmland

City Council/RSA Agenda 494 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
1-12 | INTRODUCTION UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 495 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-1 Chapter 2 | Existing Needs Assessment
The Existing Needs Assessment provides information on Union City’s current demographic and housing characteristics, illustrating how it is similar to or different from the county or region. This section begins with a description of population and employment characteristics of Union City and then discusses projections for growth, household characteristics, housing supply, and housing affordability. The section also discusses the housing needs of “special” population groups as defined in State law. Data for Union City, Alameda County, and the Bay Area are presented for comparison or when city-level data is not available.

Demographic and Employment Profile
The purpose of the Demographic and Employment profile is to establish “baseline” population and employment characteristics for Union City. The main source of the information is the 2021 PreApproved Housing Element Data Package from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) from the U.S. Census, but data is also included for years between 2000 and 2021 to demonstrate trends. Other sources of information include the following:
the California Department of Finance (DOF), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and local economic data (e.g., home sales prices, rents, wages).

Demographics
Population
The Bay Area is the fifth largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession (see Figure 2-1). Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth.

Union City’s population grew by 24 percent between 1990 and 2000. However, between 2000 and 2020, the population in Union City increased by only 10 percent; this rate is below that of the region, which increased by 16 percent in the same time period (see Table 2-1). Alameda County saw the greatest growth in population between 2010 and 2020. In this span of time, the population in the county increased by 11 percent while the population in the Bay Area only increased by 9 percent and 6 percent in Union City. The population in Union City was estimated to be 73,637 in 2020, accounting for about 4 percent of the population in Alameda County.

City Council/RSA Agenda 496 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-1: Regional Population Trends, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area,1990-2020 The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. The data points represent the population growth (i.e., percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.

Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series. (ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021).

TABLE 2-1: POPULATION GROWTH, UNION CITY AND SELECTED AREAS (2000-2020) Geography 1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent
Change
1990-
2000
Percent
Change
2000-
2010
Percent
Change
2010-
2020
Percent
Change
2000-
2020
Union City 53,762 66,869 69,516 73,637 24% 4% 6% 10%
Alameda
County
1,276,702 1,443,939 1,510,271 1,670,834 13% 5% 11% 16%
Bay Area 6,020,147 6,784,348 7,150,739 7,790,537 13% 5% 9% 15% Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series. (ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021).

Age
The distribution of age groups in a city can shape what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many older residents to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
1990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020 Index (Year %s = Index 100)
Index
Union City
Index
Alameda County
Index
Bay Area
City Council/RSA Agenda 497 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-3 In Union City, the median age in 2000 was 32; by 2019 the median age increased to 39 years. More specifically, the population of those 24 and under has decreased since 2010, while the population 55 and over has increased (see Figure 2-2).

Figure 2-2: Population by Age, Union City, 2000 and 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001. (ABAG Pre-Approved Data Package, April 2021).

Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns can be shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS five-year estimates, Union City has a more diverse population than the county and the Bay Area. Figure 2-3 shows a breakdown of the population in Union City by race and ethnicity shown from 2000-2019 and Figure 2-4 compares the population by race and ethnicity in Union City, Alameda County, and the Bay Area in 2019.

Since 2000, the Asian and Pacific Islanders (API), Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most (see Figure 2-3). It should be noted that the racial category of “Asian” encompasses a diversity of cultures represented in Union City, including Filipino, Indian, Southeast Asian, Chinese, and many other Asian cultures. In general, the percentage of residents in Union City identifying as White has decreased while the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased by 5.9 percentage points. In 2019, the non-White and Hispanic population combined (11,544 people) made up 85 percent of the overall population.

Compared to the region, the Asian/API proportion of the population in Union City (55 percent) is nearly two times that in the Bay Area (27 percent) in 2019. Conversely, White, Non-Hispanic residents comprise 39 percent of the population in the Bay Area, 31 percent of the population in Alameda County, and only 15 percent of the population in Union City in 2019. This difference in settlement patterns by race and ethnicity is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, Fair Housing Assessment. 7%
16%
14%
16%
17%
14%
8%
5%
3%
1%
5%
10%
11%
17%
14%
13% 13%
10%
4%
2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Age 0-4 Age 5-14 Age 15-
24 Age 25-
34 Age 35-
44 Age 45-
54 Age 55-
64 Age 65-
74 Age 75-
84 Age 85+
2000 2019
City Council/RSA Agenda 498 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-4 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Hispanic or Latinx populations are tabulated as an ethnic group, separate from race. Hispanic or Latinx includes those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. Union City has a slightly lower percentage (20 percent) of Hispanic/Latinx groups than Alameda County as a whole (22 percent) and the Bay Area (24 percent).

Figure 2-3: Population by Race and Ethnicity*, Union City, 2000-2019 *The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021. 46%
52% 55%
7%
6%
21% 14% 15%
25% 23% 20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2019
Share of Population
Hispanic or Latinx*
Other Race or Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska
Native, Non-Hispanic
City Council/RSA Agenda 499 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-5 Figure 2-4: Regional Population by Race and Ethnicity, * Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019
*The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights, or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Union City, 7 percent of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is similar to the percentage of residents in Alameda County and the broader region (Figure 2-5). 55%
31% 27%
5%
10%
6%
15%
31%
39%
5% 5% 5%
20% 22% 24%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda
County
Bay Area
Percent of Population
Hispanic or Latinx*
Other Race or Multiple
Races, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska
Native, Non-Hispanic
City Council/RSA Agenda 500 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-6 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-5: Population with Limited English Proficiency, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Income and Employment
Local demand for housing is significantly impacted by income, employment characteristics, and regional job growth. To effectively address the housing and jobs relationship, this section analyzes household income and employment characteristics for Union City and Alameda County.

Household Income
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state.1
In Union City, 56 percent of households make more than the Area Median Income (AMI), compared to 10 percent making less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 2-6).

See Table 2-4 for the breakdown of 2021 income limits by persons per household in Alameda County. 1 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 7% 8% 8%
93% 92% 92%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Population aged 5 and over
Population 5 Years and Over Who Speak English "Well" or "Very well" Population 5 Years and Over Who Speak English "Not well" or "Not at all" City Council/RSA Agenda 501 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-7 Figure 2-6: Household Income Distribution, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100 percent AMI, while 15 percent make less than 30 percent AMI. In Alameda County, 30 percent AMI is the equivalent to an annual income of $34,850 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners — including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals — can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

The median household income in Union City was $128,108 in 2019, which was higher than the countywide median income of $108,322 and significantly higher than the statewide median household income of $80,440.

Employment Trends
Job Growth
Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Union City increased by 67.1 percent from 20,238 jobs in 2002 to 33,813 jobs in 2018 (see Figure 2-7). Most of this job growth was in the professional and managerial services industry, which grew from 2,175 jobs in 2014 to 9,270 jobs in 2015 and 12,993 jobs by 2016. Whereas in 2002 manufacturing and wholesale was the largest industry sector in Union City, by 2018 professional and managerial services became the largest industry sector in the city (see Figure 2-8).
10% 16% 15%
11%
11% 11%
14%
12% 13%
10%
9% 9%
56% 53% 52%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda
County
Bay Area
Percent of Households
Greater than 100% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
0%-30% of AMI
City Council/RSA Agenda 502 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-8 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-7: Jobs in Union City, 2002-2018
Note: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021. 20,238 21,456 20,451
35,050 33,813
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2002 2007 2012 2017
Jobs
City Council/RSA Agenda 503 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-9 Figure 2-8: Job Growth by Industry, Union City, 2002-2018 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018.

Resident Employment by Sector
Figure 2-9 shows the industries in which Union City residents are employed. The largest industry in which Union City residents work is Health and Educational Services (27 percent of resident workers), which is also the largest sector both countywide and, in the Bay Area, (30 percent of resident workers). Union City has more residents employed in Manufacturing, Wholesale, and Transportation (24 percent) relative to the county and the region (17 percent for both county and region). This is because of the relatively large industrial base in Union City and Hayward. 0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
20022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018 Jobs
Agriculture & Natural Resources Arts, Recreation & Other Services Construction Financial & Leasing
Government Health & Educational Services
Information Manufacturing & Wholesale
Professional & Managerial Services Retail
Transportation & Utilities
City Council/RSA Agenda 504 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-10 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-9: Resident Employment by Industry, Union City, Alameda County, Bay Area, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Balance of Jobs and Housing
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high job to household ratio. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs and therefore export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. Silicon Valley and the Bay Area region are some of the largest and fastest growing job centers in the state. As shown in Figure 2-9, Union City has a higher jobshousehold ratio than the county and the Bay Area region due to recent increases in the number of jobs in the city. In fact, the jobs-household ratio in Union City has increased from 1.05 jobs per household in 2002, to 1.65 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 2-10). 5% 5% 6%
24% 26% 26%
27%
30% 30%
4%
4% 4%
24%
17% 17%
10% 9% 9%
7% 8% 8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda
County
Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Other
Retail
Manufacturing, Wholesale &
Transportation
Information
Health & Educational
Services
Financial & Professional
Services
Construction
Agriculture & Natural
Resources
City Council/RSA Agenda 505 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-11 Figure 2-10: Jobs-Household Ratio, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2002-2018 Notes: (1) The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. (2) The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households). ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Unemployment
In Union City, there was a 3.5 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. As shown in Figure 2-11, unemployment in Union City was at its lowest (2.7 percent) in 2019 and at its highest (14.6 percent) in 2020. Jurisdictions throughout the nation experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. Unemployment trends in Union City generally follow countywide and regional unemployment trends.

0.80 0.90

1.00 1.10

1.20 1.30

1.40 1.50

1.60 1.70

1.80 Ratio
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
City Council/RSA Agenda 506 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-12 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-11: Average Unemployment Rates, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2010-2021 Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Population, Household, and Employment
Projections
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) releases regional projections every two years for population, households, jobs, and employed residents. The following section presents the most recent forecasts and projections available at the city-level covering the period between 2010 and 2040. These projections extend beyond the time horizon for this Housing Element. It should be noted that ABAG’s 2040 projections are based on Plan Bay Area 2040, a prior regional plan that was superseded by Plan Bay Area 2050. However, Plan Bay Area 2050 projections are only available at the county and sub-county level, not at the city level.

Population Projections
Union City's population is expected to grow moderately through 2040. As Table 2-2 indicates, the population in the city is projected to grow to 79,845 by 2040, representing an increase of 3,630 residents from the city’s estimated 2020 population of 76,215. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Percent of Labor Force that is Unemployed
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
City Council/RSA Agenda 507 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-13 TABLE 2-2: POPULATION PROJECTIONS, UNION CITY AND ALAMEDA COUNTY, 2020-2040 Year
Union City Alameda County
Population Persons per
Household Population Persons per Household
2020 76,215 3.39 1,711,460 2.71
2030 78,100 3.37 1,868,635 2.73
2040 79,845 3.47 2,092,370 2.78
2020-2040 CHANGE +3,630 +0.08 +380,910 +0.07
2020-2040 % CHANGE 5% 2.4% 22% 2.6%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2040.

Employment Projections
As shown in Table 2-3, the number of jobs in Union City is anticipated to continue to grow according to the ABAG 2040 projections. As more jobs become available in Union City, maintaining a balance of housing growth will be crucial to the city and can help to reduce commutes, alleviate traffic congestion, and the associated environmental and social impacts. The number of jobs in Union City is projected to grow to 28,105 by 2040, representing an increase of 4,040 jobs from 2020. By 2040 Union City is projected to comprise 2.9 percent of the total county jobs.

TABLE 2-3: EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS, UNION CITY AND ALAMEDA COUNTY, 2020-2040 Year Union City Total Jobs Alameda County Total Jobs
2020 24,065 858,685
2030 26,120 901,080
2040 28,105 952,940
2020-2040 CHANGE +4,040 +94,255
2020-2040 % CHANGE 17% 11%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2040.

Household Characteristics
This section analyzes household characteristics, such as tenure and income. It summarizes the profile of Union City and Alameda County residents living in private households, whether they are renters or owners, and if the household is overcrowded.

Tenure
Tenure is a measure of the rates of homeownership and renter occupancy in a jurisdiction.

Analyzing trends related to housing tenure can help identify the level of housing insecurity — ability for individuals to stay in their homes — in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Union City there are a total of 21,852 households. As shown in Figure 2-12, most households are owner-occupied (65 percent) compared to 35 percent that are renter occupied. Rates of homeownership are higher in Union City than in Alameda County and the City Council/RSA Agenda 508 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-14 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Bay Area region. This is reflective of the suburban nature of Union City relative to the region.

However, with the recent increase in multifamily development since 2010, there has been a corresponding increase in residents renting in the city (see Figure 2-13).

Figure 2-12: Housing Tenure, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Figure 2-13: Housing Tenure 2000-2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table H04; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table H04; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.
65%
54% 56%
35%
46% 44%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
71%
66% 65%
29%
34% 35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2000 2010 2019
Owners Renters
City Council/RSA Agenda 509 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-15 Housing Tenure by Race
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.2 In Union City, 40.9 percent of Black households own their homes, while homeownership rates were 71.5 percent for Asian households, 56.1 percent for Latinx households, and 68.4 percent for White households (see Figure 2-14). Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements, see Chapter 4 for the City’s assessment of fair housing and more information.

Figure 2-14: Housing Tenure by Race* of Householder, Union City, 2019 * The Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity in the source of this information (Table B01001), so each racial category accounts for Hispanic / non-Hispanic ethnic characteristics.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I). ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021. 2 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America.

New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 95 8,309 541
2,140
1,687
3,649
2,952
37 3,307
783
1,673
1,760
1,684
1,407
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Black or
African
American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or
Latinx
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White, NonHispanic
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
City Council/RSA Agenda 510 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-16 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Housing Tenure by Age
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In Union City, 53.0 percent of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 24.1 percent of householders over 65 are renters (see Figure 2-15).

Figure 2-15: Housing Tenure by Age, Union City, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Tenure by Housing Type
In most cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Union City, 84.0 percent of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 12.0 percent of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 2-16). No households occupying a boat, van, or RV, were documented in Union City.
9%
38%
53%
73% 78% 83% 82%
73%
55%
91%
62%
47%
27% 22% 17% 18%
27%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 15-
24 Age 25-
34 Age 35-
44 Age 45-
54 Age 55-
59 Age 60-
64 Age 65-
74 Age 75-
84 Age
85+
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
City Council/RSA Agenda 511 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-17 Figure 2-16: Housing Tenure by Housing Type, Union City, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Household Income
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households. As shown in Figure 2-17, 63 percent of homeowners are in the above moderate-income bracket (greater than 100 percent of the AMI) and 28 percent are in the lower-income bracket. Comparatively, 49 percent of renters are lower income while 41 percent have an above-moderate income.

Figure 2-17: Household Income Level by Tenure, Union City, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021. 84%
58%
12%
78%
16%
42%
88%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Detached
Single-Family
Homes
Attached
Single-Family
Homes
Multi-Family
Housing
Mobile Homes Boat, RV, Van,
or Other
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
7%
17%
10% 13% 11%
19%
10% 10%
63%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
City Council/RSA Agenda 512 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-18 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Overcrowded Housing
The Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households and especially very large households, and the availability of suitably sized housing. Overcrowding impacts both owners and renters; however, renters are generally more significantly impacted.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded. Overcrowding in households typically results from either a lack of affordable housing (which forces more than one household to live together) and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Union City, 7 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 1 percent of households that own (see Figure 2-18). In Union City, 14 percent of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 5 percent for those who own.

Figure 2-18: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity, Union City, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021. 5%
14%
1%
7%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room City Council/RSA Agenda 513 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-19 Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 2.4 percent of very lowincome households (below 50 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 1.3 percent of households above 100 percent AMI experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 2-19).

Figure 2-19: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity, Union City, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Union City, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Other Race or Multiple Races followed by Hispanic/Latinx (see Figure 2-20).

4.7%

9.8%

7.2%

8.0%

6.6%

2.4% 2.6%

3.5% 3.2%

1.3%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Percent of Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room City Council/RSA Agenda 514 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-20 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-20: Overcrowding by Race*, Union City, 2019
* The Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity in the source of this information (Table B01001), so each racial category accounts for Hispanic / non-Hispanic ethnic characteristics.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Housing Stock Characteristics
While the previous section discussed the characteristics of persons living in households, this section provides information about the supply of existing housing in Union City, Alameda County, and the Bay Area as well as the age, vacancy, and structural condition of the units.

Housing Units
According to California Department of Finance (DOF), Union City had 21,839 housing units as of 2020. The housing stock of Union City in 2020 was made up of 63 percent single family detached homes, 13 percent single family attached homes, 4 percent multifamily homes with two to four units, 16 percent multifamily homes with five or more units, and 5 percent mobile homes (see Figure 2-21). The housing type that experienced the most growth in the city between 2010 and 2020 was multifamily housing with five or more units. According to DOF, in Alameda County as a whole, 52 percent of the housing stock in 2020 is single family detached units, 8 percent single family attached units, 11 percent multifamily with two to four units, 28 percent multifamily units with five or more units, and 1.3 percent mobile homes. The housing mix in Union City is less diverse than the housing mix countywide.
11%
1%
19%
23%
7%
6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
More than 1.0 Occupants per Room
Percent of Households
American Indian or Alaska
Native (Hispanic and NonHispanic)
Asian / API (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Black or African American
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic and NonHispanic)
City Council/RSA Agenda 515 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-21 Figure 2-21: Housing Unit Trends, Union City, 2010 and 2020 Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Age of Housing Stock
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Union City, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1960 to 1979, with 10,260 units (47percent of the housing stock) constructed during this period (see Figure 2-22). According to the 2015-2019 ACS, only 1.9 percent of the City’s housing stock has been built since 2010. 2,839 13,642
784
3,000
993
2,847
13,711
804
3,461
1,016
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Single-Family
Home:

Attached
Single-Family
Home:

Detached
Multifamily
Housing: Two
to Four Units
Multifamily
Housing: Fiveplus Units
Mobile Homes
Units
2010 2020
City Council/RSA Agenda 516 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-22 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-22: Housing Units by Year Structure was Built*, Union City * Data shown is a five-year average of ACS data from 2015-2019 based on a small sample of the relative population. For a more accurate summary of housing units built over time, refer to the Department of Finance data presented in Figure 2-21 as it is based on building permit data reported directly to the State Housing and Community Development Department.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Occupancy/Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates are an indicator of existing housing need. The difference between the current vacancy rate and optimal vacancy rate is a good measure of whether the market is responding to overall housing needs. Optimal vacancy rates differ between rental housing and for-sale housing.

The Association of Bay Area Governments has set two rates as the regional vacancy objective. For rental housing a 5 percent vacancy rate is considered necessary to permit ordinary rental mobility.

For for-sale housing a 2 percent vacancy rate is considered the threshold to permit ordinary mobility. If vacancy rates are below these levels, residents will have a difficult time finding appropriate units and competition for units will drive up housing prices.

As shown in Figure 2-23, vacant units make up 4.6 percent of the overall housing stock in Union City in 2019. The rental vacancy stands at 4.3 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is 0.6 percent.

Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is For Seasonal, Recreational, Or Occasional Use, followed by units For Rent, and units in the Other Vacant category (see Figure 2-24). 554
1,181
10,260
8,225
2,252
431
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Built 1939 Or Earlier
Built 1940 To 1959
Built 1960 To 1979
Built 1980 To 1999
Built 2000 To 2009
Built 2010 Or Later
Units
City Council/RSA Agenda 517 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-23 Figure 2-23: Vacancy Rates, Union City, Alameda County, Bay Area, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Figure 2-24: Vacant Units by Type, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

95.4% 94.9% 94.1%

4.6% 5.1% 6.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Housing Units
Occupied Housing Units Vacant Housing Units
29% 26% 24%
9%
6% 6%
38%
13% 22%
21%
44% 36%
5% 6%
6% 7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda
County
Bay Area
Percent of Vacant Housing Units
Sold, Not Occupied
Rented, Not Occupied
Other Vacant
For Seasonal, Recreational,
Or Occasional Use
For Sale
For Rent
City Council/RSA Agenda 518 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-24 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 6 percent of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like Airbnb are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration. In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.

Housing Conditions
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Union City. For example, as shown in Figure 2-25,1.7 percent of renters in Union City reported lacking a kitchen and 0.1 percent of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.3 percent of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.1 percent of owners who lack plumbing.

Figure 2-25: Substandard Housing Conditions, Union City, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

0.3%

0.1%

1.7%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

2.0%
Units with Incomplete Kitchen Units with Incomplete Plumbing Percent of Units Lacking Amenity
Owner Renter
City Council/RSA Agenda 519 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-25 Because Union City's housing stock is relatively young, the overall condition of housing is good.

Housing in need of rehabilitation and/or replacement tends to be concentrated within the Decoto and Old Alvarado neighborhoods, the two oldest neighborhoods in the city. In 1999 the City conducted a survey of dilapidated or substandard housing in both areas. The City identified 40 units in the Decoto area and 10 units in the Old Alvarado area in need of significant rehabilitation.

These units were identified based on visual exterior and, in most cases, interior inspection. Homes showing noticeable signs of decay, such as broken or boarded up windows, cracks or large holes in walls, broken steps, and missing handrails were identified and homeowners were approached and offered help in obtaining government assistance (e.g., rehabilitation loans through the City). There is no reason to believe that housing conditions have significantly deteriorated since the last survey.

The City’s rehabilitation program, which has been around since 1974, has been enormously successful for many households and for the community as a whole. Since its inception in 1976, the City has rehabilitated over 1,170 homes.

Housing Affordability
Housing is classified as “affordable” if households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for payment of rent (including a monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly homeownership costs (including mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance). State law (65583(a) (2)) requires “an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay.” Identifying and evaluating existing housing needs are a critical component of the housing element. This requires comparison of resident incomes with the local cost of housing. The analysis helps local governments identify existing housing cost burdens or unmet housing needs. This section includes an analysis of housing cost burden, ability to pay for housing, and the cost of housing.

The data in this section uses Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from HUD’s State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS) website. Income groups are shown in the SOCDS CHAS tabulation based on the HUD-adjusted area median family income.

Ability to Pay for Housing
The following section compares 2021 income levels and ability to pay for housing with actual housing costs. Each year HUD reports the Area Median Income (AMI) for the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area. HCD then uses the AMI to set income levels (i.e., extremely low-, very low-, low, moderate-, and above moderate-income) that are used in affordable housing programs and projects. Since above moderate-income households do not generally have problems locating affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that are moderate-income or below. The list below shows the definition of housing income limits as they are applied in California:
 Extremely Low-Income: Affordable to households whose combined income is between the floor set at the minimum Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and 30 percent of the AMI.  Very Low-Income: Affordable to households whose combined income is between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI.

City Council/RSA Agenda 520 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-26 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031  Low-Income: Affordable to households whose combined income is between 51 percent to 80 percent of the AMI.
 Moderate-Income: Affordable to households whose combined income is between 81 percent to 120 percent of the AMI.
 Above Moderate-Income: Affordable to household whose combined income is above 120 percent of the AMI.

According to HCD, the AMI for a four-person household in Alameda County is $125,600 in 2021. For all income categories income limits are defined for various household sizes based on a four-person household. Income limits for larger or smaller households are calculated by HUD (see Table 2-4).

TABLE 2-4: HCD INCOME LIMITS BY PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD, ALAMEDA COUNTY (2021) Income Categories
Persons per Household
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low-Income (30%*) $28,800 $32,900 $37,000 $41,100 $44,400 Very Low-Income (50%*) $47,950 $54,800 $61,650 $74,000 $79,500 Low-Income (80%*) $76,750 $87,700 $98,650 $109,600 $118,400 Median-Income (100%*) $87,900 $100,500 $113,050 $125,600 $135,650 Moderate-Income (120%*) $105,500 $120,550 $136,650 $150,700 $162,750 *Percentage of Fiscal Year 2021 Estimate of Median Family Income Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2021 A household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is two and a half to three times their annual income, depending on the down payment, the level of other long-term obligations such as a car loan, and interest rates. In practice, the interaction of these factors allows some households to qualify for homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be limited to purchasing a home no more than two times their annual income. Homebuyer assistance programs that provide down payment assistance and/or below market-rate interest rates often allow homebuyers to qualify for houses that are up to four times their income.

Table 2-5 summarizes maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes based on the 2021 HCD-defined household income limits for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in Alameda County (including Union City). It is important to note that this table is used for illustrative purposes only. Households earning the 2021 area median income for a family of four in Union City ($125,600) could afford to spend up to $3,140 per month on rent and utilities without overpaying. For a very low-income four-person household making $68,500 per year, an estimated maximum purchase price would be $293,653. A three-person household would be classified as low-income if its annual income was less than $98,650. This household could afford a $2,466 maximum monthly rent.

City Council/RSA Agenda 521 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-27 TABLE 2-5: ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING BASED ON HCD INCOME LIMITS, ALAMEDA COUNTY (2021)
Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of Median Family Income (MFI) Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $28,800 $32,900 $37,000 $41,100 $44,400 $47,700 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $720 $823 $925 $1,028 $1,110 $1,193 Max. Purchase Price (2) $123,463 $141,039 $158,615 $176,192 $190,338 $204,485 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of MFI
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $47,950 $54,800 $61,650 $68,500 $74,000 $79,500 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $1,199 $1,370 $1,541 $1,713 $1,850 $1,988 Max. Purchase Price (2) $205,557 $234,922 $264,287 $293,653 $317,231 $340,809 Low-Income Households at 80% of MFI
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $76,750 $87,700 $98,650 $109,600 $118,400 $127,150 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $1,919 $2,193 $2,466 $2,740 $2,960 $3,179 Max. Purchase Price (2) $329,020 $375,961 $422,903 $469,844 $507,569 $545,079 Median-Income Households at 100% of MFI
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $87,900 $100,500 $113,050 $125,600 $135,650 $145,700 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $2,198 $2,513 $2,826 $3,140 $3,391 $3,643 Max. Purchase Price (2) $376,819 $430,834 $484,634 $538,435 $581,518 $624,601 Moderate-Income Households at 120% of MFI
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $105,500 $120,550 $135,650 $150,700 $162,750 $174,800 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $3,077 $3,516 $3,956 $4,395 $4,747 $5,098 Max. Purchase Price (2) $527,646 $602,917 $678,438 $753,709 $813,975 $874,242 1 Assumes that 30 percent of income (35 percent for moderate income) is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners insurance. 2 Assumes 96.5 percent loan at 4 percent annual interest rate and 30-year term; assumes taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners insurance account for 21 percent of total monthly payments. 3 2021 HCD Area Median Income for Alameda County $125,600 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grantsfunding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/income-limits-2021.pdf; Ascent, 2021.

Table 2-6 shows HUD-defined fair market rent levels (FMR) for the Oakland-Fremont Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for 2021. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately-owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. The rents are drawn from the distribution of rents of all units that are occupied by recent movers. Adjustments are made to exclude public housing units, newly built units, and substandard units.

City Council/RSA Agenda 522 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-28 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 2-6: HUD FAIR MARKET RENT BY UNIT BEDROOM1,ALAMEDA COUNTY (2021) Bedrooms in Unit FY 2021 FMR
Studio $1,595
1 Bedroom $1,934
2 Bedrooms $2,383
3 Bedrooms $3,196
4 Bedrooms $3,863
1 The FY 2021 Fair Market Rents for Oakland-Fremont, CA HUD Metro FMR Area are based on the results of a local rent survey conducted in November 2018.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2021.

As stated above, a three-person household classified as low-income with an annual income of $98,650 could afford to pay $2,466 monthly gross rent (including utilities). The 2021 FMR for a twobedroom unit in Alameda County is $2,383. Therefore, a low-income three-person household at the upper limit of the income range could afford to rent a two-bedroom unit at the FMR level. A moderateincome three-person household, making $135,650 could afford to pay $3,956 in rent without overpaying. This is enough to pay the FMR for a four-bedroom apartment. However, the FMR is out of reach for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households at the lower end of the income range.

Home Value Trends
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs.

In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Union City was estimated at $991,870 in December of 2020, per data from Zillow.

The largest proportion of homes were valued between $750k-$1M (see Figure 2-26). By comparison, the typical home value is $951,380 in Alameda County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $500k-$750k.

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 155.1 percent in Union City from $388,830 to $991,870. This change is similar to the change in home values in Alameda County and across region (see Figure 2-27).

City Council/RSA Agenda 523 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-29 Figure 2-26: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units, Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Figure 2-27: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), Union City, Alameda County, and Bay Area, 2001-2019 Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021. 8%
5% 6%
12%
15%
16%
28% 28%
23%
37%
26%
20%
14%
18% 18%
1%
5%
8%
1%
4%
9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Owner Occupied Units
Units Valued Less than $250k Units Valued $250k-$500k
Units Valued $500k-$750k Units Valued $750k-$1M
Units Valued $1M-$1.5M Units Valued $1M-$2M
Units Valued $2M+
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Bay Area Alameda County Union City
City Council/RSA Agenda 524 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-30 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Average Monthly Rents
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many Bay Area renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color.

Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

Figure 2-28 displays the change in median contract rents in Union City, Alameda County, and the Bay Area from 2009-2019. As shown in the figure, median rents in Union City have increased at a faster rate than in the county and in the Bay Area. Median rents in Union City increased by 72.8 percent since 2009, from $1,186 to $2,050 per month. In Alameda County, the median rent increased by 56.2 percent, from $1,083 to $1,692, and the median rent in the Bay Area increased from $1,196 to $1,849, which is a 54.6 percent increase.3 Figure 2-28: Median Contract Rent, Union City, Alameda County, Bay Area, 2009-2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015- 2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

In 2019, monthly rents in Union City ranged from $1,500 to $2,500, with the highest majority (32.0 percent) being in the $1,500-$2,000 range (see Figure 2-29). Since 2019, rents have continued to increase in Union City, throughout the Bay Area, and the state. Table 2-7 displays monthly median rents in Union City as of November 2022. Rents in Union City are in the upper $2,000-3,500 range.

While rents are in line with Bay Area trends, they are far above fair market rent levels. 3 Rental data is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year Data Estimates. $1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
$2,200
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
City Council/RSA Agenda 525 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-31 Figure 2-29: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, Union City, Alameda County, Bay Area, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

TABLE 2-7: MEDIAN MONTHLY RENTS, UNION CITY (2022)
Bedrooms in Unit Average Rent
Studio $2,448
1 Bedroom $2,467
2 Bedrooms $2,619
3 Bedrooms $3,500
4 Bedrooms $4,168
Source: Zumper.com, November 2022.

Housing Cost Burden
This section provides an analysis of the proportion of households overpaying for housing. Current standards measure housing cost in relation to gross household income; households spending more than 30 percent of their income, including utilities, are generally considered to be overpaying or cost burdened. Severe overpayment occurs when households pay 50 percent or more of their gross income for housing. For owners housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.

The impact of high housing costs falls disproportionately on extremely low-, very low-, and lowincome households, especially renter households. Lower-income households are defined as those that earn 80 percent or less of the area median household income (AMI). While some higher-income households may choose to spend a greater proportion of their income on housing, lower-income 3%
6% 6%
4%
12%
10%
8%
22%
19%
32%
25%
23%
27%
17% 17% 16%
11% 12%
9%
7%
13%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Rental Units
Rent less than $500 Rent $500-$1000 Rent $1000-$1500
Rent $1500-$2000 Rent $2000-$2500 Rent $2500-$3000
Rent $3000 or more
City Council/RSA Agenda 526 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-32 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 households may be limited by a lack of affordable housing. Low-income households frequently have insufficient resources for other critical essentials including food and medicine. This is a significant hardship for many workers, families, and seniors, but it also impacts local economies as money that might otherwise be spent in local stores generating sales tax revenues is being spent on housing.

In Union City, 20.2 percent of all households are cost burdened, spending 30-50 percent of their income on housing, while 13.3 percent of households are severely cost burdened, spending 50 percent or more of their income on housing. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 2-30). For example, 61.3 percent of Union City households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Union City residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, just 0.8 percent are severely cost-burdened, and 88.0 percent of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing.

Figure 2-30: Cost Burden by Income Level, Union City, 2019 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Union City, 28.1 percent of renters are cost burdened, spending 30-50 percent of their income on housing compared to 17.5 percent of those that own (see Figure 2-31).

Additionally, 16.6 percent of renters are severely cost burdened, spending 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 9.4 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened.

To further reflect this trend, Figure 2-32 displays that 50 percent of lower income renters in the city had severe cost burden in 2019 (1,338 households). Moreover, 58 percent of lower-income homeowners 380
(19%)
643
(29%)
1,240
(44%)
654
(30%)
1,315
(11%)
1,195
(61%)
914
(41%)
429
(15%)
143
(7%)
98 (1%)
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Number of Households
50%+ of Income Used for
Housing
30%-50% of Income Used for
Housing
City Council/RSA Agenda 527 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-33 were paying more than 30 percent of their monthly incomes on housing costs. (Note: Figure 2-32 uses more recent CHAS data and therefore does not align with the data shown in Figure 2-30.) Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Black or African American, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 29.7 percent spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing, and American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with 33.6 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (see Figure 2-33).

Figure 2-31: Cost Burden by Tenure, Union City, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.
2,500
(18%) 2,129
(28%)
1,338
(9%) 1,258
(17%)
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Number of Households
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing City Council/RSA Agenda 528 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-34 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-32: Cost Burdened Lower-Income Households by Tenure, Union City, 2019 Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release.

Figure 2-33: Cost Burden by Race, Union City, 2017
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021. 920
(39%)
1,360
(58%)
2,280
1,175
(50%)
970
(41%)
2,145
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Renter Households Owner Households Total
Households
Cost burden > 30% Cost burden > 50%
12%
18%
30%
19% 20% 24% 34%
11%
25%
13%
14%
14%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
American
Indian or
Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or
African
American,
Non-Hispanic
White, NonHispanicOther Race or
Multiple
Races, NonHispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
Percent of Households
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing City Council/RSA Agenda 529 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-35 Special Housing Needs
Within the general population there are several groups of people who have special housing needs.

These needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The following subsections discuss these special housing needs of six groups identified in State Housing Element Law (Government Code, Section 65583(a)(7): large households, families with single-headed households, senior households, persons with disabilities, persons in need of emergency shelter, and farmworkers. This section also describes the housing needs for extremely low-income households. Where possible, it also describes the programs and resources in Union City and Alameda County that are available for special needs groups in Union City.

Large Households
HUD defines a large household as one with five or more members. Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households due to income and housing stock constraints.

The most critical housing need of large households is access to larger housing and rental units with more bedrooms than a standard three-bedroom dwelling.

About 18 percent of all households in Union City have five or more members (approximately 4,012 households) and most large households are owner occupied (60 percent) (see Figure 2-34). Large households are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms.

Figure 2-34: Household Size by Tenure, Union City, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021. 1,421 4,466 3,019 2,933 2,442 1,092 1,977 1,527 1,405 1,570 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
1 Person
Household
2 Person
Household
3 Person
Household
4 Person
Household
5 Or More
Person
Household
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
City Council/RSA Agenda 530 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-36 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 In 2017, 16 percent of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50 percent of the AMI. In addition, about 20 percent of large family households spend between 30-50 percent of their income on housing. This is considered overpayment and cost burdened by housing. An additional 7 percent of large family households spend more than half of their income on housing and are severely cost burdened. In comparison, about 20 percent of all households are cost burdened by housing costs in Union City and 15 percent of households spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing (see Figure 2-35).

The unit sizes available in a community can be telling of the households that can access that community. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households that rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions or cost burdened by housing costs in order to afford a unit that is large enough to accommodate the family’s needs.

There are 15,104 units with three or more bedrooms in Union City. Among occupied units with three or more bedrooms, 81 percent are owner-occupied, and 19 percent are renter occupied (see Figure 2-36). Based on this data, the City concludes that there is a sufficient availability of units suitable for large households.

Figure 2-35: Cost Burden by Household Size, Union City, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021. 3,458
(20%)
774
20%
2,504
(15%)
275
(7%)
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
All other household types Large Family 5+ persons
Number of Households
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing City Council/RSA Agenda 531 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-37 Figure 2-36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Union City, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Families with Single-Headed Households
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least one dependent, which could include a related or unrelated child, or an elderly parent. Femaleheaded households have special housing needs because they are often either single-parents or single-elderly adults living on low- or poverty-level incomes. Single-parent households with children often require special consideration and assistance as a result of their greater need for affordable housing, accessible day care, health care, and a variety of other supportive services. Single-parent households also tend to receive unequal treatment in the rental housing market. Moreover, because of their relatively lower household incomes, single-parent households are more likely to experience difficulties in finding affordable, decent, and safe housing.

Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. In addition, female-headed households may encounter subtle forms of housing discrimination. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

Figure 2-37 displays the composition of households in Union City. The largest proportion of households in the city are married-couple families (67 percent). Female-headed households account for 11 percent of the households in the city. This is about 2,442 households. The percentage of female-headed households in the city is similar to the rest of the county and Bay Area, 11 percent and 10 percent respectively.

Nearly half (48 percent) of all female-headed households have a child residing in the home. Of female-headed households with children, 12 percent (141 households) fall below the Federal Poverty Line compared to 2 percent of female-headed households without children (see Figure 2-38). 130 74 1,847 11,096 1,134 260 1,6672,770 2,769 105 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0 Bedrooms 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3-4 Bedrooms 5 Or More Bedrooms
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
City Council/RSA Agenda 532 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-38 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-37: Household Composition, Union City, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021.

Figure 2-38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status, Union City, 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012. ABAG/HCD Preapproved Data Package, April 2021. 11% 11% 10%
6% 5% 5%
67%
51% 51%
5%
9% 9%
12%
24% 25%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Female-Headed Family Households Male-headed Family Households Married-couple Family Households Other Non-Family Households Single-person Households
1,044
1,230
141
27 0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Female-Headed Households with
Children
Female-Headed Households with No
Children
Households
Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level
City Council/RSA Agenda 533 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-39 Through local and county wide programs single female heads of household have access to supportive childcare services, youth services, health services and job/employment services. Some childcare organizations that provide services are Child, Family, and Community Services (CFCS), Community Child Care Council (4Cs), and Kidango. The City also provides Youth and Family Services through organizations like the Union City Family Center, Union City Teen/Youth Programs, Union City Youth and Family Services, Eden Youth and Family Center, New Haven Schools Foundation, The Village Method, and Filipino Advocates for Justice. Many additional social services can be found on the City’s website: https://www.unioncity.org/234/Social-Services.

Senior Households
Seniors are defined as persons 65 years and older and senior households are those households headed by a person 65 years and older. Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions, and/or reduced mobility.

Seniors made up 11.8 percent of the total population in 2019 (approximately 4,052 households).

About 73 percent of senior households own their home compared to 26 percent who rent. Higher homeownership rates among the senior population indicate a need for programs to help seniors age in place. It could also indicate a need for smaller homes to allow seniors to downsize.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent are extremely low- income (i.e., make less than 30 percent of AMI), while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners make more than 100 percent of AMI (see Figure 2-39).

Figure 2-39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, Union City, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021. 54% 70% 74%
80%
88%
46%
30%
26%
20%
12%
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
City Council/RSA Agenda 534 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-40 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be costburdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. Almost half (49 percent) of extremely low-income seniors are spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, a large majority (82.9 percent) are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing (see Figure 2-40).

Figure 2-40: Cost-burdened Senior Households by Income Level, Union City, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Various programs can help meet the needs of seniors, including, but not limited to, congregate care, supportive services, rental subsidies, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. The City provides access to services through local and countywide programs that are available for seniors and target needs like legal aid, resources for independent living, food/meal programs, and general senior support to ensure they continue to be able to live independently. Some senior service providers include the Bay Area Community Services (BACS), Centro de Servicios, City of Fremont — Senior Support program, Friendship Line, Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL), Legal Assistance for Seniors, Spectrum Community Services, and Ruggieri Senior Center. Many of the City’s senior services can be found on the City’s website: https://www.unioncity.org/234/Social-Services.

For senior residents with disabilities, housing with features that accommodate disabilities can help ensure continued independent living. Seniors with mobility or self-care limitations also benefit from 220
(23%) 124
(16%)
80 (12%)
65 (19%)
185
(14%)
470
(49%)
269
(34%) 194
(29%) 28
(8%)
34 (2%)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Number of Households
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing City Council/RSA Agenda 535 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-41 easily accessible transportation options. Housing developments with these accommodations and amenities can provide an option for aging seniors to continue to live independently.

Union City also has three affordable, privately-owned senior rental projects with a total of 209 affordable units. More information on these properties can be found in Table 2-11 which displays subsidized and restricted affordable housing projects.

There are currently (May 2022) 3,522 applications on the housing voucher program waiting lists.

The waiting list is currently (May 2022) closed, but Alameda County Housing Authority anticipates opening some individual Project Based Voucher (PBV) wait lists by the end of the calendar year.

Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs because of their physical and/or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs associated with their disabilities. A disability is defined broadly by the Census Bureau as a physical, mental, or emotional condition that lasts over a long period of time and makes it difficult to live independently. Many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care. Through local and countywide programs, the City provides services for persons with disabilities and targets needs like legal aid, resources for independent living, transit needs, and advocacy programs to ensure they continue to be able to live independently. Some service providers for the population with disabilities include The Arc of Alameda County, Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL), Deaf Counseling Advocacy and Referral Agency (DCARA), East Bay Paratransit, and the Regional Center of East Bay.

Many of the City’s disabled services can be found on the City’s website:
https://www.unioncity.org/234/Social-Services.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 2-41 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Union City. Overall, 8 percent of people in Union City have a disability of any kind.4 This percentage is in line with the proportion of people with disabilities in the county (9 percent) and the Bay Area region (10 percent). 4 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

City Council/RSA Agenda 536 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-42 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-41: Disability by Type, Union City, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Developmental Disabilities
State law also requires housing elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. A "developmental disability" is defined as a disability that originates before an individual becomes 18 years old, continues or can be expected to continue indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. This includes intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.

According to data from the California Department of Developmental Services 740 residents in Union City had a developmental disability in 2020. As shown in Table 2-8, there were 482 children under the age of 18 and 258 adults with developmental disabilities. The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Union City is the home of parent /family /guardian.

Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL), a Hayward-based, nonprofit organization, serves people with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities throughout Southern Alameda County, including residents of Union City.

4.37% 4.27%

3.12%

2.48% 2.40%

1.31%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a
cognitive
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With a hearing
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
City Council/RSA Agenda 537 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-43 TABLE 2-8: POPULATION WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE, UNION CITY, 2020
Residence Type Number of People
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 487
Community Care Facility 222
Independent /Supported Living 19
Other 5
Foster /Family Home 5
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020). ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Housing Needs for Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities in Union City have different housing needs depending on the nature and severity of the disability. Physically disabled persons generally require modifications to their housing units, such as wheelchair ramps, elevators or lifts, wide doorways, accessible cabinetry, and modified fixtures and appliances. If a disability prevents a person from operating a vehicle, then proximity to services and access to public transportation are particularly important. If a disability prevents an individual from working or limits income, then the cost of housing and the costs of modifications are likely to be even more challenging. Those with severe physical or mental disabilities may also require supportive housing, nursing facilities, or care facilities. In addition, many disabled people rely solely on Social Security Income, which is insufficient for market rate housing.

Living arrangements for disabled persons depend on the severity of the disability. Many persons live independently with other family members. To maintain independent living, disabled persons may need special housing design features, income support, and in-home supportive services for persons with medical conditions. Special design and other considerations for persons with disabilities include single-level units, availability of services, group living opportunities, and proximity to transit. While regulations adopted by the State require all ground floor units of new apartment complexes with five or more units to be accessible to persons with disabilities, single family units have no accessibility requirements.

Many of the affordable housing projects in Union City have accommodations for persons with physical disabilities. Dyer Complex and Nidas Court, the two public housing projects operated by PACH Inc., offer units to both senior and disabled persons. Adrienne Village Apartments offers four wheelchair accessible units and Mission Gateway, Greenhaven, Mission Sierra, Rosewood Terrace, and Wisteria Place each offer accessible units.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Most families become homeless because they are unable to afford housing in a particular community. Nationwide, about half of those experiencing homelessness over the course of a year are single adults. Most enter and exit the system fairly quickly. The remainder lives in the homeless assistance system, or in a combination of shelters, hospitals, the streets, jails, and prisons.

City Council/RSA Agenda 538 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-44 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Not all homeless people are the same, but many fall under several categories: the mentally ill, alcohol and drug users, vagrants, elderly, runaways and abandoned youths, single women with children who might be fleeing domestic violence, individuals and families who have recently lost jobs, as well as the working poor — those with jobs but whose income is too small to afford housing. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances.

Although each category has different specific needs, the most urgent need is for emergency shelter and case management (i.e., help with accessing needed services). Emergency shelters have minimal supportive services for homeless persons and are limited to occupancy of six months or less. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

For many, supportive housing, transitional housing, long-term rental assistance, and/or greater availability of low-income rental units are also needed. Supportive housing has no limit on length of stay and is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents in retaining housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

Transitional housing is usually in buildings configured as rental housing developments but operated with State programs that require the unit to be cycled to other eligible program recipients after some pre-determined amount of time. Transitional housing programs provide extended shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and/or families with the goal of helping them live independently and transition into permanent housing. Some programs require that the individual/family be transitioning from a short-term emergency shelter. The length of stay varies considerably by program but is generally longer than two weeks and can last up to 60 days or more. In many cases transitional housing programs will provide services for up to two years or more. The supportive services may be provided directly by the organization managing the housing or by other public or private agencies in a coordinated effort with the housing provider. Transitional housing is generally provided in apartment style facilities with a higher degree of privacy than short-term homeless shelters may be provided at no cost to the resident, and may be configured for specialized groups within the homeless population such as people with substance abuse problems, the mentally ill, domestic violence victims, veterans, or people with HIV/AIDS.

Alameda County Housing and Community Development
Beginning in 2003, Alameda County Housing and Community Development has been conducting a biennial point-in-time homeless count (PIT). In 2022, a total of 7,135 individuals were experiencing homelessness in the county, nearly double the number of individuals counted in 2017 (see Figure 2-42). A total of 489 homeless persons were counted in Union City, all of which were unsheltered.

This represents 7.0 percent of the total population of people experiencing homelessness in the county.

A review of the unsheltered population by location shows that Union City had a 69 percent increase in the number of individuals living in a car/van, compared to a 32 percent increase in the county.

In 2019, the most common types of households experiencing homelessness in Alameda County are those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 84 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelters (see Figure 2-43). See Chapter 4 for additional information on homelessness in Union City and in Alameda County.

City Council/RSA Agenda 539 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-45 Figure 2-42: Total Homeless Population in Alameda County, 2009-2022 Source: EveryOne Home, 2009-2019 Alameda County Homeless Count Reports.

Figure 2-43: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Alameda County, 2019 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I). ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities 4,341 4,178 4,264 4,040
5,629
8,022
7,135
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022
16 4 9
322 175 27
825
368
6,276
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter Sheltered - Transitional
Housing
Unsheltered
People in Households Composed Solely of Children Under 18 People in Households with Adults and Children
People in Households without Children Under 18
City Council/RSA Agenda 540 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-46 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In 2019, Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents in Alameda County accounted for 47.3 percent of the homeless population, while making up 10.6 percent of the overall population. Latinx residents represent 17.3 percent of the population experiencing homelessness in the county, while Latinx residents comprise 22.5 percent of the general population (see Figure 2-44).

Figure 2-44: Race and Ethnicity of Homeless Populations vs General Population, Alameda County, 2019 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I). ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

In Alameda County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 2,590 reporting this condition in 2019 (see Figure 2-45). Of those, some 78.3 percent were unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

3.75%

3.17%

47.27%

31.36%

14.45%

17.29%

0.67%

30.98%

10.61%

40.46%

17.28%

22.45%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
American Indian or Alaska Native
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Black or African American (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic/Latinx
Percent of Population
Share of Overall Population Share of Homeless Population City Council/RSA Agenda 541 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-47 Figure 2-45: Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Alameda County, 2019 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019). ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

In Union City, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 106 during the 2019-20 school year, an increase of 20.5 percent since the 2016-17 school year but a decrease from more recent years (see Table 2-9). By comparison, Alameda County has seen an 18.7 percent decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5 percent. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longerterm negative effects. The number of students in Union City experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 3.7 percent of the Alameda County total and 0.8 percent of the Bay Area total.

TABLE 2-9: STUDENTS IN LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, UNION CITY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, AND BAY AREA, 2016-2020
Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Union City 88 157 191 106
Alameda County 3,531 3,309 3,182 2,870
Bay Area 14,990 15,142 15,427 13,718
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

The following is a list of agencies operating support services, emergency shelters, and transitional and supportive housing in Union City and the surrounding area:
 2-1-1. Alameda County’s Homeless Coordinated Entry System for residents who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to get connected to the Coordinated Entry System and get immediate assistance.
253
27 368
39 90 90 11
195 108 32
1,554
169
2,027
545
385
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Chronic Substance
Abuse
HIV/AIDS Severely Mentally
Ill
Veterans Victim of
Domestic Violence
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter Sheltered - Transitional Housing Unsheltered City Council/RSA Agenda 542 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-48 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031  Centro de Servicios, Union City. Centro de Servicios has assisted more than 800 families and individuals every month since its inception in 1974. This nonprofit corporation is a major service provider for the homeless population in Alameda County’s Tri-City area. The center provides basic necessities, such as food, clothing, and blankets as well as referrals, counseling, job listings, and workshops to its clients. The organization's major source of funding is Union City's CDBG Program. Recently celebrating 40 years of operations, Centro de Servicios serves over 1,300 families per month, out of multiple locations. Staff estimates that they assist at least 20-50 homeless or at-risk clients from Union City per week. Most (80 percent) of these clients are Latino. Many live in substandard housing, in their cars, or at local parks and campgrounds. Staff makes referrals to nearby shelters, especially Sunrise Village in Fremont and Second Chance in Newark.
 Second Chance Addiction Recovery. Second Chance is a counseling and recovery agency that operates five outpatient centers in addition to a short-term emergency shelter. They have locations in Newark, Hayward, Phoenix, and the Tri-City area. The emergency shelter has 30 beds for single men, women, and for families. Addiction recovery services are provided on-site and there is not typically a waiting list to receive treatment and recovery services.  Abode Services (formerly known as Tri-City Homeless Coalition), Fremont. Abode Services operates nearly 60 primary programs across six counties and has experienced dramatic growth in response to the increasing need for affordable housing and services for homeless people. Abode Services works to provide housing and services to homeless people in the community as they work to help people remain stably housed and live as independently as possible. In 2021 they served 14,700 adults and children across their programs. In Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, Abode offers three main types of services: emergency shelter and street outreach services, supportive housing for formerly homeless families and individuals, and supportive services, such as mental health services and employment support. They provide extensive services to Tri-City residents, including permanent supportive housing, emergency shelter and services at Sunrise Village Emergency Shelter in Fremont, and social and health services though the HOPE Project Mobile Health Clinic. Their programs serve a wide variety of people, including families with children, at risk youth exiting foster care, veterans and their families, and people who are chronically homeless. In 2021, 5,542 participants throughout Alameda County received support.
 Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL), Hayward. CRIL offers independent living services at no charge to persons with disabilities living in southern and eastern Alameda County. Through their Housing Assistance services, CRIL provides education and assistance for those seeking housing, and to identify resources that support independent living, negotiate with landlords, improve credit, and understand tenant rights. CRIL does not own housing or run its own residential facility. CRIL hosts a weekly Housing search workshop in Hayward, monthly workshops in Fremont and on an appointment basis in Livermore.  Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments (SAVE). SAVE is a non-profit community-based organization founded in 1976 to address domestic violence. They provide supportive services, advocacy and education, and a 25-bed safe house for families fleeing abuse. From 2020 to 2021, 1,265 participants received critical services from SAVE. SAVE also provided shelter to 98 women and children and provided rent subsidies and ongoing case management to 60 families in the Housing First Program.

City Council/RSA Agenda 543 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-49  Family Emergency Shelter Coalition (FESCO), Hayward. FESCO is currently comprised of over 22 churches/community members in Mid-Alameda County, most located in Hayward. The coalition operates one emergency shelter and one transitional housing facility. Les Marquis House, the emergency shelter, has 23 beds and serves about 120 adults and over 200 children per year. FESCO also operates the Banyan House, a transitional housing facility, with 28 beds for six months to a maximum of eight homeless families who need extra time to gain employment or attend school/vocational training. FESCO also provides linkage to independent housing, benefits acquisition, and other services such as healthcare for up to 60 days. In 2020, FESCO housed 55 families, made up of 157 parents and children. About 56 of those parents and children obtained permanent housing, including 92 percent of Banyan House graduates.  Emergency Shelter Program, Hayward. The City of Hayward operates at least six emergency shelter facilities totaling 114 total shelter beds. The Emergency Shelter Program is a specific non-profit agency in Hayward operating one of Alameda County’s most established shelters for victims of domestic violence and homelessness. The agency operates a 32-bed shelter for women and children and a childcare center. The shelter serves approximately 220-260 women and children each year and provides referrals for over 5,000 women and children per year.  Housing Navigation Center, Hayward. Bay Area Community Services (BACS), a local non-profit, runs the center and provides 24/7 staffing. The Navigation Center at Whitesell Street and Depot Road offers short-term housing for up to 45 people at a time in dormitory settings with one meal a day, on-site restroom, shower, laundry and kitchen facilities, and intensive case management geared toward long-term housing placements. All guests of the center must be 18 years and over.

Union City is working in a collaborative effort with the service providers listed above and the County of Alameda to provide housing and supportive services to people experiencing homelessness through its ongoing funding of Abode Services, Centro de Servicios, Tri-City Volunteers, and Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments (SAVE), as well as its participation in the EveryOne Home program.

Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market. The Bay Area has an extraordinarily rich and diverse food system that is an integral part of the region’s economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, regional identity, and vibrant cultural life. With an annual value of around $113 billion, the food economy employs close to half a million people, around 13 percent of the region’s workforce. However, the average wage is 64 percent lower than the average regional wage.5 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Alameda County has decreased since 2002, totaling 305 in 2017. The number of seasonal farm workers has also decreased, totaling 288 in 2017 (see Figure 2-46). 5 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2017. The Bay Area Food Economy: Existing Conditions and Strategies for Resilience. White paper. Produced by Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE) and American Farmland Trust (AFT), with support from BAE Urban Economics, for the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ba_food_economy_white_paper_final.pdf.

City Council/RSA Agenda 544 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-50 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 In Union City, the migrant worker student population totaled 111 during the 2019-20 school year (see Table 2-10). This is a decrease of 17.8 percent since the 2016-17 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4 percent in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 14.1 percent decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.

TABLE 2-10: MIGRANT WORKER STUDENT POPULATION, 2016-2020 Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Union City 135 150 110 111
Alameda County 874 1,037 785 790
Bay Area 4,630 4,607 4,075 3,976
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Data is not available at the city level in the USDA Agricultural Census; however, according to the 2017 ACS, there were 51 employees in the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining industry living in Union City. This increased to 88 employees in 2019. Based on this data, the City assumes a relatively low need for dedicated farmworker housing in the city. Farmworkers living in urban areas of the county often have similar needs for affordable rental housing as other lower-wage earners.

Figure 2-46: Permanent and Seasonal Farm Labor, Alameda County, 2002-2017 Note: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor.

ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.
577
369
465
737
355
449
305 288
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Permanent Seasonal
Farm Workers
2002 2007 2012 2017
City Council/RSA Agenda 545 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-51 Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as households with incomes under 30 percent of the County’s median income. In 2021, an individual earning $28,800 or a family of four making $41,100 or less would be classified as ELI in Union City. This income equates to a wage of $13.85 per hour for a single-wage earner or $19.76 per hour for the head of household in a family of four.

Union City does not have a locally adopted minimum wage and defers to the State minimum wage of $14.00 per hour. An extremely low-income individual could presumably afford a monthly rent of $720 a month while an extremely low-income family of four could presumably afford a monthly housing cost of $1,028 a month. As described in the Housing Affordability section of this chapter, the median rent in Union City is about $2,050 per month according to ACS, almost triple what an ELI individual could afford alone and double what an ELI family could afford.

Extremely low-income households typically consist of minimum wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes, persons with disabilities, and farmworkers. This income group is likely to live in overcrowded and substandard housing conditions. This group of households has specific housing needs that require greater government subsidies and assistance, housing with supportive services, single room occupancy (SRO) and/or shared housing, and/or rental subsidies or vouchers. The City provides access to services through local and countywide programs that are available to extremely low-income households including childcare services, youth services, job/employment services, food/meal programs, health services, and other services. Some childcare organizations that provide services include Child, Family, and Community Services (CFCS), Community Child Care Council (4Cs), and Kidango. The City also provides Youth and Family services through organizations like the Union City Family Center, Union City Teen/Youth Programs, Union City Youth and Family Services, Eden Youth and Family Center, New Haven Schools Foundation, The Village Method, and Filipino Advocates for Justice. Many additional social services can be found on the City’s website: https://www.unioncity.org/234/Social-Services.

In recent years rising rents, higher income and credit standards imposed by landlords, and insufficient government assistance has exacerbated the problem. Without adequate assistance this group has a high risk of homelessness. ELI households may also have mental or other disabilities and special needs, making it even harder to secure housing.

According to HUD’s 2013-2017 CHAS data, 1,940 households (approximately 9.3 percent of the City’s total households) were ELI households in Union City. Most ELI households (57 percent) rent their homes (see Figure 2-47). About 81 percent of ELI households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing, including 62 percent who paid more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing (Figure 2-48).

Virtually all ELI households are expected to need aid, including housing cost subsidies and social services. State law requires the City to identify the projected need for ELI housing. The City assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income housing need (see Regional Housing Needs Allocation Section for more details in Chapter 3) is equal to the ELI housing need. As such, there is a projected need for 431 ELI housing units during the planning period.

City Council/RSA Agenda 546 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-52 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 2-47: Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure, Union City, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Figure 2-48: Extremely Low-Income Households and Level of Cost Burden, Union City, 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG/HCD Pre-approved Data Package, April 2021.

Assisted Housing Projects Eligible for Conversion
While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing. 43%
57%
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
374 380
1,195
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0%-30% of Income Used for
Housing
30%-50% of Income Used for
Housing
50%+ of Income Used for
Housing
City Council/RSA Agenda 547 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-53 State law requires that housing elements include an inventory of all publicly assisted multifamily rental housing projects within the local jurisdiction that are at risk of conversion to market-rate housing or any other uses other than low-income residential within 10 years from the Housing Element adoption deadline (i.e., by January 2033). Rent-restricted housing in Union City includes both publicly subsidized affordable housing, generally assisted with any combination of federal, state, local, and/or private subsidies, and deed-restricted rental units provided through the City’s affordable housing program (shown in Table 2-11).

Table 2-11 below presents the inventory of affordable rental housing in Union City that has received some form of public assistance. Of the multifamily housing complexes in Union City that receive government assistance, as shown in Table 2-11, three developments containing a total of 206 units are considered “at risk” of conversion to market rate housing by 2033 (Los Robles, Mission Sierra, and Skylark Apartments). Los Robles is currently owned and operated by a non-profit dedicated to developing, managing, and promoting affordable housing, so the risk of conversion to market rate is low. Mission Sierra and Skylark Apartments are both owned and operated by private real estate firms, so once the affordability period expires in 2029, these units have a greater potential to convert to market rate. The City is assessing how to preserve these units through State and Federal preservation and rehabilitation programs like FHA Mortgage Insurance to refinance multifamily properties and rehabilitate them in order to maintain their affordability; the Market-toMarket program in order to preserve affordability of low-income multifamily properties with federally insured programs; renewal of the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract; or Resyndication6 of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) to preserve affordability.

Preservation Options for At-Risk Properties
State law requires that housing elements include a comparison of the costs to replace the at-risk units through new construction or to preserve the at-risk units. Preserving at-risk units can be accomplished by facilitating a transfer of ownership to a qualified affordable housing organization, purchasing the affordability covenants, and/or providing rental assistance to tenants. Each of these options is described below.

Acquisition and Rehabilitation
One method of ensuring long-term affordability of low-income units is to transfer ownership to a qualified nonprofit or for-profit affordable housing organization. This transfer would make the project eligible for re-financing using affordable housing financing programs, such as low-income housing tax credits and tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. These financing programs would ensure affordability for at least 55 years. Generally, rehabilitation often accompanies a transfer of ownership.

Based on listings of for-sale multifamily developments in Hayward and San Leandro (no listings in Union City were found), a multifamily development might cost about $420,000 per unit on average to acquire. Assuming that renovations cost around $50,000 per unit, the total estimated cost for acquisition and rehabilitation of the 206 at-risk units would be $96.8 million. 6 “Resyndication” is an industry term used to describe a subsequent allocation of Low-Income Housing Credits (LIHTCs) on a qualified project that served as LIHTC housing. When a LIHTC property completes its 15-year compliance period, the ownership entity reserves the option to seek another allocation of LIHTCs if several rules are met.

City Council/RSA Agenda 548 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-54 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 2-11: SUBSIDIZED AND RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, UNION CITY (2022) Name of
Development
Year Built Sponsor
Total
Units
Address
Affordable
Units
Target
Group(s)
Funding
Source(s)
Expiration
Date
At Risk
(Yes or No) Comments
Family Rental Housing
Station Center
Phase 1 and 2
2011 and
2012
MidPen 157 11th Street and
Cheeves Way
155 Very LowIncomeRDA, HACA,
HCD, California
Community
Reinvestment
Corporation
2066 for
phase 1
(100 units)
and 2067
for phase 2
(57 units)
No Achieved LEED Platinum
Certification by the US
Build It Green Building
Council. Won the
prestigious 2013 Urban
Land Institute (ULI)
Global Award for
Excellence and Congress
for the New Urbanism
2014 Grand Prize
Los Robles 1972--
Preserved
in 1996
EAH Housing
purchased under
Title VI program
in 1996
140 32300 Almaden
Blvd.
140 Very Low- and
Low-Income
Families
Section 8
contract for 40
apartments,
Section 236 for
remaining units
Renewed
annually
Yes Consists of 2-, 3-, 4-, and
5-bedroom apartments
with a community room.

Completed substantial
renovation of units and
facilities in 2014
Mission
Gateway
Apartments
2004 MidPen 120 33155 Mission
Blvd.
120 Very Low-and
Low-Income
Families
CalHFA, private
funding,
Redevelopment
Funds
2059 No 120 units built through a
public-private partnership.

Amenities include
common area,
community hall, pool, and
other recreation areas.

Mission Sierra 1986 Legacy Partners 150 3464 Mission
Blvd.
31 Lower-Income
Families
Bond financing 2029 Yes Includes a pool, Jacuzzi,
and two wheelchair
accessible apartments.

Skylark Apts. 1986 Equity Residential
Properties
176 34655 Skylark
Dr.
35 Lower-Income
Families
Bond financing 2029 Yes Includes a pool, hot tub,
and covered parking.

E Street Housing 1992-
1997
Housing Authority 1 scattered sites
in Decoto
1 Very LowIncome
Families
RDA Renewed
continually
No Consists of large SF, 4-
bedroom homes
managed by Housing
Authority.

SUBTOTAL 744 485
City Council/RSA Agenda 549 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-55 TABLE 2-11: SUBSIDIZED AND RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, UNION CITY (2022) Name of
Development
Year Built Sponsor
Total
Units
Address
Affordable
Units
Target
Group(s)
Funding
Source(s)
Expiration
Date
At Risk
(Yes or No) Comments
Senior Rental Housing
Rosewood
Terrace
1999 Eden Housing
Development
Corp
45 33935 Alvarado
Niles Rd.
45 Very LowIncome
Seniors
HUD Section
202, HOME,
CDBG,
Redevelopment
Funds
2040 No All are wheelchair
accessible. Includes a
community room.

Vintage Court
Senior Apts.
1998 USA Multifamily,
Inc.
125 2499 Decoto 125 Lower-Income
Seniors
Low Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2053 No Pool, spa
Wisteria Place 2004 Eden Housing
Development
Corp
40 33821
Alvarado-Niles
Road
39 Very LowIncome
Seniors
HUD Section
202; Section 8.
2034 No One-bedroom
apartments
SUBTOTAL 210 209
Restricted Ownership Housing
Ryland Glen 2001 Private
developers
6 Glenwood
Terrace
6 3 Low-, 3
ModerateIncome
Developer
Write Down
In
perpetuity,
renewed
upon resale
No Resale restrictions
require sale to other
moderate-income
families.

E Street Housing 1992-
1997
Redevelopment
Agency
8 Scattered sites
in Decoto
8 ModerateIncomeRDA In
perpetuity,
renewed
upon resale
No Resale restrictions
require sale to other
moderate-income
families.

Monte Vista 2001 Private
developers
20 Monterra Circle 20 ModerateIncomeDeveloper
Write Down
In
perpetuity,
renewed
upon resale
No Resale restrictions
require sale to other
moderate-income
families.

SUBTOTAL 34 34
TOTAL 988 728
Source: Union City Economic and Community Development Department, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 550 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-56 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Replacement (New Construction)
New construction is often more expensive than acquisition and rehab. Lazuli Landing, a recently (2022) approved 81-unit affordable complex, is estimated to cost $66 million to build. This totals $819,186 per unit. At this per-unit cost, it would cost $168 million to replace the 206 at-risk units through new construction.

Rent Subsidy
Rent subsidies are a potential method for preserving affordability. Through a variety of funding sources, the City could potentially provide rental vouchers similar to those provided through the Housing Choice Vouchers program (formerly Section 8). The amount of a rent subsidy would be equal to the difference between the HUD defined fair market rent (FMR) for a unit and the cost that would be affordable to a lower-income household based on HUD income limits. Table 2-12 shows this calculation. The total cost to subsidize the 206 at-risk units is estimated at $2.2 million annually, or about $65.8 million over 30 years.

TABLE 2-12: ESTIMATED COST TO SUBSIDIZE RENTS, UNION CITY (2021) Per Unit Affordable Rent1
Unit Size
Total
1BR 2BR 3BR
A Low-Income Rent (60% AMI) $1,413 $1,601 $1,959
B Very Low-Income Rent (50% AMI) $1,178 $1,334 $1,491
C Average (A & B) $1,295 $1,468 $1,725
D Per Unit Fair Market Rent2 $1,934 $2,383 $3,196
E Monthly Per Unit Subsidy (D–C) $639 $915 $1,471
F Annual Subsidy/Unit (E * 12) $7,664 $10,982 $17,648
Total “At Risk” Units3 103 62 41 206
Total Annual Subsidy $789,418 $678,703 $727,108 $2,195,229 1 Affordable rent calculation is based on 1.5 persons per bedroom. 2 2021 HUD Fair Market Rent
3 Assumes 50% of total “At Risk” units are 1-bedroom, 30% are 2-bedroom, and 20% are 3-bedroom.

AMI = Area Median Income
Source: U.S. HUD, Fair Market Rents 2021; Ascent 2022.

Summary of At-Risk Analysis
In summary, the above analysis shows the estimated costs of the different scenarios to be as follows for the 206 at-risk units:
 Acquisition and rehabilitation: $96.8 million
 Replacement: $168 million
 Rent Subsidy: $65 million over 30 years
Replacing or acquiring and rehabilitating at-risk units is costly. While rent subsidies have lower annual costs, the funds required to supplement lost assistance are significant over the long term and there are no available funding programs to provide subsidies. Fortunately, Los Robles is at low City Council/RSA Agenda 551 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 2-57 risk of converting to market rate, and there are Federal and State funding sources available to preserve existing affordable housing projects should this occur. As for Mission Sierra and Skylark Apartments, there is essentially no cost-effective mechanism by which the City can preserve the atrisk units. City staff works with property management to ensure fair transition of affordable to market rate units and offers funding to extend the life of affordable units as long as possible.

California Government Code Section 65863.10 requires that owners of Federally assisted properties must provide notice of intent to convert their properties to market rate at twelve months prior to, and again at six months prior to the expiration of their contract, opt-outs, or prepayment.

Owners must provide notices of intent to public agencies, including HCD, the local public housing authority, and to all impacted tenant households. The six-month notice must include specific information on the owner’s plans, timetables, and reasons for termination. Under Government Code Section 65863.11, owners of Federally assisted projects must provide a Notice of Opportunity to Submit an Offer to Purchase to Qualified Entities, non-profit or for-profit organizations that agree to preserve the long-term affordability if they should acquire at-risk projects, at least one year before the sale or expiration of use restrictions. Qualified entities have first right of refusal for acquiring at-risk units. Qualified entities are non-profit or for-profit organizations with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk properties that agree to maintain the long-term affordability of projects. Table 2-13 contains a list of qualified entities for Alameda County that could potentially acquire and manage properties if any were to be at risk of converting to market rate in the future. In addition to those listed, there are about 80 more which are qualified to acquire and manage in all counties in California.

TABLE 2-13: QUALIFIED ENTITIES, ALAMEDA COUNTY (2021)
Organization Name Address Telephone
Affordable Housing Associates 1250 Addison St., Ste. G, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510) 649-8500 Alameda Affordable Housing
Corporation 701 Atlantic Ave, Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 747-4343 Bay Area Community Services P. O. Box 2269, Alameda, CA 94621 (510) 613-0330 Christian Church Homes of Northern
California, Inc.
303 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 201
Oakland, CA 94621-1419 (510) 632-6714
Community and Economic
Development Agency
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza., Ste. 5313
Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3502
East Bay Asian Local Development
Corporation 310 Eighth Street, Ste. 200, Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 287-5353 Housing Authority of City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Ave., Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 522-8422 Housing Authority of County of
Alameda 22941 Atherton St., Hayward, CA 94541 (510) 538-8876 Livermore Housing Authority 3203 Leahy Way, Livermore, CA 94550 (925) 447-3600 Northern California Land Trust, Inc. 3126 Shattuck, Berkeley, CA 94501 (510) 548-7878 ROEM Development Corporation 1650 Lafayette Circle, Santa Clara, CA 65050 (408) 984-5600 Satellite Housing Inc. 2526 Martin Luther King., Jr Way Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 647-0700
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, November 2021.

City Council/RSA Agenda 552 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
2-58 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 553 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-1 Chapter 3 | Sites Inventory
Introduction
California law (Government Code Sections 65583 (a)(3)) requires that the Housing Element contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and nonvacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for redevelopment. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.

This chapter presents an inventory of sites within Union City that are suitable for residential development during the planning period of this Housing Element and includes the following:
 Description of the City’s housing target for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA);  Describes the number of residential units in the pipeline of approved projects;  Provides an analysis of capacity on vacant and underutilized sites where housing is an allowed use; and
 Includes information on the availability of infrastructure to support development of housing.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to allocate each region’s share of the statewide housing need to Councils of Governments (COG) based on Department of Finance (DOF) population projections and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional transportation plans. The COG develops a Regional Housing Need Plan (RHNP) allocating the region’s share of the statewide need to cities and counties within the region. The RHNP promotes the following objectives:
 Increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner;
 Promote infill development and socioeconomic equity;
 Protect environmental and agricultural resources; and encourage efficient development patterns; and
 Promote an improved intraregional balance between jobs and housing.

Housing element law recognizes the most critical decisions regarding housing development occur at the local level within the context of the periodically updated general plan.

City Council/RSA Agenda 554 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-2 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 On December 16, 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted the 2023-2031 RHNA Plan. Through the RHNA Plan, ABAG allocates a “fair share” by income category based on projected housing need for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction is required to report to HCD on how the fair share allocation can be accommodated within the planning period. The allocations are intended to be used by jurisdictions when updating their housing elements as the basis for assuring that adequate sites and zoning are available to accommodate at least the number of units allocated.

Table 3-1 shows the RHNA assigned to Union City for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. It should be noted that the RHNA projection period is June 30, 2022 – December 31, 2030, which differs slightly from the Housing Element planning period of January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031. As shown in the table, ABAG allocated 2,728 new housing units to Union City, which includes 862 very low-, 496 low-, 382 moderate-, and 988 above moderate-income units.

TABLE 3-1: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION, UNION CITY (2023-2031) Very LowIncome Units1Low-Income
Units
ModerateIncome Units
Above
ModerateIncome UnitsTotal Units
2023-2031 RHNA 862 496 382 988 2,728
1 Extremely low-income allocation is equal to 50 percent of very low-income allocation (431 units).

Source: Association of Bay Area Council of Governments (ABAG), Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan:

San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031 (Adopted December 2021).

State law also requires the City to identify the projected need for extremely low-income housing. The City assumes that 50 percent of the very low-income housing need is equal to the extremely lowincome housing need. As such, there is a projected need for 431 extremely low-income housing units.

Approved Residential Projects
There are several residential developments that have been approved and are expected to be built during the RNHA projection period (June 30, 2022 – December 31, 2030). Table 3-2 provides a description of each of the approved projects within Union City. Figure 3-1, on page 3-15, shows the location of these projects within the city.

Only projects with deed-restricted affordable units are counted toward the lower-income RHNA.

This includes units in the 100 percent affordable housing development, like Lazuli Landing, being developed by MidPen Housing, or inclusionary housing units that are required of market rate housing developments. Projects that include market-rate multifamily rental units are conservatively assumed to meet a 50/50 mix of moderate- and above moderate-income housing needs based on an analysis showing that market rate rents in recently built multifamily developments are generally affordable to moderate-income households (see Table 3-3 below). Projects that include marketrate single-family units or other ownership units, such as townhomes or condominiums, are assumed to meet the above-moderate-income RHNA.

As shown in Table 3-2, there are a total of 1,491 units in approved projects including: 29 extremely low-, 69 very low-, 104 low-, 440 moderate-, and 849 above moderate-income units. A brief description of each development project is below.

City Council/RSA Agenda 555 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-3 TABLE 3-2: APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNION CITY (AS OF JUNE 2022) Project General
Plan/Zoning Type of Units Status
Total
Units
Total Units by Income Description

ELI VLI LI MOD AM
Approved Projects
Lazuli Landing
Corridor
Mixed Use
(CMU)
100% affordable
rental units
Approved in 2020;
received AHSC grant
in 2022; is pursuing
additional grant
funding for gap
financing.
81 16 36 28 1
100 percent deed-restricted affordable housing
development by MidPen; (80 lower-income, 1
managers unit).

Station East
Residential/
Mixed Use
Project Station East
Mixed Use
(SEMU)
Mixed-use
apartments,
condominiums,
and townhomes
Approved in 2021 894 13 33 76 213 559
Includes 122 deed-restricted lower- and 24-deedrestricted moderate-income units; 392 market-rate rental units assumed at 50/50 moderate- and above
moderate-income; and 356 market-rate condos/
townhomes assumed above moderate-income.

Complete buildout is tentatively scheduled for late
2026/early 2027. The deed-restricted lower-income
units are required to be built before the market-rate
units, per the terms of the Development
Agreement.

Union Flats 2.0
Station Mixed
Use
Commercial
(CSMU)
Rental
apartment units Approved in 2017 443 221 222
Market-rate multifamily, assumed to provide both
moderate- and above moderate-income rents. The
City granted the developer an extension to pull
building permits and begin construction by
December 31, 2024. The City has been in frequent
communication with the project developer since
approval of the extension, and the developer is
working to secure financing with development
partners to begin construction within the revised
timeline.

City Council/RSA Agenda 556 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-4 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 3-2: APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNION CITY (AS OF JUNE 2022) Project General
Plan/Zoning Type of Units Status
Total
Units
Total Units by Income Description

ELI VLI LI MOD AM
Horner Street
Mixed Use Village Mixed
Use (VMU)/
Specialty
Commercial
(CS)
Mixed-use
project, stacked
flats, and
townhomes
Approved in 2019;
currently (2022)
undergoing site
remediation;
construction
expected to begin in
2024
25 3 22
Twenty-five market-rate multifamily ownership
units, with 19 one- and two-bedroom stacked flats,
and six three-bedroom townhomes. Three of the
units will be deed-restricted moderate -income
inclusionary housing units.

Turk Island
511 Area
District (511) Single-family Approved in 2018 33 33
Subdivision for 33 market-rate single-family
homes. The site is located on a former landfill, and
remediation has been completed. Grading and
building permits have been submitted and are
under review, with construction of the residences
to begin in spring/summer of 2023.

Seven Hills
Estates
Single Family
Residential,
Hillside
Combining
District (RS
6000-H)
Single-family Approved in 2021 6 6
Subdivision of six market-rate single-family homes.

Construction is expected to begin in mid 2023.

Dyer Meteor
Multi-Family
Residential
(RM 2500)
Townhomes Project Hearing in
Summer 2022
9 2 7
Nine for sale units, two deed-restricted moderateincome units. The project was approved in the summer of 2022, and construction of the units is
expected to begin in the summer of 2023, with
occupancy of the units by summer/fall 2024.

Total All Income Levels 1,491 29 69 104 440 849
Source: Union City Economic and Community Development Department, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 557 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-5 Lazuli Landing
In 2018, the City issued a Request for Proposals, inviting non-profit affordable housing organizations to submit proposals to develop affordable housing on a vacant City-owned property on Mission Boulevard between D and E Streets and 2nd Street. MidPen was selected by the City Council and the project, Lazuli Landing, was approved in 2020. Lazuli Landing will provide 80 affordable units for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households and one manager’s unit, along with about 6,300 square feet of ground floor space that will include the City’s Youth and Family Services Division and Centros De Servicios, a social service provider in the Decoto neighborhood. Currently (2022) the project is funded by Measure A1 Base City and Regional Pool funding, Housing In-Lieu Funds, Former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Bond funding, land sale proceeds, and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds. The Lazuli Landing project has also received an Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) award in 2022. The project submitted an application to HCD Multifamily Finance Super NOFA in June 2022 for additional funding to cover financial gaps in the project. Awards will be announced in early 2023.

Station East Residential/Mixed Use Project
The Station East Residential/Mixed Use Project, by Integral Communities, was approved by the City Council in June 2021. The project will include a total of 894 residential units, including 122 deedrestricted lower-income units and 24 deed-restricted moderate-income units to satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing requirements, and 30,800 square feet of commercial space on a 26.5-acre site just north of the Intermodal Station. The 122 deed-restricted lower-income units were approved by the City in June 2022. Per the terms of the Development Agreement between the City and project applicant, these units must be constructed prior to construction of the market-rate units in accordance with the Development Agreement for the project. The remaining 748 market-rate units include a mix of 392 rental apartment units, and 356 for-sale condominiums. The 392 rental units are assumed to meet a 50/50 mix of moderate- and above moderate-income housing needs. The market rate ownership units are assumed to meet an above moderate-income housing need. The Development Agreement includes a Phasing Plan that outlines the construction timetable for the market-rate units, including construction of necessary infrastructure and project amenities. The schedule for complete buildout of Station East has already commenced with issuance of demolition permits for removal of existing structures and is anticipated to continue until occupancy of the final units, tentatively scheduled for late 2026/early 2027.

Development of the Station East Mixed-Use project is occurring within the broader framework of the development of the Station District Specific Plan area. The Station District Specific Plan, approved by the City in October 2022, includes goals and policies for development of a 471-acre planning area centered around the City’s Intermodal/BART Station. This plan was the culmination of over 20 years of efforts aimed at transforming a predominantly industrial area around the BART station into a dynamic, transit-oriented development that would be the focal point for the City’s long-term housing goals.

Since 2002, the City has invested approximately $175 million in property acquisitions, construction of key infrastructure, and amenities. Amenities include robust bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide access to the Union City Intermodal/BART Station, a child’s play area, a public art studio and classroom space, and a plaza developed with public art and a fountain, as well as a tree-lined promenade, These improvements have facilitated the construction of 5,650 housing units within the greater Station District area. As part of the redevelopment of the area, the City has invested millions of dollars to remediate and redevelop a former steel mill site and PG&E corporation yard, which facilitated the construction of 11th Street, which is a primary access corridor serving the City Council/RSA Agenda 558 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-6 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 district and the development of various housing projects, including 115 very-low and extremely low income housing units, and 243 market rate housing units.

Additional infrastructure development included the reconfiguration of the Intermodal/BART station to create additional points of access into the station, and the acquisition of right-of-way for construction of the Quarry Lakes Parkway along the eastern side of the Station District, providing a critical second point of access to the housing throughout the Station District. Construction of Quarry Lakes Parkway will also be a key express bus corridor serving the Union City Intermodal/BART Station and the Southern Alameda County Regional Rail hub, facilitating transit options for residents within the Station District to employment centers both within the Station District as well as throughout the region.

As part of the approval of the Station District Specific Plan in October 2022, the City also created two new zoning districts to facilitate the development of housing consistent with the goals and policies of the Specific Plan.

Rendering of Station East Residential/Mixed Use Project (Source: Integral Communities, 2021) Union Flats 2.0
Union Flats 2.0 (also known as Windflower 2) is a 443-unit apartment project planned for a 3.5-acre City-owned site in the Core Station District. The developer, Windflower Properties, LLC, built the adjacent 243-unit apartment complex called Union Flats in 2018. The site is bounded by 11th Street, Berger Way, Cheeves Way, and the Promenade. Union Flats 2.0, located on the adjacent block to the northeast, has been delayed in recent years due to increased construction costs and challenges in obtaining financing. The City recently granted an extension to the developer to start the project, from May 14, 2022 to December 31, 2024. The 243 planned market-rate rental units are assumed to provide a 50/50 mix of moderate- and above moderate-income housing needs based on a review of market rate rents. The City has been in frequent communication with the project City Council/RSA Agenda 559 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-7 developer since approval of the extension, and the developer is working to secure financing with development partners to begin construction within the revised timeline.

Rendering of Union Flats 2.0 viewed from 11th Street (Source: Union City) Horner Street Mixed Use
The Horner Street Mixed-use Project includes 25 market-rate multifamily ownership units and approximately 7,000 square feet of ground-floor retail in a three-story mixed-use building on Horner and Vallejo streets. The project was approved in 2019. The residential units are planned to include 19 one- and two-bedroom stacked flats and six three-bedroom townhomes. Three of the units will be deed-restricted moderate-income inclusionary housing units. The site is currently undergoing remediation associated with a historic contamination issue that was discovered late during the entitlement process. Construction is expected to begin in 2024.

Turk Island
Turk Island is a 33-unit single-family subdivision approved in 2018 on a 6.3-acre site that once served as a landfill. The developer is currently (2022) completing site remediation and removal of all landfill debris from the site. Construction is expected to begin in late 2022. The City is currently reviewing the building plans in advance of the start of construction of the first residences in the spring/summer of 2023. The project is scheduled to be constructed in one phase, with final occupancy in the summer of 2025.

Seven Hills Estates
The Seven Hills Estates is a six-lot subdivision approved in 2021 on a vacant 5.9-acre parcel at the terminus of Florence Street. The project includes six single-family homes ranging in size from approximately 4,500 to 6,500 square feet. These homes are expected to be above moderateincome. The project is subject to a Development Agreement between the City and the developer City Council/RSA Agenda 560 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-8 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 which requires the homes to be constructed on a timetable along with construction of public and private infrastructure. The applicant has applied for building permits. Construction is expected to begin in mid 2023.

Dyer Meteor
Dyer Meteor, which is currently in the entitlement process, consists of nine townhomes, two of which will be deed-restricted moderate-income units to meet the City’s inclusionary requirements.

The remaining townhomes are expected to be above moderate-income. The project was approved in the summer of 2022, and construction of the units is expected to begin in the summer of 2023, with occupancy of the units by summer/fall 2024.

Affordability Analysis of Market Rate Apartments
Based on a review of rental listings at recently built apartments in the Station District, it was determined that new market-rate apartment units in Union City are generally affordable to moderate-income households. Table 3-3 below compares affordable monthly rents for moderate - income households earning 100 percent and 120 percent of the area median income (AMI) with listed rents in two recently built market rate apartment complexes in the city. Union Flats, a 243- unit market rate apartment complex built in 2018, had 13 available units listed in May 2022, including five studio apartments, five one-bedroom apartments, and three two-bedroom apartments. Avalon Union City had 12 one-bedroom units listed for rent.

Studio apartments and one-bedroom units are generally affordable to one-person households earning more than 100 percent AMI but less than 120 percent AMI. Two-bedroom units are generally affordable to two- and three-person households earning around 120 percent AMI.

TABLE 3-3: ANALYSIS OF MARKET RATE RENTAL AFFORDABILITY Income Level
Affordable Monthly Rent1
1-Person 2-Person 3-Person
Moderate-Income at 100% AMI $2,198 $2,513 $2,826
Moderate-Income 120% AMI $3,077 $3,516 $3,956
Apartment Complex (Year Built) Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom Union Flats (2018) $2,350 - 2,545 $2,530 - 2,690 $3,430 - 3,485 Avalon Union City (2009) - $2,544 - 2,905 -
Notes: 1 See Table 2-5: Ability to Pay
Sources: Ascent, 2022.
https://theunionflats.com/apartments/?view=map
https://new.avaloncommunities.com/california/union-city-apartments/avalon-union-city/#community-unit-listings City Council/RSA Agenda 561 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-9 Vacant and Underutilized Sites Inventory
The residential land inventory is required “to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels” (Government Code Section 65583.2(a)). The phrase “land suitable for residential development” in Government Code Section 65583(a) (3) includes all of the following:
 Vacant sites zoned for residential use;
 Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development; and  Underutilized sites that have zoning that allows residential development and are capable of being developed at a higher density.

This section describes the vacant and underutilized sites included in the City’s Housing Element inventory. Several of the sites were recently rezoned either through the Station District Specific Plan Update or as part of a separate General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow for the type and number of housing units estimated in the sites inventory and to ensure the sites are available at the start of the Housing Element planning period.

Methodology and Assumptions
The following is a description of the methodology used to estimate housing unit capacity on vacant and underutilized sites and classify sites by income level. Each land use designation corresponds with at least one zoning district, in some cases more than one.

Affordability Assumptions
Table 3-4 shows how sites are categorized by income level based on zoning, allowed density, and site size.

Lower-income Sites
State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for lower-income units in Union City. This is the density that is “deemed appropriate” in State law to accommodate Union City’s lower-income RHNA. The City has several zoning districts that allow 30 units per acre as shown in Table 3-4. Sites at least 0.5 acres and larger with zoning and General Plan land use designations that allow for development at 30 units per acre are generally included in the inventory as lower-income sites. Contiguous parcels less than 0.5 acres owned by the same party were considered to be one consolidated site for the purpose of this analysis because combining adjacent parcels with the same owner is not considered to be an impediment. Lot mergers are processed ministerially as part of project approvals. There are no sites in the inventory that would require consolidation of adjacent parcels under separate ownership. All sites in the inventory with multiple parcels are under common ownership, as described below in the site profiles.

Moderate-income Sites
Sites with zoning that allows for multifamily residential development at densities lower than 30 units per acre (i.e., Residential 10-17) and higher density sites (i.e., allowing 30 units per acre or more) smaller than 0.5 acres are inventoried as moderate-income. [Note: There are currently (2022) only three sites that meet these criteria.]
City Council/RSA Agenda 562 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-10 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 3-4: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES AND
ESTIMATED AFFORDABILITY LEVEL, UNION CITY (2022)
General Plan Land Use
Designation Zoning Districts Assumed Affordability Level R 3-6
Residential
(3 to 6 du/acre)
RS 6000 Single Family Residential Above ModerateIncome (*Note: there are
currently no sites in
the inventory with
these zoning
designations)
RS 6000D* Single Family Residential, DIPSA
511* 511Area District
R 6-10
Residential
(6 to 10 du/acre)
RS 4500 Single Family Residential
R 5000 Decoto Residential
511* 511Area District
R 10-17
Residential
(10 to 17 du/acre)
RM 3500 Multifamily Residential
Moderate-Income
RM 2500 Multifamily Residential
R 17-30
Residential
(17 to 30 du/acre) RM 1500 Multifamily Residential
Lower-Income
VMU Village Mixed Use
(17-30 du/acre) VMU Village Mixed use
CMU
Corridor Mixed Use
(17-45 du/acre) CMU Corridor Mixed Use
SEMU
Station East Mixed-Use
(25 to 100 du/acre,
average density of 50
du/acre)
SEMU-R
Station East Mixed Use
Designation
CSMU
Station Mixed-Use
Commercial
(100 to 165 du/acre)
CSMU
Station Mixed-Use Commercial
District
MMU Marketplace Mixed Use
(30 to 100 du/acre) MMU Marketplace Mixed Use
Source: Union City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and Ascent, 2022.

Above Moderate-income Sites
Sites with single-family zoning are categorized as above moderate-income based on evidence that single-family homes are generally only affordable to above moderate-income households.

AB 725 Compliance
Assembly Bill 725 (2021) requires that at least 25 percent of the above moderate-income RHNA be accommodated on sites that allow at least four units of housing, and that at least 25 percent of the moderate-income RHNA be accommodated on sites that allow at least four units of housing but a density of no more than 100 units per acre. The projects in the pipeline satisfy these requirements.

Two projects in particular help to meet this requirement:
 Station East Residential/Mixed Use Project is an approved project in the Station East Mixed-Use zone, which allows for residential development at 25-100 units per acre, with an average density of no less than 50 units per acre. The project is expected to provide a mix of 213 market-rate City Council/RSA Agenda 563 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-11 and deed-restricted moderate-income units (56 percent of the moderate-income RHNA) and 559 above moderate-income units (57 percent of the above moderate-income RHNA).  Union Flats 2.0 is a 443-unit approved project in the Station Mixed Use-Commercial zone, which allows 60-165 units per acre. The project is expected to provide 221 market rate moderate-income units and 222 above moderate-income units. Because the site is zoned to allow more than 100 units per acre, it does not count toward satisfying the AB 725 requirements for moderate-income housing, but the 222 units of above moderate-income housing are equal to 22 percent of the above moderate income RHNA.

Together these two projects will provide 39 percent of the moderate-income RHNA and 93 percent of the above moderate-income RHNA on sites with zoning consistent with the requirements of AB 725, satisfying the requirements of state law.

Realistic Density Assumptions
Outside the Station District
The density ranges of the multifamily and mixed-use zones outside the Station District generally allow for a broad variety of housing types, including apartments or stacked flats that would be built at the upper end of the density range or townhomes that would be built at the lower end of the range.

Generally, for sites outside the Station District Specific Plan, it is assumed that development will occur at 85 percent of maximum allowed density. There has been limited recent multifamily development outside the Station District since the last Housing Element but based on the developments that have been built or approved, 85 percent of maximum density is an acceptable assumption, on average (see Table 3-5A). One affordable development, Lazuli Landing, was approved at 49 units per acre using a density bonus on a CMU-zoned site allowing a maximum density of 45 units per acre (i.e., 109 percent of maximum density). Two other market rate mixed-use projects approved or built in the VMU designation (and corresponding CS zoning) — Sugar Mill (constructed) and Horner Street Mixed Use (approved) — were approved at 63 percent and 93 percent of the maximum density of 30 units per acre, respectively. This analysis supports the assumption that 85 percent of maximum density is realistic for use in the sites inventory. However, assumptions were refined on a site-by-site basis based on specific characteristics of the properties.

Sites within the Station District Specific Plan
The zoning within the Station District Specific Plan Area allows for densities as high as 165 units per acre. Recently built or approved developments in the Station District have been at densities ranging from 62 units per acre to 127 units per acre (generally 44 to 77 percent of maximum density), an average of about 89 units per acre (see Table 3-5A). The City prepared likely buildout scenarios for different opportunity sites within the District as part of the Station District Specific Plan process. The assumptions for each site within the Station District Specific Plan are based on site-specific analysis, taking into account site size, location, and other non-residential uses that are anticipated to be built, but generally it is assumed that sites will be developed at around 70-80 units per acre, which is anywhere from about 40-80 percent of the maximum allowed density depending on the zoning district. The assumptions about realistic density are described in the site profiles for each site below. These assumptions are generally conservative based on the average of 89 units per acre noted above.

City Council/RSA Agenda 564 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-12 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Assumptions for Mixed Use Zones
Many of the City’s Housing Element inventory sites are zoned for mixed-use, ranging from Village Mixed Use, which allows 17-30 dwelling units per acre, to Station Mixed Use Commercial, which allows up to 165 dwelling units per acre. Each mixed-use district has different requirements or allowances for residential or commercial uses, which are accounted for in the capacity assumptions for each site. For example, the VMU and CMU districts, which are the mixed-use districts applied outside the Station District, require ground floor commercial space. This can be met by providing a range of non-residential uses, including retail, leasing offices, residential amenities, or other uses that activate the ground floor. These districts also allow for standalone commercial uses; however, the City is seeing much greater interest in residential mixed-use projects and has not received any recent applications for new standalone commercial uses in these districts. The commercial ground floor component does not prevent a residential mixed-use project from achieving the maximum allowed density, and the City provides flexibility in how residential projects meet the active ground floor use requirement. For example, leasing offices and other similar spaces can be used to meet the requirement. The sites inventory assumes 85 percent of maximum allowed density for most sites zoned VMU or CMU, with some exceptions noted in the site profiles for site-specific reasons. The assumed densities account for the potential for commercial uses in these zones.

Nonvacant Sites
Like most communities in the Bay Area, Union City is a nearly built out city. The City, like the region generally, faces a significant demand for new housing. Nearly all new residential development in Union City occurs on underutilized nonvacant sites that have existing uses. The most significant example of new development on underutilized land is the Station District, which is an area of more than 80 acres of previously contaminated underutilized land that once contained a steel mill and other industrial uses. The former Redevelopment Agency assisted with land assembly and cleanup of contaminated sites. The Station District contains hundreds of recently constructed housing units, with hundreds more planned. In addition to the Station District, there are many other examples of redevelopment of underutilized sites throughout the city, and in adjacent communities with similar market characteristics. Table 3-5A below includes examples of recent housing developments in Union City that were built or are approved on nonvacant sites with existing uses and whether lot consolidation occurred to facilitate development The City relies on underutilized sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the lower-income RHNA, which means to comply with Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2), the Housing Element must include evidence that the existing use on each non-vacant site in the inventory will not create an impediment to development during the planning period. To determine whether a non-vacant site should be included in the inventory, the City started by conducting a thorough review of sites throughout the city zoned or designated in the General Plan for high density residential or mixed-use development. Based on site conditions combined with City staff knowledge of existing uses, property owner interest, and nearby development activity, the team produced a refined list of potential sites for inclusion in the Housing Element sites inventory.

The following factors were considered in identifying non-vacant sites to include in the inventory.

The factors that apply to each non-vacant site are indicated in the site profiles found in the Vacant and Underutilized Sites section of this chapter. Table 3-5A lists the non-vacant site factors that apply to recent housing developments in Union City.

City Council/RSA Agenda 565 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-13 A. Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities. Many of the sites in the inventory are within the Station District Specific Plan boundary, which is centered around the Union City Intermodal Station. The Intermodal Station functions as a multi-modal transit hub connecting the services of BART, Union City Transit (UC Transit), Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit), and the Dumbarton Express. The Intermodal Station will continue to grow with the planned extension of BART to Silicon Valley and connection to the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) commuter rail, making Union City a transit-rich node with options for connectivity to the rest of the region.

The area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station represents one of the most significant opportunities for new transit-oriented development in the Bay Area, with a large amount of vacant and underutilized land on all sides of the Union City Intermodal Station. The recently adopted Station District Specific Plan will further streamline new development in the area by providing development standards that facilitate high-density infill development and a Specific Plan EIR that provides CEQA streamlining opportunities.

B. Property Owner Interest. There are several sites in the inventory where the property owner has expressed interest in developing the sites with residential development. City staff reached out to all property owners (for sites listed in the inventory) to better understand their intended use of the sites and their anticipated timeframe for development. In particular, several property owners in the Station District expressed excitement about the direction the City is going with the Specific Plan and interest in building residential on their properties as soon as the Specific Plan is adopted. The site profiles below describe City staff’s understanding of property owner interest, as applicable.

There were sites that staff had identified for inclusion in the inventory that were removed because property owners expressed disinterest in redevelopment during the planning period.

C. Structure Age and Site Conditions. Many of the non-vacant sites in the inventory have buildings that are more than 40 years old. In many cases, buildings of this age are reaching the end of their useful life and may require costly repairs or upgrades, making redevelopment of the site more likely. Additionally, some non-vacant sites in the inventory are considered underutilized because of the condition of the site relative to the market potential for new housing development. For example, some non-vacant sites include a surface parking lot, an RV storage yard, a gas station, a self-storage business, strip retail centers, and other similar uses. The age and condition of the sites included in the inventory signal that the sites are ripe for reinvestment.

D. Low Floor Area Ratio. In zones with higher development potential (such as multifamily residential districts, mixed-use zones, and the specific plan area sites) a lack of building area or excessive surface parking areas are an indicator that the site is underutilized and prime for redevelopment. A floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 was utilized to identify properties that are being underutilized. These parcels generally contain single-story office or commercial uses and/or large surface parking lots.

E. Low Improvement-to-Land Value Ratio. When a parcel’s land value exceeds the value of improvements (land improvement ratio of less than 1.0), this is an indication that the property may be underutilized, and there may be a financial incentive for the property owner to redevelop. Some of the sites included in the inventory have an improvement to land value ratio of less than 1.0, as indicated in the site profiles below.

F. Legal Non-Conforming Land Uses. Several of the non-vacant sites include a current use of the property that was legally established according to the applicable zoning and building laws at the time, but is not permitted by the current zoning regulations as result of rezonings or City Council/RSA Agenda 566 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-14 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinance over time. Although the existing uses are technically still permitted despite zoning changes, legal non-conforming uses have limited opportunity to expand or modify and may not be reestablished if they cease operations for six or more months. The inventory includes several underutilized sites with non-conforming uses that could provide opportunities for future residential development.

G. Comparative Market Demand for Existing Use vs. Zoned Use. Nationally, the commercial retail sector has been declining for several years as a large share of sales and services have shifted online. The recent COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing popularity of remote work has accelerated the decline and diminished the overall demand for office space. Due to similar factors, personal service establishments and other commercial uses have been impacted in Union City during the past several years, which has created opportunities for residential redevelopment. As a result of these trends, the City has been proactive in designating and zoning several older shopping centers and industrial sites as residential or mixed use to encourage the redevelopment of these areas with housing. Several of these sites in the inventory are considered underutilized because they are occupied by older and/or underperforming commercial, office, or industrial uses. The opportunity for high density residential created by upzoning these sites has increased and strengthened the financial incentive to redevelop. Only commercial and industrial properties with the highest potential for redevelopment during the planning period based on the criteria above were included in the sites inventory.

As part of the Alameda County (AC) Housing Collaborative work, an inventory of recent development projects on non-vacant sites was compiled to demonstrate development trends in the region. The AC Collaborative categorized cities by economic tier based on lowest-tohighest rent levels. Union City was categorized as high rent, similar to nearby Fremont, Newark, and Hayward. Development trends in Union City and surrounding cities (Fremont and Hayward) demonstrate a track record for redevelopment of non-vacant sites similar to those included in the inventory, including industrial/warehouses, auto oriented uses, commercial centers, and office buildings. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3-5A, Station District development projects, including the Station Center Family Housing project, Union Flats, Union Flats 2.0, and the Station East Residential Mixed Use Project, demonstrate a trend of industrial uses redeveloping into residential and mixed use when higher development potential and strong financial incentives to redevelop exist. This trend supports the likelihood that sites LM-9 (Whipple/Cemex Site), LM-14 (Diamond Mine Mini-Storage Site), and LM-15 (Union City Boulevard Site), which all have structures/uses similar in nature to those in the Station District and increased development potential through the recent (November 2022) rezoning, will redevelop into residential. Meanwhile, there is a history in neighboring Fremont and Hayward, of prior older and underutilized commercial buildings (including multi-tenant commercial centers) and auto uses, redeveloping into residential and mixed use (See Table 3-5B). This trend supports the notion that similar commercial sites, LM-2 (34015 7th Street Site), LM-7 (Whipple and Liston Way Site), and LM-8 (Whipple and Medallion Drive Site), will redevelop into residential and mixed-use. The higher development potential created on these sites through the recent rezoning only helps to strengthen the financial incentive to redevelop and increases the likelihood that this will occur.

City Council/RSA Agenda 567 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-15 TABLE 3-5A: EXAMPLES OF RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
UNION CITY (2012-2022)
Project
Name Project Description
Site
Size
(Acres)
Land Use
Designation
Density
(units per
acre)
Status and Site Characteristics Prior Use
Station District Development Projects
Station
Center
Family
Housing
157-unit affordable
development

2.16 Station Mixed
Use
Commercial
(60-165 u/a)
73 u/a Constructed in 2012. The site is located in the
Core Station District area which originally
consisted of a PG&E Corp Yard and steel mill.

Several underlying lots associated with those
uses were consolidated and reconfigured to
create more uniform blocks and associated
building pads along 11th Street.

Utility company storage facility
and steel mill. Assisted with
Redevelopment Agency funding.

Non-vacant site factors: A, C, D,
F, G
Union Flats
243-unit market rate rental
units (modular
construction)

2.46 Station Mixed
Use
Commercial
(60-165 u/a)
99 u/a Constructed in 2018. The site is located in the
Core Station District area which originally
consisted of a PG&E Corp Yard and steel mill.

Several underlying lots associated with those
uses were consolidated and reconfigured to
create more uniform blocks and associated
building pads along 11th Street.

Utility company storage facility.

Assisted with Redevelopment
Agency funding.

Non-vacant site factors: A, C, D,
F, G
Union Flats

2.0 443-unit market rate rental
units

3.52 Station Mixed
Use
Commercial
(60-165 u/a)
126 u/a Approved, not yet built. The site is located in the Core Station District area which originally
consisted of a PG&E Corp Yard and steel mill.

Several underlying lots associated with those
uses were consolidated and reconfigured to
create more uniform blocks and associated
building pads along 11th Street.

Utility company storage facility.

Assisted with Redevelopment
Agency funding.

Non-vacant site factors: A, C, D,
F, G
Station East
Residential/
Mixed Use
Project
894-unit Mixed use
apartments, condominiums,
and townhomes (includes
122 low- and 24 moderateincome deed restricted
units)

15.65 (net
acres)
Station East
Mixed Use
(25-100 u/a)
Varies by
housing type;
average
density of 57
u/a (net
density)
Approved, not yet built. The site consisted of
six (6) underlying lots with various property
owners. The developer purchased and
consolidated the lots to facilitate
development.

Brownfield/vacant land. Defunct
Industrial Use. Former railroad
spurs, Industrial buildings.

Non-vacant site factors: A, B, C,

D, E, F, G
Average 88.8 u/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 568 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-16 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 3-5A: EXAMPLES OF RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
UNION CITY (2012-2022)
Project
Name Project Description
Site
Size
(Acres)
Land Use
Designation
Density
(units per
acre)
Status and Site Characteristics Prior Use
Village Mixed Use (VMU)
Sugar Mill 36-unit market rate
townhomes

1.9 Village Mixed
Use (VMU)
(17-30 u/a)
19 u/a Constructed in 2019/ Occupied in 2020. The
site consisted of two (2) underlying lots,
which were consolidated to facilitate
development.

Vacant land.

Non-vacant site factors: N/A
Horner Street
Mixed Use
25-unit mixed-use, market
rate ownership units

0.89 Village Mixed
Use (VMU)
(17-30 u/a)
28 u/a Approved, not yet built. The site consisted of
three (3) underlying lots, which were
consolidated to facilitate development.

Residential uses and a bar.

Non-vacant site factors: C, D, E
Average 23.5 u/a
Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
Lazuli
Landing
100% deed-restricted
affordable housing
development by MidPen;
(80 lower-income, 1
managers unit)

1.65 Corridor Mixed
Use (17-45 u/a)
49 u/a (with
density
bonus)
Approved, not yet built. The site consisted of
six (6) underlying lots under the same
ownership, which were consolidated to
facilitate development.

Vacant land.

Non-vacant site factors: N/A
Average 45 u/a
(without
density
bonus)
Multifamily (Residential 17-30)
Soares
Ranch 63 attached townhouses

3.3 Residential 17-
30 19 u/a Constructed in 2019. The site consisted of
three (3) underlying lots under one ownership,
which were consolidated to facilitate
development.

Five residences and agricultural
uses (produce stand and several
sheds / accessory structures)
Non-vacant site factors: B, C, D,
E, F
Average 19 u/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 569 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-17 TABLE 3-5A: EXAMPLES OF RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
UNION CITY (2012-2022)
Project
Name Project Description
Site
Size
(Acres)
Land Use
Designation
Density
(units per
acre)
Status and Site Characteristics Prior Use
Single Family (Residential 3-6 and 6-10))
4500 Cabello 45 single family homes

7.85 Residential 6-
10 5.7 u/a Constructed in 2016. The site consisted of
two (2) underlying lots under one ownership,
which were consolidated to facilitate
development.

Elementary School, which
closed in 2007 because of
declining enrollment.

Non-vacant site factors: C, E
Turk Island 33 single family homes

6.3 Residential 3-6 5.2 u/a Under construction in 2022. The site consisted of one lot, as a result lot
consolidation was not required.

Former landfill. Site remediation
is complete.

Non-vacant site factors: C, E, F
Average 5.5 u/a
Source: City of Union City and Ascent, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 570 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-18 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 3-5B: EXAMPLES OF RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN SURROUNDING

JURISDICTIONS (FREMONT AND HAYWARD)
Project Jurisdiction Project Description Previous Use
Bellara Senior Housing
(1200 A Street)
Hayward Five-story senior housing project;
157 units of affordable housing
Commercial building, built in
1971, FAR 0.5
27177-27283 Mission
Boulevard
Hayward 46 townhouses and 9 live/work
lofts, 55 total units including 6
deed-restricted for moderateincome households
Auto rental, built in 1960, FAR

0.25 Mission Terraces
(28870 Mission Boulevard)
Hayward 110 units of affordable housing Commercial building, built in 1983, FAR 0.8
La Playa Commons Hayward 47 units of single-family housing Commercial building, built in 1968, FAR 0.8
603 A Street Hayward 80 units of affordable housing Commercial building, FAR 0.7 Mission Villages Hayward 72 market-rate units Commercial building 3900 Thornton Avenue Fremont 128 units of affordable housing Commercial uses Artist Walk
(37100 - 37120 Fremont
Boulevard)
Fremont 185 units and 30,300 square feet
of ground floor retail
Redevelopment on the site of
a multi-tenant commercial
shopping center
Boulevard Heights
(40744 Fremont
Boulevard)
Fremont 67market rate townhome units Commercial uses
Fremont Bank Residences
(39176 Fremont
Boulevard)
Fremont 240 market rate units and 6,296
square feet of commercial space
Commercial uses,
redevelopment on the site of a
multi-tenant commercial
shopping center
Bay Rock Fremont
Apartments
(39150 Fremont
Boulevard)
Fremont 248 market-rate apartments and
5,625 square feet of commercial
space
Commercial uses,
redevelopment on the site of a
multi-tenant commercial
shopping center
Fremont Habitat
(36551 Fremont
Boulevard)
Fremont 13 market-rate condominium
units and 2,300 square feet of
commercial floor area
Commercial uses
Osgood Apartments
(41829-41875 Osgood
Road)
Fremont 112 units of affordable housing Commercial uses Peralta Crossing
(4133-4167 Peralta
Boulevard)
Fremont 43 market-rate townhome units Commercial uses
Silicon Sage Centerville
(37358 Fremont
Boulevard)
Fremont 93 rental apartment units and 72
for-ownership townhomes
Commercial uses,
redevelopment on the site of a
multi-tenant commercial
shopping center
Source: Ascent, 2023
City Council/RSA Agenda 571 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-19 Large Sites
The sites inventory includes two sites larger than 10 acres: LM-1 (Restoration Site) and LM-4 (Gateway Site). Both of these sites are owned by the City and are within the Station District Specific Plan area, making them prime opportunity sites for new housing.

Restoration Site (City-owned)
The Restoration Site is a City-owned 16-acre site within the Core Station District with a General Plan designation of Station Mixed Use Commercial (CSMU), similar to other development along 11th Street, which forms the urban core of the area. This designation allows for a mix of high-intensity retail, office, hotels, residential uses, and public spaces at a FAR of up to 4.2 and residential density of 100 to 165 units per acre. The site consists of a mound that contains material (mostly slag, a byproduct of steel production) from the former Pacific States Steel Corporation (PSSC) site. The materials contained in the Restoration Site were “capped” with an engineered system of clay and other materials designed to prevent the infiltration of water into the slag and exposure of the materials.

While the site could potentially be developed without removing the slag, in order to maximize its development potential, the site would need to be scraped and the excess material removed.

The City purchased the site in 2017, which creates an opportunity for the City to facilitate redevelopment of the site. The City, formerly through the Redevelopment Agency, has a long history of acquiring land within the Station District to help facilitate the revitalization of this area.

Station Center Family Housing, Union Flats, Union Flats 2.0, and Lazuli Landing (outside the Station District) are all examples of residential development on City-owned land. The Gateway Property, formerly owned by Caltrans, is another example of a large (25-acre) site that the City acquired for the purpose of facilitating housing development within the Station District.

The Draft Station District Specific Plan assumes that the site will be built with a mix of housing, retail, and office uses. The assumption of 670 housing units on this site is consistent with the buildout assumptions of the Station District Specific Plan. This assumption allows for other nonresidential uses to be accommodated on the site. Because the Station District is a large area with a large number of units projected, the inventory assumes a mix of lower- and moderate-income housing on the site, with an assumption that the site could accommodate two lower-income housing developments of 150 units each. Because the City owns the site, the City has an opportunity to maximize affordable housing development to the extent feasible. However, the permitted density ranges in the Station District area meet the 30-unit-per-acre default density standard for lower-income housing.

The 2040 General Plan contains several policies and implementation programs supporting the redevelopment of the site, including issuing a request for proposals and partnering with developers to remove the slag and redevelop the site with an intensive mix of uses. The Housing Element contains a similar implementation program to facilitate development of the Restoration Site (Program HE-1.C).

Gateway Site (City-owned)
The Gateway Site includes 25 vacant acres designated for residential uses. The site was previously owned by Caltrans but acquired by the City in 2021. The site is located in the southeast portion of the Station District Specific Plan within the Gateway Subarea. The Gateway subarea is envisioned to provide a new gateway to Union City with a variety of housing opportunities integrated with open City Council/RSA Agenda 572 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-20 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 space, park amenities, community agriculture, and enhanced facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. A portion of the subarea is planned for the Quarry Lakes Parkway project, which will connect Paseo Padre Parkway in Fremont and Mission Boulevard in Union City. This roadway, parallel to Decoto Road, will create new access to the Station District Area and the east side of the Union City BART station with a direct connection to 11th Street.

The City currently (2022) has an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with a housing developer to develop the site. The site is designated Residential 10-17 du/ac and Residential 17-30 du/ac.

Housing types are anticipated to include townhomes and apartments, and a portion of the site is required to be developed as affordable housing. The inventory currently assumes a total of 535 housing units for the site.

AB 1397 By-Right Requirement
Assembly Bill 1397 amended State law to add new requirements for previously identified lowerincome sites. Specifically, if a non‐vacant lower-income site was included in one previous housing element inventory or a vacant lower-income site was included in two previous housing element inventories, the sites can only continue to be counted as lower-income if subject to a program to allow developments with 20 percent affordable housing by-right. This requirement only applies to one site in the inventory (LM-11 – Mission and F Street Site). This is largely because most of the previously identified lower-income sites have been built or currently have development projects in the pipeline. The lower-income sites included in this Sixth Cycle Housing Element are mostly new sites added to the inventory. Policy HE-1.5 addresses the AB 1397 by-right housing requirement.

Analysis of Environmental Constraints
All parcels (or portions of parcels) that met the criteria above were reviewed by City staff to confirm environmental constraints (e.g., parcel shapes, flood zones or wetlands, easements, contamination, and steep slopes), and other possible constraints to development feasibility. The shapes of the parcels included in the inventory have been determined sufficient to allow for residential development. No additional environmental hazards related to wildfire risk, slope, or wetlands impact any of the sites included in the inventory. No known easements exist on any of the parcels in the inventory that would make development infeasible. While environmental constraints are not an issue for any of the sites, a few of the sites contain uses that may require site remediation, as noted in the site descriptions for the Horner Street Mixed Use project and the Restoration Site (Site LM-1).

Vacant and Underutilized Sites
This section contains site profiles providing details on the vacant and underutilized sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory, shown in Figure 3-1.

Table 3-6 provides a summary of capacity on all of the vacant and underutilized sites. Sites that begin with the letters "LM" are inventoried for lower- and/or moderate-income units. Sites that begin with the letters "AM" are inventoried for above moderate-income units.

City Council/RSA Agenda 573 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-21 Figure 3-1: Sites Inventory Map, Union City, December 2022 Source: City of Union City and Ascent, December 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 574 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-22 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 3-6: VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED SITES, UNION CITY (2022) Site ID Site Name APN
Parcel
Acres
Vacant or
Underutilized
Realistic Capacity by
Income (units)
Lower Mod. Above
Mod. Total
Station District Specific Plan Sites
LM-1 Restoration Site (City-owned) 87-335-6 16.00 Vacant 300 370 670 LM-2
34015 7th Street
(Station East Subarea) 87-23-11 3.45 Underutilized 160 160 LM-3 ANR Near BART Site
87-11-7-2 0.94
87-11-8-2 0.69 Underutilized 73 73
Total 1.63
LM-4 Gateway Site (City-owned)
87-11-15-14 8.26
Vacant 135 200 200 535
87-11-15-15 6.80
87-11-15-3 1.33
87-11-17-6 1.70
87-11-17-7 1.97
87-11-18-3 1.42
Total 25.19
Subtotal of Station District Specific Plan Sites 668 570 200 1,438 Citywide Vacant Sites
AM-1 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 1
486-27-138 0.11 Vacant 1 1
AM-2
Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 2
486-30-30-2 0.14 Vacant 1 1
AM-3 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 3
486-30-13-3 0.11 Vacant 1 1
AM-4 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 4
486-30-13-5 0.11 Vacant 1 1
AM-5 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 5
486-30-13-4 0.12 Vacant 1 1
AM-6 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 6
486-45-24 0.14 Vacant 1 1
AM-7 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 7
486-33-58-2 0.12 Vacant 1 1
AM-8 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 8
486-33-58-1 0.11 Vacant 1 1
AM-9
Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 9
486-33-47 0.35 Vacant 2 2
AM-10 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 10
486-24-1 0.12 Vacant 1 1
AM-11 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 11
486-9-33-1 0.11 Vacant 1 1
AM-12 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 12
486-9-33-2 0.12 Vacant 1 1
AM-13 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 13
486-9-32-1 0.11 Vacant 1 1
City Council/RSA Agenda 575 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-23 TABLE 3-6: VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED SITES, UNION CITY (2022) Site ID Site Name APN
Parcel
Acres
Vacant or
Underutilized
Realistic Capacity by
Income (units)
Lower Mod. Above
Mod. Total
AM-14 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 14
486-6-22 0.11 Vacant 1 1
AM-15 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 15
486-3-23-2 0.12 Vacant 1 1
AM-16 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 16
87-91-26-3 0.32 Vacant 1 1
AM-17 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 17
87-91-30-4 0.32 Vacant 1 1
AM-18 Decoto Neighborhood Vacant
Lot 18
486-18-75 0.23 Vacant 1 1
AM-19
Historic Alvarado District
Vacant Lot 1
483-10-23

0.12 Vacant 1 1
483-10-24-2
AM-20
Historic Alvarado District
Vacant Lot 2
482-10-23 0.52 Vacant 4 4
AM-21
Historic Alvarado District
Vacant Lot 3
482-15-9 0.17 Vacant 1 1
LM-5 Alvarado Niles Road Site 475-158-7 0.45 Vacant 0 6 6 Subtotal of Citywide Vacant Sites 0 6 25 31
Citywide Underutilized Sites
LM-6 854 Whipple Road Site
486-18-62 0.47
Underutilized 24 24
486-18-63 0.16
486-18-64 0.13
486-18-65-2 0.18
Total 0.95
LM-7 Whipple and Liston Way Site 475-141-13-2 0.85 Underutilized 32 32 LM-8 Whipple and Medallion Drive
Site
475-141-2 1.45 Underutilized 55 55
LM-9 Whipple/Cemex Site
486-18-59
486-18-60
486-18-61

0.18 Underutilized
116 116
486-18-69 1.17
486-18-70 2.96
486-18-71 0.27
Total 4.58
LM-10
Mission and Tamarack Drive
Site
87-36-148 0.73
87-36-149 0.02 Underutilized 28 28
Total 0.75
LM-11* Mission and F Street Site 486-6-30 0.58 Underutilized 22 22 LM-12 Vallejo St. and Granger Ave.

Site
483-10-12-1 1.26 Underutilized 18 18
City Council/RSA Agenda 576 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-24 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 3-6: VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED SITES, UNION CITY (2022) Site ID Site Name APN
Parcel
Acres
Vacant or
Underutilized
Realistic Capacity by
Income (units)
Lower Mod. Above
Mod. Total
LM-13
Smith Street Site
483-10-22-3 0.71
Underutilized
27 27
483-10-21-1 0.13
483-10-20 0.11
483-10-19-1 0.13
Total 1.08
LM-14
Diamond Mine Mini-Storage
Site
482-27-16-1 5.93 Underutilized 151 151
LM-15 Union City Boulevard Site
A
483-5-11-2 1.46
Underutilized 172 172
483-5-12 0.34
B
483-5-9-2 1.64
483-5-10 0.37
C
483-5-7-7 2.48
483-5-8-1 0.48
Total 6.76
Subtotal of Citywide Underutilized Sites 627 18 0 645
TOTAL 1,295 594 225 2,114
*This site was included in the previous Housing Element and is subject to Policy HE-1.5 By-right Housing on Prior Housing Element Sites
Source: City of Union City and Ascent, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 577 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-25 Station District Specific Plan Sites
Site LM-1: Restoration Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 87-335-6
Address 11th Street
Parcel Acres 16.00 acres
General Plan CSMU (60 – 165 du/acre)
Zoning CSMU (60 – 165 du/acre)
Realistic Capacity/Income Level 300 Lower-Income Units and 370 Moderate-Income Units Existing Use Vacant
Site Description
This City-owned site, known as the Restoration Site, is within the Station District Specific Plan. The site is planned for future office and residential uses and consists of a capped, 22-foot tall mound that is underlain with the byproduct generated by the former Pacific States Steel Corporation, primarily slag. The City would prefer to see removal of the slag material to facilitate development of the entire site. The inventory assumes that the site is large enough to accommodate two lower-income developments of 150 units each as well as market-rate housing. Because the City owns the site, the City will have more control over what gets built and the site will be subject to the Surplus Lands Act, which provides preference for developments that include 25 percent affordable units. Housing Element Program HE-1.C describes the proposed actions and timelines for facilitating development of the site.

Max capacity: 2,136 units
Assumptions:
• 70 du/acre realistic density
• 10% for ROW
• Assumed only two blocks would be residential (67% residential) City Council/RSA Agenda 578 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-26 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-2: 34015 7th Street Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 87-23-11
Address 34015 7th Street
Parcel Acres 3.45
General Plan SEMU-(25-100 du/acre)
Zoning RDC
Realistic Capacity/
Income Level 160 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Industrial/Warehouse
Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information)
A) TOD Opportunities, C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR E) Low Improvement-to-Land Value (ILV) Ratio, F) Legal Non-Conforming Land Uses, G) Existing vs Zoned Use Site Description
This industrial/warehouse site, which used to be a storage company for shoe distribution owned by Shamrock Moving and Storage Inc., was built in 1973 and sold in 2014. It is within the Station District Specific Plan adjacent to a fully entitled 894-unit mixed use project. The existing use is similar to the adjacent industrial property to the northwest that was recently demolished and is in the process of being redeveloped into a mixed-use residential development. The site is less than one mile from the BART Station. The Station East Mixed Used Residential (SEMU-R) designation establishes a high-density residential and commercial district which allows for multi-family residential uses and mixed-use residential uses up to 100 units per acre that include ground floor commercial uses along the site’s major throughfares. With the adoption of the Specific Plan and the related Zoning updates approved, existing uses on this site are legal non-conforming and cannot be expanded or modified. The increased density allowable through the Specific Plan creates a strong financial incentive to redevelop the existing industrial warehouse into a high-density residential site. This is consistent with the surrounding new development in the Station District which has redeveloped from industrial to mixed-use residential. As the Station East Residential Mixed-Use project is built, the site will be surrounded by residential and retail uses, increasing the likelihood that the site will redevelop.

Assumptions (based on Station District Specific Plan Buildout):
• 80 du/acre realistic density (max density = 100 du/acre) • 10% for ROW
• 65% residential
City Council/RSA Agenda 579 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-27 Site LM-3: ANR Near BART Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 87-11-7-2 and 87-11-8-2
Address 35124 and 35136 Alvarado-Niles Road
Parcel Acres 1.63
General Plan & Zoning Corridor Mixed-use Commercial (CMU) (17-45 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/Income Level 73 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use RV storage
Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information)
A) TOD Opportunities, B) Property Owner Interest, C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR E) Low ILV Ratio, F) Legal Non-Conforming Land Uses Site Description
The site, which is currently an RV storage facility, is zoned Corridor Mixed Use Commercial (CMU) in the Station District Specific Plan. The site is made up of two parcels under common ownership. It is less than one mile from the BART Station. A for-profit affordable housing developer purchased the site (both parcels) in 2021 and has expressed interest in consolidating the parcels and developing the entire site as 100 percent affordable housing and using density bonus to exceed the maximum density. The site is expected to develop at, or above, the maximum density of 45 dwelling units per acre.

Assumptions:
• 45 du/acre max density
• 100% residential
City Council/RSA Agenda 580 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-28 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-4: Gateway Site*

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 87-11-15-14; 87-11-15-15; 87-11-15-3; 87-11-17-6; 87-11-17-7; 87-11-18-3 Address Alvarado Niles Rd
Parcel Acres 25
General Plan & Zoning Residential 10-17, Residential 17-30 Realistic Capacity/
Income Level 135 Lower-Income Units and 200 Moderate-Income and 200 Above Moderate-Income Units Existing Use Vacant (City-owned)
Site Description
The Gateway Site is located in the Station District Specific Plan area. The site is an approximately 25-acre vacant site that was previously owned by Caltrans and was acquired by the City in 2021. The City currently (2022) has an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with a developer to develop the site. The site is subject to the Surplus Lands Act giving priority to entities proposing to develop housing with at least 25 percent of the units affordable to lowerincome households. Housing types are anticipated to include townhomes, duplexes and apartments, and a portion of the site is required to be developed as affordable housing. Note:

This site was included in the 4th Cycle Housing Element as above moderate-income and rezoned during 5th Cycle to be counted as moderate- and lower-income. It is not subject to Policy HE-1.5 because the Residential 17-30 portion of the site is vacant and was included in only one previous housing element.
*This map is based on the General Plan land use as of January 2023. Actual development footprint may vary from the site boundary shown on this map.

City Council/RSA Agenda 581 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-29 Citywide Vacant Sites
Sites AM-1 through AM-18: Decoto Neighborhood Vacant Lots

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN
486-27-138 (AM-1)
486-30-30-2 (AM-2)
486-30-13-3 (AM-3)
486-30-13-5 (AM-4)
486-30-13-4 (AM-5)
486-45-24 (AM-6)
486-33-58-2 (AM-7)
486-33-58-1 (AM-8)
486-33-47 (AM-9)
486-24-1 (AM-10)
486-9-33-1 (AM-11)
486-9-33-2 (AM-12)
486-9-32-1 (AM-13)
486-6-22 (AM-14)
486-3-23-2 (AM-15)
87-91-26-3 (AM-16)
87-91-30-4 (AM-17)
486-18-75 (AM-18)
Address Varies (18 vacant lots in the Decoto neighborhood) Parcel Acres 2.9 acres total (average lot size of 7,000 square feet) General Plan Residential (6-10 du/acre) and Residential (3-6 du/acre) Zoning R 5000 (6-10 du/acre) and RS 6000 (3-6 du/acre)
Realistic Capacity/
Income Level 19 Above Moderate-Income Units
Existing Use Vacant
Site Description
These 18 vacant lots in the Decoto neighborhood can accommodate new single-family development. One of the parcels (AM-9) is owned by the Housing Authority. The Housing Element includes a program (HE-2.F) for the City to work with the Housing Authority to create new affordable housing on this site.

Assumptions:
• 1 single family home per lot (with the exception of the Housing Authority-owned parcel, which is large enough to accommodate at least two homes) City Council/RSA Agenda 582 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-30 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Sites AM-19 through AM-21: Historic Alvarado District Vacant Lots

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN
483-10-23; 483-10-24-2 (AM-19)
482-10-23 (AM-20)
482-15-9 (AM-21)
Address Varies (4 vacant parcels in the Historic Alvarado District) Parcel Acres AM-19: 0.12 acres, AM-20: 0.52 acres, AM-21: 0.17 acres General Plan Residential (6-10 du/acre) and Residential (3-6 du/acre) Zoning RS 4500 (6-10 du/acre) and RS 6000 (3-6 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/
Income Level 6 Above Moderate-Income Units
Existing Use Vacant
Site Description
These four parcels in the Historic Alvarado District are zoned for single-family development and are included in the above moderate-income inventory. The site east of Union City Boulevard (AM 19) is made up of two parcels under common ownership that would require consolidation in order to ensure access to the back parcel. Site AM 19 is zoned RS 6000 and the parcels on Horner Street (AM 20 and 21) are zoned RS 4500.

Assumptions:
• RS 4500: average density of 5.1 du/acre
• RS 6000: average density of 8.5 du/acre
City Council/RSA Agenda 583 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-31 Site LM-5: Alvarado Niles Road Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 475-158-7
Address 32351 Alvarado Niles Rd
Parcel Acres 0.45
General Plan Residential 10-17 (10-17 du/ac)
Zoning RM 2500 (10-17 du/ac)
Realistic Capacity/
Income Level 6 Moderate-Income Units
Existing Use Vacant (previous structure has been demolished) Site Description
This 0.45-acre vacant site contains one parcel and is located on Alvarado Niles Road between Medallion Drive and Almaden Boulevard. The site used to have a dilapidated, red-tagged house on it that has since been removed.

Max Capacity: 8 units
Assumptions:
• 85% of max (14 du/acre realistic density)
City Council/RSA Agenda 584 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-32 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Citywide Underutilized Sites
Site LM-6: 854 Whipple Rd Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APNs 486-18-62, 486-18-63, 486-18-64, 486-18-65-2
Address 854 Whipple Rd
Parcel Acres 0.95
General Plan & Zoning Residential (17-30 du/acre) / RM 1500 (17-30 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/Income
Level 24 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Single Family Home
Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information)
B) Property Owner Interest, C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR E) Low ILV Ratio, F) Legal Non-Conforming Land Uses
Site Description
This site, made up of four parcels under common ownership, contains a single-family residential home built in 1965 next to underutilized lot currently used as a parking lot or automobile storage. The site was redesignated in the 2040 General Plan to Residential 17-30 and was rezoned to RM 1500 in November 2022. A preliminary application was recently submitted for one of the parcels on this site, proposing new residential development and demolition of the existing single-family home. The parcels would need to be consolidated to ensure access to the southernmost parcels. Since they are owned by the same owner, this can easily occur through a ministerial lot merger.

Max Capacity: 28 units
Assumptions:
• 85% of max density (25.5 du/acre realistic density)
City Council/RSA Agenda 585 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-33 Site LM-7: Whipple and Liston Way Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 475-141-13-2
Address 1780 Whipple Rd
Parcel Acres 0.85
General Plan & Zoning Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) (17-45 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/Income
Level 32 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Two-story office building surrounded by surface parking lot Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information) C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR, G) Existing vs Zoned Use Site Description
This site is located on Whipple Road between Medallion Drive and Liston Way. There is currently a two-story Class C office building surrounded by a surface parking lot. Two existing businesses are located on this site: Coker & Arias Insurance, small family business established in 1976; and Carson Consulting Corp. The existing structure is old and visibly deteriorating, has existing vacancies, and would require major improvements to attract new tenants to fully utilize the space. In November 2022 the City Council rezoned this site to CMU, increasing the maximum allowed density to 45 du/acre. The CMU designation allows for standalone commercial and residential as part of a mixed-use project that includes ground floor commercial on the site, which could include residential amenities or other space that activates the ground floor. With the recent action to rezone the property to a higher development potential, the site’s current FAR is low and indicates that the site is being underutilized, providing a strong financial incentive to redevelop the site with residential.

Max Capacity: 38
Assumptions:
• 85% of max density (38 du/acre realistic density)
City Council/RSA Agenda 586 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-34 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-8: Whipple and Medallion Drive Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 475-141-2
Address 1800 Whipple Rd
Parcel Acres 1.45
General Plan & Zoning Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) (17-45 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/Income
Level 55 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Commercial
Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information) C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR, G) Existing vs Zoned Use Site Description
This existing commercial strip site is located on the corner of Whipple Road and Medallion Drive, built in 1969. The site contains a donut shop, dry cleaners, liquor store, convenience store, a few restaurants, and hair and nail salons. The structure is showing signs of wear. In November 2022 the City Council rezoned this site to CMU, increasing the maximum allowed density to 45 du/acre. The CMU designation allows for standalone commercial and residential uses as part of a mixed-use project that includes ground floor commercial on the site, which could include residential amenities or other space that activates the ground floor. Similar older and underutilized shopping centers have been redeveloped into mixed-use residential projects in neighboring cities like Hayward and Fremont, which is outlined in Table 3-5B.

Max Capacity: 65
Assumptions:
• 85% of max density (38 du/acre realistic density)
City Council/RSA Agenda 587 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-35 Site LM-9: Whipple/Cemex Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 486-18-59; 486-18-60; 486-18-61; 486-18-69; 486-18-70; 486-18-71 Address 854, 884, 900, 920 Whipple Road
Parcel Acres 4.58
General Plan & Zoning Residential (17-30 du/acre) / RM 1500 (17-30 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/Income Level 116 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Cement Plant
Non-Vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information)
C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR, E) Low ILV Ratio, F) Legal Non-Conforming Land Uses, G) Existing vs Zoned Use
Site Description
This site, made up of six parcels under common ownership, contains a building occupied by Cemex, which has been intermittently in operation over the past decade. The six parcels already function as a cohesive site with shared access and could easily be consolidated through a ministerial lot merger to create one singular parcel for redevelopment. The site is significantly underutilized with an improvement to land value ratio of 0.3. There have been no recent site improvements and the site, which is mostly surface parking or paved area, would not require major demolition to redevelop. There are no known environmental constraints to developing the site. This site was included in the above moderate-income inventory and was listed in the 2002, 2010, and 2015 Housing Elements. The site was redesignated in the 2040 General Plan to Residential 17-30 and was rezoned to RM 1500 in November 2022, which provides a strong financial incentive to redevelop.

Max Capacity: 137 units
Assumptions:
• 85% of max density (25.5 du/acre realistic density)
City Council/RSA Agenda 588 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-36 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-10: Mission and Tamarack Drive Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 87-36-148 and 87-36-149
Address 33090 Mission Boulevard
Parcel Acres 0.75
General Plan & Zoning Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) (17-45 du/acre) Realistic
Capacity/Income Level 28 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Gas Station and Flower Stand
Non-vacant Site
Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more
information)
B) Property Owner Interest, C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR, E) Low ILV Ratio Site Description
This site, made up of two parcels under common ownership, is located on the corner of Mission Boulevard and Tamarack Drive. One of the two parcels is not large enough to be developed on its own and could easily be consolidated with the adjoining parcel through a ministerial lot merger to make a cohesive site. The site is currently home to ABE Gasoline and auto repair shop. Toms Flower Shop is also located on the site. It is a farm stand with minimal structural improvements.

The property owner has expressed an intent to redevelop the site as mixed-use (residential with ground floor commercial) within the next five years. In November 2022 the City Council rezoned this site to CMU, increasing the maximum allowed density to 45 du/acre. The CMU designation allows for standalone commercial and residential uses as part of a mixed-use project that includes ground floor commercial on the site, which could include residential amenities or other space that activates the ground floor. The site is surrounded by residential uses on three sides.

The property owner has expressed support and interest in the land changing to residential use.

Max Capacity: 33
Assumptions:
• 85% of max density (38 du/acre realistic density)
City Council/RSA Agenda 589 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-37 Site LM-11: Mission and F Street Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 486-6-30
Address 33549 Mission Boulevard
Parcel Acres 0.58
General Plan & Zoning Corridor Mixed Use Commercial (30-45 du/acre) / Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) (30-45 du/acre)
Realistic Capacity/Income Level 22 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Parking Lot (not in use)
Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information) C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR, E) Low ILV Ratio Site Description
This site is currently an unused parking lot one block away from a recently approved 81- unit affordable housing development (Lazuli Landing). The site was redesignated under the 2040 General Plan to CMU, which increased the maximum allowed density from 30 du/acre to 45 du/acre. The CMU designation allows for standalone commercial and residential uses as part of a mixed-use project that includes ground floor commercial on the site, which could include residential amenities or other space that activates the ground floor. The potential for commercial on the site is accounted for in the reduction in the realistic capacity, as noted below. This site is a non-vacant site that was included in the last Housing Element inventory as a lower-income site and is therefore subject to byright approvals per Policy HE-1.5.

Max Capacity: 26 units
Assumptions:
• 38.3 du/acre realistic density
City Council/RSA Agenda 590 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-38 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-12: Vallejo St. and Granger Ave. Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 483-10-12-1
Address 30793 Vallejo Street
Parcel Acres 1.26
General Plan & Zoning Residential (10-17 du/acre) / RM 2500 (10-17 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/Income
Level 18 Moderate-Income Units
Existing Use Single family home
Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information) B) Property Owner Interest, D) Low FAR, E) Low ILV Ratio Site Description
This parcel is currently zoned for single-family homes with a maximum allowable density of 6 du/acre. In November 2022 the City Council rezoned this site to R 10-17 to allow for higher density residential, allowing for a maximum allowable density of 17 du/acre. The property owner has expressed interest in developing this site.

Max Capacity: 21 units
Assumptions:
• 14 du/acre realistic density
City Council/RSA Agenda 591 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-39 Site LM-13: Smith Street Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 483-10-22-3; 483-10-21-1; 483-10-20; 483-10-19-1
Address 3995, 3969, 3955 Smith Street
Parcel Acres 1.08
General Plan & Zoning Village Mixed Use Commercial (VMU) (17-30 du/acre) / Village Mixed Use Commercial (VMU) (17-30 du/acre)
Realistic Capacity/Income
Level 27 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Commercial
Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information) B) Property Owner Interest, C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR, E) Low ILV Ratio Site Description
This site is made up of four adjacent parcels under common ownership by related family members. Consolidation of the parcels would create a more economically-feasible development site and could be easily processed with a ministerial lot merger. The largest parcel, located on the corner of Union City Boulevard and Smith Street, was built in 1863 and is currently used as an office building (Farmers Insurance and Go Cab company). Based on a historic resource survey conducted in preparation of the historic overlay zone, the building is not considered a historic building/contributor of substantial value due to the extent of renovations/remodels over the years. About half of the parcel is vacant, as are the three adjacent parcels that make up the site. This site was redesignated in the General Plan from Commercial to VMU to allow the site to be redeveloped as residential mixed-use similar to the nearby Sugar Mill development and Alvarado Square just to the north of Union City Boulevard.

The owners of the site are related family members, which provides an opportunity for the parcels to be consolidated. The City has received an application for development of the site that assumes consolidation of the parcels.

Max Capacity: 32 units
Assumptions:
• 25.5 du/acre realistic density
City Council/RSA Agenda 592 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-40 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-14: Diamond Mine Mini-Storage Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 482-27-16-1
Address 4400 Horner Street
Parcel Acres 5.93
General Plan & Zoning Residential (17-30 du/acre) / Multi-Family Residential (RM-1500) (17-30 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/Income Level 151 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Diamond Mine Mini-Storage
Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information)
C) Structure Age/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR, F) Legal Non-Conforming Land Uses, G) Existing vs Zoned Use
Site Description
This site, located in a residential neighborhood, is currently occupied by the Diamond Mine mini-storage facility built in 1988; however, the site was redesignated from Industrial to Residential 10-17 in the 2040 General Plan. In November 2022 the City Council redesignated and rezoned this site to Residential 17-30 to allow for higher density residential, making the existing use on this site legal non-conforming, meaning it cannot be modified or expanded. The higher development potential of the site provides a strong financial incentive to redevelop. The City has initiated discussions with the property owner to gauge interest in redeveloping the site.

Max Capacity: 178 units
Assumptions:
• 85% of max density (26 du/acre realistic density)
• 100% residential
City Council/RSA Agenda 593 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-41 Site LM-15: Union City Boulevard Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APNs Site A – 483-5-11-2; 483-5-12; Site B - 483-5-9-2; 483-5-10; Site C - 483-5-7-7; 483-5-8-1 Address 30500-30600 Union City Boulevard
Parcel Acres Site A – 1.79 acres, Site B – 2.01 acres, Site C – 2.96 acres (6.76 acres total) General Plan & Zoning Village Mixed Use Commercial (VMU) (17-30 du/acre) Realistic Capacity/Income Level 172 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Warehouse, manufacturing, retail, auto uses.

Non-vacant Site Factors
(see Page 3-12 for more information)
B) Property Owner Interest, C) Structure/Site Conditions, D) Low FAR, F) Legal NonConforming Land Uses, G) Existing vs Zoned Use Site Description
This industrial site is located on Union City Boulevard surrounded by industrial uses to the west, a new residential mixed-use development to the south, and single-family homes to the east off Granger Avenue. The site is composed of six contiguous parcels that are owned by three different owners; however, each of the sites A, B, and C, shown on the map are made up of two adjacent parcels under common ownership.

The site is currently home to Jay’s Auto Salvage, a used auto parts store, a print shop, and mattress store. A portion of the industrial buildings has been vacant for several years. The structures were all built in the 1960s and are showing signs of aging. The existing industrial uses are similar to other former industrial buildings in the Station District that have been demolished for residential mixed use redevelopment, demonstrating market demand for converting industrial to residential. In November 2022 the City Council rezoned and redesignated these parcels to Village Mixed Use Commercial (VMU, allowing residential uses that are vertically integrated with ground floor commercial uses, with a density range of 17 – 30 du/acre. The new zoning designation makes the existing use on this site legal non-confirming, meaning it cannot be modified or expanded. The higher development potential of the site provides a strong financial incentive to redevelop. The site could be developed as three individual projects based on current ownership or be consolidated as one site.

Property owners have expressed interest in redeveloping the sites with residential mixed use.

Max Capacity: 203 units
Assumptions:
• 85% of max density (26 du/acre realistic density)
A
B
C
City Council/RSA Agenda 594 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-42 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Future Opportunity Sites
In the process of reviewing and vetting sites to include in the Housing Element sites inventory, the City identified several sites that have additional housing potential, but based on existing uses, lease terms, and/or lack of property owner interest, the City was not able to determine that the sites would reasonably be available during the eight-year Housing Element planning period. These sites, which are listed in Table 3-7 and shown on Figure 3-1 as Future Opportunity Sites, are located within the Station District Specific Plan area, which will allow for and facilitate opportunities for significant new housing. They are also all in high resource opportunity areas. These sites could potentially be added to the Housing Element inventory in future years to address “no net loss” issues if site conditions or new information supports the feasible redevelopment of the sites for housing.

TABLE 3-7: FUTURE OPPORTUNITY SITES
APN Address Acres Existing Use
(2022)
Zoning (per
Draft Specific
Plan)
Density
Range
(units/acre)
Maximum
Housing Unit
Capacity
87-21-4-4 33955 7th Street 3.48 R&S
Manufacturing
Station East
Mixed Use
25-100 348
87-19-7-2 34704 Alvarado-Niles
Road

0.80 Retail strip
commercial
center
Marketplace
Mixed Use
30-100 80
87-19-6 34734 Alvarado-Niles
Road

0.89 Tire shop
(America’s Tire)
Marketplace
Mixed Use
30-100 89
87-2-158,
87-2-157
34650 and 34601
Alvarado-Niles Road

1.31 Retail strip
commercial
center
Marketplace
Mixed Use
30-100 131
City Council/RSA Agenda 595 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-43 Projection of Accessory Dwelling Units
Per State law, a projection of the number of ADUs expected to be built within the eight-year planning period can also be considered as part of the inventory. The City has seen a dramatic increase in ADU production in recent years, particularly since 2018 when the State passed several bills to facilitate ADUs statewide. In 2021, the City adopted an ADU ordinance consistent with the requirements under State law. Table 3-8 shows the total number of ADU building permits issued by year since 2018. ADU production increased dramatically in 2021; however, over the five years since 2018, the City issued permits for about 16.2 ADUs per year, on average.

TABLE 3-8: ADU BUILDING PERMITS, UNION CITY (2018-2022) Year ADU Permits Issued
2018 8
2019 12
2020 7
2021 23
2022 31
Average 16.2
Source: City of Union City Housing Element Annual Progress Reports, 2020, 2021, 2022 (Draft APR)
The City anticipates that ADU production will continue at the same pace experienced since 2018, resulting in 130 ADUs produced within the 2023-2031 projection period. ABAG prepared the Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units in September 2021 to provide jurisdictions a foundation for housing element assumptions. The report is based on a statewide survey conducted by the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation, in collaboration with Baird + Driskell Community Planning in 2020. ABAG analyzed the raw survey data for Bay Area ADUs constructed in 2018 or 2019 to determine affordability. According to the ABAG report, 43 percent of ADUs, based on the East Bay counties surveyed, are assumed to be used as short-term rentals, home offices, or other non-residential uses. As such, of the 130 ADUs expected to be produced, only 73 ADUs are assumed to be available on the market as rental housing or housing for family and friends.

Using ABAG assumptions, the sites inventory includes a projection of 22 ADUs affordable to very low-income households, 22 ADUs affordable to low-income households, 22 ADUs affordable to moderate-income households, and 7 ADUs affordable to above moderate-income households.

City Council/RSA Agenda 596 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-44 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 RHNA Summary
The City has had great success in recent years getting housing built on sites in the housing element inventory. Many of the sites included in the previous housing element sites inventory have either been built with new residential projects or are entitled with projects that are expected to be built during this Sixth Cycle Housing Element planning period. The City has created significant new housing capacity through the recent 2040 General Plan Update and the Station District Specific Plan, which was adopted in October 2022. The City also rezoned several sites in late 2022 to increase capacity in the lower-income sites inventory. All of these actions taken together have helped to ensure the City has adequate housing capacity to meet the RHNA for this Housing Element planning period.

Table 3-9 provides a summary of Union City’s ability to meet the 2023-2031 RHNA. Based on the housing units in approved projects, capacity on vacant and underutilized sites, and projection of ADUs, the City has a surplus of 183 lower-income units, 674 moderate-income units, and 93 above moderate-income units.

TABLE 3-9: SITES INVENTORY CAPACITY SUMMARY, UNION CITY (2023-2031) Lower1 Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Regional Housing Needs Allocation 1,358 382 988 2,728
Approved Projects 202 440 849 1,491
Station District Specific Plan Sites 668 570 200 1,438
Citywide Vacant Sites 0 6 25 31
Citywide Underutilized Sites 627 18 0 645
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 44 22 7 73
Total Capacity 1,541 1,056 1,081 3,678
Surplus(+) 183 674 93 950
1 Lower-income includes extremely low-, very low-, and low-income.

Source: Ascent, 2022.

Infrastructure Adequacy
This section addresses the adequacy and availability of water, sewer, and dry utilities relative to the sites in the inventory. Availability of infrastructure is not expected to pose a constraint on residential development within the time frame of the Housing Element. The following paragraphs summarize the status of each of those services essential to residential development.

Water
Union City is served by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD), which obtains its water supply from both surface water and ground water sources. The district's service area also includes Fremont and Newark and covers a total area of 105 square miles. As of 2020 the population within the district’s service area was about 357,000, and according to ABAG/MTC projections in Plan Bay City Council/RSA Agenda 597 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-45 Area 2050, the population is expected to grow to about 371,000 by 2030 and 387,000 by 2040.

Sixty-seven percent of supplies are used by residential customers, with the remainder used by commercial, industrial, institutional, and dedicated landscape customers.

Long-range water planning for the ACWD service area is provided in the 2020-2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Due primarily to water conservation efforts and plumbing code advancements, the District anticipates reduced future demands for water compared to previous forecasts as well as in comparison to demonstrated past levels of actual demand. These reductions in total demand come despite a net increase in population and total housing per City and ABAG projections. Based on the analysis if the UWMP, ACWD has sufficient supply (estimated at around 68,200-acre feet/year+/-) to meet projects demands through 2045 (estimated at 67,600- acre feet per year).

Although the ACWD has no control on water service hookups, there are no constraints on providing service in its service area relative to pipe sizes, age of pipes, or other infrastructure issues.

Sewer
The Union Sanitary District (USD) operates a 33-acre wastewater treatment facility in Union City and provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to residents in Union City, Fremont, and Newark. The treatment facility has undergone several upgrades and expansions as these cities have grown. The District maintains over 830 miles of underground pipeline in its service area. On average the District treats approximately 25 million gallons per day (MGD) out of its permitted plant capacity of 33 MGD. The Union Sanitary District has capacity to meet the projected housing needs through the Housing Element Planning Period. All of the sites in the sites inventory have adequate sewer access.

Dry Utilities
Electricity and gas are provided to Union City by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Telephone, cable and broadband services are provided by a variety of services providers, including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. All of the sites identified in the inventory have access to dry utilities.

City Council/RSA Agenda 598 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
3-46 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 599 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-1 Chapter 4 | Fair Housing Assessment
Introduction
Land use policies and planning directly impact the ability of individuals and families to live in neighborhoods with opportunity, including high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs, and convenient access to transit and services. Despite the long-standing federal mandate established by the Fair Housing Act1 (FHA) — which prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability status — people within protected classes continue to encounter limits in housing choice and mobility.

In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); 2 and, protect the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) as published in the 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HUD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule.
3 California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines AFFH as taking meaningful actions to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. 4 As part of this, housing elements are required to include the following components:
 Inclusive and Equitable Outreach: Housing elements must make a diligent effort to equitably include all community stakeholders in the housing element participation process.  Assessment of Fair Housing: All housing elements must include an assessment of fair housing. This assessment should include an analysis of the following four fair housing issues:
integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
 Analysis of Sites Inventory: Local jurisdictions must evaluate and address how particular sites available for housing development will meet the needs of households at all income levels. The housing element must analyze and conclude whether the identified sites improve or exacerbate conditions for fair housing.
 Identification of Contributing Factors: Based on findings from the previous steps, housing elements must identify, evaluate, and prioritize the contributing factors related to fair housing issues.  Priorities, Goals, and Actions to AFFH: Local jurisdictions must adopt fair housing goals and actions that are significant, meaningful, and sufficient to overcome identified patterns of 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631
2 California Government Code Section 12900-12951 & 12927-12928 & 12955 - 12956.1 & 12960-12976 3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021. 4 CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), AFFH Guidance, 2021.

City Council/RSA Agenda 600 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-2 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 segregation and affirmatively further fair housing. The housing element should include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress and fair housing results.

Fair Housing Assessment
This section serves as an assessment of fair housing practices in Union City, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10). It examines existing conditions and demographic patterns including patterns of integration and segregation within the city, concentrated areas of low- and moderate-income housing, and areas of low and high opportunity. The analysis is based on data and research from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) from 2000-2020, the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, the HUD AFFH Tool, the Alameda County Assessment of Fair Housing (2020), and the AFFH Segregation Report: Union City (2022) prepared by UC Merced/STIR Labs in collaboration with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

Notes on Geospatial Analysis
In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by census tracts. Census tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, census tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of census tracts.

Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data. However, the racial dot maps in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-3 use data from census blocks5 ,
while the income group dot maps in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-8 use data from census block groups (block groups).6 These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people.

Figure 4-1 displays a neighborhood map for Union City. Throughout this document, these names will be used to categorize the census tract or block group data. It will be important to note that the Hillside area in Union City is one large census tract. Most of this area is undeveloped green space except for a small residential area near Mission Boulevard, so some data calculated using census data is misleading due to the small population size actually residing in the area. Additionally, the map shows the boundary for the Station District Specific Plan area. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, Potential Housing Constraints, the Station District has the potential to add approximately 4,000 new units with an increased population of approximately 9,400 residents. This assessment analyzes current fair housing practices as a result of specific contributing factors; however, the Station District is under significant change and can change fair housing indicators for the Station District and El Mercado neighborhoods. The potential effects of more housing development with regards to fair housing indicators will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Moreover, the region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County. 5 Census blocks are subdivisions of block groups.
6 Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts.

City Council/RSA Agenda 601 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-3 Figure 4-1: Neighborhood Map, Union City
Source, Union City, 2022.

Fair Housing Enforcement, Education, and Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are aware of fair housing laws and rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing.

Fair housing issues can arise through discrimination against an individual based on race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, or sex when renting, selling, or financing a housing unit. Fair housing complaints can be used as an indicator to identify the severity of discrimination in a jurisdiction as well as the characteristics of households experiencing said discrimination in housing.

HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is the federal agency which works to eliminate housing discrimination, promote economic opportunity, and achieve diverse, inclusive communities. The laws implemented and enforced by FHEO include:
 The Fair Housing Act
 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
 Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
 Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990  The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
City Council/RSA Agenda 602 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031  The Age Discrimination Act of 1975
 Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
FHEO services and activities include investigating fair housing complaints, conducting compliance reviews, ensuring civil rights in HUD programs, and managing fair housing grants. There were 203 complaints from residents in Alameda County that were forwarded to the FHEO office between 2017 and 2020. The most common issues were discrimination due to disability status (49.8 percent), race (11.3 percent) and familial status (9.9 percent). Retaliation cases made up 12.3 percent of complaints filed by residents in Alameda County between 2017 and 2020, see Table 4-1.

TABLE 4-1: FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS FORWARDED TO HUD FHEO ALAMEDA COUNTY, JANUARY 2017- JUNE 2020
Basis of Discrimination 2017 2018 2019 2020
2017-2020
Total Percent of
Total*
Color 1 1 1 0 3 1.5%
Disability 32 26 28 15 101 49.8%
Familial Status 10 5 3 2 20 9.9%
National Origin 4 4 0 1 9 4.4%
Hispanic Origin 2 2 0 0 4 2.0%
Race 7 9 5 2 23 11.3%
Asian 0 1 0 0 1 0.5%
Black 5 4 5 2 16 7.9%
Black and White 0 1 0 0 1 0.5%
Native American 1 1 0 0 2 1.0%
White 1 2 0 0 3 1.5%
Religion 1 2 2 0 5 2.5%
Retaliation 7 9 8 1 25 12.3%
Sex 7 5 5 0 17 8.4%
Total Cases 69 61 52 21 203 100%
* Note: These percentages do not add up to 100 due to cases containing multiple bases of discrimination.

Source: HUD FHEO, Fair Housing Annual Reports 2017-2020.

City level data is not reported by HUD’s FHEO however data from a HUD representative of Region 9 reports a total of nine inquiries from residents in Union City between January 2013 and March 2021.

While these inquiries are not official cases, it represents concerns that residents had about possible discrimination. Inquiries may or may not have been pursued by the resident for any number of reasons.

Table 4-2 includes a listing of local, regional, and state agencies and organizations to assist with fair housing services and outreach. Union City primarily contracts with the Eden Council of Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to provide fair housing related outreach, counseling and education, tenant/landlord counseling and mediation, and other housing-related programs. ECHO has provided fair housing services for 527 residents from 2016 to 2020. From 2020-2021, ECHO provided the following services: 17 fair housing inquiries/complaints, 5 fair housing audits, 91 City Council/RSA Agenda 603 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-5 tenant/landlord cases, and 17 tenant/landlord mediations. The following is a summary of the 17 fair housing inquiries/complaints:
 Disability — 10 disability cases — insufficient evidence in 5 cases; counseling provided to tenant and landlord in 5 cases, counseling provided to landlord in 1 case; 1 successful mediation.  Familial Status — 1 case — 1 successful mediation with education provided to landlord  Race — 1 case — counseling provided to tenant
 Religion — 1 case — insufficient evidence in 1 case; counseling provided to tenant in 1 case  National Origin — 1 case — 1 case tested and insufficient evidence  Source of Income — 1 case — counseling provided to tenant and landlord TABLE 4-2: FAIR HOUSING ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATIONS, ALAMEDA COUNTY, 2022 Organization
Name
Service Area Description of Primary Activities
Bay Area Legal Aid San Rafael, Napa,
Richmond, Oakland,
San Francisco,
Redwood City, & San
Jose
BayLegal or BALA's mission is to provide meaningful access to the civil justice system through quality legal assistance regardless of a client’s location, language or disability. They provide legal advice and representation to access
healthcare and crucial safety net benefits, help families find resources and representation to fight back against housing discrimination and eviction, and help victims of violence escape intimate partner abuse.

California Rural
Legal Assistance
(CRLA)
State of California CRLA's client representation focuses on the legal areas of employment and labor, housing, education, rural health, and leadership development. In addition, they have special
programs that address widespread needs in rural California.

East Bay
Community Law
Center (EBCLC)
Berkeley. Oakland,
Emeryville, Alameda
EBCLC’s Housing Program focuses on defending eviction
lawsuits brought against low-income tenants, as well as enforcement of local rent and eviction control ordinances.

The program emphasizes defense of long-term tenancies to preserve the value of rent-controlled units. EBCLC also prioritizes subsidized tenancies such as those in Section 8 and conventional public housing programs, as well as on behalf of tenants with disabilities.

Eden Council of
Hope &
Opportunity
(ECHO) Housing
Alameda, Contra Costa,
and Monterey Counties,
and the Cities of
Alameda, Antioch,
Concord, Hayward,
Livermore, Monterey,
Oakland, Pleasanton,
Richmond, Salinas, San
Leandro, Seaside, Union
City, and Walnut Creek
ECHO provides fair housing counseling and education,
tenant/landlord counseling and mediation, and other
housing-related programs. To address the needs of Limited English Proficient speakers, ECHO provides services and classes in Spanish, has online information available in multiple languages, and has access to an interpretation and translation service. ECHO programs include:
• Fair housing counseling, investigation, education, and enforcement
• Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
• Rental Assistance Program
• Homeseeking Services
• Shared Housing Counseling & Placement
• Homebuyer Education Workshops
City Council/RSA Agenda 604 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-6 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 4-2: FAIR HOUSING ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATIONS, ALAMEDA COUNTY, 2022 Organization
Name
Service Area Description of Primary Activities
Housing and
Economic Rights
Advocates (HERA)
State of California HERA is a California statewide, not-for-profit legal service and advocacy organization dedicated to helping Californians — particularly those most vulnerable — build a safe, sound financial future, free of discrimination and economic abuses, in all aspects of household financial concerns. They provide free legal services, consumer workshops, training for
professionals and community organizing support, create
innovative solutions and engage in policy work locally, statewide and nationally.

Housing Equality
Law Project
(HELP)
Northern California HELP seeks to expand legal protections in fair housing through advocacy, leadership training, education and
outreach, and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

Project Sentinel Northern California Project Sentinel's Fair Housing Center provides education and counseling to community members, housing providers, and tenants about fair housing laws. They also investigate complaints and advocate for those who have experienced
housing discrimination.

Source: Organization Websites, HCD Fair Housing Organizations List, Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2020.

Demographics and Residential Settlement
Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. The data presented in this section describing racial and income segregation in Union City is based on the data and research presented in the AFFH Land Use Segregation Report prepared for Union City by the UC Merced/ STIR labs team in collaboration with ABAG. The report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.
 Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20 percent Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80 percent Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.  City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

City Council/RSA Agenda 605 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-7 History of Segregation in the Region
The following is a brief summary of the history of racial and ethnic segregation in the Bay Area, as written in the 2020 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice:

In 1942, during World War II and after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which allowed military commanders to exclude people of “enemy ancestry” in designated “exclusion zones.” All Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans living on the West Coast, approximately 110,000 people, were forced into internment camps.

Approximately 10,000 internees were held in the Manzanar, California, camp from 1942 to 1945.

During this time, Japanese property was stolen or sold, leaving many with nowhere to live upon release (Truman Library, 2017).

The state of California enacted several Jim Crow laws between 1850 and 1947. People of color were not allowed to testify in favor of or against white men; marriage between a white person and person of color was illegal; any person who could not read English was not allowed to vote; Chinese immigrants were not allowed to vote; and Asian immigrants could not own property.

Redlining was a practice in the 1930s in which the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) graded 239 cities in the United States based on race and income to determine loan risk (Anti Eviction Mapping Project, 2019). This resulted in mortgage lenders denying majority black, Asian, and Hispanic neighborhoods mortgages while granting mortgages to white neighborhoods. This created a wealth disparity between white neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color. The cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro, Piedmont, Albany, and Emeryville were all graded by HOLC. Neighborhoods fronting the San Francisco Bay received the worst scores (Richmond, 2019).

If families of color were approved for a mortgage, they would often have to buy homes in less desirable areas. In addition, restrictive covenants placed on the trust deeds in white neighborhoods contained language barring sales of homes to non-white buyers. Additionally, homes that families of color could buy would not appreciate in value in the same way that homes in white neighborhoods would, continuing the disparity of wealth.

During the 1950, 1960s, and 1970s, many large cities in the country lost a significant portion of their white population and saw growth in their black and Hispanic populations. The Civil Rights Act, desegregation of schools, and white people’s access to credit and mortgages contributed to this phenomenon, which is now called “white flight.” White families were able to access mortgages that allowed them to leave diverse cities for racially homogenous suburbs. This left cities with a high population of people of color, a smaller tax base, and decreased investment leading to poor conditions. The City of Oakland is a notable example of a city deeply affected by white flight.

Gentrification is a reversal of white flight trends, where more affluent, often white families move back into the city from suburban communities. Gentrification is demarcated by renewed investment in communities and significant increases in rent. Low-income families of color find it hard to pay rent and opt to move to lower rent areas in often worse conditions and with less opportunity. The cities of Oakland and Berkeley are currently experiencing high levels of gentrification, where many black and Hispanic families are moving into outlying suburban communities while white families are moving in, per the UC Berkeley’s "Urban Displacement Project,” (2020 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice).

City Council/RSA Agenda 606 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-8 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Current Day Patterns in the Bay Area
The AFFH Land Use Segregation Report found that across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups(see Figures 4-2 and 4-3). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis showed that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000.

However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.7 Figure 4-2 Regional Racial Dot Map, 2020
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. 7 Ibid
City Council/RSA Agenda 607 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-9 Figure 4-3: Regional Income Dot Map, 2015
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Race and Ethnicity
Table 4-3 below presents the racial demographics in Union City for the years 2000, 2010, and 2019 As of 2019, Union City has a significantly lower share of white residents and slightly lower shares of Latinx residents and Black residents compared to the Bay Area as a whole. However, there is more than twice the proportion of Asian/Pacific Islander residents in Union City than the Bay Area as a whole.

The racial dot map of Union City in Figure 4-4 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher.

Figure 4-4 shows that most racial groups are distributed relatively evenly throughout the city, although households in the Decoto neighborhoods are predominantly Latinx. Additionally, there is a small concentration of Latinx households in the Crestwood neighborhood. Both of these areas are circled on the map as they are the only predominant concentrations for any racial/ethnic group.

City Council/RSA Agenda 608 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-10 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 4-3: POPULATION BY RACIAL GROUP UNION CITY, 2000-2019 Race
Union City Bay Area Average
2000 2010 2019 2019
Black 6.5% 6.0% 4.9% 5.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander 43.0% 51.6% 54.6% 26.7%
Latinx 24.0% 22.9% 20.2% 23.5%
White 20.4% 14.4% 15.4% 39.3%
Other or Multiple Races 6.2% 5.1% 4.8% 4.7%
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

Data for 2019 is from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Figure 4-4: Racial Dot Map, Union City
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

City Council/RSA Agenda 609 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-11 Segregation Indices
There are three indices described below that measure segregation and integration at a local and regional level. The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. The indices range from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed.

Table 4-4 shows the measures of segregation for all racial groups in Union City for the years 2000, 2010, and 2019 compared to averages for all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions in 2019. Table 4-5 shows the measures of racial segregation for the region for the year 2015.

TABLE 4-4: NEIGHBORHOOD RACIAL SEGREGATION MEASURES
UNION CITY, 2000-2019
Index Race
Union City Bay Area Average
2000 2010 2019 2019
Isolation Index White 0.242 0.175 0.189 0.538
Black/African American 0.073 0.065 0.062 0.060
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.512 0.575 0.592 0.234
Latinx 0.411 0.376 0.348 0.243
Dissimilarity Index Black/African American
vs. White

0.161 0.145 0.305 0.359
Asian/Pacific Islander
vs. White

0.271 0.254 0.209 0.214
Latinx vs. White 0.324 0.310 0.344 0.240
People of Color vs. White 0.206 0.190 0.199 0.191
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.099 0.087 0.093 0.054
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

Data for 2019 is from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

According to the index, within Union City the most isolated racial group is Asian residents. Union City’s isolation index of 0.592 for Asian residents means that the average Asian resident lives in a neighborhood that is 59.2 percent Asian. This is largely reflective of the fact that nearly 55 percent of Union City’s population is Asian. It should also be noted that the racial category of “Asian” encompasses a diversity of cultures represented in Union City, including Filipino, Indian, Chinese, and many other Asian cultures.

The index shows that other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the Asian population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2019. Notably this pattern is different than the region, where the most isolated racial group is White households with Latinx and Asian following (see Table 4-5). Again, this trend reflects the growth in Union City’s population of Asian residents over this time period.

City Council/RSA Agenda 610 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-12 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 4-5: REGIONAL RACIAL SEGREGATION MEASURES, 2015
Index Race Value
Isolation Index Regional Level White 0.463
Black/African American 0.124
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.284
Latinx 0.358
Dissimilarity Index Regional
Level
Black/African American vs. White 0.460
Latinx vs. White 0.299
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.368
People of Color vs. White 0.290
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

Data for 2019 is from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.

Table 4-4 also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction. Note, the dissimilarity index does not directly measure segregation between two minority groups (e.g., Black and Hispanic/Latino segregation). All dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2019). The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.

In Union City the highest segregation is between Latinx and white residents (see Table 4-4). Union City’s Latinx/White dissimilarity index of 0.344 means that 34.4 percent of Latinx (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Latinx residents and white residents. The average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.240, so on average 24.0 percent of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within that jurisdiction to create perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction. For the region as a whole, the Latinx/White dissimilarity index value is 0.299 (see Table 5-5). These findings show that there is slightly higher levels of segregation between Latinx residents in Union City (0.344) compared to the Bay Area as a whole (0.299).

Lastly, Table 4-4 shows the Theil’s H Index values for 2000, 2010, and 2019. The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction. This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. Between 2000 and 2010, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Union City decreased and then increased slightly by 2019, suggesting that there is less neighborhood level racial segregation in Union City now compared to 2000. In 2019, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Union City was higher than the average value for all Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is more neighborhood level racial segregation in Union City than in the average Bay Area city.

Figure 4-5 below illustrates regional racial segregation between Union City and other jurisdictions.

This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Union City and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
 Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points.

City Council/RSA Agenda 611 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-13  Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional percentage of people of color (within five percentage points).  Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color. Union City falls into this category.

Figure 4-5: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Union City and Vicinity to the Bay Area, 2020 Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic white. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Figures 4-6 and 4-7 below provide a visual representation of how racial segregation index values in Union City, described above, compared to values in all other Bay Area jurisdictions. Figure 4-6 compares isolation index values and Figure 4-7 compares dissimilarity index values. In these charts, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of index values among Bay Area jurisdictions and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average.

City Council/RSA Agenda 612 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-14 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-6: Comparison of Racial Isolation Index Values, Union City and all Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019

Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.

Figure 4-7: Comparison of Racial Dissimilarity Index Values, Union City vs All Other Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.

City Council/RSA Agenda 613 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-15 Income
Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Table 4-6 below shows the income demographics in Union City for the years 2010 and 2015 compared to the ninecounty Bay Area in 2015. As of 2015, Union City had lower shares of very low- and low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole and higher shares of moderate- and above moderate-income residents.

TABLE 4-6: POPULATION BY INCOME GROUP UNION CITY, 2010 AND 2015 Income Group
Union City Bay Area Average
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 18.2% 22.95% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 13.19% 12.69% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 20.95% 22.5% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 47.66% 41.86% 39.4%
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Figure 4-8 provides a visual comparison of the income demographics in Union City to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions. Each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions.

The smallest range is among jurisdictions’ moderate-income populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is above moderate-income.

Figure 4-8: Comparison of Income Demographics, Union City and All Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2015 Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

The dot map in Figure 4-9 offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups in Union City in 2015.

City Council/RSA Agenda 614 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-16 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-9: Income Dot Map, Union City, 2015
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Segregation Indices
Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the racial segregation measures shown in Tables 4-4 and 4-5, Table 4-7 presents segregation index values for income segregation for Union City and the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015 and Table 4-8 presents the same for the region.

The dissimilarity index and isolation index are calculated by comparing the income demographics of Union City and local jurisdictions to the regional income group composition. For example, Table 4-8 shows that the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is 0.315, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5 percent very low-income.

The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents (below 80 percent AMI) and other residents is 0.193, which means that across the region 19.3 percent of lower-income residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole.

In Union City, above moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group. Union City’s isolation index of 0.466 for these residents means that the average above moderate- income resident in Union City lives in a neighborhood that is 46.6 percent above moderate-income. This aligns with the averages for Bay Area jurisdictions, 0.507, which means that the average above moderate-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 50.7 percent above moderate-income.

City Council/RSA Agenda 615 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-17 Among all income groups, the above moderate-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

On the other end of the income spectrum, the isolation index shows that the average low-income resident in Union City lives in a neighborhood that is only 15.1 percent low-income.

According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income increased between 2010 and 2015 in the city. In 2015, the income segregation in Union City between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for all Bay Area jurisdictions.

Table 4-7 also shows the Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in Union City for the years 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in Union City was less than it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in Union City (0.046) was similar to the average value for all Bay Area jurisdictions (0.043).

TABLE 4-7: NEIGHBORHOOD INCOME SEGREGATION MEASURES
UNION CITY, 2010 AND 2015
Index Income Group
Union City Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Isolation Index Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.225 0.267 0.269 Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.151 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.229 0.233 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.537 0.466 0.507
Dissimilarity Index Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.217 0.267 0.198 Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.287 0.310 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.060 0.046 0.043
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

TABLE 4-8: REGIONAL INCOME SEGREGATION MEASURES, 2015
Index Income Group Value
Isolation Index Regional Level Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.315 Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.434
Dissimilarity Index Regional
Level
Lower-Income (Below 80% AMI) vs.

Non-Lower-Income (Above 80% AMI)

0.193
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

City Council/RSA Agenda 616 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-18 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figures 4-10 and 4-11 provide a visual comparison of how income segregation index values in Union City compare to values in all other Bay Area jurisdictions. Figure 4-10 compares isolation index values and Figure 4-11 compares dissimilarity index values. In these charts, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average.

Figure 4-10: Comparison of Income Isolation Index Values, Union City and all Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2015
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Figure 4-11: Comparison of Income Dissimilarity Index Values, Union City vs All Other Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2015
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

City Council/RSA Agenda 617 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-19 Patterns of Income Distribution
Figure 4-12 provides a representation of the distribution of household median incomes in Union City based on data from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey from the U.S. Census. It is consistent with the patterns found above from 2015. As shown in the figure, many neighborhoods in the city have higher than average median incomes, indicated in blue. Above moderate-income households are specifically located in the 511 area, Lowry neighborhood, neighborhoods surrounding the Alvarado Business Park, neighborhoods surrounding Central Bay, and in the Mission Boulevard neighborhoods near the Station District. Neighborhoods in the areas bifurcated by major transportation ways generally make lower incomes, in the range of $87,100 (the 2020 State Median Income) to $125,000. The tracts with the lowest incomes (less than $55,000) are in the Decoto neighborhoods, Town Estates, and Almaden neighborhoods along Highway 880 including the Tropics Mobile Home Park. There are also lower median incomes in the Historic Alvarado District along Smith Street and Hillside area.

Figure 4-12: Distribution of Median Income, Union City, 2019 Source: CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, 2021.

Familial Status
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on certain protected classes, including "familial status," which refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old. Under the FHA, familial status discrimination occurs when a landlord, property manager, real estate agent, or property owner treats someone differently because they have a family with one or more individuals who are under 18 years of age. A “family” also includes people who are pregnant and people who are in the process of securing legal custody of a person under 18 years of age, including a family that is in the process of adopting a child, or foster parents. All families with children are protected by the FHA against familial status discrimination, including single-parent households and same-sex couples with children.

City Council/RSA Agenda 618 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-20 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Rules that unreasonably restrict children or limit the ability of children to use their housing or the common facilities at the property may violate the FHA. Moreover, enforcing certain rules only against families with children may also violate the FHA. The following are examples of the types of conduct that may violate the FHA:
 Refusing to rent, sell, or negotiate with a family because the family has one or more children under 18 years of age.
 Advertising a preference for households without children or otherwise discouraging such families.
 Telling an individual with children no unit is available even though a unit is in fact available.  Forcing families into housing units that are larger than necessary.  Designating certain floors or buildings for families with children or encouraging families with children to reside in particular areas.
 Charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children under 18 years of age.

This assessment examines the spatial distribution of households by familial status to determine the potential of familial status discrimination in the city. As shown in Figure 4-13, about 37 percent of households in Union City have one or more children under the age of 18 according to the 2015 to 2019 ACS. The city’s share of households with children is higher than that of the county (34 percent) and the Bay Area region (32 percent). These patterns are indicative of the suburban nature of the city compared to the surrounding region.

Figure 4-13: Households by Presence of Children
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11005 37% 34% 32%
63% 66% 68%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Households with 1 or More Children Under 18 Households with no Children City Council/RSA Agenda 619 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-21 Figure 4-14 shows the distribution of children in married couple households, while Figure 4-15 shows the distribution of children in female-headed households with no partner or spouse present.

Figure 4-14: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households, Union City, 2019 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2015-2019 American Community Survey data.

Married Couple Households
More than 80 percent of children in most census tracts of the city live in married couple households. This is highest in the eastern half of the city where residential neighborhoods are mostly built out with single-family homes. These areas are also where most of the schools are located in the city. In several census tracts throughout the city, only 60 to 80 percent of children are living in married couple households except once census tract east of Highway 880 showing 40 to 60 percent of children in married couple households. On average, Union City has more children in married couple households than Hayward to the north and is similar to the household makeup of census tracts in Fremont to the south.

Female Headed Households, No Partner Present
As described in Chapter 2, single-female headed households tend to receive unequal treatment in the rental housing market and are more likely to experience difficulties in finding affordable, decent, and safe housing because of their relatively lower single-wage household incomes. As shown in Figure 4-15, 40 to 60 percent of children in single female headed households live in the Casa Verde neighborhood as of 2019. This is a relatively high concentration compared to the rest of the city.

Notably, this Casa Verde has a 140-unit affordable housing development called Los Robles that provides larger apartments for very low- and low- income families.

City Council/RSA Agenda 620 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-22 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-15: Percent of Children in Single-Female Headed Households, Union City, 2019 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2015-2019 American Community Survey data.

Population with Disabilities
The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as one of the following: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.

Persons with disabilities tend to have lower fixed-incomes, higher health care costs, and special housing needs. As described in Chapter 2 and shown below in Table 4-9, 8 percent of people in Union City had a disability of any kind in 2019 and 2020. This is only slightly lower than the percentage in Alameda County (9 percent) and the Bay Area (10 percent).

TABLE 4-9: DISABILITY STATUS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, UNION CITY, 2020 Race or Ethnicity
2010 2015 2020
Number
with a
Disability
Percent
with a
Disability
Number
with a
Disability
Percent
with a
Disability
Number
with a
Disability
Percent
with a
Disability
White Alone, not Hispanic or
Latino
1,608 15.7% 1,728 17.5% 1,640 14.0%
Black or African American
Alone*
550 9.9% 373 9.8% 421 12.4%
Asian Alone* 1,741 4.9% 2,374 6.2% 2,787 6.7%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 842 5.9% 1,140 7.3% 1,013 6.9% Total Non-Institutionalized
Population
4,850 7.4% 6,188 8.5% 6,161 8.2%
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2020 Estimates, Table S1810 City Council/RSA Agenda 621 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-23 Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs because of their physical and/or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs associated with their disabilities. Figure 4-16 shows the population of persons with a disability by census tract in the city using ACS data from 2015-2019. The map shows higher concentrations of residents with disabilities throughout the Hillside area. Much of this area is undeveloped, however the Acacia Creek Retirement Community is located in this census tract accounting for the higher percentage of residents reporting a disability in this area. The second tract identified with a higher percentage of residents with disabilities is the Almaden neighborhood where the Tropics Mobile Home Park is located. The third tract in the city showing higher concentrations of residents with a disability is in the Ranchwood neighborhood off of Union City Boulevard. This census tract includes more households with above moderate-incomes and is near multiple schools, parks, transit, and other services. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey data indicates that this census tract has only 11.6 percent of the population with a disability with a 3.23 percent margin of error. Notably this is not that much higher than the citywide average of 8 percent (shown as less than 10 percent on the figure below) and could also be within the margin of error. By comparison, the population of residents with disabilities in the other two census tracts is closer to 15 percent indicating a higher concentration.

City Council/RSA Agenda 622 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-24 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-16: Population with a Disability, Union City, 2014 and 2019 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 American Community Survey data.

City Council/RSA Agenda 623 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-25 Concentrated Areas of Race/Ethnicity and Income
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are neighborhoods in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD’s definition of a R/ECAP is:
 A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR  A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower.

Households within R/ECAP tracts frequently represent the most disadvantaged households within a community and often face a multitude of housing challenges. R/ECAPs are meant to identify where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity. While there are several R/ECAPs in Alameda County, the majority are concentrated in the City of Oakland with a few in Berkeley, one in Hayward, and one in the unincorporated county (see Figure 4-16). No R/ECAPs were identified in Union City.

Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic white households and high household income rates.

HCD has not yet established one standard methodology for determining RCAAs in California, but for the purpose of this analysis an RCAA is defined as a census tract with: 1) an average total White population that is 1.25 times higher than the average total White population in the Bay Area region and 2) a median household income of $141,996 or higher (1.5 times higher than the Bay Area AMI in 2019). Based on this methodology, there are RCAAs throughout the eastern county spanning from Dublin, Livermore, and the unincorporated eastern county up through Castro Valley and Contra Costa County area. There are also RCAAs in the City of Alameda and Oakland. There are no RCAAs within Union City based on this methodology.

However, there are several areas with relatively concentrated “affluence” in the city. As described previously, above moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in Union City. As shown in Figure 4-17 (Distribution of Median Income, 2019), abovemoderate- income residents mostly reside in the Lowry neighborhoods and 511 area off of Union City Boulevard. There are also higher incomes in the neighborhoods surrounding the Alvarado Business Park and Central Bay. Not one of these tracts, or any census tract in the city, is recognized as a RCAA because the population in these neighborhoods is predominantly Asian or another community of color (shown in Figure 4-4) and does not meet the HCD definition.

City Council/RSA Agenda 624 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-26 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-17: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, Bay Area, 2017 Source: Data download from the HCD AFFH Mapping tool in 2021. Based on R/ECAP data from HUD 2013-2017.

City Council/RSA Agenda 625 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-27 Access to Opportunity
HCD defines access to opportunity as a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Improving access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to “high resource” neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food, and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).

TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
In collaboration, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and HCD developed the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, a mapping tool that identifies areas of higher and lower resources to evaluate access to opportunity. The tool maps areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify areas within the community that provide good access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. They can also help to highlight areas that are rapidly changing (potentially creating risk of displacement for lowerincome households) and areas where there are high levels of segregation and poverty. The Opportunity Maps include three domains: economic, environmental, and education. Each domain uses a number of indicators to determine its individual score. Table 4-10 shows the full list of indicators.

TABLE 4-10: DOMAINS AND LIST OF INDICATORS FOR OPPORTUNITY MAPS Domain Indicators
Environmental • CalEnviroScreen 4.0 pollution indicators and processed values Economic • Poverty
• Adult education
• Employment
• Job proximity
• Median home value
Education • Math proficiency
• Reading proficiency
• High School graduation rates
• Student poverty rates
Poverty and Racial
Segregation
• Poverty: tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line
• Racial Segregation: Overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county (i.e., Tracts with a racial location quotient higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color in comparison to the county) Source: CA Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2021.

Figure 4-18 shows the composite score of the 2022 TCAC Opportunity Areas in the Bay Area region.

As shown in the figure, large swaths of the county — from Oakland to Hayward and east of Livermore — are categorized as low resource with some tracts in Alameda and near Oakland showing high segregation and poverty. Higher resource tracts are in Berkeley, San Leandro, and Castro Valley in Alameda County. These high resource tracts in the northern part of the county are City Council/RSA Agenda 626 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-28 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 the location of several regional park and recreation areas (not shown on the map below). Other higher resource areas are near the city of Fremont and most of the eastern portion of the County.

Notably, lower resource tracts correspond with a higher number of Latinx and Black residents (as shown in Figure 4-4). White and Asian/Pacific Islander residents in the region tend to live in areas with high opportunity including greater access to jobs, proficient schools, and lower rates of poverty.

Figure 4-18: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Composite Score, Region, 2022 Source: Data downloaded from the California State Treasurer TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps in 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 627 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-29 Figure 4-19 shows a closer look at the TCAC Opportunity Areas in Union City. All census tracts within the city are categorized as either moderate or high resource. Since 2020, two census tracts in the city have increased from low to moderate resource. These census tracts are in the Decoto neighborhood, the Tamarack neighborhoods, the Town Estates neighborhood between AlvaradoNiles Road and Whipple Road, and neighborhoods surrounding Central Bay.

Figure 4-19: TCAC Opportunity Areas- Composite Score, Union City, 2020 and 2022 Source: Data downloaded from the California State Treasurer TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps in 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 628 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-30 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Educational Opportunity
Figure 4-20 shows domain scores for the education indicator of the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps.

Educational scores are determined based on elementary math and reading proficiency rates, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. The best opportunities for positive educational outcomes in Union City are in the Lowry neighborhoods and the southern 511 area. Most of the city, however, has moderate education scores. Neighborhoods surrounding Town Estates, Central Bay, and Tamarack neighborhoods have the lowest scores (0.25-0.50). There is only one school located near the neighborhoods surrounding Town Estates and Central Bay overall, while the Tamarack neighborhood is the most disproportionately impacted by lower educational opportunity.

The Decoto neighborhood, the Station District, and Mission Boulevard neighborhoods also received low education domain opportunity scores (0.25-0.50) as there is only one elementary school located in each of the described census tracts.

Figure 4-20: TCAC Opportunity Areas- Education Score, Union City, 2021 Source: Data downloaded from the HCD AFFH Data Tool in 2021. Note that this data is based on 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas as the 2022 data by indicator is not yet available through the HCD AFFH Tool.

The 2020 AI found that across the region, there is a greater concentration of Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Asian or Pacific Islander residents in areas of low school proficiency — similar to the Decoto neighborhood. Areas with a greater concentration of White residents tend to have higher levels of school proficiency across the region. In Union City, most students are likely to receive a good quality education. According to the index, southern neighborhoods have the greater chance of the most positive educational outcomes while students residing in the Tamarack and in Decoto neighborhoods are more likely to have poorer educational outcomes. As shown in Figure 4- 4 (Racial Dot Map, Union City) the Tamarack and Decoto neighborhoods are largely occupied by Hispanic/Latinx households. In fact, it is one of the city’s only concentrated areas. This indicates that Hispanic and Latinx students are more likely to have poor educational outcomes.

City Council/RSA Agenda 629 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-31 Economic Opportunity
In the context of economic opportunity, Union City has below average economic outcomes. Most of the city ranks between 0.25 and 0.50, indicating fewer positive outcomes. The lowest scoring census tracts (shown in Figure 4-21) are in the Decoto, Crestwood, and Almaden neighborhoods.

According to ACS 2010-2014 data, there were higher rates of poverty and unemployment in the same census tracts with the lowest scoring domain scores. By 2019, the severity of poverty in these areas decreased. The highest scoring tracts for economic outcomes are in the 511 area, Historic Alvarado, and Lowry neighborhoods. On the east side of the city, the highest economic outcomes are in the Station District and Mission Boulevard neighborhoods.

Figure 4-21: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic Score, Union City, 2022 Source: Data downloaded from the HCD AFFH Data Tool in 2021. Note that this data is based on 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas as the 2022 data by indicator is not yet available through the HCD AFFH Tool.

Economic domain scores for Union City are comparable to scores in Fremont, however, Fremont has more positive economic outcomes on average. Domain scores are also comparable to Hayward, although Hayward has less positive economic outcomes. Regionally, economic domain scores are lower going north and higher in the south in Silicon Valley, except for the eastern areas of the county where there are more positive economic outcomes indicated even though these areas are mostly undeveloped regional park space.

Proximity to Jobs
HUD prepared the job proximity index using 2014-2017 data to quantify the accessibility of a given neighborhood to all jobs within a core-based statistical area. Figure 4-22 shows the Jobs Proximity Index values for Union City. Most of the city’s neighborhoods depict average access and opportunity to jobs (index scores are 40-60). Proximity to jobs decreases spanning from north to south. The census tracts containing Town Estates and neighborhoods around Central Bay, in the City Council/RSA Agenda 630 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-32 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 north of the city, ranked the highest in proximity to jobs, receiving index values of 60-80). The Lowry, Ranchwood, and the south end of the 511 area received the lowest scores on the index (20- 40). The block groups bordering the City of Fremont received an index score less than or equal to 20, which means that those residents have the furthest proximity to major employment centers. In comparison to the region (shown in Figure 4-23), Union City has greater proximity to major employment centers than the neighboring cities of Fremont and Hayward, but is further than Oakland, Alameda, Milpitas, and Sunnyvale.

Figure 4-22: Jobs Opportunity Index, Union City, 2022
Source: Data downloaded from the HCD AFFH Data Tool in 2021. Based on 2013-2017 HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

City Council/RSA Agenda 631 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-33 Figure 4-23: Jobs Opportunity Index, Bay Area, 2022
Source: Data downloaded from the HCD AFFH Data Tool in 2021. Based on 2013-2017 HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

City Council/RSA Agenda 632 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-34 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Transportation Access
There is not a significant disparity in Union City in terms of access to transportation. Figures 4-24 and 4-25 below display the system maps for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), AC Transit, and Union City Transit. These transit services provide transit throughout the county as well as providing connections to the greater region. Union City is generally well-served by transit.

The Low Cost Transportation Index, developed by HUD, estimates the percentage of income that residents use to pay for transportation, measured at the census tract scale. The higher an index score, the lower the cost of transportation. Index scores can be influenced by factors such as access to public transportation, housing density, and proximity of employment centers and other services. As shown in Figure 4-26, the cost for transportation in Union City is relatively low for the entire city (scoring 80-90 in the index). The lowest transportation costs align with the BART line in the city and the highest transportation costs, or the lowest scoring tract (71-79), is south of Horner Veazy on Union City Boulevard.

The regional public transportation system has resulted in low cost transportation options for the entire region, as shown in Figure 4-27. Similar to what is shown in Union City, most cities serviced with public transportation display scores of 80-90 and 90-99 in the inner city cores of Fremont, Union City, Hayward, San Leandro, Alameda, and Oakland.

Figure 4-24: Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Weekday System Map Source: BART, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 633 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-35 Figure 4-25: Transit System Map – Union City
Source: Union City, 2022. AC Transit, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 634 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-36 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-26: Transportation Index, Union City, 2017
Source: Data downloaded from the HCD AFFH Data Tool in 2021. Based on 2013-2017 HUD Low Cost Transportation Index.

City Council/RSA Agenda 635 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-37 Figure 4-27: Transportation Index, Bay Area Region, 2017 Source: Data downloaded from the HCD AFFH Data Tool in 2021. Based on 2013-2017 HUD Low Cost Transportation Index.

City Council/RSA Agenda 636 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-38 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Environmental Opportunity
Generally, lower-income housing and racially segregated communities are disproportionately impacted by a combination of locational factors such as proximity to landfills, freeways, industrial areas, and other toxins and pollutants. A 2016 report entitled “Poverty Concentration and the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): Effects of Siting and Tenant Composition” studied whether nationally the LIHTC affects the concentration of poverty. The study examined who lives in tax credit developments in different neighborhoods, and how neighborhoods and metropolitan areas change after LIHTC developments are built. The study concluded that the distribution of affordable housing has been disproportionately developed in minority neighborhoods with poor environmental conditions and high poverty rates, thereby reinforcing poverty concentration and racial segregation in low opportunity and low resource areas. The links between health and housing strongly indicate that improved housing and neighborhood environments could lead to reductions in health disparities. TCAC and HCD measured environmental opportunity using the exposure, pollution burden, and environmental effect indicators used in California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool (CalEnviroScreen). CalEnviroScreen is a statewide risk assessment tool that measures the cumulative impacts of multiple sources of pollution.

The most positive environmental conditions in the city are west of the Amtrak rail line. This includes all of the 511 planning area, the Historic Alvarado District, Lowry, Ranchwood, and Crestwood neighborhoods. Although these census tracts were ranked poorly in the social determinants categories (i.e., they ranked highly for asthma, cardiovascular disease, and linguistic isolation), these areas have higher housing costs and lower rates of housing burden, poverty, and unemployment rates which increased their overall index score. Environmental conditions are also positive east of the BART rail line in the Decoto, Mission Boulevard, and the Hillside areas.

As shown in Figure 4-28, the poorest environmental outcomes within Union City are in the northern neighborhoods of Town Estates, neighborhoods surrounding Central Bay, and Tamarack (less than

0.25). Environmental index values are also low (0.25-0.50) in the south-central area of the city in the Logan, El Mercado, Civic Center and Almaden neighborhoods. Scores from CalEnviroScreen show that the northern neighborhoods score high on multiple pollution indicators including diesel particulate matter, cleanup sites, and hazardous waste facilities. In population indicators, the area scores highest in low birth weight infants, but also scores relatively high in asthma, cardiovascular disease, and linguistic isolation. In the south, CalEnviroScreen scores were high in the categories of groundwater threats and cleanup sites also.

Neighborhoods in Union City located close to major roads and highways, such as those along Highway 880, are also impacted by air pollutants and noise from automobile traffic on the roadways.

CalEnviroScreen scores, shown in Figure 4-29, in the central census tracts of the city are consistent with historical patterns of industrial development and locations of previous industrial warehouses containing hazardous materials. For example, the Union Flats and the Station District area included sites of previous iron mills and PG&E corporation yards. Both locations also included brownfield remediation because any leak from a container or tank can contaminate soil and pollute groundwater, taking many years to clean up. Common pollutants of soil and groundwater include gasoline and diesel fuel from gas stations, solvents, heavy metals, and pesticides. People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes.

City Council/RSA Agenda 637 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-39 Figure 4-28: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score, Union City, 2022 Source: Data downloaded from the HCD AFFH Data Tool in 2021. Note that this data is based on 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas as the 2022 data by indicator is not yet available through the HCD AFFH Tool.

Figure 4-29: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores, Union City
Source: Data downloaded from the Office of Environmental Health and Hazzard Assessment in 2022 City Council/RSA Agenda 638 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-40 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Disproportionate Housing Needs
An analysis of disproportionate housing needs identifies how access to the housing market differs for members of protected classes and whether such differences are related to or the effects of discriminatory actions. For the disproportionate housing need analysis, a “housing problem” is defined as units having incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and households with cost burdens greater than 30 percent (where costs include utilities, insurance, HOA fees, and property taxes). “Severe” housing problems include all the above except that the cost burden is greater than 50 percent.

High housing costs in the region create a challenging predicament for many individuals and families. Households with lower wages, which are disproportionately people of color, may have to choose between paying rent or mortgage (e.g., sometimes paying late, not paying other bills to pay rent, not buying food or medicine) and paying for other basic needs (e.g., healthier food, healthcare, insurance, other bills). Others are forced into overcrowded or substandard housing conditions.

Severe burden from any of these issues can increase the risk of homelessness. The 2020 Regional AI describes that across the region, and in each jurisdiction, Black/African American and Latinx households experience housing problems and an increased risk of displacement at the highest rates. Disproportionate housing needs is shown for Union City and the region in Table 4-11 below.

City Council/RSA Agenda 639 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-41 TABLE 4-11: DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS, UNION CITY AND BAY AREA REGION, 2010 Union City Total Region
Number of
Households
# with housing
problems
% with housing
problems
Number of
Households
# with housing
problems
% with
Problems
Households Experiencing Any of 4 Housing Problems
Race /Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 4,255 1,630 38.31% 841,640 316,225 37.57% Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) 1,365 650 47.62% 141,095 79,090 56.05% Hispanic or Latinx 3,798 1,925 50.68% 248,785 148,135 59.54% Asian / API (Non-Hispanic) 10,122 4,578 45.23% 347,022 155,414 44.79% Native American (Non-Hispanic) 143 29 20.28% 4,841 2,302 47.55% Other Race or Multiple Races (Non-Hispanic) 764 275 35.99% 43,760 20,950 47.87% Total 20,440 9,095 44.50% 1,627,125 722,110 44.38%
Household Type and Size
Family households less than 5 people 12,385 4,485 36.21% 856,140 331,070 38.67% Family households, 5 or more people 4,249 2,560 60.25% 159,025 99,495 62.57% Non-family households 3,820 2,050 53.66% 611,960 291,550 47.64% Households Experiencing Any of 4 Severe Housing Problems Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 4,255 820 19.27% 841,640 156,775 18.63% Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) 1,365 408 29.88% 141,095 46,125 32.69% Hispanic or Latinx 3,798 1,054 27.75% 248,785 94,990 38.18% Asian / API (Non-Hispanic) 10,122 2,405 23.76% 347,022 87,749 25.29% American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 143 14 9.79% 4,841 1,448 29.91% Other Race or Multiple Races (Non-Hispanic) 764 145 18.98% 43,760 12,134 27.73% Total 20,440 4,880 23.87% 1,627,125 399,195 24.53%
Source: Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2020. HUD AFFH Tool. Based on demographic data from 2010.

City Council/RSA Agenda 640 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-42 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Homeownership Rates
Homeownership is the largest asset of most households in the U.S. and, for many low-income households, provides an opportunity for future generations to attain homeownership by increasing the family’s wealth. One of the most prevalent consequences of residential segregation is the intergenerational inaccessibility of homeownership. However, with the high housing costs in the Bay Area, homeownership is practically out of reach for low- and moderate-income households. As mentioned earlier, the median home value in Union City is just under $1 million. This is about $238,000 more than what is considered affordable to a moderate-income family that could afford to buy a home priced at around $750,000. The gap for low-income families is even greater. A lowincome family can afford a home priced at about $470,000, which is a difference of over $520,000 from the median home value.

As was discussed in Chapter 2, Needs Assessment, the rate of homeownership in Union City (64 percent) is higher than in Alameda County (54 percent) and the Bay Area region (56 percent). This is reflective of the suburban nature of Union City relative to the region. However, rates of homeownership vary for different racial and ethnic groups, as shown in Table 4-12. For most groups, homeownership is high relative to the total population living in the city. Asian/API and American Indian or Alaska Native residents have the highest rates of homeownership (71.5 percent and 72.0 percent respectively). The highest disparity is for Black and African American households.

While only accounting for 5.4 percent of the total household population, Black and African American households have the lowest rates of homeownership (40.9 percent) in the city followed by householders identifying as either Multiracial or Other not listed in the Census American Community Survey (48.9 percent).

TABLE 4-12: HOUSING TENURE BY RACE/ETHNICITY OF HOUSEHOLDER, UNION CITY, 2019 Race or Ethnicity
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
Number of
Households
Percent
of Total
Number of
Households
Percent
of Total
Number of
Households
Percent
of Total
American Indian or
Alaska Native
(Hispanic and NonHispanic)
95 72.0% 37 28.0% 132 0.5%
Asian / API (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
8,309 71.5% 3,307 28.5% 11,616 47.0%
Black or African
American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
541 40.9% 783 59.1% 1,324 5.4%
Hispanic or Latinx 2,140 56.1% 1,673 43.9% 3,813 15.4%
Other Race or Multiple
Races (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
1,687 48.9% 1,760 51.1% 3,447 14.0%
White, Non-Hispanic 2,952 67.7% 1,407 32.3% 4,359 17.7% Total 15,724 63.7% 8,967 36.3% 24,691 100.0%
Source: ABAG Data Needs Packet, 2021. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I)
City Council/RSA Agenda 641 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-43 Figure 4-30 shows the distribution of renter households in Union City. Renters are slightly more concentrated in the neighborhoods surrounding the Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park and Historic Alvarado District (40-60 percent). There is also a concentration of renters in the Crestwood neighborhood. Around 45 percent of all households in the Civic Center, Logan, El Mercado, and the Station District are renters. There is also a high concentration of renter households in the Decoto neighborhood.

Figure 4-30: Percent of Households in Renter-Occupied Units, Union City, 2016 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2012-2016 American Community Survey data.

Mortgage Loan Access
Another contributing factor to the disparities in the ability to own a home is access to fair mortgage loans. Despite efforts to reform long-standing practices of discrimination in the housing credit system, patterns of inequality still exist and are nearly inevitable for generations of households. During the Great Recession and subsequent housing crisis, it became apparent that there was an overconcentration of non-white residents with subprime mortgages8 and property foreclosures across the country.

While reasons for a loan application denial can vary, most low-income residents are at a higher risk of a subprime loan. This is even more true if the low-income resident is a person of color or foreign -born.

The table below presents data provided via the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act by race and ethnicity for 2018-2019 in Union City. During this time, there were 3,005 mortgage applications, of which 62.2 percent were approved. Asian and white applicants had the highest rates of approval at 8 Subprime mortgages are a type of housing loan most often given to individuals that have weak credit history.

Subprime mortgages carry higher interest rates, and are thereby more expensive, because there is a predetermined higher risk of default.

City Council/RSA Agenda 642 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-44 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

65.2 and 65.5 percent respectively. This is similar to patterns in the region. The 2020 Regional AI found that, Asian applicants had the highest rate of approval at 70.7 percent and white applicants had the second highest at 70 percent. Black applicants had the lowest at 59.1 percent, and Hispanic applicants had the second lowest at 61.5 percent. In Union City, Latinx households have the highest rates of denial (30.3 percent) out of any racial/ethnic group except American Indian or Alaska Native residents which had a denial rate of 44.4 percent. It is important to note that there were only 9 applications filed by American Indian or Alaska Native householders and the 44.4 percent denied is equal to 4 applications. There were similar rates of approval.

TABLE 4-13: MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS BY RACE, 2018-2019
Racial / Ethnic Group
Total
Number of
Applications
Action Type
Approved (a) Denied (b) Other (c)
American Indian or Alaska
Native, Non-Hispanic
9 44.4% 44.4% 11.1%
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic 1,768 65.2% 18.6% 16.3%
Black or African American, NonHispanic72 51.4% 23.6% 25.0% White, Non-Hispanic 304 65.5% 20.1% 14.5%
Hispanic or Latinx 297 51.9% 30.3% 17.8%
Unknown 555 58.2% 19.8% 22.0%
Totals 3,005 62.2% 20.3% 17.5%
Notes: (a) includes loans originated and applications approved but not accepted; (b) includes application denied by financial institution; and (c) includes applications withdrawn by applicant and incomplete applications.

Source: ABAG Data Needs Packet, 2021. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files, 2018 and 2019 applications.

Cost Burden
As previously described in Chapter 2, Existing Housing Needs Assessment, overpayment or “housing cost burden” occurs when households are paying more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on housing-related expenses. This includes rent, mortgage payments, and utilities.

In Alameda County, a three-person household with a gross annual income of $98,650 or less is considered a low-income household. A household at this income level can afford to pay about $2,400 for housing each month. A one-person household earning $76,750 also falls into the lowincome bracket and they can afford to pay roughly $1,900 for housing each month.

In Union City, the county, and the region, home values have increased in the past two decades.

Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 155 percent in Union City from $388,830 (2001) to $991,870 (2020).9 There was a substantial decrease in home values during the Great Recession, so the most substantial growth happened between 2011 and 2020. During this time, the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubled.

Rents have also increased in recent years. Since 2009, the median rent in Union City increased by

72.8 percent, from $1,420 to $2,050 per month — a faster rate than the countywide (36.0 percent) 9 Median home values are from the Zillow Home Value Index from 2001-2020.

City Council/RSA Agenda 643 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-45 and regional (54 percent) averages.10 Across the city, 21 percent of households are experiencing cost burden (i.e., spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing) and 12 percent are experiencing severe cost burden (i.e., spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing).

These patterns are similar to the severity of cost burden in the county and the region although the rates of severe cost burden are higher throughout the county (17 percent) and region (16 percent), as shown in Figure 4-31.

Figure 4-31: Cost Burden Severity, Union City, Alameda County, and the Bay Area, 2019 Source: ABAG Data Packet, 2021. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091
When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Union City, 44.7 percent of renters are cost burdened, spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing compared to 22.3 percent of homeowners spending more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. 11 Figure 4-32 shows the trends of overpayment for renters in Union City between 2014 and 2019. In 2014, more renters were cost burdened in the Decoto and Westwood neighborhoods. Renter cost burden was also high in the neighborhoods surrounding the Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park, Historic Alvarado District, and Casa Verde neighborhoods. Each of these tracts were also identified as having the highest proportion of renters in the city. However, renters were also significantly cost burdened in the surrounding jurisdictions; see Hayward and Fremont in 2014. By 2019, the rates of overpayment in the renter population became much more evenly dispersed in the city rather than concentrated in a few specific neighborhoods.
10 Rental data is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year Data Estimates. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 21%
20% 20%
12%
17% 16%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda
County
Bay Area
Percent of Households
50%+ of Income Used for
Housing
30%-50% of Income Used for
Housing
City Council/RSA Agenda 644 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-46 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-32: Overpayment by Renters, Union City, 2014 and 2019 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 American Community Survey data.

Figure 4-33 similarly shows the trends of overpayment for homeowners in Union City between 2014 and 2019. In 2014, 40-60 percent of homeowners were cost burdened in Hall Ranch, Town Estates and neighborhoods surrounding Central Bay. In addition 40-60 percent of homeowners were cost burdened in the Civic Center, Logan, El Mercado, and Decoto neighborhoods, as well as in the Station District and Hillside neighborhoods. By 2019, the rates of overpayment for City Council/RSA Agenda 645 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-47 homeowners became evenly dispersed in the city rather than over or under concentrated in any one neighborhood. In each neighborhood there is about 20-40 percent of homeowners cost burdened by housing costs. Trends in overpayment for homeowners have stayed relatively the same in surrounding jurisdictions between 2014 and 2019.

Figure 4-33: Overpayment by Homeowners, Union City, 2014 and 2019 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 American Community Survey data.

City Council/RSA Agenda 646 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-48 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Overcrowding
As of 2020, the average household size in Union City is 3.36 persons. Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room, can be a potential indicator that households are experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing. Notably, it is important to be aware that data in overcrowding can also reflect cultural differences, as some cultures are more likely to live in larger, multigenerational households.

According to data from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017 tabulation, shown in Figure 4-34, overcrowding is more common in Union City (average equal to 8 percent) than the county (5 percent) and the region (4 percent). Figure 4-34 shows that the cities of Fremont and Hayward have similar but slightly less prominent rates of overcrowding.

Figure 4-35 shows the trends of overcrowded households in the city by census tract. Most tracts in the City are less than or equal to the statewide average of 8.2 percent except for the neighborhoods surrounding the Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park and Historic Alvarado District (12.01-15 percent). There were also higher rates of overcrowding in the Crestwood, Casa Verde, and Decoto neighborhoods (8.3-12 percent).

Figure 4-34: Overcrowding by Severity, Union City, Alameda County, and the Bay Area, 2017 Source: ABAG Data Needs Packet, 2021. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release 89% 92% 93%
8% 5% 4%
3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Union City Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Households

1.00 occupants per room or less 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room

1.50 occupants per room or more
City Council/RSA Agenda 647 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-49 Figure 4-35: Overcrowded Households, Union City
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2013-2017 CHAS data.

Substandard Housing
High housing costs can often result in households, particularly renters, living in substandard conditions to afford housing. As described in Chapter 2, Existing Needs Assessment, housing that is in need of rehabilitation and/or replacement tends to be concentrated within the Decoto neighborhood and Historic Alvarado District, the two oldest neighborhoods in the city. In 1999 the City conducted a survey of dilapidated or substandard housing in both areas. The City identified 40 units in the Decoto area and 10 units in the Historic Alvarado District in need of significant rehabilitation. The City’s rehabilitation program, which has been around since 1974, has been enormously successful for many households in these areas in particular and for the community as a whole. The City has assisted in the rehabilitation of over 1,170 homes since its inception.

The Housing Element includes a program to continue to target funding for housing rehabilitation in the Decoto neighborhood and Historic Alvarado District.

Use of Housing Choice Vouchers
Fair housing choice means that individuals and families have the information, opportunity, and options to live where they choose without unlawful discrimination and other barriers related to race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristics.

Fair housing choice encompasses: (1) actual choice, which means the existence of realistic housing options; (2) protected choice, which means housing that can be accessed without discrimination; and (3) enabled choice, which means realistic access to sufficient information regarding options so that any choice is informed. Households participating in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program have enabled choice when they are provided with sufficient information regarding their housing options so that any choice is informed. For example, researchers found City Council/RSA Agenda 648 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-50 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 that, “if given the appropriate information and opportunities, more voucher families would move to better schools when their children reach school age.”12 Figure 4-36 shows the spatial distribution of households using HCVs by census tract. In most census tracts in the city, 5-15 percent of renter occupied households are using an HCV. HCV usage is highest in the Hall Ranch and Crestwood neighborhoods (28 percent and 23 percent of renter households respectively). Rates of HCV usage in Union City are generally comparable to the surrounding cities of Hayward, Fremont, Newark, and San Leandro. The two census tracts in Union City have a much higher concentration than any other census tract within the surrounding cities. HCV concentration in these neighborhoods is most comparable to HCV usage in Oakland and East Palo Alto.

Figure 4-36: Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract, Union City, 2019 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021.

Displacement Risk
As the region's economy has reached new heights in recent years — with high-paying job growth in San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and beyond — displacement risk has become an increasingly regional problem. Bay Area residents already face some of the highest housing costs in the nation and as costs continue to rise individuals and families are being forced to relocate.

The location affordability index, developed by HUD, measures standardized household housing and transportation cost estimates. As shown in Figure 4-37, the location affordability index found that the majority of the city had median gross rents between $1,500 and $3,000 a month (based on 2012-2016 ACS data). The lowest rents are in the Decoto and Mission Boulevard neighborhoods and on Alvarado Niles Road ($1,000-1,500). The highest rents (greater than $3,000) are located on 12 NYU Furman Center, “Why Don’t Housing Choice Voucher Recipients Live Near Better Schools? Insights from Big Data” published in June 2016.

City Council/RSA Agenda 649 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-51 the western end of Union City Boulevard south of the Historic Alvarado District and Horner Veazy neighborhood. Besides the one tract on the western side of the city, rents in Union City are generally comparable to the surrounding cities of Hayward and Fremont. Rents stay on the lower spectrum going north towards Hayward, San Leandro, and Oakland, while they increase in the southern portions of the county in Fremont closer to Milpitas.

Figure 4-37: Location Affordability Index, Union City, 2016 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021. Based on ACS data from 2012-2016.

Displacement has become a serious regional concern over the past few decades and the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has established an innovative monitoring initiative to track trends related to transportation, land and people, the economy, the environment, and social equity.

As recently as 1990, MTC’s Vital Signs team found that San Francisco was the only Bay Area county with more than 30 percent of its lower-income residents at risk for displacement. 13 Displacement risk refers to the share of lower-income households living in neighborhoods that have been losing lowerincome residents over time, thus earning the designation “at risk.” For most Bay Area counties, the Great Recession coincided with a bump in displacement risk, as low-income homeowners bore the brunt of the negative effects of the mortgage lending crisis. By 2017, every county in the region had more than 30 percent of its lower-income residents at risk of being displaced. 14 13 The Vital Signs initiative is led by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and relies on extensive collaboration with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Bay Area Regional Collaborative. 14 Vital Signs, 2017. Displacement Risk – Regional Performance. https://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/displacement-risk.

Accessed May 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 650 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-52 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-38 shows the communities in Union City that are sensitive to displacement as of 2017, according to the Urban Displacement Project. Sensitive communities include areas where a high proportion of residents may be vulnerable to displacement due to rising housing costs and marketbased displacement pressures present in and/or near the community. In total, 27 percent of census tracts in the state of California are identified as areas that are sensitive to displacement.

Figure 4-38: Communities Sensitive to Displacement, Union City, 2017 Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021. Based on data from the Urban Displacement Project, 2017.

Communities were designated “sensitive” if they met the following criteria:
 They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
 Share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent in 2017; and,  The tract meets two of the following criteria:
 Share of renters is above 40 percent in 2017
 Share of people of color is above 50 percent in 2017
 Share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median in 2017
 They, or areas in proximity, have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
 A percent change in rent above the county median for rent increases between 2012 and 2017; or
 A difference between census tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in the county (rent gap) in 2017.

City Council/RSA Agenda 651 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-53 Based on this analysis, five census tracts in the city were found to be sensitive to displacement.

These tracts include the Horner Veazy and Historic Alvarado areas as well as the Contempo and Tropics Mobile Home Park neighborhoods. The census tract containing the Hillside area is also shown to be sensitive to displacement although it is important to note that there are few existing residents within this area.

Homelessness
As described in Chapter 2, homelessness is a critical issue in the Bay Area and in Alameda County.

In recent years the issue has been even further exacerbated by the economic impacts of the of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2017, the number of people experiencing homelessness in Alameda County has nearly doubled. Of those residents interviewed for the 2022 point in time homeless count (PIT), 31 percent were experiencing homelessness for the first time and 75 percent had been experiencing homelessness for over a year or more. The primary causes of homelessness for residents interviewed were eviction/foreclosure, job loss, and disputes with family, friend(s), or roommate(s).

In 2022, the PIT found a total of 7,135 individuals experiencing homelessness in Alameda County, and 489 unsheltered individuals were found in Union City representing 7 percent of the total homeless population in the county. In comparison, in 2019, 106 individuals were identified in Union City. According to the PIT, there was a 78 percent increase in the population experiencing homelessness in Union City between 2019 and 2022. During the 2022 PIT, increases in individuals experiencing homelessness were seen throughout the City, with the concentrations in the following areas: Decoto neighborhood, Logan neighborhood, Civic Center Neighborhood, El Mercado Area, Station District, Mission Boulevard neighborhood, Central Bay neighborhood, Union Landing neighborhood, Casa Verde neighborhood, Historic Alvarado District, and the Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park. The majority of the estimated unsheltered population (69 percent, or 337 estimated individuals) were staying in cars/vans for shelters and 18 percent (86) in RVs for shelters. The City is still, as of 2023, researching why the PIT shows such a dramatic increase. Some of this increase in the number of persons sleeping in cars, vans, and RVs may be attributed to the CAREavan program, which offers families and/or individuals who are temporarily homeless and living in their vehicles, a safe place to park overnight at specified locations that rotate around the city. Since the program started in 2016, more than 275 participants have enrolled in the program with an average of 30 cars/50 people using the program per night. This program may draw others from the region to Union City who are parking in the City at night and not enrolled in the program.

Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 2, people of color are disproportionately impacted by homelessness in Alameda County. Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents accounted for 47.3 percent of the homeless population in 2019, while making up 10.6 percent of the overall population. Latinx residents represent 17.3 percent of the population experiencing homelessness in the county, while comprising 22.5 percent of the general population.

Asian/ API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) made up the lowest proportion of the population experiencing homelessness (3.17 percent) and made up the second highest share of the overall population (30.98 percent) after white residents (40.46 percent).

The City will continue to collaborate with the organizations and jurisdictions described in Chapter 2 to provide housing and supportive services to people experiencing homelessness.

City Council/RSA Agenda 652 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-54 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Assessment of Sites Inventory and Fair Housing
State housing element law, Government Code Section 65583(c)(10), requires that the sites inventory (see Chapter 3) be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equitably throughout the city rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low resource areas that have historically been underserved. By comparing the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity throughout the city. This section starts with a summary of the sites inventory capacity relative to each fair housing indicators by census tract and then provides a more in-depth look at several of the key indicators.

Summary Analysis of Sites Inventory and Fair Housing
Union City was allocated a total of 2,728 new housing units to plan for during the Sixth Cycle Housing Element planning period. This RHNA allocation includes 862 very low-, 496 low-, 382 moderate-, and 988 above moderate-income units. Using data and research from the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 1.0, Table 4-14 presents the housing unit capacity and existing conditions as they relate to indicators of fair housing analyzed in this assessment for each census tract in the city. For more information about the indicators, refer to the local assessment discussed previously in this chapter. The census tracts and sites inventory are mapped and shown in Figure 4-39. Union City has several physical constraints that present unique challenges in developing the sites inventory and planning for future growth. These constraints include sensitive wetland habitat and flood plains (designated as open space and agriculture in the General Plan) along the western city limits (i.e., the western portion 511 Area); steep, hillside topography (designated as open space and agriculture in the General Plan) on the eastern half of the city (i.e., the Hillside area) that is restricted by a lack of utilities, access constraints, and environmental constraints; and a limited amount of vacant land elsewhere. Because of these constraints, sites included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element inventory are largely located on the eastern side of the city with several additional sites located near the Historic Alvarado District.

Union City is a diverse city and racial groups are distributed relatively evenly throughout the city. As shown in the table below, residents identifying as Asian (representing a mix of different ethnicities) compose the largest segments of the population in most census tracts except in census tract 4380 (Tamarack) which data is not available for, census tract 4401 (Hillside) which has a predominant White population, and census tract 4402 (Decoto) which has a predominant Hispanic/Latinx population. While the sites inventory provides some opportunity to balance the distribution of the various racial/ethnic groups in the city and the infill single-family lots in the Decoto, Tamarack, and Hillside neighborhoods may provide some opportunity to diversify the area and slightly increase the population, overall, the sites included in the inventory are not likely to significantly influence segregation by race and ethnicity throughout the city.

Median household incomes in Union City are higher than average median incomes as compared to the greater region and state. The table below indicates that census tracts 4403.32 (511 Area), 4403.33 (Alvarado Business Park/ Holly/ Union Landing), 4403.37 (Mission Blvd/Station District), and 4415.01(Lowry/511 Area) have the highest median incomes. Census tracts 4401 (Hillside), 4402 City Council/RSA Agenda 653 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-55 (Decoto), 4403.01 (Town Estates/Central Bay), 4403.07 (Almaden), and 4403.01 (Historic Alvarado District/Lincoln Alvarado Business Park) have the lowest median incomes. The majority of above moderate-income housing sites are scattered in the Decoto and Historic Alvarado neighborhoods which are on the lower side of the income spectrum. These sites make up some of the few remaining areas that can be utilized for infill single-family housing on vacant lots, which tends to be affordable to above moderate-income households. This provides an opportunity to increase the median income in these lower income neighborhoods. Also, to support income integration and a balanced availability of housing opportunities for lower-income households, the lower-income inventory is dispersed relative to plans for infill and transit-oriented development. These areas include the Station District and Mission Boulevard. The City will also, through Program HE-2.B, support the development of affordable housing and continue to provide incentives and funding, as available.

Several sites and projects will help to diversify income levels and promote income integration throughout the city. The Station East Residential/Mixed Use project, which is located in census tracts with median incomes between $150,000 to $200,000, accounts for 60 percent of the lowerincome capacity, 48 percent of the moderate-income capacity, and a majority (559 units) of the above-moderate income capacity. The sites in the Station District allow for a variety of housing options to be built, which will in turn help to diversify income levels in the area. The Gateway site is a City-owned site in a census tract with median incomes between $100,000 to $149,000. Program HE-1.E states that the City shall facilitate development of a mix of housing types on the Gateway site and it is anticipated that the site will be developed with market rate townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments that would provide housing at a variety of income levels and improve income integration in the city.

All census tracts within the city are categorized as either moderate, high, or highest resource.

There are no low resource areas in the city. The majority (86 percent) of the housing capacity is in high resource areas (i.e., Historic Alvarado District/Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park, Westview/Gateway, Mission Blvd and Station District), while only 14 percent is in moderate resource areas (i.e., Decoto, Tamarack, Central Bay and Town Estates/Central Bay). The highest resource areas are made up of a portion of the 511 Area and the Lowry neighborhood; however, several environmental constraints including sensitive wetland habitat and flood plains in the 511 Area (designated as open space and agriculture in the General Plan), have limited the availability of land for residential development and the inclusion of sites in the sites inventory. The portion of the 511 Area classified as highest resource is also mostly owned by the Alameda County Flood Control District for the purpose of flood control. Furthermore, the Lowry neighborhood is built out with no vacant or underutilized sites remaining.

However, beyond the capacity shown in the inventory, there is still additional capacity for “missing middle housing” that is affordable by design to middle-income households. The City intends to facilitate more of these housing types — including ADUs, duplexes, and SB9 lot splits — in higher opportunity and higher income single-family neighborhoods, for lower-income and moderateincome households. The Housing Element includes actions to establish development standards that facilitate “missing middle housing” that is affordable by design to middle-income households in higher opportunity and higher income single-family neighborhoods (Program HE-1.H). In addition, through Program HE-2.D, the City will promote ADU creation. The objective for this action is to build at least 120 new ADUs by 2031, with approximately 25 percent in high resource areas, to City Council/RSA Agenda 654 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-56 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 improve housing mobility. Encouraging ADUs and other middle-income housing opportunities in established neighborhoods can increase diversity in these areas.

As shown in Figure 4-39, the Station District Specific Plan area comprises the majority of capacity for new residential development throughout the Housing Element Sixth Cycle planning period.

About 75 percent of the housing capacity in the inventory for the Housing Element is in census tracts 4403.36 (Westview/Gateway), 4403.37 (Mission Blvd/Station District), and 4403.38 (Station District). These tracts generally represent the City’s priority areas for high density development and for transit-oriented development (TOD). With plans for future regional connections to Silicon Valley, the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) commuter rail, and the Capital Corridor, the City has been planning and investing in the Station District area over the last several decades to maintain opportunities for residents, accommodate new growth, and to make this a high resource area.

Census tracts 4403.37 and 4403.38 are the two primary census tracts included in the official Station District Specific Plan area boundary, although the Plan area also includes portions of tracts 4403.36 and 4403.08. The inventory includes an identified capacity for 135 lower-income units in census tract 4403.36 (Westview/Gateway), 282 lower-income units in 4403.37 (Mission Blvd/Station District), and 373 units in 4403.38 (Station District). More affordable housing will be available in these areas improving access to opportunity for lower-income residents. Additionally, to inform residents of opportunities to access affordable housing, the City will continue to provide outreach to community residents and develop a multilingual strategy to reach non-English speaking households (Program HE-4.E).

City Council/RSA Agenda 655 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-57 TABLE 4-14: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING CAPACITY BY CENSUS TRACT Census
Tract Neighborhood
Housing Unit Capacity
(Vacant and Underutilized Sites + Approved Projects) Integration and Segregation Indicators Access to Opportunity Disproportionate Housing Needs/Displacement Risk LowerIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units
Percent of Total
Housing Unit
Capacity
Predominant Racial/
Ethnic Group1 Median Income2 Disability Rate3
TCAC
Opportunity
Designation4
Jobs
Proximity
Index5
CalEnviroscreen
Score6
Overcrowded
Households7
Renter
Overpayment8
Homeowner
Overpayment9
UDP
Displacement
Risk10
4380 Tamarack 28 0 0 0.78% Data Not Available $87,100-$100,000 <10% Moderate 60-80 >30-40 <8.2% 20%-40% 40%-60% N 4401 Hillside 0 0 6 0.17% White $50,000-$87,100 10%-20% Moderate 40-60 >30-40 <8.2% 20%-40% 20%-40% Y 4402 Decoto 102 1 18 3.36% Hispanic $50,000-$100,000 <10% Moderate 40-60 >60-70 8.3%-12% 20%-40% 40%-60% N 4403.01 Town Estates/Central Bay 227 0 2 6.35% Asian $50,000-$199,999 <10% Moderate 40-80 >60-70 <8.2% 20%-40% <20% N 4403.04 Hall Ranch 0 0 0 0.00% Asian $87,100-$149,000 <10% Moderate 20-40 >20-30 <8.2% 20%-40% 40%-60% N 4403.05 Ranchwood 0 0 0 0.00% Asian $87,100-$199,999 10%-20% High <20 >10-20 <8.2% 20%-40% 20%-40% N 4403.06 Crestwood 0 2 7 0.25% Asian $87,100-$149,000 <10% Moderate 20-40 >20-30 8.3%-12% 20%-40% 40%-60% Y 4403.07 Almaden 0 6 0 0.17% Asian $50,000-$199,999 10%-20% Moderate 40-60 >50-60 <8.2% 20%-40% 20%-40% Y 4403.08 Logan/ El Mercado/ Civic
Center 0 0 0 0.00% Asian $87,100--$149,000 <10% High 20-60 >60-70 <8.2% 20%-40% 20%-40% Y 4403.31
Historic Alvarado District/
Lincoln-Alvarado Business
Park
350 21 28 11.07% Asian $50,000-$149,000 <10% High 40-60 >40-50 15%-20% 20%-40% 20%-40% Y 4403.32 511 Area 0 0 33 0.92% Asian $150,000-$199,999 <10% High 20-60 >20-30 <8.2% 20%-40% 20%-40% N 4403.33 Alvarado Business Park/
Holly/ Union Landing 0 0 0 0.00% Asian $150,000-$199,999 <10% Moderate 40-60 >40-50 <8.2% 20%-40% 40%-60% N 4403.34 Casa Verde 0 0 0 0.00% Asian $100,000-$149,000 <10% Moderate 20-60 >20-30 8.3%-12% 20%-40% 20%-40% N 4403.36 Westview/Gateway 135 200 200 14.84% Asian $100,000-$149,000 <10% High <20-40 >30-40 <8.2% 20%-40% 40%-60% N 4403.37 Mission Blvd/Station District 282 213 559 29.24% Asian $150,000-$199,999 <10% High 20-40 >30-40 <8.2% 20%-40% 20%-40% N 4403.38 Station District 373 591 222 32.90% Asian $100,000-$149,000 <10% High 20-40 >30-40 <8.2% 20%-40% 20%-40% N 4415.01 Lowry/ 511 Area 0 0 0 0.00% Asian $150,000-$199,999 <10% Highest <20 0-10 <8.2% 20%-40% 20%-40% N 1 Indicates which race or ethnicity is predominant. For more information, see discussion of Race and Ethnicity under the Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation and Integration Section and Figure 4-40. 2 Median Household income is based on 2015-2019 ACS data at the block group level, which are subdivisions of census tracts. For more information, see Figure 4-12 in the Patterns of Income Distribution Section and Figure 4-41 under the Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation and Integration Section 3 Indicates percentage of the population with a disability based on 2015-2019 ACS estimates. For more information see discussion in the Population with Disabilities Section and Figure 4-16. 4 Classifies areas of higher and lower resources to evaluate access to opportunity. Based on data from TCAC/HCD 2022 Composite Opportunity Score. For more information, see the Access to Opportunity section and refer to the Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity Section below and Figure 4-43 5 Quantifies the accessibility of a given neighborhood to all jobs within a core-based statistical area. Based on HUD 2014-2017 Jobs Proximity Index evaluation. For more information, see discussion in the Proximity to Jobs Section and Figure 4-22. 6 Quantifies the cumulative impacts of multiple sources of pollution throughout California. Based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0 data. For more information, see discussion in the Environmental Opportunity Section and Figure 4-29. 7 Overcrowding of residential units is when there is more than one person per room. Based on data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 1.0 in 2021 and 2013-2017 HUD CHAS data. Also see Figure 4-35 in the Overcrowding Section. 8 Overpayment occurs when households are paying more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on housing-related expenses. Based on data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 1.0 in 2021, based on 2015-2019 ACS data. For more information, see discussion of Cost Burden in the Disproportionate Housing Needs Section and see Figure 4-32. 9 Based on data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 1.0 in 2021, based on 2015-2019 ACS data. For more information, see discussion of Cost Burden in the Disproportionate Housing Needs Section and Figure 4-33. 10 According to the Urban Displacement Project (UDP), sensitive communities include areas where a high proportion of residents may be vulnerable to displacement due to rising housing costs and market-based displacement pressures present in and/or near the community. For more information, see discussion in the Displacement Risk Section, Figure 4-38, and Figure 45.

Source: City of Union City and Ascent, 2023. Data for fair housing indicators downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021 and adapted by Ascent; based on data from ACS.

City Council/RSA Agenda 656 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
City Council/RSA Agenda 657 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-59 Figure 4-39: Census Tract and Sites Inventory Map, Union City Source: Data downloaded from US Census Bureau in 2022 and adapted by Ascent in 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 658 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-60 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation and Integration This section discusses the residential capacity identified in the City’s Housing Element sites inventory (Chapter 3) in relation to race and ethnicity, median income, access to opportunity, and displacement risk and sensitivity. The evaluation analyzes whether sites planned for future development could further impact patterns of residential segregation based on race and ethnicity and/or income.

Race and Ethnicity
Regarding race and ethnicity, most racial groups are distributed relatively evenly throughout the city except in the Decoto neighborhood, which has a predominant Latinx population. Most neighborhoods throughout the city have a sizeable portion of Asian residents (composed of a mix of different ethnicities). Generally, the sites inventory will provide some opportunity to balance the distribution of the various racial/ethnic groups in the city (See Figure 4-40). As described above, Latinx residents are the most segregated group and Asian residents are the most isolated compared to other groups. The infill single-family lots in the Decoto neighborhood provide opportunity to slightly increase the population and diversify the area. Otherwise, the sites inventory will not likely improve or exacerbate segregation by race and ethnicity in Union City because racial groups are already distributed relatively evenly throughout the city.

Figure 4-40: Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Census Tract, Union City Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on ACS data.

Income
As described in the assessment above, Union City generally has higher shares of moderate- and above moderate-income residents than the surrounding region, with the highest earning tracts in the 511 Area, the Lowry neighborhood, and Mission Boulevard neighborhood. The tracts with the City Council/RSA Agenda 659 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-61 lowest incomes (less than $55,000) are in the Decoto, Town Estates, and Almaden neighborhoods along Highway 880, including the Tropics Mobile Home Park. There are also lower median incomes in the Historic Alvarado District along Smith Street.

Figure 4-41 shows the City’s sites inventory in relation to the median household income by census tract. The majority of above moderate-income housing sites are in the Decoto neighborhood with three additional sites in the Historic Alvarado District/northern 511 Area. These scattered sites make up some of the few remaining areas that can be utilized for infill single-family housing on vacant lots. Notably, the Decoto and Historic Alvarado neighborhoods, which are also the oldest neighborhoods in the city, are on the lower side of the income spectrum compared to the rest of the city. New single-family housing tends to be affordable to above moderate-income households, which provides an opportunity to increase the median income in these neighborhoods.

These scattered sites only make up a small fraction of the above moderate-income site capacity.

As shown in Table 4-15 and Figure 4-42 below, only 9 percent, or 20 units, of the above moderateincome capacity on vacant and underutilized sites are located in census tracts with median incomes less than $100,000, compared to 91 percent of the capacity (or 205 units) that is identified in tracts with incomes between $100,000 and $150,000. This is largely because of the capacity for above moderate-income housing located on the Gateway site, a City-owned site that will provide for housing at a variety of income levels. It is anticipated that the Gateway site will be developed with market rate townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes and apartments. New above moderate-income housing on the Gateway site will be integrated with housing affordable to lowerand moderate-income housing, which should help to improve income integration in Union City.

Through a variety of programs, the City is seeking to increase missing middle housing opportunities in existing single-family neighborhoods,. The Housing Element includes actions to establish development standards that facilitate “missing middle housing” that is affordable by design to middle-income households in higher opportunity and higher income single-family neighborhoods (Program HE-1.H) and promoting the creation of ADUs (Program HE-2.D). Fifty-five percent of the total capacity for moderate-income sites (or 570 units) is located on two sites within the Station District, the Restoration and Gateway Site, which has census tracts with median incomes between $100,000 to $150,000. The Station East Residential/Mixed Use project, which is located in census tracts with median incomes between $150,000 to $200,000, accounts for 60 percent of the lower-income capacity, 48 percent of the moderate-income capacity, and a majority (559 units) of the above-moderate income capacity. The sites in the Station District allow for a variety of housing options to be built, which will in turn help to diversify income levels in the area.

Table 4-15 and Figure 4-42 also show that 20 percent of the lower-income sites are in census tracts with incomes below $87,000. This is driven by the capacity on sites in the Historic Alvarado District along Union City Boulevard, which is also considered a high opportunity area, as shown on Figure 4-43.

The sites inventory for all other income levels (i.e., lower-income sites, moderate income sites, mixed income sites, and pipeline projects) will not have a significant impact on patterns of segregation and integration by the remaining fair housing indicators including familial status and disability status.

City Council/RSA Agenda 660 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-62 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-41: Sites Inventory Income Distribution by Median Income of Census Tract, Union City Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on ACS data.

TABLE 4-15: SITES INVENTORY VS. DISTRIBUTION OF MEDIAN INCOME Lower-Income Moderate-Income Above-Moderate
Income
Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Vacant and Underutilized Sites
<$87k 254 20% 24 4% 16 7% 294 14%
$87k-$100k 190 15% 0 0% 4 2% 194 9%
$100k-$150k 659 51% 570 96% 205 91% 1,434 68%
$150-$200k 192 15% 0 0% 0 0% 192 9%
>$200k 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 1,295 100% 594 100% 225 100% 2,114 100%
Planned and Approved Pipeline Projects
<$87k 0 0% 3 1% 28 3% 31 2%
$87k-$100k 80 40% 1 0% 0 0% 81 5%
$100k-$150k 0 0% 223 51% 229 27% 452 30%
$150-$200k 122 60% 213 48% 592 70% 927 62%
>$200k 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 202 100% 440 100% 849 100% 1,491 100%
Source: Ascent, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 661 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-63 Figure 4-42: Vacant and Underutilized Sites by Median Income of Census Tract, Union City Source: Ascent, 2022.

Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
Opportunities for high density development and for TOD is greatest in the Station District. The majority the sites in the inventory are within the Station District Specific Plan area, which is centered around the Union City Intermodal Station. When complete, the Union City Intermodal Station will enhance Union City’s existing transit-rich node with options for connectivity to more areas in the region. The surrounding area also represents one of the most significant opportunities for new TOD in the Bay Area. The City has been planning and investing in the Station District area over the last several decades in anticipation of higher density development and is continuing to invest in this high resource area to maintain opportunities for residents and accommodate new growth.

Union City has several physical constraints that present unique challenges in planning for future growth within the community. These constraints include sensitive wetland habitat and flood plains along the western city limits (i.e., the 511 Area); steep, hillside topography on the eastern half of the city that is restricted by a lack of utilities, access constraints, and environmental constraints; and a limited amount of vacant land. Because of the significant environmental constraints in the western neighborhoods of the city coupled with the opportunity for TOD in the eastern part of the city, sites included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element inventory are largely located on the eastern side of the city with several additional sites located near the Historic Alvarado District.

Figure 4-43 shows the sites inventory in relation to the 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity areas, where most of the city is classified as either moderate or high resource. As shown in Table 4-16 below, there is capacity for 302 total units in moderate resource areas (i.e., Decoto, Tamarack, Central Bay and Almaden) and 1,812 total units in high resource areas (in the Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park, Historic Alvarado District, the Gateway area, and Station District). Moreover, the City’s planned and approved pipeline projects include 121 total units in moderate resource areas and 1,370 total units in high 20%
15%
51%
15%
0%
4%
0%
96%
0% 0%
7%
2%
91%
0% 0%
14%
9%
68%
9%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
<$87k $87k-$100k $100k-$150k $150-$200k >$200k
Percent of Lower-Income Capacity Percent of Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Above Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Total Vacant and Underutilized Sites City Council/RSA Agenda 662 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-64 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 resource areas. The majority (86 percent) of the capacity on vacant and underutilized sites is in high resource areas while only 14 percent is in moderate resource areas (see Figure 4-44). None of the sites in the inventory are located in low resource areas or in the highest resource areas. The highest resource areas are made up of a portion of the 511 Area and the Lowry neighborhood. The Lowry neighborhood is built out with no vacant or underutilized sites remaining, and the portion of the 511 Area classified as highest resource is mostly owned by the Alameda County Flood Control District for the purpose of flood control and has severe environmental constraints (sensitive wetland habitat and flood plains). As described throughout the Housing Element, the City’s capacity for high density development is greatest in the Station District. As described above in more detail in Chapters 3, Sites Inventory and 6, Potential Housing Constraints, the Station District has the potential to add approximately 4,000 new units with an increased population of approximately 9,400 residents. There are currently (2023) two approved projects in the pipeline in the Station District — Station East and Union Flats 2.0 — that will add 1,337 total housing units, including 122 lower income units in this high resource area. The City also plans to continue to invest in community amenities and resources to maintain opportunities for residents and accommodate new growth. Additionally, another project in the pipeline, Lazuli Landing, will add 81 deed-restricted affordable housing units in the Decoto neighborhood, currently a moderate resource neighborhood. As described above, the majority of sites in the Decoto and Tamarack neighborhoods are vacant lots identified for single-family housing and will not greatly impact future access to opportunities for residents of these neighborhoods. With new development that will diversify the housing stock in conjunction with the City’s affordable housing ordinance requiring 15 percent of units in new projects to be affordable to lower income households, more affordable housing will be available and dispersed throughout the city, improving access to opportunity for lower-income residents.

Figure 4-43: Sites Inventory and TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, Union City Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022, based on 2022 TCAC Opportunity Areas mapping data by COG.

City Council/RSA Agenda 663 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-65 TABLE 4-16: SITES INVENTORY VS. TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS
TCAC
Resource Area
Classification
Lower-Income Moderate-Income
Above-Moderate
Income
Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Vacant and Underutilized Sites
High/Highest
Resource 1018 79% 588 99% 206 92% 1,812 86%
Moderate
Resource 277 21% 6 1% 19 8% 302 14%
Low Resource 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 1,295 100% 594 100% 225 100% 2,114 100%
Planned and Approved Pipeline Projects
High/Highest
Resource 122 60% 434 99% 814 96% 1,370 92%
Moderate
Resource 80 40% 6 1% 35 4% 121 8%
Low Resource 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 202 100% 440 100% 849 100% 1,491 100%
Source: Ascent, 2022.

Figure 4-44: Vacant and Underutilized Sites Inventory Vs. TCAC Opportunity Areas Source: Ascent, 2022.
79%
21%
0%
99%
1% 0%
92%
8%
0%
86%
14%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
High/Highest Moderate Low
Percent of Lower-Income Capacity Percent of Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Above Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Total Vacant and Underutilized Sites City Council/RSA Agenda 664 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-66 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Potential Effects on Disproportionate Housing Needs
As discussed previously, renters are disproportionately affected by housing needs including overpayment, overcrowding, and displacement risk. Although future development has the potential to exacerbate cost burden for Union City residents, there is capacity for a mix of housing types at various income levels in the city. Comparing the sites inventory to areas at risk of displacement (Figure 4-45), the majority (82 percent or 1,734 units) of total housing capacity during this planning period is in areas that are not vulnerable to displacement. As shown in Table 4-17 and Figure 4-46, about 18 percent of units in the sites inventory are located in census tract vulnerable to displacement as identified by the Urban Displacement Project, including 27 percent of the lower income capacity. One area of concern is in the small area of residential neighborhoods surrounding the Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park and the neighborhoods in the Historic Alvarado District. The sites inventory includes seven sites and one project in the pipeline (399 units) in these neighborhoods. Of the seven sites in the neighborhoods surrounding the Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park and Historic Alvarado District, three sites have capacity for lower income housing (350 units), three have capacity for above moderate-income housing (6 units), and one site has capacity for moderate- income housing (18 units). While these neighborhoods are at risk of displacement, the capacity for higher density development can provide affordable housing for lower-income households and more options to mitigate displacement for residents.

Figure 4-45: Sites Inventory and Areas at Risk of Displacement, Union City Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on ACS data.

City Council/RSA Agenda 665 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-67 TABLE 4-17: SITES INVENTORY VS. DISPLACEMENT SENSITIVITY Lower-Income Moderate-Income
Above-Moderate
Income
Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Vacant and Underutilized Sites
Vulnerable 350 27% 24 4% 6 3% 380 18%
Not Vulnerable 945 73% 570 96% 219 97% 1,734 82%
Total 1,295 100% 594 100% 225 100% 2,114 100%
Planned and Approved Pipeline Projects
Vulnerable 0 0% 5 1% 35 4% 40 3%
Not Vulnerable 202 100% 435 99% 814 96% 1,451 97%
Total 202 100% 440 100% 849 100% 1,491 100%
Source: Ascent, 2022.

Figure 4-46: Vacant and Underutilized Sites Inventory vs. Displacement Sensitivity Source: Ascent, 2022.
27%
73%
4%
96%
3%
97%
18%
82%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Vulnerable Not Vulnerable
Percent of Lower-Income Capacity Percent of Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Above Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Total Vacant and Underutilized Sites City Council/RSA Agenda 666 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-68 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and
Actions
HCD defines a fair housing issue as “a condition in a geographic area of analysis that restricts fair housing choice or access to opportunity, which includes such conditions as ongoing local or regional segregation or lack of integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, significant disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and evidence of discrimination or violations of civil rights law or regulations related to housing.” 15 Fair housing issues in Union City are primarily related to segregation by income and race as compared to the greater region, disproportionate housing needs in older neighborhoods of the city, and increased risk of displacement as housing costs continue to rise in the region. Compared to other jurisdictions in the region, the fair housing issues identified in this analysis are relatively acute. Access to opportunity is well distributed throughout the city and there are no definitive concentrated areas of poverty.

Union City has been long considered an affordable place to buy a home. Historically, most development in Union City was single-family homes. Because the city is mostly built out, there is little vacant land available for future single-family home development. Most available land is zoned to allow multifamily development. The City has taken strides to facilitate infill development around the BART station and through the development of the Station District Area. There are currently (2022) two projects in process (Station East and Union Flats) that will also add higher density development and more affordable housing options in the Station District. Through the Housing Element, the City plans to create a wider variety of housing options and encourage more affordable housing development. This includes continued higher density multifamily development in the Station District and other key opportunity sites, and encouraging the production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and other smaller-scaled multifamily units through SB 9 lot splits. The City, through a variety of programs, is looking to increase missing middle housing opportunities to increase diversity and integration. This includes establishing development standards for missing middle housing types and promoting the development of ADUs.

The City recognizes that its older neighborhoods in the Decoto and Historic Alvarado District neighborhoods are disproportionately affected by housing problems and these neighborhoods were identified as areas of focused investment in the City’s 2040 General Plan. As a result, access to opportunity has increased since the 2020 TCAC/HCD opportunity mapping. The Housing Element includes policies and programs to continue directing assistance for housing rehabilitation and capital improvements in these neighborhoods.

The Crestwood neighborhood is also an area of focus for programs to affirmatively further fair housing choices as this area has the highest concentrations of renters, cost burden, and Housing Voucher participants. The Housing Element includes programs to strengthen outreach and education to landlords in other single-family neighborhoods throughout the city to increase fair housing choice for renters and Housing Voucher participants. In addition, the City plans to continue providing rental assistance to households in the Tropics Mobile Home Park. As evidenced previously, the rates of cost burden have decreased in this neighborhood since 2014.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(v), the Housing Element includes several policies and programs to proactively address fair housing issues and replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced communities. Table 4-18 below summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and implementation programs included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Union City. 15 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, 2021.

City Council/RSA Agenda 667 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-69 TABLE 4-18: FAIR HOUSING ISSUES, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND ACTIONS UNION CITY, 2022 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Actions Targets and Timeline Regionally, there are patterns
of segregation based on race
and income due to historic
land use policies.

Most development in Union City has
been single-family homes and
subdivisions due to historic zoning
and land use practices.

Neighborhoods in Union City are
predominantly occupied by
moderate- and above moderateincome households. Above
moderate-income households are
the most isolated of all income
groups in the city and atypical of
patterns statewide. Homeownership
rates are highest for Asian/ API and
American Indian or Alaska Native
residents.
• Facilitate development of a mix of high-density
residential and office uses on the City-owned
Restoration Site. (Program HE-1.C)
• Work with the property owners within the
Marketplace subarea of the Station District to
redevelop the retail centers to include
residential uses. (Program HE-1.D)
• Facilitate development of a mix of housing
types on the City-owned Gateway site.
(Program HE-1.E)
• Amend the Zoning Code and establish
development standards (e.g., minimum lot size,
lot coverage, setbacks, height) to facilitate
housing that is affordable by design to middleincome households(Program HE-1.H) • Work with property owners to consolidate
parcels from the Housing Element sites
inventory to facilitate development of
affordable housing (Program HE-1.J)
• Continue to implement the Affordable Housing
Ordinance. (Program HE-2.A)
• Provide incentives, technical assistance, and
funding to support affordable housing
development. (Program HE-2.B)
• Use City-owned surplus, vacant, or underused
land for development of affordable housing
and/or shelters (Program HE-2.C)
• Promote the development of ADUs. (Program
HE-2.D)
• Create 300 lower-income units and 370
moderate-income units on the City-owned
Restoration Site. (Program HE-1.C)
• Accelerate housing activity in the Marketplace
Mixed Use subarea during the timeframe of the
Housing Element. (Program HE-1.D)
• Create 135 lower-income units, 200 moderateincome, and 200 above moderate-income units. (Program HE-1.E)
• Establish development standards for missing
middle housing types to facilitate a variety of
smaller housing types in traditionally singlefamily zones. (Program HE-1.H) • Create 400 lower-income units through site
consolidation (Program HE-1.J)
• Create 375 lower-income housing units and 125
moderate-income housing units through the
Affordable Housing Ordinance by 2031.
(Program HE-2.A)
• Create 250 very low- and 175 low- income
housing units in the Housing Element planning
period. (Program HE-2.B)
• Create 435 lower-income, 570 moderateincome, and 200 above-moderate income housing units on City-owned land (Program HE2.C)
• Create 120 new ADUs, with approximately 25
percent in high resource areas to improve
housing mobility, by 2031. (Program HE-2.D)
City Council/RSA Agenda 668 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-70 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 4-18: FAIR HOUSING ISSUES, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND ACTIONS UNION CITY, 2022 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Actions Targets and Timeline • Increase access to information about
affordable housing opportunities. Offer
multilingual outreach on affordable housing
opportunities. (Program HE-4.E)
• Prepare multilingual outreach materials about
affordable housing opportunities in FY 23/24
and conduct workshops at least annually to
increase access to information about
affordable housing opportunities (Program HE4.E)
Disproportionate housing
needs affecting older
neighborhoods (i.e., Decoto
and Historic Alvarado
District)
As some of the first neighborhoods
in the city, Decoto and the Historic
Alvarado District neighborhoods
have older infrastructure and an
overall older housing stock.

There’s a concentration of lower
income households and more renter
households in these neighborhoods.

Decoto is also predominately
composed of households identifying
as Hispanic/Latinx while every other
neighborhood in the city is
predominately composed of Asian
households.

While the City no longer has a
redevelopment agency, Decoto and
the Historic Alvarado District were
focus areas for redevelopment funds
and have continued to be principal
focus areas of public investments in
the city since redevelopment
dissolution. Currently (2022) the City
relies on funding received through
the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program or other State
and regional grants to fund
improvements.
• Work with the Housing Authority to provide
affordable housing on the HACA-owned site in
the Decoto neighborhood. (Program HE-2.F)
• Prioritize and focus public improvements and
housing-rehabilitation programs in areas with
the greatest need, such as in the Decoto
neighborhood and Historic Alvarado District.
(Program HE-5.A)
• Encourage the rehabilitation of substandard
residential properties by homeowners and
landlords, using the Code Enforcement
process. (Program HE-5.B)
• Prioritize improvement of public facilities, and
development of complete streets, and transit
amenities in the Decoto Neighborhood and
Historic Alvarado District. (Program HE-6.D)
• Increase awareness and build capacity among
historically underrepresented populations by
targeting public outreach and community
engagement efforts on housing services and
programs to reach residents with the greatest
need. (Program HE-6.E)
• Create 10 units of new affordable housing in
the Decoto neighborhood. (Program HE-2.F)
• Contract with the County annually for
rehabilitation services. Provide rehabilitation
loans for a minimum of 25 units per year.
(Program HE-5.A)
• Provide quality customer service and respond
to Code Enforcement complaints within 10-14
days (Program HE-5.B).
• Contract with the County annually for CDBG
funds; pursue State and Federal grant programs
annually. (Program HE-6.D)
• Develop outreach strategies on available
housing services and programs to reach
vulnerable and at-risk households by FY 24/25
(Program HE-6.E)
City Council/RSA Agenda 669 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-71 TABLE 4-18: FAIR HOUSING ISSUES, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND ACTIONS UNION CITY, 2022 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Actions Targets and Timeline Displacement Risk Rapidly increasing housing costs in
Union City, and throughout the Bay
Area, coupled with a lack of
economic mobility for marginalized
residents creates a higher risk of
displacement for lower-income
households.
• Continue to implement the Affordable Housing
Ordinance to produce more affordable
housing throughout the city. (Program HE-2.A)
• Monitor and preserve at-risk affordable
housing units. (Program HE-3.A)
• Connect lower-income residents to
homeownership opportunities to increase
housing mobility. (Program HE-4.A)
• Continue to support the Housing Authority of
Alameda County (HACA) in its administration
of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
Program to assist very low-income Union City
households. (Program HE-4.B)
• Encourage homebuyer education and
foreclosure counseling. (Program HE-4.C)
• Continue to offer rental assistance to
residents of the Tropics Mobile Home Park.
(Program HE-4.D)
• Continue to coordinate with ECHO in working
with rental housing owners and tenants to
ensure understanding and compliance with
fair-housing laws. (Program HE-6.A)
• Continue to enforce the Eviction Harassment
Protection Ordinance and the Rent Review
Ordinance. (Program HE-6.C)
• Increase awareness and build capacity among
historically underrepresented populations by
targeting public outreach and community
engagement efforts on housing services and
programs to reach residents with the greatest
need. (Program HE-6.E)
• Create 375 lower-income housing units and 125
moderate-income housing units through the
Affordable Housing Ordinance by 2031.
(Program HE-2.A)
• Preservation of 206 at-risk affordable units.
(Program HE-3.A)
• Connect 15 Union City households with firsttime homebuyer resources. (Program HE-4.A) • Initiate collaboration with HACA in FY 24/25
with the goal of supporting an educational
campaign for landlords before 2026. Increase
HCVs in Union City single family neighborhoods
by 5 percent Note: There are currently (2022)
727 HCVs in Union City. (Program HE-4.B)
• Update website in FY 24/25 and review every
two years thereafter. (Program HE-4.C)
• Provide rental assistance to 170 households at
the Tropics Mobile Home Park. (Program HE4.D)
• Aim to provide fair housing services to 10
households annually and tenant/landlord
counseling to 100 individuals each year through
ECHO (Program HE-6.A)
• Annually monitor the Eviction Harassment
Protection Ordinance and the Rent Review
Ordinance. (Program HE-6.C)
• Develop outreach strategies on available
housing services and programs to reach
vulnerable and at-risk households by FY 24/25
(Program HE-6.E)
City Council/RSA Agenda 670 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
4-72 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 4-18: FAIR HOUSING ISSUES, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND ACTIONS UNION CITY, 2022 Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Actions Targets and Timeline • Develop a program to support the acquisition
and conversion of single-family homes to
supportive shared housing for people
experiencing homelessness. (Program HE-7.F)
• Apply for Project Homekey 2.0 funding prior to
the June 30, 2023 deadline and purchase 1-2
properties to provide extremely low-income
housing units for persons experiencing
homelessness, with a goal of identifying the
majority of sites in high resource census tracts.
(Program HE-7.F)
Concentration of Housing
Choice Voucher (HCV)
participants
Large concentration of older
apartment complexes accepting
HCV in the Crestwood neighborhood.
• Work with the Housing Authority to expand
outreach and education of the HCV program
to landlords in single family neighborhoods.
(Program HE-4.B)
• Initiate collaboration with HACA in FY 24/25
with the goal of supporting an educational
campaign for landlords before 2026. Increase
HCVs in Union City single family neighborhoods
by 5 percent Note: There are currently (2022)
727 HCVs in Union City. (Program HE-4.B)
Source: City of Union City and Ascent, 2023.

City Council/RSA Agenda 671 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 PROGRAM RESOURCES | 5-1 Chapter 5 | Program Resources
Federal, State, and local agencies and private developers have a long history of active involvement and cooperation in the provision of affordable housing and the improvement of housing conditions in Union City. Because of the high cost of new construction, more than one source of public funds is required to construct an affordable housing development. Union City does not act as a developer in the production of affordable units but relies upon the private sector to develop new units with the assistance of these various funding sources.

Local Funding and Housing Programs
This section describes funding sources and local housing programs operated by the City, Alameda County, and the Alameda County Housing Authority.

Housing Authority of the County of Alameda
The Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) exercises housing authority responsibilities for Union City as well as for the balance of Alameda County, excluding Oakland, Berkeley, Livermore, and the City of Alameda, which all possess their own housing authorities.

HACA manages the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program (PBV), Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program, and the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. Until recently, HACA also managed public housing and operated four public housing complexes in Union City, with a total of 194 units. However, HACA disposed of the last of its public housing units in 2016. All of HACA’s former public housing units are now under the PBV program or RAD program with contracts that keep the units affordable long-term. There are currently (May 2022) 3,522 applicants on their combined waiting list that may receive HCV Vouchers or provided rental assistance. HACA is only accepting applications from applicants in need of supportive services offered at a particular PBV project and displaced families. They anticipate opening the waitlist by the end of the calendar year 2022.

There is a total of 6,981 vouchers used in HACA’s jurisdiction; 727 of these vouchers are in Union City. Table 5-1 shows the breakdown of the vouchers in Alameda County by income.

TABLE 5-1: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME, ALAMEDA COUNTY, 2022 Extremely LowIncomeVery LowIncome
Low-Income
Above LowIncome
Undefined Total
5,373 1,025 450 61 72 6,981

77.0% 14.6% 6.4% 1.0% 1.0% 100%
Source: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda, May 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 672 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
5-2 | PROGRAM RESOURCES UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Notably, HACA owns a site in Union City within the Decoto neighborhood zoned for single-family development which provides an opportunity to create affordable housing. The Housing Element contains a program to work with HACA to explore opportunities for new housing in the Decoto neighborhood (Program HE-2.F).

City and County Funds and Programs
The following is a list of local funding sources and housing programs operated by Union City or Alameda County:

In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fee and Affordable Housing Impact Fee In 2001, the City adopted an inclusionary housing program, which includes an in-lieu fee provision, although the emphasis of the program is for the developers to build the affordable units. The City also collects an affordable housing impact fee on additions exceeding 500 square feet and reconstruction/replacement of any single-family dwellings that result in a net increase of more than 500 square feet. For small projects, the base fee is $24,000 per unit. All units exceeding 1,000 square feet, must pay an additional fee of $8 per square foot. For large projects, consisting of seven or more units, the fee is equal to $27 per square foot of all habitable space within the development. The City also collects impact fees to cover the costs of providing the necessary services and infrastructure related to new development projects. The Affordable Housing Impact Fee applies to residential additions where the net new square footage is greater than 500 square feet. The fee is $25 per square foot of habitable space more than 500 square feet.

As of 2022, the City has $2.5 million in the in-lieu/housing impact fund. The City recently committed $2.145 million to the Lazuli Landing affordable housing development which is an 81 unit multifamily affordable housing development. More information on the inclusionary housing program is in the Affordable Housing Ordinance section of Chapter 6, Potential Housing Constraints.

Alameda County Rental Housing Development Fund
In 2016, Alameda County residents approved a $580 million General Obligation Bond to direct more resources towards addressing a range of affordable housing needs. The purpose of Measure A-1 is to create new affordable rental and homeowner housing units and assist existing low-income and vulnerable residents. As of August 2021, Union City had a base allocation of $8.8 million dollars with all of it committed to future projects.

Property Registration and Fees
Landlords are required to have a business license for each residential rental unit and are required to pay annual fees for each unit. The fees are due at issuance/renewal of a landlord’s business license and are used to cover the implementation costs of the tenant protection ordinances passed in 2017. The fee per rental unit per year for the Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations Ordinance is $10 and the fee per rental unit per year for the Rent Review Ordinance is $1.

City Council/RSA Agenda 673 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 PROGRAM RESOURCES | 5-3 Fair Housing Services
The City supports and funds Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) housing to provide fair housing counseling and other services using the General Fund and CDBG funding. Between 2016 and 2020, ECHO Housing provided fair housing services to 94 households and tenant/landlord services to more than 629 households. The City also participates in the monitoring of activities contained in the HOME Consortium’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.

Housing Rehabilitation Program
The City gives high priority for the expenditure of a portion of CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation, and directly contracts with the County of Alameda for housing rehabilitation services and minor home repairs. The City also uses Housing Successor funds and HOME funds, as available and appropriate, to support housing rehabilitation for lower-income households. The City’s rehabilitation program, implemented by the County, has rehabilitated over 1,170 homes since it began in 1976.

First Time Homebuyer Assistance
The City previously provided first-time homebuyer assistance with a revolving pool of funds used to leverage private bank funding. In 2015, the City's First Time Homebuyer Program administrator, Neighborhood Housing Services of Silicon Valley, disbanded and subsequently the First Time Homebuyer program was dissolved because the City does not have funding available to continue the program without a partner. Since 2015, the City has promoted AC Boost, Alameda County’s Down Payment Assistance Loan Program to help first-time homebuyers.

Programs for Homeless Support
In the area of homeless and special needs population assistance, the City uses general funds, CDBG funds, Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds, and Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) funds to support agencies that address homeless issues and special needs. PLHA funds are provided by the State and administered through the County of Alameda to aide local governments in funding housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of their local communities. And the HHAP Grant program is State funding that provides local jurisdictions with funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address the City’s immediate homelessness challenges (see Table 5-2 below). The City has several partnerships with local organizations and other jurisdictions including EveryOne Home, Centro de Servicios, and Abode Services to provide housing and services for the homeless population. The City also collaborates with the school district and local faith-based organizations to operate the CAREavan safe parking program.

State and Federal Programs
The following is a description of the primary funding programs from the State and Federal governments used to support housing programs in Union City.

City Council/RSA Agenda 674 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
5-4 | PROGRAM RESOURCES UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Community Development Block Grant Program
The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) is the largest Federal housing-related program for affordable housing. It is a program that allows local governments to use Federal funds to alleviate poverty and “blight.” CDBG funds can be used for a variety of housing efforts, including activities aimed at reducing costs for private development, housing acquisition, public facilities improvements, and rehabilitation through short- and long-term loans, public service grants and fair housing activities. In the most recent CDBG funding allocation (2021), the City received $596,067 in CDBG funds. The City primarily uses CDBG funds for fair housing services, housing rehabilitation services, and programs for homeless support, as described above.

California HOME Investment Partnership Act
The California HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME) is a formula-based block grant program similar to CDBG. HOME funds are intended to provide incentives for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership units. The City is required to provide matching funds. In Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Union City received an allocation of $152,413. The City utilizes $60,000 in HOME funds to supplement a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program. The City will also be utilizing another portion of the HOME funds to supplement an acquisition/rehabilitation project with Bay Area Community Services (BACS) in the amount of $83,707. The City aims to leverage its HOME funds as part of a multi-jurisdictional application to the State of California’s Homekey program to create supportive shared housing for Union City residents experiencing homelessness. The City continues to look at other program opportunities that utilize HOME funds to create additional affordable housing opportunities.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program is a Federal and State housing subsidy program that provides tax credits to the private sector for the construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. To be eligible for a tax credit, 20 percent of the units in a housing development must rent to very low-income households earning less than 50 percent of area median income, or 40 percent of the units must rent to households with incomes of less than 60 percent AMI. Federal law requires that developments maintain the restrictions for 30 years or longer, but State law requires that developments retain these levels of affordability for at least 55 years. To be successful, tax credit projects require an additional subsidy that can include no- or low-cost land, local government contributions, or density bonuses and other concessions. There are four projects in Union City with a total of 518 low-income units that were built using tax credits: Vintage Court Senior Apartments, Mission Gateway, Station District Family Housing (Mid-Pen), and Los Robles Apartments.

Summary of Federal and State Programs
Table 5-2 below, provides a list of other available funding from the State and Federal governments.

City Council/RSA Agenda 675 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 PROGRAM RESOURCES | 5-5 TABLE 5-2: FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS
Funding Program Description
Federal Programs
Brownfields Grant Funding
Program
To facilitate the reuse/redevelopment of contaminated sites the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields Grant Program makes available resources for the cleanup of eligible publicly or privately-held properties.

Choice Neighborhoods
Implementation Grant Program
Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants support the
implementation of comprehensive plans expected to revitalize public and/or assisted housing and initiate neighborhood improvements.

Community Facilities Direct Loan
& Grant Program
This program provides affordable funding to develop essential community facilities in rural areas.

Continuum of Care (CoC)
Program
Funding is available on an annual basis through HUD to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families.

Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
CDBG makes funds available in four categories but are primarily used to provide a suitable living environment by expanding economic opportunities and providing decent housing to low-income households.
• Community Development Programs
• Economic Development Programs
• Drought-Related Lateral Program
• Public Facilities Improvement Programs
Emergency Solutions Grants
Program (ESG)
ESG makes grant funds available for projects serving homeless individuals and families through eligible non-profit organizations or local governments.

Farm Labor Housing Direct Loans
& Grants (Section 514)
Provides affordable financing to develop housing for year-round and migrant or seasonal domestic farm laborers.

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
Program
The HCV program, previously Section 8, is the Federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, senior households, and people with disabilities to afford housing.

Home Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME)
HOME funds are available as loans for housing rehabilitation, new construction, and acquisition and rehabilitation of single- and multifamily projects and as grants for tenant-based rental assistance.

Home Ownership for People
Everywhere (HOPE)
HOPE program provides grants to low-income people to achieve homeownership. The programs are:

HOPE I– Public Housing Homeownership Program
HOPE IV – Hope for Elderly Independence
Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Funds are made available countywide for supportive social services, affordable housing development, and rental assistance to persons living with HIV/AIDS.

Housing Preservation Grants Provides grants to sponsoring organizations for the repair or rehabilitation of housing owned or occupied by low- and very-lowincome rural citizens.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) Program
The LIHTC program gives State and local agencies the authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing for lower-income households.

City Council/RSA Agenda 676 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
5-6 | PROGRAM RESOURCES UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 5-2: FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS
Funding Program Description
Rural Rental Housing: Direct
Loans
Provides direct loans to developers of affordable rural multifamily rental housing and may be used for new construction or
rehabilitation.

Section 108 Loan Guarantee
Program
Provides loans to CDBG entitlement jurisdictions for capital improvement projects that benefit low- and moderate-income persons.

Section 202 Supportive Housing
for the Elderly Program
Provides an interest-free capital advance to cover the costs of construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of very low-income senior housing. The program is available to private, non-profit sponsors.

Public sponsors are not eligible for the program.

Section 203(k): Rehabilitation
Mortgage Insurance Program
Provides, in the mortgage, funds to rehabilitate and repair singlefamily housing.

Section 207: Mortgage Insurance
for Manufactured Home Parks
Program
Insures mortgage loans to facilitate the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multi-family manufactured home parks.

Section 221(d)(3) and 221(d)(4) Insures loans for construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental, cooperative, and single room occupancy housing.

Section 502 Direct Loan Program USDA Section 502 Direct Loan Program provides homeownership opportunities for low- and very-low-income families living in rural areas.

Section 811 Project Rental
Assistance
Section 811 Project Rental Assistance offers long-term project-based rental assistance funding from HUD. Opportunities to apply for this project-based assistance are through a Notice of Funding Availability published by CalHFA Opens in New Window.

State Programs
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
Program (AHSC)
AHSC funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that support infill and compact development and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

CalHOME CalHOME makes grants to local public agencies and nonprofits to assist first-time homebuyers become or remain homeowners through deferred-payment loans. Funds can also be used to assist in the development of multiple-unit ownership projects.

Cleanup Loans and
Environmental Assistance to
Neighborhoods (CLEAN) Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control's CLEAN Program provides low-interest loans to investigate, cleanup and redevelop abandoned and underutilized urban properties.

California Emergency Solutions
and Housing (CESH)
CESH provides grant funds to eligible applicants for activities to assist persons experiencing or at-risk of homelessness.

California Self-Help Housing
Program
Provides grants for sponsor organizations that provide technical assistance for low- and moderate-income families to build their homes with their own labor.

CDBG Funds are available in California communities that do not receive CDBG funding directly from HUD. There is an annual competitive funding cycle which has an over-the-counter NOFA process.

Community Development Block
Grant-Corona Virus (CDBG-CV1) –
CARES Act Funding
This is a subsidiary of the CDBG program to provide relief to eligible entities due to hardship caused by COVID-19.

City Council/RSA Agenda 677 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 PROGRAM RESOURCES | 5-7 TABLE 5-2: FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS
Funding Program Description
Emergency Housing Assistance
Program (EHAP)
EHAP provides funds for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and related services for the homeless and those at risk of losing their housing.

Emergency Solutions Grants
Program (ESG)
ESG funds are available in California communities that do not receive ESG funding directly from HUD.

Golden State Acquisition Fund
(GSAF)
GSAF makes up to five-year loans to developers for acquisition or preservation of affordable housing.

HOME HOME funds are available in communities that do not receive HOME funding directly from HUD.

Homekey Homekey provides grants to acquire and rehabilitate a variety of housing types — such as hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings, and residential care facilities — in order to serve people experiencing homelessness or who are also at risk of serious illness from COVID19 Homeless Emergency Aid
Program (HEAP)
HEAP is a $500 million block grant program designed to provide direct assistance to cities, counties and CoCs to address the homelessness crisis.

Homeless, Housing Assistance
and Prevention (HHAP) Program
HHAP Round 1 is a $650 million grant that provides local jurisdictions with funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges. Round 2 is a $300 million grant that provides support to continue to build on regional collaboration to develop a unified regional response to homelessness. Round 3 is a $1 billion grant that provides local jurisdictions and federally recognized tribal governments flexible funding to continue efforts to end and prevent homelessness in their communities.

Housing for a Healthy California
(HHC)
HHC provides funding to deliver supportive housing opportunities to developers using the federal National Housing Trust Funds allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans. The HHC program is intended to create supportive housing for individuals who are recipients of or eligible for health provided through Medi-Cal.

Housing Navigators Program Housing Navigators Program allocates $5 million in funding to counties for the support of housing navigators to help young adults aged 18 years and up to 21 years secure and maintain housing, with priority given to young adults in the foster care system.

Housing-Related Parks Program The Housing-Related Parks Program funds the creation of new park and recreation facilities or improvement of existing park and recreation facilities that are associated with rental and ownership projects that are affordable to very low- and low-income households.

Grant funds are made available to local jurisdictions.

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
(IIG)
IIG provides grant funding for infrastructure improvements for new infill housing in residential and/or mixed-use projects.

Joe Serna, Jr., Farmworker
Housing Grant (FWHG)
FWHG makes grants and loans for development or rehabilitation of rental and owner-occupied housing for agricultural workers with priority for lower-income households.

Local Early Action Planning
(LEAP) Grants
The LEAP program assist cities and counties to plan for housing through providing one-time over-the-counter, non-competitive planning grants.

City Council/RSA Agenda 678 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
5-8 | PROGRAM RESOURCES UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 5-2: FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS
Funding Program Description
Local Housing Trust Fund
Program (LHTF)
Affordable Housing Innovation's LHTF lends money for construction of rental housing projects with units restricted for at least 55 years to households earning less than 60 percent of area median income.

State funds match local housing trust funds as down-payment assistance to first-time homebuyers.

Mobile-home Park Rehabilitation
and Resident Ownership Program
(MPRROP)
MPRROP makes low interest loans for the preservation of affordable mobile-home parks. MPRROP also makes long-term loans to individuals to ensure continued affordability.

Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC) Program
Provides income tax credits to first-time homebuyers to buy new or existing homes.

Multifamily Housing Program
(MHP)
MHP makes low-interest, long-term deferred-payment permanent loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households.

National Housing Trust Fund National Housing Trust Fund is a formula grant program used to increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low-income households (ELI households, with incomes of 30 percent of area median or less).

Funds are made available through a competitive process.

No Place Like Home The No Place Like Home Program invests in the development of permanent supportive housing for persons who are in need of mental health services and are experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or who are at risk of chronic homelessness.

Office of Migrant Services (OMS) Provides grants to local government agencies that contract with HCD to operate OMS centers located throughout the state for the construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operation of seasonal rental housing for migrant farmworkers.

Permanent Local Housing
Allocation Program (PLHA)
There are two types of assistance under PLHA:
• Formula grants to entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions based on the formula prescribed under federal law for the Community Development Block Grant.
• Competitive grants to non-entitlement jurisdictions. The NonEntitlement competitive grant program component prioritizes assistance to persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness and investments that increase the supply of housing to
households with incomes of 60 percent or less of area median income.

Predevelopment Loan Program
(PDLP)
PDLP makes short-term loans for activities and expenses necessary for the continued preservation, construction, rehabilitation or conversion of assisted housing primarily for low-income households.

Regional Early Action Planning
(REAP) Grants
The REAP program helps COGs and other regional entities collaborate on projects that have a broader regional impact on housing. Grant funding is intended to help regional governments and entities facilitate local housing production that will assist local governments in meeting their Regional Housing Need Allocation.

SB 2 Planning Grants Program The SB 2 Planning Grants program provides one-time funding and technical assistance to all eligible local governments in California to City Council/RSA Agenda 679 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 PROGRAM RESOURCES | 5-9 TABLE 5-2: FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS
Funding Program Description
adopt, and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production.

Supportive Housing Multifamily
Housing Program (SHMHP)
SHMHP provides low-interest loans to developers of permanent affordable rental housing that contain supportive housing units.

Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) Program
TCC is part of California’s Climate Investments cap-and-trade program.

TCC funds community-led development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in the State’s most disadvantaged communities. There are two types of grants available. Implementation Grants and Planning Grants, which are both awarded on a competitive basis.

Transit Oriented Development
Housing Program (TOD)
The TOD program makes low-interest loans and grants for rental housing that includes affordable units that are located within onequarter mile of a transit station.

Transitional Housing Program
(THP)
THP provides funding to counties for child welfare services agencies to help young adults aged 18 to 25 years find and maintain housing, with priority given to those formerly in the foster care or probation systems.

Veterans Housing and
Homelessness Prevention
Program (VHHP)
VHHP makes long-term loans for development or preservation of rental housing for very low- and low-income veterans and their families.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CA Department of Housing and Community Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2020.

City Council/RSA Agenda 680 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
5-10 | PROGRAM RESOURCES UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 681 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS | 6-1 Chapter 6 | Potential Housing Constraints
State housing law requires the City to review both governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. Examples of such constraints include development standards, local processing and permit procedures, development fees, construction costs, and compliance with various State laws to facilitate housing for lower-income and special needs households. State law requires the local governments to take action through their Housing Element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities,” (Government Code Section 65583(c) (3)). A thorough understanding of the potential constraints to development can help to create appropriate policy responses.

Potential Governmental Constraints
Government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing available in a community if those regulations limit opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or overcomplicate the development process for developers.

State law requires that housing elements contain an analysis of the governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels including special needs households and persons with disabilities (Government Code, Section 65583(a) (4)).

Potential constraints to housing include land use controls, development processing procedures and fees, impact fees, on- and off-site improvement requirements, and building and housing codes and enforcement. This section discusses these standards and assesses whether any serve as a constraint to affordable housing development in Union City.

Transparency in Development Regulations
Union City complies with the requirement of providing transparency in development regulations.

The Development Services page of the City website provides all necessary information on Planning and Building Division services (www.unioncity.org/207/Development-Services). The information on the website covers the following:
 Long-range planning documents, including the 2040 General Plan, Hillside Area Plan, and adopted specific plans
 Municipal Code, including Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Subdivision Ordinance, and Building Code
 Permit requirements
 Planning applications, forms, and informational handouts City Council/RSA Agenda 682 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
6-2 | POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031  Schedule of fees
 Property information
Land Use Controls
The City of Union City controls the location, type, density, and scale of new development through the 2040 General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and various specific plans.

General Plan
Every jurisdiction in California is required to prepare a comprehensive, long-term General Plan to guide decision making. The Union City 2040 General Plan, adopted in 2019, sets forth the City’s vision, goals, and policies to shape development of the city. The updated plan created new opportunities for residential and mixed-use development throughout the city, but primarily in the areas surrounding the Intermodal Station. This new residential development opportunity is reflected in the increased capacity of the Housing Element sites inventory. The Land Use Element of the General Plan has eleven land use designations that allow for residential use as follows:
 Residential – 3 to 6 Dwelling Units per Acre (R 3-6): This designation allows single family detached homes and accessory dwelling units. This is the predominant residential development type in Union City. The allowed density range is 3 to 6 units per gross acre. The lot size range for this designation is 6,000 to 10,000 square feet.  Residential – 6 to 10 Dwelling Unit per Acre (R 6-10): This designation allows detached singlefamily homes of moderate density and accessory dwelling units. This designation is typically applied to areas of predominantly single-family character where a greater diversity of housing type is intended. The allowed density range is 6 to 10 units per gross acre. The lot size range for this designation is 3,500 to 6,000 square feet.
 Residential – 10 to 17 Dwelling Units per Acre (R 10-17): This designation allows duplexes and multifamily dwellings. This designation is typically applied to transitional areas between higher intensity uses and lesser density single family residential areas. The allowed density range is 10 to 17 units per net acre.
 Residential – 17 to 30 Dwelling Units per Acre (R 17-30): This designation allows multifamily dwellings. This designation is typically applied to areas where a mixture of higher intensity activities is desired, such as near major transportation routes and facilities and core shopping areas. This designation also serves as a transitional land use between single family and higher intensity non-residential areas. The allowed density range is 17 to 30 units per net acre.  Residential – 30 to 45 Dwelling Units per Acre (R 30-45): This designation allows multifamily dwellings. This designation is typically applied to areas where public transit is readily available.

The allowed density range is 30 to 45 units per net acre.  Residential – 45 to 60 Dwelling Units per Acre (R 45-60): This designation allows multifamily dwellings. This designation is typically applied to areas where public transit is readily available.

The allowed density range is 45 to 60 units per net acre.  Corridor Mixed-Use Commercial (CMU) – 17 to 45 Dwelling Units per Acre: This designation allows stand-alone commercial uses and residential uses that are vertically integrated with ground floor commercial uses. It applies to properties along the Mission Boulevard Corridor City Council/RSA Agenda 683 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS | 6-3 but could apply to other areas along major arterials. The purpose of this designation is to allow for the construction of commercial uses and mixed-use higher-density residential development that will support the commercial uses and create vibrant places for people to live, work, shop, and play. The allowed FAR range for mixed-use buildings is between 0.5 and 1.50, and the allowed residential density range is 17-45 units per acre. Ground floor commercial is required in mixed-use buildings along arterials. The allowable FAR for stand-alone commercial is 0.3 to

1.0. This was a new designation created in the 2040 General Plan.  Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU): The Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU) designation covers 35.8 acres within the Marketplace Subarea of the Station District Specific Plan (see Figure 6-1). The designation is primarily retail with a strip mall typology and large surface parking lots. The MMU designation allows a mix of high-intensity retail, office, hotels, residential uses, and public spaces creating an inviting place for locals and visitors. The designation allows high-density residential uses, ranging between 30 to 100 units per acre. The MMU designation has an allowable FAR of up to 3.0, inclusive of residential uses.  Mixed-Use Employment (EMU): This designation allows a mix of employment uses, including but not limited to light industrial, research and development, office, and “flex” space, as well as supportive commercial uses that are vertically or horizontally integrated. Residential/ commercial mixed-use development may be allowed where it has been identified by the City as part of the development of an Area Plan. The allowed FAR range for buildings located in this designation is between 0.40 and 2.0. It is worth noting that this designation applies to an area along Union City Boulevard on the western side of the City. An area plan has not been prepared for the area, and therefore residential is not currently allowed in this area.  Station Mixed Use-Commercial (CSMU) – 100 to 165 Dwelling Units per Acre: This designation allows a mix of high-intensity retail, office, hotels, residential uses, and public plazas in the immediate vicinity of the Intermodal Station. The designation is primarily commercial in nature; however, high density residential land uses between 100 and 165 units per net acre are also allowed where it will promote, in a coordinated manner with the commercial development, the purpose of this designation.
 Station East Mixed-Use (SEMU): This mixed-use designation allows a range of uses, which include light industrial, research and development, office, retail and entertainment, hotels, residential, and public plazas. The goal of the designation is to create an urban mixed-use environment that capitalizes on proximity to the BART station. The targeted mix of uses in this area is a minimum 65 percent employment uses, minimum 15 percent commercial uses including commercial/residential mixed-use projects that emphasize retail development, and maximum 20 percent residential uses. The allowed FAR range for buildings located in this designation is between 0.40 and 3.0, and the allowed residential density range is 25 to 100 dwelling units per acre, with an average density of no less than 50 units per acre. The minimum parcel size for this designation is three acres. This was a new designation created in the 2040 General Plan.  Village Mixed-Use Commercial (VMU) – 17 to 30 Dwelling Units per Acre: This designation allows stand-alone commercial uses and residential uses that are vertically integrated with ground floor commercial uses. It applies to properties within the Historic Alvarado District but could be applied to other areas where mixed-use is appropriate. The allowed floor area ratio (FAR) range for mixed-use buildings is between 0.5 and 1.50, and the allowed residential density range is 17-30 units per acre. Ground floor commercial is required in mixed-use City Council/RSA Agenda 684 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
6-4 | POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 buildings along arterials. The allowable FAR for stand-alone commercial is 0.3 to 1.0. This was a new designation created in the 2040 General Plan.

Zoning
The City’s zoning and development regulations establish permitted and conditionally permitted uses within each zone and standards which dictate how much development can occur on a given parcel of land such as minimum and maximum densities, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. The City Zoning Ordinance is adopted as Title 18 of the Municipal Code.

The current zoning ordinance includes two residential zoning categories (RS and RM), two special residential districts (Decoto/R-5000 and 511 Area/R511), and four mixed-use districts that allow for residential development (CSMU, SEMU-R, CMU, and VMU). Tables 6-1 summarizes permitted residential uses by zoning district and Table 6-2 lists and describes the development standards for each of these districts.

The RS districts provide primarily for single family residential development with five minimum lot sizes specified: RS-4500, RS-6000, RS-7000, RS-8000 and RS-10000. In the RS districts, no more than one principal dwelling unit is permitted per lot. The RM districts are designed for multifamily developments with three density ranges specified: RM-1500, RM-2500 and RM-3500.The R-5000 district, which is limited to the Decoto area, was designed to encourage"...the consolidation of small, substandard lots into reasonable building sites, permitting single family dwellings in low silhouette with maximum open space in compensation for such consolidation,” (UCMC Sec. 18.88.020).

The second special residential district is the 511 District, which is applied to the 511 Specific Area Plan on the western side of the city. The 511 Area District is intended to allow for flexible approaches to providing single family residential development while balancing these opportunities with concerns for environmental constraints and resources. The district allows for a wide range of single-family development types, including attached, semi-attached, zero-lot-line, and detached units. Nearly all of the area in this district is built out.

There are five mixed-use districts which allow residential development including the Station MixedUse Commercial District (CSMU), the Station East Mixed Use Residential District (SEMU-R), Village Mixed Use (VMU), Marketplace Mixed Use, and the Corridor Mixed Use District (CMU). The purpose of these districts is to establish a mixed-use district of high-density residential, commercial, office, and research and development uses that will serve as important town center, while providing strong pedestrian connections throughout the district.

City Council/RSA Agenda 685 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS | 6-5 TABLE 6-1: RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY ZONING DISTRICT, UNION CITY, 2022 Zoning District RS10000
RS8000RS7000RS6000RS4500R5000RM3500RM2500RM1500 VMU CMU CSMU MMU SEMU R511 PI CF Accessory dwelling unit P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P - - Duplex (two-family dwelling) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 - - - - C - - Emergency Shelter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P -
Community Care Facility
(Group Home for 6 or fewer) P P P P P P P P P - - - P P - - Community Care Facility
(Group Home for 6 or more) C C C C C C C C C - - - - - - P Mobile home park C C C C C C C C C - - - - - - -
Multifamily dwelling - - - - - - P P P P P C P4 P C - - Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
Unit - - - - - - - - P - - - - - - -
Single-family dwelling (includes
manufactured homes) P P P P P P - - - - - - P P - -
Level of discretionary approval:

P = Use permitted by right and is subject to compliance with development standards. Projects with new construction or exterior modifications will require site plan and design review.

C = Conditional use permit approval by Planning Commission. 1 Duplexes are permitted on corner lots when constructed as part of the affordable housing obligation as provided in Chapter 18.33. Duplexes must meet the front, rear, and street side yard setback of the district in which they are located. Exceptions to the setback standards may be granted by approval of a use permit. 2 Conditional use permit approval by City Council.
3 Per Title 16, Mobile Home Parks, a mobile home park may be allowed in any agricultural or residential district with a use permit. 4 Residential uses are permitted in mixed use developments with ground floor commercial uses or with activated ground floor uses including but not limited to residential amenity space, leasing office, lobby, business center, and live/work units.

Source: Union City Planning and Development Code, April 2022 City Council/RSA Agenda 686 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
6-6 | POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 6-2: MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ZONES THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UNION CITY (2022) Zoning
District District
Density:

Min. Site
Area Per DU
(sq. ft.) 13
Lot Width
Interior
Lot (ft.)
Lot Width
Corner
Lot (ft.)
Lot
Depth
Front
Yard
Side Yards (Permitted Uses Only)
Rear
Yard
(ft.)
Lot
Coverage
(%)
Max.

Height
(ft.)7 Street
Side (ft.)
Interior
Side (ft.)
Second
Story
Setback
RS-10000 Single Family Residential 10,000 (1) 80 90 100 25 15 10% of lot width (3) 10 20 (4) 50 30
RS-8000 Single Family Residential 8,000 (1) 70 80 100 25 15 10% of lot width (3) 10 20 (4) 50 30
RS-7000 Single Family Residential 7,000 (1) 65 75 100 20 15 10% of lot width (3) 10 20 (4) 50 30
RS-6000 Single Family Residential 6,000 (1) 60 70 100 20 15 10% of lot width (3) 10 20 (4) 50 30
RS-4500 Single Family Residential 4,500 (1) 45 55 90 20 10 10% of lot width (3) — 15 (5) 50 30
R-5000 Decoto Residential 5,000 (1) — — — 20 (2) 10 5 — 10 50-60 30 RM-3500 Multifamily Residential 3,500 70 80 100 20 (3) 10 10% of lot width (3) 10 20 (4) 40 30
RM-2500 Multifamily Residential 2,000 60 70 100 20 (3) 10 10% of lot width (3) 10 20 (4) 40 30
RM-1500 Multifamily Residential 1,450 60 70 100 20 (3) 10 10% of lot width (3) 10 20 (4) 40 75
CSMU Station Mixed Use Commercial 264 100 — 200 15 (9) 15 — — — — 160 SEMU-R Station East Mixed Use Residential 435 35 — 100 6 (9) 6 6 — 6 — 100 CMU Corridor Mixed Use Commercial 968 200 — 100 15 10 (7) — (7) — 10 — 55 City Council/RSA Agenda 687 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS | 6-7 TABLE 6-2: MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ZONES THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UNION CITY (2022) Zoning
District District
Density: