Union City City Council
May 23, 2023

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 1050 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1051 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1052 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1053 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1054 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1055 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
⚫ 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 1056 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1Assumes 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. 2Assumes 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. 32021 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 1057 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1058 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1059 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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.

In Union City, the largest proportion of rental units was in the $1500-$2000 monthly rent range, totaling 32.0 percent, followed by 27.4 percent of units renting in the $2000-$2500 range (see Figure 2-28). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $1500-$2000 rental range.

Since 2009, the median rent in Union City has increased by 72.8 percent, from $1,420 to $2,050 per month — a faster rate than the countywide and regional average (see Figure 2-29). In Alameda County, the median rent increased by 36.0 percent, from $1,240 to $1,690, and the median rent in the region increased from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54 percent increase.3 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 1060 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 2-298: 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.

Figure 2-29: 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. 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
$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 1061 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 for on housing, lower-income 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. 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 1062 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 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 1063 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 2-32: Cost Burdened Lower-Income Households by Tenure, Union City, 2019 Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release.

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 2-32).

Figure 2-332: 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%
34% 19% 20% 24%
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 1064 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-334). Large households are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms.

Figure 2-343: 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 1065 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-345).

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 2-356). Based on this data, the City concludes that there is a sufficient availability of units suitable for large households.

Figure 2-345: 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 1066 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 2-356: 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 2-367 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 2-378). 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 1067 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 2-367: 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 2-378: 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 1068 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-389).

Figure 2-389: 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 1069 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-3940).

Figure 2-4039: 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 1070 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-410 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 1071 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 2-410: 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 2-87, 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 1072 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 2-87: 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 1073 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 202219, a total of 8,0227,135 individuals were experiencing homelessness in the county, nearly double the number of individuals counted in 2009 2017 (see Figure 2-412). In 2019, aA total of 106 489 homeless persons were counted in Union City, all of which were unsheltered. This represents 7.01.3 percent of the total population of people experiencing homelessness in the county.

The most recent PIT was completed in February 2022, where 7,135 unsheltered homeless individuals were counted in Alameda County and 489 unsheltered homeless persons were counted in Union City, representing 7 percent of the total unsheltered population 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.

Note: Additional details from the 2022 PIT are not yet available. This section describes the details of the 2019 PIT. It will be updated with more detailed information from the 2022 PIT once available.

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, 84.0 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelters (see Figure 2-423). See Chapter 4 for additional information on homelessness in Union City and in Alameda County.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1074 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 2-412: Total Homeless Population in Alameda County, 2009-202219 Source: EveryOne Home, 2009-2019 Alameda County Homeless Count Reports.

Figure 2-423: 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 1075 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In 2019Alameda County, 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 2-434).

Figure 2-434: 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 2-445). Of those, some 78.3 percent are 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 1076 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 2-445: 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 2-98). 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 2-98: 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 1077 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
⚫ 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 1078 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
⚫ 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 2-465). 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 1079 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
In Union City, the migrant worker student population totaled 111 during the 2019-20 school year (see Table 2-109). 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 2-109: 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 2-465: 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 1080 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-467). 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 1081 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 2-476: 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 2-487: 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 1082 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-101).

Table 2-110 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 2-101, 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 nonprofit 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-to-Market 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 1083 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 2-110: 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 1084 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 2-110: 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 1085 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-112 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 2-112: 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 1086 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 2-123 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 2-123: 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 1087 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1088 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1089 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1,5711,491 units in approved projects including: 29 extremely low-, 69 very low-, 104 low-, 378 440 moderate-, and 991 849 above moderate-income units. A brief description of each development project is below.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1090 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 974
894
13 33 76
151
213
701
559
Includes 122 deed-restricted lower- and 24-deedrestricted moderate-income units; 392253 marketrate rental units assumed at 50/50 moderate- and above moderate-income; and 356701 market-rate
condos/ townhomes assumed above moderateincome. Complete buildout is tentatively scheduled for late 2026/early 2027. The deed-restricted lowerincome 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 1091 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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.Remediation Is
underway.

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.Currently in entitlement process, with project
hearing occurring in Summer 2022.

Total All Income Levels 1,571
1,491
29 69 104
378
440
991
849
Source: Union City Economic and Community Development Department, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1092 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 6,3008,000 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 will also be submittinsubmitted g an application to HCD Multifamily Finance Super NOFA in June 2022 for additional funding to cover financial gaps in the project. The Super NOFA was released in April 2022 and an application will be submitted at the end of June 2022. Awards will be announced in earlyNovember of 20232.

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 974 894 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 748828 market-rate units include a mix of 392253 rental apartment units, and 356490 for-sale condominiums, and 108 three-story for-sale townhomes. The 392253 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, City Council/RSA Agenda 1093 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-6 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 which facilitated the construction of 11th Street, which is a primary access corridor serving the 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 1094 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1095 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 late 2022/early 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. is anticipated to be approved in summer 2022.

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 1096 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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. While some of the sites already have appropriate zoning and general plan designations to allow for housing, sSeveral of the sites are beingwere recently rezoned either through the Station District Specific Plan Update or in conjunction with the Housing Element updateas 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 . The site profiles below include details on the actions being taken prior to, or in conjunction with, the Housing Element adoption 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. The City has several zoning districts that allow 30 units per acre as shown in Table 3-4.

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 1097 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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) VMU1 Village Mixed use (proposed)1
CMU
Corridor Mixed Use
(17-45 du/acre) CMU Corridor Mixed Use
SEMU
Station East Mixed-Use (30
25 to 100 du/acre, average
density of 50 du/acre)
SEMU-R
Station East Mixed Use
Designation
CSMU
Station Mixed-Use
Commercial
(6100 to 165 du/acre)
CSMU
Station Mixed-Use Commercial
District
MMU
Marketplace Mixed Use (30
to 100 du/acre) MMU2 Marketplace Mixed Use(proposed)2
Notes:
1 The Village Mixed Use zoning district is in the process of being created to implement the Village Mixed use General Plan land use designation. It will be adopted in conjunction with the Housing Element Update. 2 Marketplace Mixed Use is a new General Plan land use designation and new Zoning district proposed in the Draft Station District Specific Plan.

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 151 213 marketrate and deed-restricted moderate-income units (39 56 percent of the moderate-income RHNA) City Council/RSA Agenda 1098 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-11 and 701 559 above moderate-income units (71 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 is currently preparing prepared the Station District Specific Plan, and through that process, identified 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 1099 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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.

Generally, the factors considered when determining that the existing use would not impede development include the followingThe 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 1100 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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.

A.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.

B.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 Many of the 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, Trhesome non-vacant sites include a surface parking lot, an RV storage yard, a farmstand and gas station, a self-storage business, strip retail centers, and other similar uses. The age and condition of the sitestructures on 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 City Council/RSA Agenda 1101 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-14 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 the time, but is not permitted by the current zoning regulations as result of rezonings or 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 2-5A, 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 rezoninge only helps to strengthen the financial incentive to redevelop and increases the likelihood that this will occur.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1102 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-15 TABLE 3-5A: EXAMPLES OF RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ON UNDERUTILIZED SITES, 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
974894-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/Vvacant 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 1103 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-16 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 3-5A: EXAMPLES OF RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ON UNDERUTILIZED SITES, 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 1104 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-17 TABLE 3-5A: EXAMPLES OF RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ON UNDERUTILIZED SITES, 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 Approved, not yet builtUnder 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 1105 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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
moderate-income 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 unitss Commercial uses
Fremont Bank Residences
(3917650 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 forownership townhomesCommercial uses, redevelopment on the site of a
multi-tenant commercial
shopping center
Source: Ascent, 2023
Large Sites
The sites inventory includes three two sites larger than 10 acres: LM-1 (Restoration Site), LM-4 (Safeway Marketplace Site), and LM-45 (Gateway Site). All threeBoth of these sites are owned by the City and are within the Station District Specific Plan area, and they all have unique characteristics that makemaking 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.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1106 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-19 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).

Safeway Marketplace Site
The Safeway Marketplace Site is a 14.8-acre site immediately south of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station parking lot that is proposed to be rezoned to a new Marketplace Mixed Use designation as part of the Station District Specific Plan. This new designation would allow a mix of high-intensity retail, office, hotels, residential uses, and public spaces up to an FAR of 3.0 and residential density range of 30 to 100 units per acre. The Safeway Marketplace Shopping Center occupies the site, which, in addition to the grocery store, contains a Bank of America, Rite Aid, and other restaurant and retail uses.

There can be no more than 15 percent net loss of commercial space in any redevelopment of the Marketplace subarea, based on the requirements of the Draft Specific Plan.

During the preparation of the Draft Specific Plan and the Housing Element Update, City staff held conversations with the property owners to gauge interest in redeveloping the site as mixed use.

The property owners expressed interest in incorporating residential into the site and indicated that redevelopment would likely occur in phases as current leases expire and/or to allow current tenants to relocate to other available spaces temporarily or permanently within the center. Based on discussions about specific lease expiration dates and possible locations of the first phase of residential development, the sites inventory assumes an initial 300 units are feasible during the Housing Element planning period. The Housing Element also contains a program to work with the property owner to facilitate development of the site for affordable housing.

Gateway Site (City-owned)
The Gateway Site is a more than 60-acre site with aboutincludes 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 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.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1107 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-20 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 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.

TheParcel shapes offor 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 profilesdescriptions 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. Following the figure are site profiles in which the sites are organized into three categories:
1)Station District Specific Plan Sites. These are opportunity sites within the Station District Specific Plan area that are best suited for housing during the Housing Element planning period. While some of the sites already have the necessary General Plan and Zoning designations in place to allow for housing at the densities assumed in the Housing Element, a few of the sites will be rezoned and redesignated in conjunction with the Specific Plan Update, which is anticipated to be adopted in fall 2022 prior to the Housing Element adoption deadline.
2) Citywide Vacant and Underutilized Sites. The sites in this category are located outside the Station District Specific Plan area and already have the General Plan land use designations and zoning in place to allow housing at the assumed densities. 3) Sites Requiring General Plan and/or Zoning Amendments. The sites in this category are proposed to be re-zoned and/or re-designated in the General Plan to allow for housing at the densities assumed in the inventory. Some of the sites were designated for housing or mixed use upon adoption of the 2040 General Plan in 2018 and need to be rezoned for consistency with the General Plan. Other sites are proposed for both Zoning and General Plan amendment to allow for housing on sites that otherwise wouldn’t allow housing (e.g., commercial-only sites) or housing at higher densities than what is currently allowed. During the public review of the Draft Housing Element, City staff will be seeking feedback from the community and direction from appointed and elected official regarding rezoning of these sites, particularly the new sites proposed for both a Zoning and General Plan Amendment. The action to amend the Zoning and General Plan would then be scheduled to occur prior to the January 31, 2023, Housing Element adoption deadline to ensure the sites are in place prior to the start of the 2023-2031 planning period.

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 1108 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-21 Figure 3-1: Sites Inventory Map, Union City, June December 2022 Source: City of Union City and Ascent, June December 2022 City Council/RSA Agenda 1109 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 7
th 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 Safeway Marketplace Site 87-19-16 14.80 Underutilized 300 300 LM-45 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 sSites 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 1110 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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-56 Alvarado Niles Road Site 475-158-7 0.45 Vacant 0 6 6 Subtotal of Citywide Vacant Sites 0 6 25 31
Sites Requiring General Plan and/or Zoning AmendmentCitywide 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

0.185.2
1 Underutilized 132
116
132
116
486-18-62
486-18-63
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 (Historic Alvarado
District)
483-10-12-1 1.26 Underutilized 18 18
City Council/RSA Agenda 1111 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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
1,587
594 225
2,114
2,406
*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 1112 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1113 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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. andIt is within the Station District Specific Plan. It is adjacent to thea fully entitled 974894-unit mixed use project by Integral Communities.

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 Once the adoption of the Specific Plan is adopted and the related Zoning updates approved, existing uses on this site will beare legal nonconforming and cannot be expanded or modified. The increased density allowable underthrough 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 1114 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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
Current General Plan & Zoning Commercial (C) (no residential) / Community Commercial (CC) (no residential) Proposed 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
Summary of Action Zoning and General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with the Station District Specific Plan)
City Council/RSA Agenda 1115 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-28 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-4: Safeway Marketplace Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 87-19-16
Address 1 Union Square
Parcel Acres 14.80
Current General Plan & Zoning Commercial (C) (no residential) / Community Commercial (CC) (no residential) Proposed General Plan &
Zoning
New Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU) (30-100 du/acre) (new GP/zoning district proposed in Station District Specific Plan)
Realistic Capacity/Income Level 300 Lower-Income Units0 units at this time (may be included in the future) Existing Use Safeway Marketplace Shopping Center. Existing commercial space is expected to remain.

Non-vacant Site Factors TOD opportunity, Property Owner Interest, Expiring Leases, FAR < 50% of max, Site Description
This site is within the Station District Specific Plan and is the current Safeway Marketplace Shopping Center, which also includes a Bank of America, a Rite Aid Drug store, and other small restaurant and retail uses. The area is planned for Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU), which allows a mix of high-intensity retail, office, hotels, residential uses, and public spaces creating an inviting place for locals and visitors. The existing amount of retail would need to be maintained when adding residential to the site.

Discussions with the property owner indicate significant interest in redeveloping the site for residential mixed use, particularly given the challenges facing the retail market postCovid 19, and the benefits of incorporating residential into the site. The owner has indicated that redevelopment would likely occur in phases as current leases expire and/or to allow current tenants to temporarily or permanently relocate to other available spaces within the center.

Assumptions (based on Station District Specific Plan Buildout):
• 80 du/acre realistic density (max density = 100 du/acre) • 25% residential buildout during 8-year planning period Summary of Action Zoning and General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with the Station District Specific Plan) City Council/RSA Agenda 1116 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-29 Site LM-45: 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
Current General Plan &
Zoning
Residential (10-17 du/ac) and Residential (17-30 du/ac) / RM 2500 (10-17 du/acre) RM 1500 (17-30 du/ac) and Private Institutional (PI)
Proposed General Plan &
Zoning
Rezoning from PI to RM 1500 for consistency with the General PlanResidential 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.

Summary of Action Zoning Amendment for General Plan consistency (in conjunction with the Station District Specific Plan)
*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 1117 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-30 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Citywide Vacant and Underutilized 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.FG) 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 1118 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-31 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 parcel 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 1119 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-32 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-56: 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 1120 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-33 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, Potential Tow Company
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 and a second residential or commercial structure next to underutilized lot space 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 site plan 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 1121 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-34 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-7: Whipple and Liston Way Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 475-141-13-2
Address 1780 Whipple Rd
Parcel Acres 0.85
Current General Plan &
Zoning
Retail Commercial (CR) / Neighborhood Commercial (CN) (no residential allowed) Proposed 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 conjunction with this Housing Element Update, In November 2022 the City Council rezoned this site would be redesignated and rezoned 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)
Summary of Action Zoning and General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with Housing Element Update) City Council/RSA Agenda 1122 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-35 Site LM-8: Whipple and Medallion Drive Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 475-141-2
Address 1800 Whipple Rd
Parcel Acres 1.45
Current General Plan &
Zoning
Retail Commercial (CR) / Neighborhood Commercial (CN) (no residential allowed) Proposed 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 a few hair and nail salons. The structure is showing signs of wear. In November 2022 the City Council rezoned this site to In conjunction with the Housing Element Update, this site would be redesignated and rezoned 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)
Summary of Action Zoning and General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with Housing Element Update) City Council/RSA Agenda 1123 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-36 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-9: Whipple/Cemex Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 486-18-59; 486-18-60; 486-18-61; 486-18-62; 486-18-63; 486-18-69; 486-18-70; 486-18-71 Address 920, 900, 884, 854, 884, 900, 920 Whipple Road
Parcel Acres 5.214.58
Current General Plan & Zoning Residential (17-30 du/acre) / Neighborhood Commercial (CN) (no residential allowed) and R 5000 (6-10 du/acre)
Proposed General Plan &
Zoning
Residential (17-30 du/acre) / RM 1500 (17-30 du/acre)
Realistic Capacity/Income Level 132 116 Lower-Income Units Existing Use Cement Plant and single-family
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. A portion of tThis 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 is beingwas rezoned to RM 1500 in conjunction with this Housing Element UpdateNovember 2022, which provides a strong financial incentive to redevelop. A preliminary site plan was recently submitted for one of the parcels on this site, proposing residential development. This Housing Element includes an implementation program (HE-1.E) to work with property owners to consolidate sites.

Max Capacity: 156 137 units
Assumptions:
• 85% of max density (25.5 du/acre realistic density)
Summary of Action Zoning Amendment for General Plan consistency (in conjunction with Housing Element Update) City Council/RSA Agenda 1124 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-37 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
Current General Plan &
Zoning
Commercial (C) / Neighborhood Commercial (CN) (no residential allowed outside of the Historic Alvarado District)
Proposed 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 In conjunction with the Housing Element Update, this site would be redesignated and rezoned 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)
Summary of Action Zoning and General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with Housing Element Update) City Council/RSA Agenda 1125 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-38 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Site LM-11: Mission and F Street Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 486-6-30
Address 33549 Mission Boulevard
Parcel Acres 0.58
Current General Plan & Zoning Corridor Mixed Use (30-45 du/acre) / Community Commercial (CC) Proposed 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 from Community Commercial (CC) to Corridor Mixed Use (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 lowerincome site and is therefore subject to by-right approvals per Policy HE-1.5. The site will be rezoned for General Plan consistency, in conjunction with the Housing Element Update.

Max Capacity: 26 units
Assumptions:
• 38.3 du/acre realistic density
Summary of Action Zoning Amendment for General Plan consistency (in conjunction with Housing Element Update)
City Council/RSA Agenda 1126 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-39 Site LM-12: Vallejo St. and Granger Ave. Site (Historic Alvarado District)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 483-10-12-1
Address 30793 Vallejo Street Union City Boulevard
Parcel Acres 1.26
Current General Plan &
Zoning
Residential (3-6 du/acre) / RS 6000 (3-6 du/acre)
Proposed 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 located in the Historic Alvarado District off of Granger Avenue and Vallejo Street and 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 In conjunction with the Housing Element Update, the City is proposing to redesignate and rezone 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
Summary of Action Zoning and General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with Housing Element Update) City Council/RSA Agenda 1127 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-40 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 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
Current General Plan & Zoning Village Mixed Use Commercial (VMU) (17-30 du/acre) / Specialty Commercial (CS) Proposed 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 Village Mixed Use CommercialVMU and the site would be rezoned for General Plan consistency in conjunction with the Housing Element Update. The site tocould 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 and the parcels would need to be consolidated. The City has received development interest for this site, including all four parcelsan application for development of the site that assumes consolidation of the parcels..

Max Capacity: 32 units
Assumptions:
• 25.5 du/acre realistic density
Summary of Action Zoning Amendment for General Plan consistency (in conjunction with Housing Element Update) City Council/RSA Agenda 1128 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-41 Site LM-14: Diamond Mine Mini-Storage Site

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 482-27-16-1
Address 4400 Horner Street
Parcel Acres 5.93
Current General Plan & Zoning Residential (10-17 du/acre) (note: Policy LU-5.9, which allows up to 20 du/acre) / Light Industrial (ML) (no residential permitted)
Proposed 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. Policy LU-5.9 allows for up to 20 du/ac. In November 2022 the City Council redesignated and rezoned this site to In conjunction with the Housing Element Update, the City is proposing to rezone the 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
Summary of Action Zoning and General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with Housing Element Update) City Council/RSA Agenda 1129 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-42 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 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 – XXX1.79 acres, Site B – XX2.01 acres, Site C – XX2.96 acres (6.76 acres total)
Current General Plan & Zoning Mixed Use Employment (EMU) (no residential) / Special Industrial (MS) Proposed 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 conjunction with Housing Element Update, the site would be redesignated and rezonedNovember 2022 the City Council rezoned and redesignated these parcels to Village Mixed Use Commercial (VMU), which would allowing stand-alone commercial uses and residential uses that are vertically integrated with ground floor commercial uses, allowing awith 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)
Summary of Action Zoning and General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with Housing Element Update) A
B
C
City Council/RSA Agenda 1130 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-43 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 1131 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-44 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 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 four five years since 2018, the City issued permits for about 14.516.2 ADUs per year, on average.

TABLE 3-8: ADU BUILDING PERMITS, UNION CITY (2018-20212) Year ADU Permits Issued
2018 98
2019 12
2020 97
2021 2328
2022 31
Average 14.516.2
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 116 130 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 116 130 ADUs expected to be produced, only 66 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 20 22 ADUs affordable to very low-income households, 20 22 ADUs affordable to low-income households, 20 22 ADUs affordable to moderate-income households, and 67 ADUs affordable to above moderate-income households.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1132 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITES INVENTORY | 3-45 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 is scheduled for adoptionwas adopted in October 2022. Also, in conjunction with this Housing Element Update, the City is taking action to rezone sites for consistency with the 2040 General Plan. The City also rezoned several sites in late 2022 to increase capacity in the lowerincome 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 183471 lower-income units, 674610 moderate-income units, and 234 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
378
440
991
849
1,571
1,491
Station District Specific Plan Sites
968
668
570 200
1,738
1,438
Citywide Vacant Sites 0 6 25 31
Citywide Underutilized Sites 627 18 0 645
Sites Requiring General Plan or Zoning Amendment 619 18 - 637 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 40
44 20
22 6
7 66
73 Total Capacity 1,541
1,829
1,056
992
1,081
1,222
3,678
4,043
Surplus(+) 183
471
674
610
93 234
950
1,315
1 Lower-income includes extremely low-, very low-, and low-income.

Source: Ascent, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1133 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
3-46 | SITES INVENTORY UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 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 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 provideprovides 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 isare 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 1134 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1135 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1136 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1137 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1138 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1139 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1140 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1141 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1142 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1143 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1144 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1145 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1146 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1147 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1148 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1149 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1150 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1151 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1152 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1153 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1154 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1155 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1156 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1157 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1158 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1159 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1160 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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).8 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 8 City Council/RSA Agenda 1161 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
4-28 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Alameda County. These high resource tracts in the northern part of the county are 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 1162 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1163 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1164 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1165 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1166 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1167 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1168 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1169 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1170 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1171 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1172 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1173 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1174 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1175 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1176 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 mortgages9 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 9 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 pre-determined higher risk of default.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1177 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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).
10 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) 10 Median home values are from the Zillow Home Value Index from 2001-2020.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1178 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-45 and regional (54 percent) averages.
11 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. 12 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.
11 Rental data is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year Data Estimates. 12 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 1179 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 homeowners became evenly dispersed in the city rather than over or under concentrated in any City Council/RSA Agenda 1180 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-47 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 1181 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1182 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1183 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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.”13 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 13 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 1184 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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. 14 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. 15 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 14 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. 15 Vital Signs, 2017. Displacement Risk – Regional Performance. https://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/displacement-risk.

Accessed May 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1185 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
4-52 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 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 1186 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. Since 20092017, 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 202219, the point in time (PIT) homeless count found a total of 7,135 8,022 individuals experiencing homelessness in Alameda County., and 106 489 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.

In 2022, 7,135 unsheltered homeless individuals were counted in Alameda County and 489 were in Union City. Additionally, As as discussed in Chapter 2, people of color are disproportionately impacted by homelessness in Alameda County. Black or African American (Hispanic and NonHispanic) 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 1187 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 Ccycle 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 1188 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1189 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1190 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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
Overpayment
8 Homeowner
Overpayment
9 UDP
Displacement
Risk
10 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 1191 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
4-58 | Fair Housing Assessment
Union City Housing Element 2023-2031
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1192 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1193 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
4-60 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation and Integration This section will 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. median income (2019) by census tract and in relation to the predominant race or ethnicity of each census tract. The evaluation will 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 is the only neighborhood withhas 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 4-4039). 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, tThe 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. impact the index values for Latinx residents; however it could reduce segregation index values between Asian households and other households in the city.

Figure 4-4039: 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 1194 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 4-3941 shows the City’s vacant and underutilized sites, approved projects, and future opportunity sitessites inventory in relation to the median household income by census tract. As described previously, the highest earning tracts are in the 511 Area, the Lowry neighborhood, and Mission Boulevard. The City’s capacity for futuremajority of above moderate-income housing siteson vacant and underutilized sites are primarily 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.

However, Tthese scattered sites only make up a small fraction of the above moderate-income site capacity. As shown in Table 4-1415 and Figure 4-4142 below, only 9 percent, or 20 units, of the above moderate- income 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, through a variety of programs, is looking towillis seeking to increase missing middle housing opportunities in existing single- family neighborhoods through a variety of programs,. 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). Ninety sixFifty-five percent of the total capacity for moderate-income sitescapacity (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 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.

Table 4-1415 and Figure 4-4142 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 race/ethnicity, income, familial status, and disability status.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1195 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
4-62 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Figure 4-3941: 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 1196 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-63 Figure 4-4241: 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 transit-oriented development (TOD) is greatest in the Station District. ManyThe majority of 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 makeenhance Union City’s existing a transit-rich node with options for connectivity to the rest of theto 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 TODtransit-oriented development in the eastern part of the city, sites included in the 2023-2031 inventory for the Housing Element inventory are largely located on the eastern side of the city with several additional sites located near the Historic Alvarado District.

Figure 4-432 shows the sites inventory in relation to the 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity areas, where As indicated in the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps above (see Figure 4-19), most of the city is classified as either moderate or high resource. Figure 4-41 shows the sites inventory compared to the 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity areas. As shown in Table 4-16 below, Tthere is capacity for 31 sites (or 661 units)302 total676 units in moderate resource areas (i.e., Decoto, Tamarack, Central Bay and Historic Alvarado DistrictAlmaden) and 5 sites (1,8121,738 total units) in high resource areas (in the Lincoln-Alvarado Business Park, Historic Alvarado District, the Gateway area, and Station District) . 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 1197 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
4-64 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Moreover, the City’s planned and approved pipeline projects include 121 total units in moderate resource areas and 1,3701,452 total units in high resource areas. The majority (About 7286 percent) of the capacity on vacant and underutilized sites is in high resource areas while 28only 14 percent is in moderate resource areas. (see Figure 4-443). 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 Ccapacity for high density development is greatest in the Station District.

As described at the beginning of this chapter and above in more detail in Chapters 3, Sites Inventory and 6, 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 (20232) two approved projects in the pipeline in the Station District — Station East and Union Flats 2.0 — that will add 1,3371,416 total housing units, including and 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 20212022, based on ACS data2022 TCAC Opportunity Areas mapping data by COG.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1198 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-65 TABLE 4-1516: 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 4-4443: 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 1199 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 4-4542), the majority (82 percent or 1,734 units) of total housing capacity there is not a lot of capacity for housing during this planning period is in areas that are not vulnerable to displacement. As shown in Table 4-17 and Figure 4-4546, Aabout 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, there is capacity for higher density development which can provide affordable housing for lower-income households and more options to mitigate displacement for residents.

Figure 4-445: 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 1200 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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 1201 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 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.” 16 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 4-186 below summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and implementation programs included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Union City. 16 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, 2021.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1202 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-69 TABLE 4-184: 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 Create 300 lowerincome units within in the Marketplace Mixed Use subarea of the Station Districtduring 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 moderate-income,
and 200 above-moderate income housing units
on City-owned land (Program HE-2.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 1203 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
4-70 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 4-184: 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.FG)
• 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.FG)
• 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 1204 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT | 4-71 TABLE 4-184: 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.

Lack of economic mobility for
marginalized residents.
• 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 continuing
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 1205 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
4-72 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 TABLE 4-184: 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)
Increase HCVs in single family neighborhoods
in Union City by five percent. (Program HE-4.B)
Source: City of Union City and Ascent, 20232.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1206 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1207 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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.FG).

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 1208 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1209 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1210 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1211 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1212 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1213 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1214 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1215 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1216 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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 1217 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
⚫ 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 1218 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
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) – 60 100 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 10060 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. As part of the Station District Specific Plan adoption, the minimum density for CSMU will change from 60 to 100 unit per net acre. ⚫ 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 City Council/RSA Agenda 1219 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
density range is 17-30 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.

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 six four mixed-use/commercial districts that allow for residential development (CSMU, SEMU-R, CMU, and VMUCN, CC, and CS).

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. In addition, the City will be adopting a new Village Mixed Use (VMU) designation in concurrence with the update to the Housing Element.

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 three five mixed-use districts which allow residential development including the Station Mixed-Use 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. In addition, as stated above, the City is adopting a new VMU designation in concurrence with the update to the Housing Element to implement the new VMU designation of the 2040 General Plan.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1220 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 6-1: RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY ZONING DISTRICT, UNION CITY, 2022 Zoning District
RS10000RS8000RS7000RS6000RS4500R5000RM3500RM2500RM1500 VMU
(Proposed) 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) C
1 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 P
4 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. 1Duplexes 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 1221 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 6-2: MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ZONES THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UNION CITY (20212) 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 2,562968 200 — 150100 15 10 (7) — (7) — 10 — 55 City Council/RSA Agenda 1222 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 6-2: MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ZONES THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UNION CITY (20212) 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
MMU Marketplace Mixed Use 435 100 200 6 6 (14) 6 — 6 — 100 VMU Village Mixed Use
(still in process of being created)
TBD1,452 —TBD —TBD —TBD
—
(10)TB
D
—
(11)TBD — (11)TBD —TBD
—
(11)TB
D
—TBD TBD40
(12)
R511 (7) Single-Family Res, 511 Specific Plan 6,000 60 — 100 20 15 5/15 (8) — 20 — 30 Notes:
1) Corner lots must have an area at least ten percent greater than the minimum required. 2) May be reduced by 5 feet if all parking is located at rear of site or is entered parallel to the front property line. 3) Not more than 10 feet shall be required and not less than five feet shall be permitted. In the RS 4500 district, side yards may be eliminated on one side [zero lot line], provided there are no windows or other openings in the side wall. See ordinance for additional requirements 4) The rear yard may be reduced to 15 feet if remaining rear or side yard has a square footage of 20 percent or more of the total lot area and a dimension of not less than fifteen feet. 5) The rear yard may be reduced to 10 feet if there remains a portion of the rear or side yard which has an area of not less than 15 percent of the site and a dimension of not less than 10 feet. 6) One foot shall be added at ground level to each required yard for each 3 feet of height by which the structure exceeds 12 feet. 7) 511 Area district standards differ based on the type of unit. The numbers in the table represent standards for a single family detached unit. See Municipal Code 18.100.050 for additional standards.
8) “Minimum/Aggregate.” This means the minimum distance from the lot line to a structure / the total distance between structures on adjoining lots. 9) For structures which exceed 20 feet in height, the required setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 10) On Union City Boulevard, the front yard setback shall be five feet from the property line and a minimum of 15 feet from the face of curb to ensure a comfortable pedestrian environment. 11) Where the side property line of a site adjoins property in a R, RS or RM district, a side yard setback or rear yard setback of not less than 20 feet adjoining the residential district shall be required.
12) The height limit may be increased to a maximum of 50 feet subject to a use permit. Before the approval of any structure which exceeds 40 feet, the decision maker must make a finding that any such excess height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use within the surrounding area. 13) The maximum density (expressed as minimum site area per dwelling unit) may be exceeded with a Density Bonus, see page 6-35. 14) Buildings with frontage on Decoto Road or Alvarado-Niles Road shall a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet from these frontages. The setback can be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet for up to 10 percent of the building frontage to accommodate variations in building design subject to site development review.

Source: Union City Zoning Ordinance, October 2021.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1223 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
An analysis of the residential standards, shown in Table 6-2, indicates that most of these requirements overall are not a constraint to the development of housing. For the most part, tThe lot size, lot frontage, setback, and building height requirements are reasonable for each zone since they balance the need for privacy with the need to allow the maximum possible density. The City has found that the permitted densities are adequate to promote a variety of housing types in Union City. The land use designations and zoning standards ensure that quality development can occur while providing for the health and safety of Union City residents.However, the development standards in the RM 1500, RM 2500, and RM 3500 zones have the potential to prevent multifamily housing from achieving the maximum allowed densities, specifically the 30 foot height limit, 40 percent lot coverage, and 20 foot setback requirements. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to review and revise these standards to facilitate multifamily housing in these zones.

NotablyIn addition, in conducting this analysis as part of the Housing Element, the City identified there is a discrepancy in the standards for the CMU district. As shown in Table 6-2, tThe minimum lot size in the CMU district is 20,000 square feet with a minimum site area of 2,562 square feet per dwelling unit; however, the City noticed that the minimum lot dimensions (200 feet x 150 feet) equate to a lot size of 30,000 square feet. The minimum site area however only applies to newly subdivided parcels. The City recently (November 2022) amended the standards for lot depth and minimum site area per dwelling unit for the CMU zone to ensure developments can achieve the maximum density/intensity allowed in the zone.Development standards in the CMU district are a potential constraint to new residential development. The City will revise standards in the CMU district in concurrence with the Housing Element.

Decoto Industrial Park Study Area
The Zoning Code includes Chapter 18.102 Decoto Industrial Park Study Area (DIPSA), which contains special provisions to implement the Specific Plan for the DIPSA, now referred to as the Station District. The key regulations within this section of the Code include the following:
⚫ Subdivision design shall orient new houses away from Seventh Street and include a minimum buffer of 15 feet along the east side of the Seventh Street frontage. ⚫ Direct access to Mission Boulevard from individual residential parcels shall be prohibited. ⚫ A minimum of a 100 foot buffer is required between residential and the powerlines. ⚫ Increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks for some residential designations.

This section of the Zoning Code will was recentlybe updated following adoption of the Station District Specific Plan.

Specific Plans
The City has one two adopted specific plans with twoand one specific plans currently (2022) in process. The 511 Specific Plan, adopted in 1987, applies to a 905-acre site located on the west side of Union City, located between the City’s southerly boundary line and Horner Street State Route 92 and 84. The plan, which allows for a range of single-family housing types, is primarily built out. The last remaining development within the area is a 33 single-family-unit project referred to as Turk Island, approved in 2018.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1224 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
The City adopted the Station District Specific Plan in October 2022. This plan is described in more detail below. The other two specific plans in process are the Station District Specific Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan is currently being prepared, and is expected to be adopted within . Both plans are expected to guide new housing development during the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and are described in more detail below.

Station District Specific Plan
The Station District is a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station. The new Specific Plan will replaced the DIPSA Specific Plan and ensure consistency with the recentlyadopted 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan envisions the Station District as a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The Specific Plan identifies five different subareas within the Station District: The Core, Station East, The Marketplace, Gateway, and Civic Center (shown in Figure 6-1) proposing and contains the goals and vision for development, outlined below.
⚫ The Core is planned to be a major transit hub, business center, and residential community with a high intensity of uses, well connected to the rest of the city. ⚫ Station East is planned to be a hub of innovation. The hub will include a significant cluster of technology and office uses and mixed-use housing options. ⚫ The Marketplace is anticipated to be a destination with community-serving specialty retail, dining, and entertainment uses, new streets, with a complementary mix of residential, office, and other uses.
⚫ The Gateway will include a variety of housing opportunities integrated with open space, park amenities, and enhanced facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, facilitated by the future construction of the multimodal Quarry Lakes Parkway.
⚫ Civic Center’s existing mix of land uses is envisioned to largely remain in place. Civic uses are planned to be integrated with the larger District, with new pedestrian and bicycle connections.

One of the Station District’s principal objectives is to facilitate housing development. All new housing is anticipated to be built on vacant land or underutilized existing commercial and industrial land. At full buildout Tthe Draft Station District Specific Plan, published in May 2022, describes that the Station District has the estimated potential to add approximately 4,000 new units with an increased population of approximately 9,400 residents.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1225 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 6-1: Station District Subareas
Source: Station District Specific Plan, May 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1226 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
The Draft Station District Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted zoning and associated development standards, with a few exceptions. The Draft Specific Plan includes reduced parking minimums and would instituted parking maximums, as shown in Table 6-3. Consistent with Government Code section 65863.2, parking requirements may be waived for a residential project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit, which includes the Intermodal Station.

This provision eliminates parking requirements for the majority of the Station District area.

TABLE 6-3: STATION DISTRICT OFF-STREET VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Land Use Type Minimum Off-Street
Parking Requirements
Maximum Off
Street-Parking
Multi-Family Residential
On BART Property1 All None 0.5 space/unit
All subareas (Outside of BART Property) Studio 0.75 spaces/unit 1.25 space/unit 1 Bedroom 1.0 space/unit 2.0 spaces/unit
2 Bedrooms 1.25 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit
3+ Bedrooms 1.5 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit
Affordable Housing 0.5 spaces/bedroom 2.0 spaces/unit
Visitor Parking None 0.25 spaces/unit
1Based on AB 2923 requirements
Source: City of Union City. Draft Station District Specific Plan, May October 2022.

The Draft Specific Plan also includes the following policies that are relevant to the sites included in the Housing Element, including the following:
⚫ Policy P-LU-22: Retail Retention. There shall be no greater than 15% net loss of total commercial space in any future redevelopment in the Marketplace Subarea, with a focus on retaining retail anchors such as grocery stores and drugstores. ⚫ Policy P-UD-35: Active Ground Floor Uses. Provide retail, service, public, or office uses along the ground floor of buildings in the areas detailed in Figure 4-6 to enliven and activate streets and enhance the public interface between the buildings and the sidewalk. Within residential developments, the City Council may approve, in its discretion, partial or complete substitution of live/work units and residential amenity space for the required ground floor active uses.

These policies are considered in the estimated development capacity for sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory.

Hillside Specific Plan
The Union City Hillside Area was the subject of the voter-approved Measure B in 1989, which required the preparation of a Hillside Area Plan. The Hillside Area Plan (HAP), adopted on July 25, 1995, provides detailed policy guidance for the Hillside Area, which consists of approximately 6,100 acres in Union City and 1,000 acres in Fremont. Policy 51 of the HAP requires a specific plan be prepared prior to any development in areas designated Agriculture.

The City received an application for development of residential uses in the Union City Hillside Area, and in 2021 initiated development of the Hillside Specific Plan. The future Hillside Specific Plan would implement the policies of the Hillside Area Plan by providing more detailed development City Council/RSA Agenda 1227 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
standards, site design, infrastructure planning, transportation planning, and other guidance and parameters for future development.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(c) (1) and 65583.2(c)) requires that local governments analyze the availability of sites that will “facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units (SROs), emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” This section discusses relevant regulations that govern the development of the types of housing listed above as required by Government Code Section 65583(a) (3).

Multifamily Housing
Multifamily units are permitted uses in the Multifamily Residential (RM) districts: RM 3500, RM 2500, and RM 1500. They are also permitted within the CSMU, CMU, and SEMU-R mixed use districts, and will be allowed within the new VMU district as well. The CMU district requires residential developments to include an activated ground use such as retail or a residential amenity space, leasing office, lobby, or business center. As was shown in Table 6-2, the minimum site area per dwelling unit is included in the district title except in the RM 1500 district, which was modified to allow 1,450 square feet per unit in order to comply with the 30 unit per acre default density (described in more detail in Chapter 3, Sites Inventory). Each RM district allows for a lot coverage of 40 percent. In the RM 3500 and RM 2500 districts, structures have a maximum height limit of 30 feet, or up to two stories. RM 1500 allows for heights up to 75 feet, or three to four stories. Semi-detached single-family dwellings and attached dwellings containing no less than two units are permitted in RM districts. The RM and CMU district standards do not present any significanthave been identified as a potential constraint to the development of multifamily housing, and an implementation program has been included in the Housing Element to review and revise the development standards in the RM zones to ensure multifamily housing can achieve the maximum allowed densities.

Manufactured Housing and Mobile Homes
Sections 65852.3 and 65852.4 of the California Government Code specify that a jurisdiction shall allow the installation of manufactured homes on a foundation on all “lots zoned for conventional single family residential dwellings.” Except for architectural requirements, the jurisdiction is only allowed to “subject the manufactured home and the lot on which it is placed to the same development standards to which a conventional single family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject.” The architectural requirements are limited to width, floor height, façade, roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material.

The only two exceptions that local jurisdiction are allowed to make to the manufactured home siting provisions are if: 1) there is more than 10 years difference between the date of manufacture of the manufactured home and the date of the application for the issuance of an installation permit; or 2) the site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and regulated by a legislative body pursuant to Government Code Section 37361.

Union City Municipal Code (Section 18.32.020) permits manufactured homes in RS and R (i.e., RS 10000, RS 8000, RS 7000, RS 6000, RS 4500, RS 5000, R 5000, R 511) districts as the sole principal City Council/RSA Agenda 1228 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
residence, but the unit must be provided with a continuous concrete foundation, permanent utility connections, and conform to all applicable building, plumbing, and electrical and fire codes. Union City’s Municipal Code is consistent with State law and provides for the construction of manufactured homes and mobile homes.

Mobile Home Parks
Section 65852.7 of the California Government Code specifies that mobile home parks shall be a permitted use on “all land planned and zoned for residential land use.” However, local jurisdictions are allowed to require use permits for mobile home parks.

While requirements for manufactured homes or mobile homes are covered in Title 18 of the Municipal Code, mobile home park requirements are detailed in Title 16 of the Municipal Code, Mobile Home Parks. Union City’s Municipal Code allows mobile home parks in any residential or agricultural districts with the granting of a use permit. The minimum site area for a mobile home park development is 20 acres.

Housing for Farmworkers
The provisions of Section 17020 (et seq.) of the California Health and Safety Code relating to employee housing and labor camps supersede any ordinance or regulations enacted by local governments. Such housing is allowed in all jurisdictions in California pursuant to the regulations set forth in Section 17020. Section 17021.5(b) states, for example:
“Any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation for the purposes of this section. For the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone.” Section 17021.6, concerning farmworker housing, states that:
“No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing [consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units] that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone.” Union City’s Municipal Code does not specifically address the requirements of State law for farm labor housing. The Housing Element includes a program to amend the zoning ordinance to comply with State law requirements regarding farmworker housing.

Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing Emergency Shelters
Pursuant to State housing law (California Government Code Sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5), jurisdictions must identify at least one zone where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit. The identified zone must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the shelter need, and at a minimum provide capacity for at least one year-round shelter. Permit processing, development standards, and management standards for City Council/RSA Agenda 1229 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
emergency shelters must be objective and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. Emergency shelters “may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone” along with a list of exceptions that may be made. The Union City Municipal Code defines emergency shelters as:
“a publicly or privately operated housing facility maintained to provide supervised temporary, short-term residence for homeless individuals or families offering programs that provide counseling, social services, and case management, either on or off site. No facility shall be used for more than six months by any individual or family.” The City allows emergency shelters in the Private Institutional (PI) zone by right. In addition to the development standards in the underlying zoning district, the following standards apply to emergency shelters:

1. Facility shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local licensing standards and requirements for any program incidental to the emergency shelter.

2. Facility shall comply with applicable State and local uniform housing and building code requirements.

3. On-site management shall be provided at all times.

4. On-site security shall be provided during all hours when the shelter is open.

5. Exterior lighting shall be provided on pedestrian pathways and parking lot areas on the property. Lighting shall reflect away from residential areas and public streets.

6. Secure areas for personal property shall be provided.

7. Emergency shelters shall not exceed 20 beds.

8. The maximum term for people staying at an emergency shelter is 6 months in a consecutive 12-month period.

9. A minimum of one parking space for each six beds at maximum capacity. Plus one parking space for each two employees shall be provided.

10. A facility management plan shall be submitted by the operator of the emergency shelter and approved by the Economic and Community Development Department prior to establishment of the use that addresses: management experience, good neighbor issues, transportation, client supervision, client services, and food services. The plan shall include a floor plan that demonstrates compliance with the physical standards of this section. The operator of the emergency shelter shall submit a statement on an annual basis (measured from the date of the original establishment of the use), that the facility is operating in compliance with the approved management plan or shall submit an updated management plan, for review and approval by the Economic and Community Development Department, that reflects any changes from the approved version. The City Council may establish a fee by resolution, to cover the administrative cost of review of the required management plan.

Assembly Bill 139, passed in 2019, revised State housing element law by requiring that emergency shelters only be required to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1230 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
With the exception of the parking standards set forth in the Municipal Code, Union City’s standards for emergency shelter facilities comply with the allowances made for standards set forth under Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). However, the 20-bed limit is restrictive. Program HE-7F.A commits the City to increasing the bed limit for emergency shelters to 50 beds. Through this program, the City will also amend its parking standards for emergency shelters to comply with Assembly Bill 139.

Zoning for Emergency Shelters
As described in Chapter 2, Existing Needs Assessment, the 2022 point-in-time count identified 489 unsheltered homeless individuals in Union City, a four-fold increase from the 2019 estimate of 106 individuals. This large increase is partially a reflection of the City’s recently established safe parking program called CAREvan, which provides a safe place for individuals to sleep in their car or van. In fact, 87 percent of homeless individuals surveyed (423 people) were living in their car, van, or RV.

This finding suggests that traditional emergency shelter facilities are likely not the greatest need in Union City, since they do not generally provide vehicle parking. However, State law requires the City to demonstrate that it has adequate zoning to accommodate at least the unmet needs of the homeless population based on the latest point-in-time count. So, despite the fact that the greatest need is for safe parking for cars, vans, and RVs, the City must demonstrate adequate sites for traditional emergency shelters for 489 individuals. With the City’s 20-bed limit for emergency shelter facilities, approximately 25 sites would be needed to meet this need. However, with the proposed increase to 50 beds per shelter, 10 sites would be needed.

As shown in Table 6-4, there are currently (2022) seven PI-zoned sites in the city with religious facilities on-site, but additional developable acreage that could potentially be utilized to develop emergency shelter facilities. Six of the sites are estimated to be large enough to accommodate at least 50 beds, and the 4216 Dyer Street site is estimated to be able to accommodate about 35 beds, for a total estimated capacity of 335 beds. This capacity is insufficient to accommodate the unmet need for 489 beds. The Housing Element includes a program to identify at least one additional zone where emergency shelters will be allowed by-right.

TABLE 6-4: POTENTIAL SITES FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS IN PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL (PI) DISTRICT, UNION CITY (2022)
APN Description
Total
Acreage
Estimated
Developable Acreage
475-148-2 32975 Alvarado Niles Rd (Buddhist Temple) 3.9 1.4 483-76-67 32223 Cabello St (St Anne’s Catholic Church) 6.1 1.0 483-73-4-2 4216 Dyer St (Bethel Baptist Church) 1.8 0.3 475-90-5 33115 Central Ave (Church at Union City) 5.0 1.5 87-40-6-10; 87-
40-7-4; 87-40-7-3
Chapel of the Chimes Memorial Park & Funeral
Home

56.7 4.5
486-15-52-1;
486-15-52-2
33225 6th Street (Our Lady of the Rosary
Catholic Church)

4.2 0.9
486-99-6 34201 Alvarado Niles Rd (The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints)

5.2 2.4
Total 82.9 12
Source: Ascent, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1231 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
However, effective January 1, 2023, Assembly Bill (AB) 2239 was passed in 2022, which amended Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) to require the zoning district where emergency shelters are permitted by-right to be a residential zone or a mixed-use zone. If it’s a mixed-use zone, the City needs to demonstrate that sites with this zoning designation are located near amenities and services that serve people experiencing homelessness, which may include, health care, transportation, retail, employment, and social services. To comply with the requirement the program included in the Housing Element ensures that the zone where the City will permit emergency shelters by-right will be a residential or mixed-use zoning district(s) that has capacity to accommodate 489 beds. Potential zoning districts that the City will consider CMU, VMU, and the RM zoning districts. These zoning districtses have the following available sites in the sites inventory, with the following capacities1:
• CMU: Four sites totaling 4.7 acres with a combined capacity for 200 shelter beds. • VMU: Two sites totaling 7.8 acres with a combined capacity for 100 shelter beds. • RM Districts: Five sites totaling 13.2 acres with a combined capacity for 250 shelter beds.

In total, the City has 11 sites with potential capacity for 550 shelter beds in the CMU, VMU, and RM districts assuming a 50-bed limitation per site. These zones would provide adequate sites to accommodate 489 beds.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is designed to assist homeless individuals and families in moving beyond emergency shelter and into permanent housing by helping people develop independent living skills through the provision of supportive services. Permanent supportive housing is housing that is linked to services that assist residents in maintaining housing, improving health, and maximizing ability to live and work in the community. In compliance with State law, the City Zoning Code defines “transitional housing” and “supportive housing” as follows:
⚫ Transitional Housing - “rental housing operated under the Multifamily Housing Program, as described in Section 50675 ct. al. of the Health and Safety Code, that calls for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined point in time, which shall be no less than six months and in no case more than two years. Transitional housing units are residential uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.” ⚫ Supportive Housing - “housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by a target population, as defined by State law, that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improve his or her health status, and/or maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, to work in the community. Supportive housing units are residential uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same zone.”
1 Shelter bed capacity was calculated using methodology outlined in Government Code Section 65583 subdivision (a)(4)(H), which says “the number of people experiencing homelessness that can be accommodated on any site shall be demonstrated by dividing the square footage of the site by a minimum of 200 square feet per person,” but also assumes a 50-bed limitation for emergency shelters, per Housing Element Program HE-7.A. If a higher bed limitation is established, additional capacity can be accommodated on each site listed in the inventory.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1232 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Per recent changes in State law (AB 2162), the City must also allow 100 percent affordable projects by right where multi-family and mixed-use development is permitted if the project includes 25 percent, or 12 units of, supportive housing. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to comply with this new provision of State law, Government Code Section 65651(a) (see Program HE-7.A.F.A in Chapter 98).

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Assembly BillAB 101, passed in 2019, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “low barrier navigation center” as a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to amend the Zoning Code to comply with this new requirement of Government Code Section 65662 (Program HE-F7.A).

Accessory Dwelling Units
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is an additional self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from the primary residential unit on a single lot, also referred to as a secondary dwelling unit.

The unit is required to include cooking, sleeping, full sanitation facilities, and separate, exterior entrance. ADUs are an important source of affordable housing since they can be constructed relatively cheaply and have no associated land costs. They can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, allowing them to remain in their homes or moderate-income families to afford houses.

Recognizing that ADUs are part of the solution for addressing the statewide affordable housing shortage, California lawmakers have passed several bills in recent years to facilitate the development of ADUs. To encourage establishment of ADUs, State law requires cities and counties to either adopt an ordinance based on standards set out in the law authorizing ADUs in residentially-zoned areas, or where no ordinance has been adopted, to allow ADUs on lots zoned for single family or multifamily use that contain an existing single-family unit subject to ministerial approval (“by right”) if they meet standards set out by law. In 2021, the City amended the Municipal Code by establishing Chapter 18.34, Accessory Dwelling Units, to codify applicable development standards and criteria for ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in one location within the City’s zoning ordinance and to comply with the recent changes in State law regarding ministerial review and approval. Establishment of this new chapter also streamlines and simplifies the process for further amendments as necessary in response to future State legislation. The City made further amendments in September 2022 to incorporate objective design standards.

In Union City, ADUs are permitted within all single family, multifamily, and mixed-use residential districts. JADUs are a specific type of ADU that is no more than 500 square feet and built entirely within an existing single-unit or duplex dwelling residence. ADUs and JADUs are subject to the following criteria:
⚫ On lots with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, one ADU and up to one JADU is allowed per parcel. An ADU can be either attached or detached to the primary residence but JADUs must be constructed entirely within the walls of an existing primary residence.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1233 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
⚫ ADUs may be allowed within existing portions of a multifamily or mixed-use development that are not used as livable space. At least one attached ADU or up to two detached ADUs may be provided per lot.
⚫ ADUs shall meet the setback requirements for the primary residence in the zoning district in which it is located (with a few exceptions as allowed/required by UCMC Sec. 18.34.030). ⚫ ADUs must be between 150 and 1,000 square feet in floor area. Each unit shall, at minimum, include a full bathroom including shower and/or bathtub, a sleeping area, permanent cooking facilities, and a separate, exterior entrance.
⚫ The total lot coverage for all buildings shall not exceed the allowable lot coverage for the zoning district except that such ratio shall not prohibit an 800 square foot ADU meeting the maximum height and minimum setback requirements.
⚫ ADUs and JADUs may not be sold separately from the primary residence but may be rented separately. ADUs and JADUs may not be used for short-term rentals (less than 30 days). ⚫ For properties with JADUs, the primary residence must be owner-occupied, but the owner may reside in either the JADU or the primary residence. This owner-occupancy requirement does not apply to primary residences owned by a public agency, land trust, or non-profit housing organization.
⚫ No additional parking shall be required in the creation of an ADU. When an existing garage, carport or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted into an ADU, the parking spaces shall not be required to be replaced.

However, if a covered and enclosed parking space is demolished in the construction of the JADU, then the parking space shall be replaced at a ratio of one-to-one. ⚫ The exterior appearance and character of attached and detached ADUs shall reflect that of the existing primary residence. A project may be exempted from one or more of the established standards if it is determined that the specific standard(s) would make it infeasible for an 800 square foot ADU to be constructed on a property consistent with UCMC Sec. 18.34.030 and California Government Code, Section 65852.2, subdivision (e).The ADU must meet specified objective design standards related to building facades and materials, windows and glazing, roof form and detailing, and entryway features.
⚫ ADUs are prohibited from having exterior stairways or balconies.

The City will make further amendments to the ordinance, as necessary, to remain consistent with State law and reflect local needs. The City recognizes that State law regarding ADUs is constantly changing and has included a program to track legislative changes and modify Chapter 18.34 of the City’s code as necessary (Program HE.-2.DF.A).

Single-Room Occupancy Units
Single-room occupancy (SRO) units can provide affordable private housing for lower-income individuals, seniors, and persons with disabilities. An SRO unit is usually small, between 200 to 350 square feet. These units can also serve as an entry point into the housing market for formerly homeless people.

In the Union City Zoning Ordinance, SROs fall under the definition of “lodging rooming house.” As defined in Sec. 18.08.300: “a “lodging rooming house” is a building other than a hotel where lodging City Council/RSA Agenda 1234 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
is provided for three (3) or more persons for compensation pursuant to previous arrangements but not open to the public or transients. This definition also encompasses Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing.” A lodging rooming house is permitted in the RM 1500 district.

The current Zoning Code provisions for SROs limits the potential for SROs in Union City. The Housing Element includes a program to define SROs as a separate use, expand the zones where SROs are permitted, and ensure development standards, including parking, facilitate the development of SROs.

Senate Bill 9 Subdivisions
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) became effective January 1, 2022. The bill mandates local jurisdictions to ministerially approve two unit developments and urban lot splits within a single-family residential zone, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed development meets certain requirements. For SB 9 developments, the City may apply objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards. The City adopted an ordinance in November 2021 to comply with this new State law requirement. The ordinance added Chapter 18.31, SB 9 Subdivisions and Development Projects, to the Union City Municipal Code. The City is amendingamended the ordinance in 2022 to provide greater clarity and flexibility for SB 9 applications. For the most part, the development standards of the primary zone apply, including setbacks, height, and lot coverage. The City also included a limitation of new home size to 2,000 square feet. The Housing Element includes a program to further analyze existing development standards and ensure the standards facilitate new missing middle housing types. This may include increasing lot coverage, height, and/or setbacks to support the feasibility of new infill housing in traditionally single-family neighborhoods.

Residential Care Facilities and Other Zoning Provisions for Persons with Disabilities
Group homes can provide persons with disabilities the opportunity to live in a non-institutionalized setting within local communities. There are provisions in State law that explicitly require Statelicensed group homes for six or fewer to be treated the same as any other residential use. As demonstrated below, the City’s Zoning Ordinance complies with these explicit requirements of State law. However, HCD recently produced a Group Home Technical Advisory (December 2022) that explains that local governments have an affirmative obligation under State law to promote for inclusive communities and affirmatively further fair housing. This includes treating group homes of all sizes, whether licensed or unlicensed, the same as any other residential use to ensure persons with disabilities have equal opportunity to live in a community.

Small Community Care Facilities
Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code requires residential facilities serving six or fewer persons to be considered a residential use of property for purposes of local zoning ordinances. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these residential facilities — such as a use permit (UP), zoning variance or other zoning clearance — than is required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone.

Residential care facilities fall under the definition of “community care facility” in Union City’s Zoning Ordinance. The zoning code does not restrict small community care facilities but treats them like any other residential dwelling unit.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1235 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Large Community Care Facilities
Due to the unique characteristics of large community care facilities (serving more than six persons), most jurisdictions require a use permit to ensure neighborhood compatibility in the siting of these facilities. As indicated previously in Table 6-1, Union City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for Community Care Facilities with more than six occupants in all zoning districts where residential uses are permitted, subject to approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The required findings for approval of a Use Permit in Union City are directed towards ensuring compatibility of the proposed use and not tied to the user, and therefore are not viewed as a direct constraint to the provision of care facilities. Community care facilities for more than six people are allowed by right in the Civic Facilities (CF) District. The requirement for a use permit has the potential to impact the housing supply and choice for persons with disabilities. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to permit community care facilities for more than six persons as a permitted use in all zones where other residential uses are permitted subject to the same requirements of other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Reasonable Accommodation
State and Federal laws prohibit housing discrimination against persons with disabilities in land use practices and decisions, such as applying special requirements that limit the ability of disabled individuals to live in the residence of their choice. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances.

According to State law, a request for a reasonable accommodation may only be denied if:
(1) The individual on whose behalf the accommodation was requested is not an individual with a disability;
(2) There is no disability-related need for the requested accommodation (in other words, there is no connection between the disability and the requested accommodation); (3) The requested accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration of the services or operations of the person who is asked to provide the accommodation; (4) The requested accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the person who is asked to provide the accommodation; or (5) The requested accommodation would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of others (i.e., a significant risk of bodily harm) or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others, and such risks cannot be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation.
2 Chapter 18.115 of the City Zoning Ordinance outlines the City’s process for providing reasonable accommodation. Requests for reasonable accommodation are reviewed by the Zoning 2 Cal Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12179.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1236 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Administrator. The following findings are required to be described in the written decision from the Zoning Administrator:
⚫ Whether the housing will be used by a person with a disability under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“the Acts”); ⚫ Whether the application for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a person with a disability under the Acts; ⚫ Whether the reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial, administrative or enforcement burden on the City;
⚫ Whether the reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law; including but not limited to land use and zoning; ⚫ Potential impact on surrounding uses;
⚫ Physical attributes of the property and structures; and ⚫ Other reasonable accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit.

Some of these findings are subjective, including the potential impact on surrounding uses, and have the potential to limit reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to adopt objective findings for approving reasonable accommodation requests.

Definition of Family
There are a number of State and Federal rules that govern the definition of family, including the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, the California Supreme Court case City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980), and the California Constitution privacy clauses. The laws for families have a few primary purposes: to protect people with disabilities, to protect non-traditional families, and to protect privacy. According to HCD and Mental Housing Advocacy Services there are three major points to consider when writing a definition of family:
⚫ Jurisdictions may not distinguish between related and unrelated individuals. ⚫ The definition may not impose a numerical limit on the number of persons in a family. ⚫ Land use restrictions for licensed group homes for six or fewer individuals must be the same as those for single families.

The City defines a “family” as “one or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single notfor-profit housekeeping unit as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, boardinghouse, fraternity, or sorority house.” This definition is not considered restrictive.

Affordable Housing Ordinance
In May 2001 the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter

18.33) to ensure new residential development provides a range of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. The City has amended the ordinance several times, most recently in 2018. The Affordable Housing Ordinance requires all new housing developments in the city to make 15 percent of those units affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. For rental projects the required distribution of the 15 percent affordable units is 30 percent very low-income and 70 percent low-income units, and for ownership projects the required City Council/RSA Agenda 1237 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
distribution is 10 percent low-income, 30 percent moderate income at 81-100 percent area median income, and 60 percent moderate income at 101-120 percent area median income.

Small projects consisting of six units or less pay an in-lieu fee for their housing requirement rather than producing the affordable units. 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. Large projects consisting of seven or more units may also satisfy the requirements to provide affordable units by paying an option in-lieu fee for any or all required units. The fee is equal to $27 per square foot of all habitable space within the development. Many recent residential projects from the City have opted to pay the fee in lieu of building the affordable units. Funds from the in-lieu fees are deposited into the Housing In-Lieu Fund. Those fees have been used to contribute to other recent affordable housing projects, such as Lazuli Landing (81-unit affordable housing development). The Affordable Housing Ordinance does not serve as a constraint to new residential development within Union City, and has generally proven to be a major component in the development of affordable housing in Union City.

As a result of the ordinance, 318 affordable housing units for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households have been built, as shown in Table 6-5. An additional 151 affordable units have been approved, but not yet constructed.

TABLE 6-5: INCLUSIONARY UNITS AS OF MAY 2022, UNION CITY Development Extremely
Low
Very Low Low Moderate Total
Affordable
Summerhill Homes — — 4 24 28
Pacific Terrace — — — 28 28
Wildrose — — 1 9 10
Ponderosa Cove II — 1 2 3 6
Ivywood — — 1 3 4
Pan Cal — — - 2 2
Alvarado Square — — 1 3 4
Norcal/7th Street — — — 8 8
5 th Street Scattered Sites — — — 7 7
Avalon Bay, (24 Union Square) — 20 46 — 66
Station Center 23 132 — — 155
TOTAL 23 153 55 87 318
Source: Union City, May 2022.

Permit Processing Procedures
Preliminary Review Process
Union City requires applicants to have applications reviewed prior to the formal submittal process, which is defined as Preliminary Review (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.53). This process requires applicants to submit a preliminary application package for initial feedback on site design, improvements, and other applicable regulations. This process thereby improves the quality of the formal application submittal packages while reducing City staff time required for review and facilitating a streamlined development review process for the applicant. This preliminary review City Council/RSA Agenda 1238 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
process is separate from the SB 330 preliminary application process, discussed later in this chapter. Figure 6-2 describes the application submittal and review process for project applicants.

Site Development Review (i.e., Design Review)
New residential development that is permitted in a given zone (as shown in Table 6-1) does not require a use permit. Permitted residential developments are subject only to site development review. The purpose of Site Development Review is stated as follows:
“Site development review is intended to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development and the stability of land values and investments and the general welfare, by preventing the establishment of uses or the erection or maintenance of structures having unsightly, undesirable or obnoxious qualities which are not properly related to their sites, surroundings and traffic circulation in the vicinity, or which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standard requirement of the zoning title.” Site Development Review is limited to the physical aspects of the development and does not grant the City discretion over the use itself. The intent is to ensure proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements.

The City reviews the design of new projects through two levels of review. New individual singlefamily residences are subject to Administrative Site Development Review (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.72), which is conducted by the Zoning Administrator. Multifamily developments are subject to Site Development Review (Zoning Ordinance Chapter18.76) by the City Council with the Planning Commission functioning as a recommending body.

Specific findings must be made by the City Council in order to approve a Site Development Review application, or by the Zoning Administrator in order to approve an Administrative Site Development Review. These findings include:
⚫ Consistency with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans; ⚫ Consistency with the purposes of Title 18 (i.e., Zoning Ordinance) and the requirements of the district in which the site is located; and
⚫ Consistency with the purpose of Site Development Review as outlined in Section 18.76.010 of the Union City Municipal Code.
⚫ Generally, the Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation on the application to the City Council in one public hearing. The application is then considered by the City Council at the next hearing on its calendar, usually within one month of the Planning Commission hearing. As with the Planning Commission, the City Council generally considers and approves the application in one public hearing, regardless of the size of the project.

The purpose of Site Development Review is stated as follows:
“Site development review is intended to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development and the stability of land values and investments and the general welfare, by preventing the establishment of uses or the erection or maintenance of structures having unsightly, undesirable or obnoxious qualities which are not properly related to their sites, surroundings and traffic circulation in the vicinity, or which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standard requirement of the zoning title.” Site Development Review is limited to the physical aspects of the development and does not grant the City discretion over the use itself. The intent is to ensure proposed development is consistent City Council/RSA Agenda 1239 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements. In conducting Site Development Review, the City uses design criteria for residential development, which are listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 18.32.125. While the design criteria contain some objective standards, many of the design criteria are subjective. The City is in the process of developing objective design standards to replace the current design criteria, which is described in more detail below.

The City has approved 100 percent of Site Development Review or Administrative Site Development review applications. This is primarily due to the early feedback and direction provided to applicants as part of the preliminary application review., described below.

Preliminary Review Process
Union City requires applicants to have applications reviewed prior to the formal submittal process, which is defined as Preliminary Review (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.53). This process requires applicants to submit a preliminary application package for initial feedback on site design, improvements, and other applicable regulations. This process thereby improves the quality of the formal application submittal packages while reducing City staff time required for review and facilitating a streamlined development review process for the applicant. This preliminary review process is separate from the SB 330 preliminary application process, discussed later in this chapter. Figure 6-2 describes the application submittal and review process for project applicants.

Objective Design Standards
The City currently relies on a combination of objective and subjective design standards and guidelines to review and regulate the design of most housing projects. However, the State of California continues to enact new laws that require streamlined housing approval by establishing a by-right, ministerial approval process for multifamily residential development. Key to ministerial approval is the replacement of subjective design guidelines with objective standards.

The intent of Objective Design Standards is to provide applicants and developers with a clear understanding of the City’s expectations for mixed-use and multi-family residential project design.

Objective design standards are written as requirements, rather than guidelines; therefore, all mixeduse and multi-family residential projects applying under Housing Accountability Act (HAA) protections shall comply with each standard. Importantly, objective design standards regulate site and structure design only. Projects must also comply with all applicable building permit requirements, zoning code requirements, and development standards such as height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.

To accommodate the requirements of State law, the City is developing a thorough set of objective design standards to govern the development of multi-family housing, including certain mixed-use projects. The City anticipates adoption of the new Objective Design Standards in Summer/FallSpring/Summer 20232.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1240 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Figure 6-2: Development Application Submittal and Review Process Source: City of Union City, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1241 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Permit Processing Times
The minimum amount of time for processing permits is established by requirements for environmental review, public notice, and by the meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council. While there is little room for processing permits any faster than the City already does, the current practice of automatic review of some Planning Commission permit decisions by the City Council does add several weeks to the total permit processing time. Ultimately, the maximum amount of time for processing residential development permits is set by State law (California Government Code 65920 et. seq.). Some of the average times have increased by three to six months due to infill complexity and extra notification of State requirements.

Table 6-6 summarizes the average time required to process development permits. The processing time needed to obtain development permits and required approvals varies depending on the scope of the project. Smaller projects typically require less time than larger projects. The City strives to keep its permit procedures streamlined and processing times minimal. Administrative Site Development Review projects are generally completed in a time frame of six to eight weeks, which is not a significant constraint. Variances and Use Permits are generally completed in a time frame of two to three months, which is not a significant constraint. The Site Development Review process typically takes an average of 6 months.

TABLE 6-6: AVERAGE PERMIT PROCESSING TIME, UNION CITY (2022) Type of Permit Average Time1
Preliminary Application 1-2 months
General Plan Amendment 12 months
Rezone 6 months
Tentative Tract Map 9 months
Tentative Parcel Map 3-6 months
Site Development Review 6 months
Admin. Site Development Review 6-8 weeks
Variance 2-3 months
Use Permit 2-3 months
1An estimated additional 6-12 months would be necessary if a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report is required per the requirements of CEQA.

Source: Union City, Economic and Community Development Department, 2022.

In conclusion, an applicant looking to build a single- family home would submit a preliminary application, which takes 1-2 months to process and go through the administrative site development review process, which takes about 6-8 weeks, for a total of 2.5-4 months for approval.

Most multifamily development applications would first go through the preliminary application process and the site development review process, which in all takes about 7-8 months.

Senate Bill 35
Senate Bill (SB) 35, passed in 2017, requires jurisdictions that have not approved enough housing units to meet their RHNA to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing City Council/RSA Agenda 1242 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
developments that incorporate affordable housing. Based on Union City’s current (2022) progress toward meeting the Fifth Cycle RHNA, projects with at least 10 percent affordable units qualify for ministerial approval subject only to objective standards. However, to be eligible, projects must also meet a long list of other criteria, including prevailing wage requirements for projects over 11 units.

In order for applicants to take advantage of SB 35, per Government Code Section 65913.4 (10)(b)(1)(a)(et seq.) they need to submit a Notice of Intent and jurisdictions need to give Native American tribes an opportunity for consultation. Union City is in the process of developing a set of objective design standards and would accept SB 35 applications consistent with the law. However, no applicants have requested SB 35 streamlining as of June 2022.

Senate Bill 330
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would impose or enforce design standards that are not objective design standards on or after January 1, 2020 [Government Code Section 663300 (b)(C)]. The bill also established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures.

Per SB 330, housing developers may submit a “preliminary application” for an SB 330 residential development project. Submittal of a SB 330 preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of information required by the local government for a housing development application.

Submittal of the preliminary application secures the applicable development standards and fees adopted at that time. The project is considered vested, and all fees and standards are frozen, unless the project changes substantially. The City has an SB 330 preliminary application form.

Permit Fees and Exactions
Housing construction imposes short- and long-term costs on communities. Short-term costs include the cost of providing planning services and inspections. New residential developments can also result in significant long-term costs relating to the maintenance and improvement of infrastructure, facilities, parks, and streets. To offset these community costs, jurisdictions collect various fees from developers.

The City most recently updated its planning fees in May 2022 and they will be effective until June 30, 2023 (FY 2022/2023). The fee schedule was updated to reflect a 5.2 percent CPI increase in addition to a time/materials deposit approach, a type of cost recovery model for residential development. This model is comparable to surrounding jurisdictions, such as Fremont, Newark, Hayward. Fees depend on the complexity of the project. As an example, a recently multifamily project paid around $49,000 per unit in planning fees. Since the City updated its planning fee structure in 2021, there have not been any requests for single-family residential subdivision projects, so the City is unable to provide a recent example of planning fees for single-family. Table 6-7 shows planning fees commonly required for development based on level of review. Union City’s planning fees are comparable to surrounding jurisdictions and do not present a constraint to the construction of housing.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1243 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 6-7: PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE, UNION CITY (FY 2022/2023) Application Type Fee/Cost
Preliminary Review
Preliminary Review $1,578
Preliminary Review for new single-family unit or
second story addition to single-family unit, and
administrative use permits
$550
Site Development Review
Administrative Site Development Review
a. Small Residential Projects (e.g. single detached
accessory structure or balcony)
$2,502
b. Large Residential Projects (e.g. second-story
additions, multiple accessory structures) $3,946
c. Residential Project – Planning Commission
Review
$1,647 (in addition to base fee for residential project type, see a. or b. above)
d. Commercial/Industrial Projects $5,658
e. Commercial/Industrial Project – Planning
Commission Review
$2,296 (in addition to base fee for residential project type, see a. or b. above)
Site Development Review $20,000 (Time & Materials Deposit) Use Permit
Administrative Use Permit $2,502
Use Permit $4,234
Subdivision
Tentative Parcel Map $10,000 (Time & Materials Deposit) Tentative Tract Map (including condominiums) $20,000 (Time & Materials Deposit) Variance
Variance $2,135
Amendments
Zoning Text Amendment $10,000 (Time & Materials Deposit) Zoning Map Amendment $10,000 (Time & Materials Deposit) General Plan Amendment $20,000 (Time & Materials Deposit) Specific Plan Amendment $20,000 (Time & Materials Deposit) Extensions
Administrative Permits (ASD, AUP) $161
Discretionary Permits/Variances (SDR, UP, VAR) $482
Extension of Sign Amortization Period $161
Environmental Review
CEQA Exemption $385
Negative Declaration, Unmitigated (ND) Consultant Cost + 64% Negative Declaration, Mitigated (MND) Consultant Cost + 64% Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Consultant Cost + 64% City Council/RSA Agenda 1244 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 6-7: PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE, UNION CITY (FY 2022/2023) Application Type Fee/Cost
Environmental Review (in house) At cost
Technical Studies (e.g., Cultural Resources, Air
Quality/ Odors, Traffic, Phase 1/Phase 2
Environmental Site
Assessment, Arborist, etc.)
Consultant Cost + 64%
CEQA Filing Fee for Negative Declaration (ND) and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
$2,598
($2,548 + County Clerk Filing Fee of $50.00)
CEQA Filing Fee for Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)
$3,589.25
($3,539.25 + County Clerk Filing Fee of $50.00)
Other
Development Agreement (including legal) Consultant Cost + 64% Zoning Verification Letter (general) $457
(+ $91 for each related parcel/APN)
Zoning Administrator Written Interpretation $1,092
Staff Planner Hourly Review $192
Planning Inspection (per inspection) $385
Appeals $945
Modifications Base fee without acreage calculation
Senior (65 and over) Resident for Owner-Occupied
Projects 20% Discount
Source: Union City Economic and Community Development Department, July 2021.

Development Impact Fees
The City also collects impact fees to cover the costs of providing the necessary services and infrastructure related to new development projects. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, local governments in California have come to rely increasingly on impact and connection fees to finance infrastructure. Union City charges several fees on residential development at the building permit stage, as shown in Table 6-8. Projects in the Decoto Industrial Park Study Area (DIPSA) are subject to an additional infrastructure fee of $12,613 per single-family unit and $7,469 per multifamily unit. The estimated City development impact fees for a single family three-bedroom, two-bathroom house of 2,000 square feet are approximately $86,37750,697. There are significant cost savings for multifamily residential development, as development impact fees are estimated at $62,13237,292 per unit. Other agency fees are estimated at $26,388 per single-family unit and $18,421 per multifamily unit. The total planning fees and impact fees are estimated at around $112,76577,085 per unit for single-family developments and $80,55355,713 per unit for multifamily developments. Based on recent development costs for affordable units, which ranged from about $660,000 to $820,000 per unit, fees are estimated to be about 107-128 percent of the total development costs. The fees listed in Tables 6-7 and 6-8 are typical of communities of similar size and situation.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1245 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 6-8: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, UNION CITY (FY 2022/2023) Fee Cost
Estimated Fees
Single Family Unit1 Multifamily Rental (per
unit)2
Citywide Development Fees (Economic & Community Development Department) Bedroom Tax $280 per unit (1 br or less); $455 per unit (2 br); $630 per unit (3 br or more) $630 $397 Capital Facilities Fee $12,231 per unit (single family); $8,624 per unit (multifamily, ADU) $12,231 $8,624 Park Facilities Fee (Rental Units) $3,098 per unit (non-subdivided property only) $3,098- $3,098 Park Land Dedication Fee
(For Sale Units)
3 Varies based on dwelling units per acre, total acres, and fair market value.

Requirement is 3 acres dedication per 1,000 new residents or fee equal to [Land dedication per unit x appraised value x 1.2 (infrastructure load factor)] $38,880 $24,840
Traffic Signalization $1,9292,062 per unit (single family); $1,5431,649 per unit (multifamily or ADU) $1,960$2,062 $1,568$1,649 Fire Equipment Acquisition $1.40 per sq. ft. of occupied space above second story -- $397 Community Facilities District $676 (single family residential); $474 (duplex); $332 (low density multifamily residential); $258 (high density multifamily residential) $676 $258 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee
Small project (six units or less): $24,000 per unit plus $8 per square foot of habitable space in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. Large project Optional In-Lieu Fee (seven or more units): $27 per square foot of habitable space
$32,000 $22,950
Subtotal $86,37750,697 $37,292$62,132
Other Agency Fees
School Mitigation4 $4.60 per sq. ft. $9,200 $3,910
Alameda County Water District
Facilities Connection Fee $7,857 per unit (single family); $6,481 per unit (multifamily) $7,857 $6,481 Domestic Wastewater5
$9,331 (for single family unit less than or equal to 4,500 square feet); $8,030 per unit (multifamily); $4.72 per square foot (ADU) $9,331 $8,030 Subtotal $26,388 $18,421
Total $112,76577,085 $80,55355,713
1Assumes a single story 3-bedroom 2-bathroom, single family house of 2,000 square feet on 0.25 acres. 2Assumes 30 -units rental development with an average of 850 square feet in a 3-story multifamily building on 1 acre with a mix of 15 one-bedroom, 10 two-bedroom, and 5 three-bedroom units. Assumes 8,500 square feet of occupied space in third story. 3The City complies with the Quimby Act for park land dedication. 4These fees are established and used by the New Haven Unified School District. 5Union Sanitary District connection fees.

Sources: New Haven Unified School District, Union Sanitary District, PG&E, Union City Economic and Community Development Department, January 2013.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1246 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
On- and Off-Site Development Standards
The City requires certain public improvements for residential subdivisions. In 1976 the City adopted these standards to ensure that minimum levels of design and construction quality are maintained and adequate levels of street and facility improvements are provided. Title 17.32 of the Municipal Code describes the public improvements that must be agreed to prior to acceptance and approval of the final subdivision map, as follows:
⚫ Street grading, installation of curbs and gutters, provisions for drainage and construction of drainage structures necessary to the proper use and drainage of the streets and/or to the public safety and convenience;
⚫ Paving of streets and alleys as required;
⚫ Installation of sidewalks as required;
⚫ Provision for a water system with mains of sufficient size and having a sufficient number of outlets to furnish adequate water supply for each lot of the subdivision in accordance with the standards adopted by the City and with sufficient fire hydrants, gated connections and appurtenances to provide adequate fire protection in accordance with the standards of the Fire Department of the City;
⚫ Sanitary sewer facilities and connections for each lot to a sewage system approved by the City Engineer and the sanitary district concerned;
⚫ An approved type of street lighting system;
⚫ Planting of trees as required;
⚫ Installation of street signs as required;
⚫ Installation of a system of monuments and bench marks approved by the City Engineer; ⚫ The payment of such fees as established by the City Council pursuant to resolution to cover the pro rata share of the cost of traffic signals as required by the City; ⚫ Installation of paths and trails including directional signing.

The City’s on- and off-site development standards have been in place since 1976, and do not represent a constraint to the development of housing. In addition to public improvement standards, the Municipal Code has specific standards for residential streets and parking, as described in the paragraphs below.

Residential Streets
The Union City Subdivision Code Chapter 17.40 requires standard improvements for streets; these requirements were originally adopted in 1969 and have been amended most recently in 2008.

Dependent on the type of project, it enforces standard improvements including street paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, trails, and pathways, a development’s pro rata share of sanitary sewers, storm drains and catch basins, water mains, fire hydrants, ornamental street lighting, standards with underground wiring, traffic signals, undergrounding of all existing overhead or new utilities, and such other specific improvements. All required improvements must be constructed and installed in accordance with City specifications and design. As a primarily built out City Council/RSA Agenda 1247 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
community, most new development in the city does not require building out new streets. Where new streets will be developed (e.g., the Station District and Hillside Area), street improvement standards will be outlined in a Specific Plan. These requirements are similar to other jurisdictions and do not represent a constraint to the development of housing.

Parking
Since off-street parking oftencan requires large amounts of land, parking requirements are one of the development standards that can most negatively impact housing development. The cost of land associated with parking, in addition to the costs of construction, paving, and maintenance, drive up the overall cost of development, requiring more funds to assist in the development of affordable housing. Parking standards in some jurisdictions have been arbitrarily established and do not necessarily represent the needs of the people living in the developments. This is especially true for senior and affordable housing developments where occupants are less likely to require more than one parking space.

As shown in Table 6-9, Union City’s off-street parking requirements for residential uses vary by number of bedrooms, except units in the RS and R-5000 districts, which require two covered spaces regardless of size. In the R-5000 district, this standard applies to all new residential development, however existing single-family residences must only maintain one off-street parking space, which needs to be covered. Studio and one-bedroom units in the RM district or condominium conversion projects are required to have a minimum of 1.5 off-street spaces, of which one must be covered.

Two-bedroom units are required to have two spaces, one must be covered. In two-bedroom condominium conversion projects 1.5 spaces must be covered. For condominium conversions with three or more-bedroom units, 2.5 spaces are required and two of which must be covered.

In the CSMU district, parking requirements were modified in 2015 to lower standards to one parking space per unit with additional standards for bicycle facilities and motorcycle parking; see Table 6-9.

In the CSMU, RM 1500, and RM 2500 zoning districts, a minimum of one bicycle parking facility shall be provided for every three units. Senior housing in the RM district must provide 0.5 covered parking spaces per bedroom. This requirement can be decreased by the Planning Commission if it is found that the senior housing will not create as great a need for parking. For housing developments in the RM districts with 100 percent of units affordable to lower-income households, parking is reduced to one space for studio and one-bedroom units, 1.5 spaces for two-bedroom units, and two spaces for three or more-bedroom units.

The Station District Specific Plan, anticipated for adoptionadopted in OctoberFall 2022, proposes instituted new parking standards based on Assembly Bill 2923 (AB 2923) requirements which were approved by the State Assembly in 2018 to establish standards for transit-oriented development, including parking requirements on BART-owned properties. For multifamily residential development on BART property, the Station District Plan requires a maximum of 0.5 spaces per unit. For all other areas outside of BART property, minimum off-street parking requirements start at

0.75 spaces per unit for studio units and increases by 0.25 parking spaces as the number of bedrooms per unit increases, see Table 6-9.

The Station East Mixed Use Residential district (SEMU-R), which was added to the Zoning Ordinance in 2021, has varying standards depending on the density of residential development being built and on the number of bedrooms within the development. For high density development City Council/RSA Agenda 1248 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
(i.e., more than 30 dwelling units per acre but less than 100 dwelling units per acre), there is an established set of minimum and maximum parking standards based on number of bedrooms. For studio and one-bedroom units, there is a minimum of one space per unit and a maximum of 1.5-2 spaces per unit. For two-bedroom units, the minimum is 1.5 spaces per unit and the maximum is two spaces. For low density multifamily residential development (i.e., up to 30 dwelling units per acre), studios and one-bedroom units have a standard of one space per unit while units with two or more bedrooms are required to provide two spaces per unit. For affordable housing in the SEMU-R district, parking is reduced to a minimum of 0.5 spaces per bedroom if located less than a ½ mile from a major transit stop and 0.75 spaces per bedroom if more than ½ a mile from major transit stop. The maximum standard is two spaces per unit for affordable housing.

TABLE 6-9: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UNION CITY (20212022) Required Parking Spaces per Unit
Residential Districts
RS and R-5000 district 2 spaces, both of which will be covered RM district: 1 bedroom or studio unit1 1.5 spaces, 1 of which must be covered RM district: 2 or more bedrooms1 2 spaces, 1 of which must be covered RM district: Senior Housing1 0.5 spaces per bedroom, covered2 RM 1500 and RM 2500: Bicycle parking facilities 1 facility for every 3 units Affordable Housing3
1 bedroom or studio unit 1 space
2 bedrooms units 1.5 spaces
3 or more-bedroom unit 2 spaces
Condominium Conversion
1 bedroom or studio unit 1.5 spaces, 1 of which must be covered 2-bedroom unit 2 spaces, 1.5 of which must be covered
3 or more-bedroom unit 2.5 spaces, 2 of which must be covered Station District Mixed Use Commercial (CSMU)6
Any number of bedrooms 1 covered space per unit
Bicycle parking facility 1 facility for every 3 units
Motorized Cycle 1 space per every 25 units
Station District
Multifamily Residential
On BART Property4, any number of bedrooms Maximum of 0.5 spaces per unit Studio
Minimum 0.75 spaces per unit
Maximum 1.25 spaces per unit
1 bedroom unit
Minimum 1 space per unit
Maximum 2 spaces per unit
2-bedroom unit
Minimum 1.25 space per unit
Maximum 2 spaces per unit
3+ bedroom unit Minimum 1.5 spaces per unit
City Council/RSA Agenda 1249 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 6-9: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UNION CITY (20212022) Required Parking Spaces per Unit
Maximum 2.5 spaces per unit
Affordable Housing
Minimum 0.5 spaces per bedroom
Maximum 2 spaces per bedroom
Visitor Parking Maximum 0.25 spaces per unit
Station East Mixed Use Residential (SEMU-R)
Multifamily Residential – High Density (Between 30.1 dwelling units/acre – 100 dwelling units/acre)6 Studio
Minimum of 1 space per unit
Maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit
1 bedroom unit
Minimum of 1 space per unit
Maximum of 2 spaces per unit
2-bedroom units
Minimum of 1.5 spaces per unit
Maximum of 2 paces per unit
3 or more-bedroom units
Minimum of 2 spaces per unit
Maximum of 2.5 spaces per unit
Multifamily Residential – Low Density (up to 30 dwelling units/acre)5 Studio 1 space per unit
1 bedroom unit 1 space per unit
2-bedroom units 2 spaces per unit
3 or more-bedroom units 2 spaces per unit
Affordable Housing
Any number of bedrooms
Minimum of 0.5 spaces per bedroom if less than
½ mile from major transit stop; 0.75 spaces /
bedroom if more than ½ mile from major transit stop
Maximum 2 spaces per unit
1Additional off-street parking spaces must exist to accommodate guest and visitor parking. 2Number of spaces may be decreased by the Planning Commission if found that the senior housing will not create as great a need for parking.
3 Housing developments in the RM districts with 100 percent of units affordable to lower-income households. 4 Based on AB 2923 requirements
5Tandem parking spaces can be substituted for regular parking spaces up to 10 percent of the required parking demand. 6The parking standards for CSMU will bewere replaced by standards in the Station District Specific Plan once adopted.

See Table 6-3 for a summary of the proposed parking standards in the Draft Station District Specific Plan.

Source: Union City Municipal Code, 2021.

State density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) imposes statewide parking standards that a jurisdiction must grant upon request from a developer of an affordable housing project that qualifies for a density bonus. The parking standards are summarized in Table 6-10. When local parking requirements are higher, the statewide parking standards supersede the local requirements. The developer may request these parking standards even if they do not request the density bonus. These numbers are the total number of parking spaces including guest parking and accessible parking.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1250 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 6-10: STATEWIDE PARKING STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, CALIFORNIA (20212022)
Number of Bedrooms Number of On-Site Parking Spaces
0 to 1 bedroom 1
2 to 3 bedrooms 2
4 or more bedrooms 2 ½
Source: California Government Code Section 65915
In addition, State law (Government Code section 65863.2) waives all parking requirements for projects within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop, essentially eliminating parking minimums for developments within ½ mile of the Intermodal Station.

Union City’s parking standards are similar to those in other jurisdictions and, therefore, do not represent a development constraint above-and-beyond that of other cities. Additionally, While the City offers reduced parking standards in the Station District and for affordable housing and complies with State density bonus parking standards upon request, the parking standards for studio units in the RM zones could be considered high. The Housing Element includes a program to review and revise development standards in the RM zones, including parking standards, to facilitate multifamily housing. It also includes a program to develop appropriate parking standards for SROs.The City’s parking requirements do not impose a significant constraint on the production of housing.

Open Space Requirements
The City has a policy in the General Plan that sets parkland standards. Policy HQL – 2.2 requires new residential subdivisions to dedicate a ratio of three acres per 1,000 new residents of parkland for neighborhood, community park, and recreation purposes or pay an equivalent in-lieu fee to offset the increase in park needs resulting from new residents. This standard is not excessive and is typical of many jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

The Zoning Ordinance requires that units in the RM districts have a usable open space/landscaped area of at least 300 square feet per unit and must meet the following criteria outlined in Section

18.32.115 of the Zoning Ordinance:

1. The usable open space can be common space accessible to more than one dwelling unit or may be private space for the exclusive use of individual units.

2. At least one-half of the required space must be provided at ground level exclusive of front yard setback areas, and not more than one-half of the requirement may be satisfied by balconies or roof decks.

3. Each square foot of private open space can be considered equivalent to two square feet of common space, and may be so substituted, except in the RM 3500 district where one foot can be considered equivalent to one- and-one-half square feet of common space.

4. Common usable open space must have a minimum area of 300 square feet.

5. Private usable open space at ground level must have a minimum area of 150 square feet.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1251 Tuesday, May 23, 2023

6. Open space located in parking area, driveway, or service area or space with a slope greater than 10 percent is not counted.

In addition to the open space required per unit, there are requirements for multi developments. ⚫ Projects located in the RM 2500 and RM 3500 districts are required to provide landscaped areas in at least 40 percent of the total site area.
⚫ Projects located in the RM 1500 district must provide at least 25 percent of the site area as landscaped.
⚫ Residential Projects in the CMU, CSMU, SEMU-R district are required to incorporate public open space features such as courtyards, pool and/or spa areas, recreation facilities, and picnic and play areas. There are no private open space requirements for these zones. ⚫ For condominium conversions, private outdoor space must also be provided for each unit, as follows:
 First floor unit: 120 square feet, fenced patio
 Units above first floor: 60 square feet of fenced balcony  25 percent of the site area devoted to common open space  In projects of 50 units or more, a common indoor recreation facility is required.

These The open space standards are typical of many jurisdictions in the Bay Area and would not significantly reduce the affordability of multifamily housing unitsfor the RM zones may be considered high and have the potential to limit the feasibility of multifamily development in these zones. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to review and revise the open space requirements in the RM zones. .

Density Bonus
State law (California Government Code, section 65915-65918) requires cities and counties to approve density bonuses for housing developments that contain specified percentages of affordable housing units or units restricted to occupancy by seniors. A density bonus is the allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Projects that qualify for a density bonus are also eligible for reduced parking standards and additional concessions, or incentives. Upon the developer's request the City must also allow the parking standards shown above in Table 6-9. The legislature has made frequent changes to State density bonus law over the years, including AB 1763, which significantly increased density bonus provisions for 100 percent affordable projects. Municipal Code Section 18.33.060, Development Options, contains the City’s density bonus regulations.

The City’s Municipal Code cross references State density bonus law per section 65915 of the state Government Code. It states that “the City, upon request, may approve an increase in the number of units permitted in a proposed residential development …when such an increase in density is consistent with State density bonus law per Section 65915 of the State Government Code.” In 2016, the City amended its density bonus ordinance to allow inclusionary housing units required through the Affordable Housing Ordinance to be counted toward a density bonus.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1252 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Building Codes and Enforcement
Building codes and their enforcement influence the style, quality, size, and costs of residential development. Such codes can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this manner building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the supply of housing and its affordability.

Building and housing codes establish minimum standards and specifications for structural soundness, safety, and occupancy. State housing law requires cities and counties to adopt minimum housing standards based on model industry codes. In addition to meeting the requirements of State housing law, local governments enforce other State requirements for fire safety, noise insulation, soils reports, earthquake protection, energy conservation, and access for people with physical disabilities. The enforcement of building and housing codes for all homes is per the minimum standards and requirements set forth in the codes listed in Table 6-11. Standards for rehabilitation are no more rigorous than those contained in the California Health and Safety Codes and Uniform Building Codes.

Other amendments to the California Uniform Code include changes in permit fees, violation penalties, the requirement for automatic sprinkler systems, the rules for premises identification, and structural changes with regard to seismic concerns.

Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to existing code standards. In this way building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the amount of housing and its affordability.

However, the codes enforced by Union City are similar to cities in the region and are necessary to promote the minimum standards of safety and accessibility to housing (see Table 6-11). Therefore, the codes are not considered to be an undue constraint on housing investment or development.

TABLE 6-11: BUILDING AND HOUSING CODES, UNION CITY (20212022) Code Name Code Date Remarks
California Building Code 2019 Based on the 2018 International Code.

California Plumbing Code 2019 Based on 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code.

Uniform Code For Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings
1997 Published by the International Conference of Building Officials.

California Fire Code 2019 Based on the 2018 International Code.

California Electrical Code 2019 Based on 2017 National Electrical Codes.

California Mechanical Code 2019 Based on 2018 Uniform Mechanical Codes.

Uniform Housing Code 1997 Published by the International Conference of Building Officials.

California Residential Code 2019 Based on the 2018 International Residential Code.

California Green Building Standards
Code
2019 Published by the California Building Standards
Commission.

Source: Union City, Economic and Community Development Department, December 2021.

In some cases, energy conservation requirements may increase construction costs and, therefore, the initial sales prices and cost of rent. However, these increased costs are often offset by the longterm reductions in the utility’s component of housing operation costs. Accessibility modifications City Council/RSA Agenda 1253 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
may also increase initial sales prices and rents but will help address the housing needs of the elderly and people with disabilities.

State of California, Article 34
Article 34 of the State Constitution requires local jurisdictions to obtain voter approval for specified “low rent” housing projects that involve certain types of public agency participation. Generally, a project is subject to Article 34 if more than 49 percent of its units will be rented to low-income persons. If a project is subject to Article 34, it will require an approval from the local electorate. This can constrain the production of affordable housing, since the process to seek ballot approval for affordable housing projects can be costly and time consuming, with no guarantee of success.

Local jurisdictions typically place a measure or referendum on the local ballot that seeks authority to develop a certain number of low-income units during a given period of time. If the electorate approves general parameters for certain types of affordable housing development, the local jurisdiction will be able to move more quickly in response to housing opportunities that fall within those parameters. Union City has not held an Article 34 election since it does not directly build affordable housing. Although the City provides funding to affordable housing developers, this does not trigger Article 34 unless the City itself builds the public housing. Currently the City is utilizing Article 34 Authority that has been provided by Alameda County through its Measure A1 Affordable Housing Bond that was passed by Alameda County voters on November 6, 2016. Article 34 authorization has not been a barrier to the production of affordable housing.

Potential Non-Governmental Constraints
The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market forces over which local governments have little or no control. Nonetheless, State law requires that housing elements contain a general assessment of these constraints, which can serve as the basis for actions to offset their effects. This section describes primary non-governmental constraints to the development of new housing in Union City.

Availability of Financing
The availability of financing is a critical factor that can influence the cost and supply of housing.

There are generally two types of financing used in the housing market: (1) capital used for initial site preparation and construction; and (2) capital used to finance the purchase of units by homeowners and investors. Financing is largely impacted by interest rates. Small fluctuations in interest rates can dramatically influence the ability to qualify for a loan. Mortgage interest rates have a large influence over the affordability of housing. Higher interest rates increase a homebuyer’s monthly payment and decrease the range of housing that a household can afford.

Lower interest rates result in a lower cost and lower monthly payments for the homebuyer.

In general, financing for new residential development in the City is available at reasonable rates. While interest rates for development and construction are generally higher than interest rates for home purchase (i.e., mortgages), financing for new construction is generally available at reasonable rates.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1254 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Land and Construction Costs
As with most built out Bay Area communities, the high cost of land is a constraint to the production of affordable housing in Union City. There are very few vacant parcels zoned for residential development left in the city and it is rare for vacant residential land to be listed for sale. Based on a property search conducted in February 2022, only three sites were identified for sale: a 0.11-acre lot zoned R-5000 for $399,000, a 1.70-acre lot zoned ML for $3,500,000, and a 0.21-acre parcel zoned CS for $599,000. Cost per acre for these three sites ranged from $2 to $3.6 million, with an average of $2.8 million. Land in surrounding jurisdictions can be used as a price comparison.

Based on a review of land for sale in Fremont, Newark, and Hayward, land prices on average were in the range of 2 to 2.5 million per acre. In addition to market sales prices, there can be other costs associated with the acquisition of land including the cost of holding the property throughout the development process. Developers in Union City also face added expenses associated with the demolition and removal of existing structures or remediation of contaminated soil.

In addition to the high cost of land, construction costs can also act as a constraint to the production of new housing, particularly in the Bay Area. Both material and labor costs have increased substantially in recent years. Supply chain issues during the CovidCOVID-19 pandemic are partly responsible for recent material cost increases, and a shortage in the construction labor market is adding significantly to the cost of producing housing.

According to a 2020 report by the Terner Center, hard construction costs for multifamily projects in California rose by 25 percent over the course of a decade, from an average of $177 per square foot in 2008-2009 to $222 per square foot in 2018. Cost increases were even greater in the Bay Area, increasing by 119 percent and reaching more than $380 per square foot in 20183.

Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development. According to the Terner Center report, Type I projects, which are typically over 5-7 stories and constructed with steel and concrete, cost an average of $65 more per square foot than other types of construction, like Type V (i.e., wood frame floors over a concrete platform)4. Type I projects are more likely to be found in infill locations where zoning allows higher density construction.

Affordable housing projects also cost more on average than market-rate and mixed-affordability projects. The 2020 Terner Center report found that affordable projects cost $48 more per square foot on average compared to market-rate and mixed affordability projects. Some of the added costs for affordable housing are because many affordable housing developers are required to pay “prevailing wages.”
Requests for Housing Developments at Reduced Densities
State law requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. The sites inventory prepared for the 2015- 2023 Housing Element conservatively assumed buildout at about 80 percent of the maximum allowed density. Since that time, nearly all multi-family high density sites have been approved or 3 Forscher,T; Kneebone, E.; Raetz, H.; and Reid, C. March 2020. The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Material Costs for Apartment Buildings in California. Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf 4 Ibid.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1255 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
proposed for development at much higher densities than assumed in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. This is especially true for affordable projects, which have often used density bonus to exceed the maximum allowable density. The City has not received any requests to develop at reduced densities.

Length of Time Between Project Approval and Applications for Building Permits
State law requires an analysis of the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an application for building permit. On average the time between the approval of a housing development application and submittal of an application for building permits in Union City is about 12 months.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1256 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583[a][7]) requires an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the energy conservation section of a Housing Element must inventory and analyze the opportunities to encourage energy saving features, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and design for residential development.

Reducing residential energy consumption not only reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and conserves limited energy resources, it is also a key component for achieving community vitality and serving the needs of residents. Energy efficient buildings increase occupant health by reducing infiltration of moisture, pests, or air pollution. They also increase comfort and decrease utility bills leading to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters and greater long-term housing affordability. High energy costs have particularly detrimental effects on low-income households that do not have enough income or cash reserves to absorb cost increases and at times must choose between basic needs such as shelter, food, and energy. Energy efficient housing is also more resilient to climate change, keeping homes thermally comfortable during extreme heat events. This chapter describes the ways the City provides opportunities for energy conservation in residential development.

Energy Efficiency Building Requirements
All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). The standards, prepared by the California Energy Commission, were established in 1978 in response to a State legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. These regulations respond to California's energy crisis and need to reduce energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic condition for the state. The standards are updated every three years to consider and incorporate new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Title 24 standards apply to projects constructed after January 1, 2020, and the 2022 Title 24 standards will apply after January 1, 2023.

Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process. All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made. Union City continues to enforce State requirements, including Title 24 requirements, for energy conservation in residential development, primarily through the Building Division of the Economic and Community Development Department.

The California Building Code also includes green building regulations, referred to as CALGreen, to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practices, require low pollution City Council/RSA Agenda 1257 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
emitting substances that can cause harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy efficient materials and equipment. There are mandatory measures, which apply statewide, and voluntary measures, which can be adopted locally. Voluntary measures are organized into two tiers with their own respective prerequisites and elective measures: Tier 1 prerequisites set a higher baseline than CALGreen mandatory measures while Tier 2 prerequisites include all of Tier 1 prerequisites plus some enhanced or additional measures. Union City has not adopted any of the CALGreen voluntary measures.

Green Building and Landscaping Practices Ordinance
Union City adopted a Green Building and Landscaping Practices Ordinance in 2006 to incorporate green measures into design, construction, demolition, renovation, operation, and maintenance of buildings and landscaping within the city. This Ordinance establishes requirements for green building and landscaping practices to be used in civic and public-private partnership projects with the intent to reduce landfill waste, conserve natural resources, increase energy efficiency, lower costs associated with operations and maintenance, improve indoor air quality, and minimize impacts on the natural environment. The requirements can be found in Chapter 15.76 of the Municipal Code.

Any City-sponsored project or public-private partnership over $3 million and/or greater than 5,000 square feet must incorporate green building measures from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, the Alameda County Residential Green Building Guidelines, or a City-approved equivalent system. The LEED rating system is a national program, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, targeted to the top 25 percent of green home builders that provides a rating for the sustainability of a variety of building types. City-sponsored and public partnership buildings that qualify must meet a minimum LEED Silver rating and be certified by the U.S. Green Building Council. Projects have to include a LEED-Accredited Professional as a principal member of the design team. The Union Flats project, built in 2018, is a recent project that was subject to this requirement. This project obtained a LEED Platinum certification, the highest level. The Station Center development, built in 2014, is another example of a project which was subject to the ordinance. The project also received a LEED Platinum certification (surpassing the LEED Silver requirement of the ordinance). Both developments were constructed on former Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) corporation yards, which the City assisted in cleaning up.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs
This section briefly describes some of the potential ways to achieve energy savings through the regulations and programs of local utility providers, the City, and the State.

Local Public Utility Programs
Union City receives both electricity and natural gas services from PG&E and the East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) authority. The following financial and energy-related assistance programs are available for Union City residents:
⚫ East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). EBCE is a Community Choice Energy (CCE) program. It is a locally controlled joint powers authority formed in 2016, and expanded in 2021, that allows East Bay municipalities to work together to procure energy for customers and have more input City Council/RSA Agenda 1258 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
in ensuring that their energy comes from clean, local, renewable sources. The jurisdictions currently served are: Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Tracy, Union City, and the unincorporated areas of Alameda County. EBCE provides much of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind, and small hydroelectricity. PG&E continues to maintain infrastructure, run operations, and deliver the electricity. ⚫ Energy Savings Assistance Program. PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program offers free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to qualified low-income households.

PG&E determines qualified households through the same sliding income scale used for the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program. The City promotes weatherization and energy upgrade programs through its website.
⚫ California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE). PG&E offers this rate reduction program for lowincome households. PG&E determines qualified households by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. The CARE program provides a discount of 20 percent or more on monthly energy bills. The program includes assistance with attic insulation, weather stripping, caulking, and other minor home repairs. Some customers qualify for replacement of appliances including refrigerators, air conditioners, and evaporative coolers. ⚫ Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties. The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving products. ⚫ Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH). The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through a non-profit organization. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program. Qualified low-income customers who have experienced uncontrollable or unforeseen hardships that prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit. Eligibility is determined by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. To qualify for the program, the applicant’s income cannot exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. ⚫ Medical Baseline Allowance. The Medical Baseline Allowance program is available to households with certain disabilities or medical needs. Under this program, qualifying residential customers receive discounted energy rates and are given the option to receive more energy, if needed.

City Programs
The City continues to prioritize residential energy-efficiency and participates in the following programs.
⚫ Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) Programs. BayREN is a coalition of the Bay Area’s nine counties partnering to promote resource efficiency at the regional level, focusing on energy, water, and GHG reduction. It is one of three regional energy networks (RENs) in California funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). BayREN offers rebates, funding, and technical assistance to help residents, property owners, and local governments improve resource-efficiency. Since the BayREN Home+ Program launched in January 2019, 1,983 households installed 6,134 unique measures across Alameda County. Regionally, 9,026 homes have installed over 29,494 measures. Excluding mandatory safety tests, the most City Council/RSA Agenda 1259 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
commonly installed measures are gas furnaces and smart thermostats, followed by attic insulation and duct repair/replacement.
⚫ Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancements Program (BAMBE). Since 2013, the Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancements (BAMBE) Program has assisted multifamily properties in planning improvements designed to save 10 percent or more of a building’s energy and water usage by offering no-cost energy consulting and $750 per unit in cash rebates to help pay for the upgrades. In 2020, BAMBE introduced the new Clean Heating Pathway that incentivizes multifamily properties to switch from gas fueled equipment to cleaner and high efficient electric technologies. BAMBE has served 526 properties to date, providing at least $27,402,750 in rebates. ⚫ Energy Upgrade California. Energy Upgrade California is a statewide initiative to provide educational resources for residents and small business owners for energy management concepts, tools, and programs. The City promotes the Energy Upgrade program through its website, permit center, periodic workshops, and direct mail. ⚫ Solar Photovoltaics (PV) Program. To incentivize solar energy, the City established a fixed fee for residential and commercial solar permits.
⚫ Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE). PACE programs offer financing options that are repaid via the property owner’s tax bill over time. Other programs help offset the costs of upgrades such as improvements to mechanical and electrical systems, installation of water-efficient fixtures, and the development of onsite renewable energy and electric vehicle charging. Eligible improvements may vary by PACE program, but generally include improvements for energy and water efficiency, distributed generation renewable energy facilities such as solar PV, and vehicle charging. In September 2015, the City passed legislation approving six PACE providers to operate in Union City. All PACE providers are approved to operate in the city. ⚫ Alternative Residential Water Heater Program. The program promotes and facilitates the installation of alternative water heaters in homes like solar hot water heaters or heat pumps.

The City is in the process of creating promotional material that will be posted to the City website for use by the public.

Federal and State Programs
In addition to the local programs described above, the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) administers the Federally funded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This program provides two types of assistance: Home Energy Assistance and Energy Crisis Intervention. The first type of assistance is a direct payment to utility bills for qualified low-income households. The second type of assistance is available to low-income households that are in a crisis. CSD also offers free weatherization assistance, such as attic insulation, caulking, water heater blankets, and heating and cooling system repairs to low-income households.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1260 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Summary of Key Accomplishments
State housing element law (Government Code Section 65588) requires cities and counties to assess the achievements under their adopted housing programs to inform the development of new programs. State law also requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. The City has made significant progress in implementing the programs adopted in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Some of Union City’s major accomplishments include:
⚫ Adoption of the new 2040 General Plan in 2019, which increased housing opportunities within several new mixed use designations;
⚫ Adoption of the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning District to implement the 2040 General Plan; ⚫ Creation of the Rent Review Task Force in 2016 and adopting two new ordinances in 2017, the Eviction and Harassment Protection Ordinance and the Rent Review Ordinance. These ordinances provide tenant protections by restricting unjust evictions and excessive rent increases; ⚫ Rental assistance provided to 169 lower-income households at the Tropics Mobile Home Park; ⚫ Operation of the CAREavan program serving 30 cars/50 people per night; ⚫ Collaboration with Echo Housing to provide fair housing services; ⚫ Reduction of parking requirements in the Station Mixed Use Commercial (CSMU) Zoning District to facilitate transit-oriented development;
⚫ Adoption of a Density Bonus Ordinance amendment to comply with state law; ⚫ Administration of the Housing Rehabilitation Program with Alameda County. Recently, funding has gone to home repairs for households in the Decoto neighborhood; ⚫ Approval of the Lazuli Landing affordable housing development in 2021 which includes 80 affordable apartment rental units;
⚫ Acquisition of Caltrans/Gateway site from the state and currently (2022) entered into an Negotiating Agreement with City Ventures to develop the site; City Council/RSA Agenda 1261 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
⚫ Approval of a large residential and mixed-use project in the Station District known as the Integral Project. This project, located in the area called “Station East,” will provide 974 housing units, including 146 affordable housing units for lower income residents; ⚫ Release of the Station District Specific Plan Public Review Draft in May 2022 (adoption anticipated in Fall, 2022). The Specific Plan will increase housing capacity near the Intermodal Station; ⚫ Beginning (2022) work on developing Objective Design Standards to facilitate and expedite the construction of housing; and
⚫ Developing an SB 9 Ordinance that allows for more flexibility on single-family lots. Updated ordinance to allow additional flexibility anticipated for late summer/early Fall 2022.

Progress Toward Meeting the 2015-2023 RHNA
Between 2000 and 2008, there was a steady rate of housing development in the city. But since the great recession that began around that time, housing development has been relatively slow. As shown in Table 8-1, the City has issued only 457 building permits for housing units since the start of the Fifth RHNA Cycle in 2015. Of the permits issued, 401 were for above moderate housing and 56 were for moderate income housing. There was no new construction of lower-income units.

However, the City has recently approved several developments containing affordable housing units, which are expected to be built during the Sixth RHNA Cycle (2022-2031).

TABLE 8-1: RHNA PROGRESS - PERMITTED UNITS ISSUED BY AFFORDABILITY Income
Level
2015-
2023
RHNA
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total
Units
to Date
Total
Remaining
RHNA by
Income
Level
Very Low* 317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD TBD 0 317
Low 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD TBD 0 180
Moderate 192 2 1 3 8 12 7 23 TBD TBD 56 136
Above
Moderate
417 288 1 27 77 8 0 0 TBD TBD 401 16
Total
Units
1,106 290 2 30 85 20 7 23 TBD TBD 457 -
Total Remaining RHNA Need 649
*Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the totals for very low-income permitted units.

Source: City of Union City, Housing Element Annual Progress Report, 2021.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1262 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Program Evaluation
The following section reviews and evaluates the City’s progress in implementing programs from the previous planning period. The City has demonstrated effort in working towards accomplishing the objectives set out for all 36 programs from the last cycle.

As part of analyzing prior programs, the City must assess the effectiveness of programs for special needs populations. Table 8-2 provides an evaluation of the City’s progress towards implementing programs related to the special needs populations summarized below:

Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. As discussed in Chapter 2: Housing Needs Assessment, 49 percent of extremely low-income seniors are spending more than half of their incomes on housing.

A significant portion of the housing stock was built prior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. Rehabilitation and physical improvements are important to ensure that housing is accessible to older populations and people with disabilities.

The City contracts with Alameda County to administer the Housing Rehabilitation Program (Program HE-D.a). While the program has more recently focused on grants for minor home repairs, there were several major rehabilitation grants and at least 1 accessibility grant issued during the prior planning period. Although new construction fell short of the City’s 5th Cycle RHNA, especially in the lowerincome categories, the City continues to support applications for affordable senior housing and housing for persons with disabilities (Programs HE-F.c and HE-F.e.). However, additional actions are needed to increase the housing supply and diversity of housing options to accommodate the needs of senior households and households with a member that has a disability.

Many seniors and people with disabilities may be on restricted incomes and in need of affordable housing. The Alameda County Housing Authority administers the Housing Choice Voucher program and distributes HUD Section 8 rental certificates and vouchers to assist very low-income Union City households (Program HE-C.c). About 87 percent of voucher users in the city (633 voucher holders) have householders who are seniors and/or members with a disability.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Living arrangements for disabled persons depend on the severity of the disability. 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. For this reason, many persons live independently or 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. The City worked with the Regional Center of the East Bay to implement an outreach program informing residents of the housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities (Program HE-F.h). This information is posted on the City website.

Large Households. Homes consisting of five or more members residing together typically lack adequately sized and affordable housing options. The City coordinates with for-profit and nonprofit developers and local realtors to encourage the inclusion of three- and four-bedroom units in new multifamily developments (Program HE-F.a). Between 2015-2023, the City issued permits for 124 units with three or more bedrooms (about 31 percent of all permits issued). There will be 10 three-bedroom units added to the housing stock as part of the Integral project, a large mixed-use development in the City.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1263 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Single-Parent Households (Female-Headed). As discussed in Chapter 2: Housing Needs Assessment, many single parent households, especially female-headed households, have a greater risk of poverty due to higher family expenses and single-wage incomes. The Housing Choice Voucher program (Program HE-C.c) provides an important resource for single-parents and other low-income households.

Farm Workers. As previously discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment (Chapter 2), farm workers are not a significant portion of the Union City community. Their needs are generally accommodated through housing programs and policies that assist low- and very low-income households.

Homeless. Bay Area residents have some of the highest housing costs in the nation, making homeownership out of reach for many low-income and moderate-income households. With such high housing costs, many lower-income families must choose between paying rent or paying for other basic needs, while others are forced into overcrowded or substandard housing conditions or join the increasingly large population of people experiencing homelessness. The number of people experiencing homelessness in Alameda County has continued to increase year by year, nearly doubling since 2009. The last Point in Time (PIT) count, which was done in 2022 found a total of 7,135 unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. There were 489 unsheltered individuals found in Union City.

While there are no emergency shelters in Union City to serve the homeless population, the City has several partnerships with local organizations including EveryOne Home and Abode Services to provide supportive services for persons at risk of, or already, experiencing homelessness in Union City. The City also collaborates with the New Haven Unified School District and local faith-based organizations to operate the CAREavan safe parking program. More than 275 participants have utilized the program since its inception in June 2016, and on average, 30 cars/50 people utilize the program per night (Program HE-F.b). Rental subsidies provided through the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Program HE-C.c) as well as Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) at the Tropics Mobile Home Park (Program HE-C.e) have also helped address housing insecurity.

The City is also currently working with three other jurisdictions, Hayward, Livermore, and Piedmont, on a joint State Homekey application in coordination with Bay Area Community Services (BACS) on a reclamation project in order to generate supportive housing from the acquisition of single-family homes that would serve homeless households. The City is currently awaiting a decision from State HCD on the status of the multi-jurisdictional application and hope to have a decision by July 2022.

The City will look to purchase at least one single family home in partnership with BACS, if awarded funds from the State Homekey program.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1264 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
HE-A.a Rezone Program
The City shall rezone enough land to accommodate the
remaining housing need of 154 lower-income and 210 above moderate-income units within two years of adoption of the Housing Element. Rezoned sites may include those identified as “potential rezone sites” in the Housing Element, or will include other sites that provide at least the same capacity.

Consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2(h), the City shall ensure that the rezoned sites are large enough to accommodate a minimum of 16 units per site, will permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential uses byright (without a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary action), and that at least 50 percent of the remaining need will be
accommodated on sites zoned for exclusively residential uses.

Completed. In January 2016, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment (CC Resolution #4846-16), Zoning Text
Amendment (Ordinance #815-16) and Zoning Map
Amendment (Ordinance #816-16) to redesignate two Housing Element rezone sites that together accommodated 136 lower income units and 188 above moderate-income units. This
resulted in a remaining balance of 18 lower income units and 22 above moderate-income units to satisfy the program
objective. In 2018, the City identified the following three sites to address the remaining need of 18 lower-income units and 22 above-moderate income units.

1. Smith Street Mixed-Use Site (rezone completed in April 2018): 18 lower-income units plus 10 above moderate-income units for a total of 28 units (Ordinance 851-18).

2. Florence Street Site (no rezone required): 6 abovemoderate income units.

3. Vallejo Street Site (no rezone required): 6 above-moderate income units.

Delete program.

HE-A.b Participate in Priority Development Area Program As a means to assist development of the Station District, the City shall continue to participate in the Priority Development Area (PDA) program, which offers incentives to encourage affordable and high-density housing adjacent to transit. The City shall participate through attending PDA meetings,
implementing the Station District Plan, and facilitating housing and employment-related development in the Station District.

Ongoing The City has continued to participate in the PDA program to assist in the development of the Station District, which surrounds the Union City Intermodal Station. The City is currently preparing the Station District Specific Plan. The draft plan was released in May 2022.

Delete program.

HE-A.c Maintain Vacant Land Inventory
The City shall continue to maintain a current inventory of vacant residentially-zoned parcels and associated
development potential and a list of recently approved
residential projects to assist developers in identifying land suitable for residential development. To ensure adequate sites are available throughout the planning period to meet the City’s RHNA, the City shall continue to annually update the inventory. The City shall continue to make this
Ongoing The City maintains an inventory of vacant land which can be accessed through the City’s mapping and data website,
CommunityView.

Maintain program.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1265 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
information available to the public and developers through the City’s website.

HE-A.d Develop RHNA Evaluation Procedure
To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA need, the City will develop and
implement a formal ongoing (project-by-project) evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 56863.

Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to
accommodate the remaining need for lower-income
households, the City will identify and re-zone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall.

Not yet
completed
The City evaluates RHNA completion through the
development review process. A formal evaluation procedure has not been developed.

Modify program to
address “no net
loss” requirements.

HE-A.e Monitor Publicly-Owned Land
The City shall continue to monitor the status of available land owned by Caltrans and other public agencies and actively work with developers that may wish to develop such
properties for housing.

Ongoing The City monitors publicly-owned land annually. In 2021, the City acquired a large site from CalTrans (approximately 25 acres). In June 2021, the City released a Notice of Availability and offer to sell the surplus property giving priority to entities proposing to develop housing where at least 25 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households.

Maintain program.

HE-A.f Secondary Dwelling Unit Information Program
The City shall promote the development of secondary
dwellings units by continuing to provide informational
handouts at the Planning Division public counter and posting information on the City's website. The City shall provide information regarding permit requirements, changes in State law, and benefits of secondary dwelling units to property owners and the community.

Ongoing An informational handout on secondary / accessory units is posted on the City's website and is available at the Planning Division Counter. The City has updated its accessory dwelling unit ordinance periodically in response to changes in State law during the planning period. The most recent update
occurred in May 2021 (Ordinance 883-21).

Maintain program,
update terminology
from Secondary to
Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU). Expand
program to
consider new ways
to promote ADUs.

HE-A.g Parking Reduction in Station Mixed Use Commercial (CSMU) Zoning District
The City shall reduce residential parking requirements in the CSMU to facilitate transit-oriented residential development.

Completed In February 2015, the City adopted an ordinance to reduce parking requirements in the CSMU District. (Ordinance #803-15) Delete program.

HE-B.a Affordable Housing Ordinance
The City shall continue to implement the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Ongoing The City continues to implement the Affordable Housing Ordinance, requiring a minimum of 15 percent of units in a project to be affordable to low and very low-income residents.

During the previous planning period, the inclusionary
ordinance resulted in 122 lower income units and 29
Maintain program.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1266 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
moderate income units in the pipeline that are anticipated to be built in the next planning period. The City also committed $2.145 million in affordable housing in-lieu funds to help finance Lazuli Landing.

HE-B.b Support Affordable Housing Development
The City shall continue to provide financial and/or technical support to local non-profit organizations and the Alameda County Housing Authority to assist in the acquisition of properties, pursue grant funding, and leverage City funds for the development of affordable housing, including extremely low-income housing.

Ongoing The City researches funding opportunities annually and pursues funding for affordable housing development as it is available.

Currently the City is working with an affordable housing developer, MidPen Housing, in order to begin construction of the Lazuli Landing project. City staff has helped MidPen secure an Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) award for the project and is currently working with the developer to find other funding sources that will help fully fund the project so that construction can begin in 2023.

Maintain program.

HE-B.c Update Density Bonus Ordinance
The City shall update the Density Bonus Ordinance to
explicitly comply with current (2014) State law and also to allow units that are required to be maintained as affordable units pursuant to the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance to be considered restricted affordable units for the purposes of determining whether the housing development qualifies for a density bonus. The City shall aggressively encourage
developers of all new residential projects over five units to take advantage of the density bonus provisions.

Completed The City amended the density bonus provision of the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance to comply with State law and to meet the requirements of this implementation program.

The ordinance amendment went into effect on May 12, 2016 (Ordinance #817-16).

Delete program.

Zoning code does
not need to be
further modified as
it already cross
references State
density bonus law.

HE-B.d Preserve Affordable Units
The City shall continue to implement existing City guidelines for the preservation of affordable units in City-bond and other publicly-financed projects.

The City shall monitor assisted projects that are eligible to terminate affordability controls and respond to any Notice of Intent or Plan of Action that may be filed on local projects, which are required at least 12 months prior to the proposed termination date. This period of time allows the opportunity for the City or a non-profit affordable housing organization to consider options to continue the affordability of the project.

The City shall continue to cooperate with the owners of housing developments with units that have been set aside Ongoing In October 2016 and March 2018, the City conducted an onsite monitoring visit at Wisteria Place Apartments, a 40-unit affordable, senior housing project that received City HOME funds. The City found Wisteria Place Apartments to be in compliance with the HOME regulations. The City also
continued to conduct desk audits of affordable units. No affordable units were converted to market rate during the planning period.

Modify program to
include Government
Code Section
65863.13 and other
updates to
procedures.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1267 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
for lower-income households in accordance with the
requirements of Federal subsidy programs and ensure that the owner has met the tenant noticing requirements as set forth by California State Government code Sections
65863.10 and 65863.11. Within three years prior to the
expiration of the owners' Federal set-side obligations, the City shall initiate negotiations to extend below-market-rate controls by offering City-provided incentives.

The City shall restructure existing regulatory agreements, whenever possible, to allow the City or its designee the opportunity to purchase the property at the conclusion of the rent restrictions. Where permanent preservation of existing or new subsidized units is not possible, the City shall minimize displacement of current tenants by negotiating anti-displacement policy or relocation mitigation with the owner, whenever possible.

HE-B.e Promote Affordable Housing
The City shall continue to provide outreach to community residents to inform them on the need for and the role of affordable housing in Union City. The City shall place general information regarding affordable housing programs as well as promoting specific projects on the City website, in the City newsletter, at City Hall, in the local newspaper, and on local cable access. The City shall also continue to participate in annual housing fairs and other presentation and workshops to promote the City’s housing programs in the community.

Ongoing Information on affordable housing opportunities is regularly updated and posted on the City's website and is made
available at City Hall and community centers. The City also continues to participate in presentations/meetings to
promote the City's housing programs.

Modify program to
include multilingual
outreach.

HE-C.a First Time Homebuyer Program
The City shall continue a first-time homebuyer program, as funding is available, either through State funding or through program-related income.

Not
completed.

The City's First Time Homebuyer Program Administrator,
Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley, disbanded in June 2015 and subsequently the City's First Time Homebuyer Program was dissolved. Additionally, due to the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies, the City currently does not have funding available for first time homebuyer programs. However, the City continues to monitor and pursue new funding sources and promote non-City funded programs, such as CalHFA,
through its website and other promotional material.

Modify program to
promote non-City
first time
homebuyer
programs, such as
the Alameda County
(AC) Boost
program, and other
new City actions.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1268 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
HE-C.b Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
The City shall continue to work with Alameda County to
administer the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program.

Ongoing The City provides funding to Alameda County to administer the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program. Between
2016 and 2018, two mortgage credit certificates and one refinance mortgage credit certificate were issued in Union City. There were no applicants in 2020. In 2020, the City was notified by the County that the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) would no longer provide MCC funds to
counties statewide and Alameda County exhausted its 2019 allocation of funds in October 2019. The program is still currently closed due to a lack of funding from CDLAC.

Delete program.

HE-C.c Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
The City shall continue to support the Alameda County
Housing Authority in its continuing administration of HUD Section 8 rental certificates and vouchers to assist very lowincome Union City households.

Ongoing The City continues to support the Housing Authority in its administration of HUD Housing Choice Vouchers. Currently, the City has 727 vouchers being utilized in Union City. The vouchers cover 323 seniors, 310 people with disabilities, and 523 female-headed households or dealing with domestic
violence. In Alameda County, there are 6,981 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). There are also 3,522 applicants on the
waitlist for the HCV program in Alameda County.

Modify program to
assist with outreach
to landlords to
educate them about
the program.

HE-C.d Homebuyer Education
The City shall support the efforts of local HUD-approved counseling agencies in their homebuyer-education, postpurchase, and default/foreclosure counseling efforts. The City shall post information on the City website about
foreclosure counseling, toll-free hotlines, foreclosure prevention programs, and other resources available for
residents facing possible foreclosures.

Ongoing The City continues to support local HUD-approved counseling agencies and information on homebuyer education and
foreclosure counseling is regularly updated and posted on the City's website and is made available at City Hall
and community centers.

Modify program to
include multilingual
outreach.

HE-C.e Rental Assistance Program
The City shall continue to provide rental assistance, as funding is available, to very low- and extremely low-income residents at the Tropics Mobile Home Park.

Annual
certification
The City continues to provide rental assistance to very low and extremely-low income residents at the Tropics Mobile Home Park. The City also provides Tenant Based Rental
Assistance in partnership with the City of Fremont through the HOME program.

Maintain program.

HE-D.a Housing Rehabilitation
The City shall continue to apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on an annual basis. The City shall give high priority for the expenditure of a portion of CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation, and directly contract with Contract
with the
County
annually for
rehabilitation
The City continued to contract with Alameda County to
administer the Housing Rehabilitation Program. Between FY 2018-2019 and FY 2020-2021, there were 133 minor home
repair grants issued and nine major rehabilitation grants and Maintain program.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1269 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
the County to administer the housing rehabilitation services.

The City shall also use Housing Successor funds and HOME funds as available and appropriate, to support housing
rehabilitation for lower-income households.
services at least one accessibility grant issued. Data from previous years is unavailable.

HE-D.b Improvements in the Decoto and Old Alvarado
Neighborhoods
As appropriate, the City shall continue capital-improvement and housing-rehabilitation programs to upgrade
infrastructure and housing in the Decoto and Old Alvarado neighborhoods.

Ongoing HOUSING REHABILITATION
The Housing Rehabilitation Program is available citywide however minor home repair grants were provided during
calendar years 2018 through 2020 to households living in Decoto and the Historic Alvarado District.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - DECOTO

1. Future sidewalk and wheelchair ramp project in the Decoto District as part of the Lazuli Landing Project. AHSC award was received for the project from the State in March of 2022.

2. The Decoto Road paving project will also begin in early 2023. This will impact the portion of Decoto Road that runs next to the Decoto Neighborhood.

3. Completed the construction of the South Decoto Street to I Street and 12th to 15th Street improvements ($4 million) in 2016.

4. Completed Construction of the H Street–Green Street
improvements ($3.75 million) in 2020.

5. Completed Construction of Phase 1 of the Conversion of the Kennedy Community Center to the Kennedy Youth
Center ($4 million)

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - ALVARADO

1. Continued the rebranding efforts and entry/wayfinding signage for Historic Alvarado Business Area. Awarded the design build contract to Arrow Sign Company for the
entry/wayfinding signage for Historic Alvarado Business Area. Construction began in 2018.

2. Rehabilitation of the Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Park.

Rehabilitation construction will begin in Summer of 2022 and completion of full rehabilitation of the park will be completed by the summer of 2023.

Maintain program
City Council/RSA Agenda 1270 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
HE-D.c Code Enforcement
The City shall continue to encourage the rehabilitation of substandard residential properties by homeowners and
landlords, using the Code Enforcement program, when
necessary, to improve overall housing quality and conditions in the city.

Ongoing The City continues to use code enforcement to encourage the rehabilitation of substandard residential properties. Between 2016 and 2021, at least 1,645 code enforcement cases were closed. This total includes all code enforcement cases
opened not only those specific to rehabilitation.

Maintain program.

HE-D.d Secure Buildings to Reduce Crime
The City shall continue programs that work with property owners in areas affected by poor building design and
disproportionately high levels of criminal activity to add security devices, secure property boundaries, and redesign building elements to reduce crime problems.

Ongoing Ongoing. The Police Department reviews all new housing development projects from a safety perspective.

Delete program.

HE-E.a Support Fair Housing Counseling Services
The City shall continue to provide funds and support for ECHO Housing in the operation of its fair-housing counseling services. The City shall continue to coordinate with ECHO in working with rental housing owners and tenants to ensure understanding and compliance with fair-housing laws. The City shall continue to refer housing complaints to ECHO.

Ongoing The City continues to provide CDBG funding to ECHO Housing. Between 2016 and 2020, ECHO Housing provided
fair housing services to 94 households and tenant/landlord services to more than 629 households.

Modify program to
include multilingual
outreach.

HE-E.b Distribute Fair Housing Information
The City shall obtain information on fair housing laws from the Department of Housing and Community Development
and State Fair Employment and Housing Commission’s
enforcement programs and make it available to the public.

The City shall make copies of the information available on the City’s website, at City Hall, and the local library and work with local realtor/landlord associations to distribute such information to prospective home sellers, landlords, buyers and renters.

Ongoing Information on fair housing laws and programs is regularly updated and posted on the City's website and is made
available at City Hall and community centers.

Modify program to
include multilingual
outreach.

HE-F.a Housing for Large Families
Through ongoing discussions with for-profit and non-profit developers and local realtors, the City shall monitor the needs of large families in obtaining appropriately-sized rental housing. If a need is identified, the City shall work with Ongoing The City continues to have discussions with developers regarding housing for large families as projects arise. In 2016, the City issued one building permit for a three-bedroom unit.

In 2017, the City issued building permits for 24 multi-family units that contained three bedrooms. Additionally, the City Delete program.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1271 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
developers to encourage the inclusion of 3- and 4-bedroom units in new multifamily developments.
issued building permits for three single-family units with four bedrooms.

In 2018, the City issued building permits for 63 multi-family units with three-bedrooms or more. Additionally, the City issued building permits for six single-family units with three bedrooms or more.

In 2019, the City issued entitlements for the Horner Street Mixed Use project which includes seven three-bedroom units and four townhome units with three and four bedrooms. The City has confirmed that the developer will provide 10 threebedroom units as part of a large mixed-use development in the City (Integral).

HE-F.b Partnerships to Address Homeless Needs
The City shall continue to participate with the appropriate homeless agencies in its efforts to address the needs of Union City residents in need of emergency shelter or
temporary housing.

Ongoing The City coordinates with several organizations, other jurisdictions, and EveryOne Home to address homelessness in Union City.

The City is also looking at programs like the State Homekey program to help support the development of supportive
housing programs targeting homeless residents and
residents at risk of homelessness. The City is currently partnering with three other jurisdictions (Hayward, Livermore, and Piedmont) and a non-profit partner Bay Area Community Services (BACS) who will help the City acquire and rehabilitate a single family home to create supportive housing. There is a current application into the State Homekey program and the City is hoping to receive final review of their application by July 2022. The Homekey funds will help with the acquisition and rehabilitation of the project and the City will look to utilize other sources of funding like federal HOME dollars to help provide subsidy for supportive services.

The City provides CDBG funding to Abode Services, the
homeless shelter provider in the area and operates a safe parking program, CAREavan, for homeless individuals and families who are temporarily living in their cars. The program is a collaborative effort between the City, the school district's Kids' Zone program, and local community and faith-based organizations. The program rotates between five participating Modify program to
expand homeless
services.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1272 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
locations including the City's senior center. More than 360 adults and 173 children participants have utilized the program since its inception in June 2016.On average, the program has 30 cars/ 50 people utilize the program per night. The City pays approximately $85,000/year to cover the cost of the over-night facility attendant.

Additionally, the City participates in the bi-annual, county-wide homeless count, except in 2020 when the count was
cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The most recent count took place in February 2022.

HE-F.c Affordable Senior Housing
As appropriate, the City shall continue to partner with the Housing Authority and non-profit developers to build
affordable senior housing on targeted sites within proximity to amenities and key services for seniors. The City shall also provide assistance in applying for funding through various Federal, State, and local programs, and offer density bonuses and other local incentives.

Ongoing The City partners with the Housing Authority and local nonprofit developers to build affordable housing. More recently, the City’s priority has been building more affordable housing for families. HACA owns three adjacent vacant parcels in Union City within the Decoto neighborhood zoned for singlefamily development. There is an opportunity to create affordable housing on these properties.

Add a new program
to work with HACA
to explore
opportunities for
new housing on
HACA owned
property.

HE-F.d Reasonable Accommodation
The City shall create a public information flyer on reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and provide that
information on the City's website.

Complete. The City created a flyer on reasonable
accommodation and it is posted on the City's website.

Completed; modify
program and
combine with HEE.b to market both
reasonable
accommodation
and fair housing
resources.

HE-F.e Development of Housing for Persons with Disabilities Where practical and feasible, the City shall support
applications for County, State, and Federal funding for the construction and rehabilitation of supportive housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental
disabilities.

Ongoing The City continues to support applications as they arise. No applications were received for supportive housing during the planning period.

Maintain program.

Consider ways to
expand program to
more proactively
support housing for
persons with
disabilities.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1273 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
HE-F.h Coordinate with the Regional Center of the East Bay The City shall work with the Regional Center of the East Bay to implement an outreach program informing residents of the housing and services available for persons with
developmental disabilities. The City shall make this
information available on the City website.

Ongoing Beginning in 2015-2016, the City worked with the Regional Center of the East Bay to provide outreach and marketing material, which is available at City Hall and other community facilities
Delete program, the
City is currently not
coordinating with
the Regional Center.

HE-G.a Promote Weatherization Programs
The City shall continue to post and distribute information on currently available weatherization programs. The City shall continue to work with neighboring jurisdictions in providing and sharing information regarding green/energy
conservation innovations.

Ongoing Information on weatherization programs is regularly updated and posted on the City's website and is made available at City Hall and community centers.

Maintain program.

HE-G.b Encourage Energy Efficient Appliance Upgrades
The City shall collaborate with PG&E, Alameda County Water District, and non-profit organizations to promote existing financial incentive programs to encourage voluntary
replacement of inefficient appliances with new Energy Star appliances. The City shall leverage the Energy Upgrade
California platform to promote Energy Star appliances and electronics.

Ongoing The City promotes the Energy Upgrade program through its website, permit center, periodic workshops, and direct mail.

Combine with HEG.c.

HE-G.c Energy Upgrade California
The City shall support regional efforts to implement Energy Upgrade California program for residential property owners.

The City shall leverage Energy Upgrade California outreach and educational materials to encourage energy efficiency retrofits and the use of energy efficient, low-carbon, or renewable technologies.

Ongoing The City promotes the Energy Upgrade program through its website, permit center, periodic workshops, and direct mail.

Maintain program.

Combine with HEG.b.

HE-G.d Solar Panel Program
The City shall continue working on a comprehensive solar PV program that provides outreach, financing, and other forms of assistance to homeowners.

Ongoing The City is continuing to work on a comprehensive solar PV program and passed legislation in September 2015 approving six PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) providers to
operate in Union City, creating a financing option for solar PV.

Delete. Move action
to the Climate
Adaptation Plan.

HE.G.e Solar Hot Water Heater Program
The City shall develop a program to facilitate the installation of solar hot water heaters in homes.

Ongoing The City is in the process of creating a program to facilitate installation of solar hot water heaters including preparation of outreach materials that will be posted on the City’s website.

Delete. Move action
to the Climate
Adaptation Plan.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1274 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF UNION CITY 2015 -2023 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program Status Evaluation Recommendation
HE-H.a Staff Coordination
City staff members involved in the implementation of
Housing Element programs shall meet biannually to review progress in addressing housing issues, especially issues relating to affordable housing.

Biannually City staff has been coordinating more frequently to evaluate the progress of Housing Element programs.

Delete. This is
standard practice.

HE-H.b Annual Progress Report
The City shall review and report annually on the
implementation of Housing Element programs and the City’s effectiveness in meeting the program objectives for the prior calendar year. The City shall present the annual report to the City Council at a public hearing before submitting the annual report to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and the Office of Planning
and Research (OPR).

Annually The City reviews and reports on the progress and implementation of Housing Element programs annually as is required by State law.

Delete. This is
standard practice.

Source: City of Union City, 2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1275 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1276 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS | 9-1 Chapter 9 | Goals, Policies, & Programs
This chapter of the Housing Element contains the goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives 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. 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.

The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element Policy Document:
⚫ Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable. ⚫ Policy: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. ⚫ Implementation Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy.

Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated timeframe for its accomplishment. The timeframe indicates the calendar year in which the activity is scheduled to be completed. These timeframes are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary considerations. ⚫ Quantified Objective: The number of housing units that the City is targeting for construction, conservation, or rehabilitation during the time frame of the Housing Element based on anticipated market conditions and available resources.

City Council/RSA Agenda 1277 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
9-2 | GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Housing Production
GOAL HE-1
Provide opportunities for and facilitate the development of a broad range of housing types to meet the needs of all Union City residents.

POLICIES
HE-1.1
Adequate Land to Meet the RHNA
The City shall ensure that sufficient land is available and zoned at a range of residential densities to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-A.1]
HE-1.2
Infill Housing
The City shall facilitate infill housing development near the Intermodal Station, along commercial corridors, and near employment centers. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-A.2, modified] HE-1.3
Maximize Densities
The City shall encourage development of multifamily and mixed-use designated land at the highest allowed density to make the use of land and facilities more efficient and to provide more affordable housing opportunities. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-A.3] HE-1.4
No Net Loss
Consistent with “no-net-loss” density provisions contained in Government Code Section 65863, the City shall consider the potential impact on the City’s ability to meet its share of the regional housing need when reviewing proposals to downzone sites in the inventory, rezone inventory sites to other uses, or develop a housing element site with fewer units or a different income level than what is assumed for the site in the Housing Element sites inventory. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-A.4] HE-1.5 (*NEW)
By-right Housing on Prior Housing Element Sites
After January 31, 2026, the City shall allow developments with at least 20 percent affordable lowerincome housing units by-right, consistent with objective development and design standards, on lower-income sites counted in previous housing cycles, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2 (i.e., Site LM-11 – Mission and F Street Site). [Source: New Policy] City Council/RSA Agenda 1278 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS | 9-3 HE-1.6
Site Consolidation
The City shall encourage the consolidation of parcels designated for multifamily and mixed-use development to facilitate appropriate parcel sizes for affordable or mixed-income housing. [Source:
2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-A.5, modified]
HE-1.7
Remove Regulatory Constraints
The City shall continue to ensure that City policies, regulations, and procedures do not add unnecessarily to the costs of producing housing while assuring the attainment of other City objectives. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-A.6] HE-1.8
Expeditious Approval Processing
The City shall continually strive to provide expeditious approval of residential developments that meet adopted development and design standards. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-A.7, modified]
HE-1.9
Integration of Below Market Rate Units
The City shall encourage residential units that are required to sell or rent at below-market rates to be integrated within market-rate developments and to be visually indistinguishable from marketrate units. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-A.9, modified] HE-1.10 (*NEW)
Diversify Housing in Single-Family Neighborhoods
The City shall encourage a greater variety of housing options within traditionally single-family residential neighborhoods, including accessory dwelling units, SB 9 units, and lot splits consistent with Government Code Section 65852.21 (i.e., Senate Bill 9). [Source: New Policy] HE-1.11 (*NEW)
Mechanisms for Site Remediation
The City shall explore mechanisms to support the remediation of contaminated sites to facilitate infill housing development. [Source: New Policy]
Implementation Programs
HE-1.A
Maintain Vacant Land Inventory
The City shall continue to maintain a current inventory of Housing Element sites to assist developers in identifying land suitable for residential development. To ensure adequate sites are available throughout the planning period to meet the City’s RHNA, the City shall continue to update the inventory on an ongoing basis as projects are approved and new sites are rezoned. The City shall continue to make this information available to the public and developers through the City’s website. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-A.c] City Council/RSA Agenda 1279 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
9-4 | GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031  Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Ongoing, update inventory as projects are approved and sites are rezoned
 Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: Update vacant land inventory upon development of any site inventory property
HE-1.B
No Net Loss Procedures
To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA need, the City shall make findings related to the potential impact on the City’s ability to meet its unmet regional housing needs allocation when approving applications to rezone sites included in the lower- and moderate-income sites inventory or develop a lower- or moderate-income housing element site with fewer units or at a higher income than what is assumed for the site in the Housing Element sites inventory, consistent with “no-net-loss” zoning requirements in Government Code Section 65863. If at any point it is determined that the City does not have adequate capacity to meet the unmet loweror moderate-income RHNA, the City shall identify and make available a replacement site within 180 days. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-A.d, modified]  Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Ongoing, as development projects are approved  Funding Source: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: Comply with State law
HE-1.C (*NEW)
Restoration Site
The City shall facilitate development of a mix of high-density residential and office uses on the Cityowned Restoration Site. The City has received feasibility studies for the estimated cost and timeframe for the remediation of the site and is actively working with state and regional agencies to finalize a remediation plan and secure funding to complete full site remediation. Upon completion of this process, the City will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a developer to enter into an agreement with the City for development of the site. by issuing a developer request for proposals and partnering with developers on site remediation to maximize development potential of the site. [Source: New Program.]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Secure remediation funding and begin remediation of the site in 2023, obtain agency permits and conduct environmental review in 2024-25, complete remediation of the site in 2026-2028, issue Request for Proposals (RFP) in 2028, complete site entitlements in 2028-29, and begin site grading and construction in 2029Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) by FY 25/26  Funding: General Fund/Staff time, State and Federal funding for site remediation  Objective: 300 lower-income units and 370 moderate-income units, as feasible City Council/RSA Agenda 1280 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS | 9-5 HE-1.D (*NEW)
Marketplace Mixed Use Property Owner Coordination
The Marketplace Mixed Use properties are identified in the Housing Element as future opportunity sites. The City shall continue to work with the property owners within the Marketplace subarea of the Station District on redeveloping the retail centers to includes residential uses, consistent with the vision of the Station District Specific Plan. The City shall ensure property owners understand the development potential for their sites under the Station District Specific Plan, describe the streamlining benefits provided by the Specific Plan and other CEQA exemptions for infill development, and provide technical assistance and support to facilitate the redevelopment of these shopping centers to transitoriented development. The City shall facilitate partnerships between property owners and affordable housing developers to find creative ways to meet the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. [Source: New Program]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Initiate program bycontact with property owners in 2024 2023 and meet at least annually to provide guidance and technical support for redevelopment of shopping centers within the Marketplace subarea of the Station Districtand provide ongoing coordination as needed
 Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: 300 lower-income unitsAccelerate housing activity in the Marketplace Mixed Use subarea during the timeframe of the Housing Element HE-1.E (*NEW)
Gateway Site
The City shall facilitate development of a mix of housing types on the City-owned Gateway Site.

The City has an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with a housing developer to develop the site. The City shall continue to work with this developer to facilitate site entitlements and permits ahead of site development and housing construction. [Source: New Program.]  Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Complete site entitlements in 2025 and begin site grading and construction in 2027
 Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: 135 Lower-Income Units and 200 Moderate-Income and 200 Above Moderate-Income Units, as feasible
HE-1.F (*NEW)
Objective Design Standards
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Updateensure the City’s multi-family residential, single-family residential, and mixed-use design standards to ensure they are clear and objective. [Source: New Program]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: FY 23/24
 Funding: Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant
City Council/RSA Agenda 1281 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
9-6 | GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031  Objective: To streamline and increase predictability in the development review process
HE-1.G (*NEW)
SB 35 Procedure
The City shall establish a written procedure to implement streamlined ministerial approval in compliance with Senate Bill 35. [Source: New Program]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: FY 22/23
 Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: To establish procedures that accelerate housing production consistent with State law
HE-1.H (*NEW)
Development Standards for Missing Middle Housing Types
The City shall amend the Zoning Code and establish development standards (e.g., minimum lot size, lot coverage, setbacks, height) that facilitate missing middle housing in traditionally singlefamily zones. [Source: New Program]  Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: FY 24/25
 Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: To establish development standards that facilitate 45 units of “missing middle housing” that is affordable by design to middle-income households in higher opportunity and higher income single-family neighborhoods HE-1.I (*NEW)
Modify Development Standards to Remove Constraints
The City shall review and amend the Zoning Code to ensure the height, lot coverage, setback, open space, parking for studio units, and other development standards in the RM zones facilitate and do not constrain the development of multifamily housing. [Source: New Program]  Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: FY 23/24
 Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: To establish development standards that facilitate multifamily housing City Council/RSA Agenda 1282 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS | 9-7 HE-1.J (*NEW)
Facilitate Site Consolidation
The City shall work with property owners on the consolidation of parcels in the Housing Element sites inventory to facilitate development of the sites for affordable housing, particularly sites LM-3 (ANR Near BART Site), LM-6 (854 Whipple Road Site), LM-9 (Whipple/Cemex Site), LM-13 (Smith Street Site), and LM-15 (Union City Boulevard Site). The City shall continue to process lot mergers ministerially and provide technical assistance and incentives to property owners on more complicated lot consolidations. [Source: New Program]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Initiate property owner outreach in FY 23/24  Funding: Staff time
 Objective: 152 400 lower-income units
HE-1.K (*NEW)
Annual Review and Monitoring
The City shall prepare an Annual Progress Report (APR) and hold an annual public hearing to evaluate progress toward meeting the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) and the objectives of the implementation programs. The annual review shall include a mid-term evaluation at year four of the eight-year cycle. The mid-term evaluation shall document progress made towards achieving the affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) program objectives of the actions identified in Table 4-18. If the evaluation finds that the implementation programs are not achieving the objectives, the Planning Commission and City Council shall hold public hearings to consider and take action to amend programs as appropriate to achieve the Housing Element objectives within one year. [Source: New Program]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Annual review and submittal of APR to HCD and OPR by April 1; midterm evaluation submitted by April 1, 2028  Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: One public hearing per year to evaluate housing production and successful implementation of housing programs
City Council/RSA Agenda 1283 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
9-8 | GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Affordable Housing Production
GOAL HE-2
To assist in the production of affordable housing to meet the needs of lower-income residents.

POLICIES
HE-2.1 (*NEW)
Affordable Housing Mix
The City shall promote mixed income and mixed-generation housing that fosters integration of residents of different socioeconomic backgrounds. [Source: New Policy] HE-2.2
Affordable Housing Ordinance
The City shall continue to implement the Affordable Housing Ordinance and shall ensure, through conditions of approval, that residential units that are required to sell or rent at below-market rates and are included within a housing development are produced simultaneously with market-rate housing. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-B.3 and B.4, combined] HE-2.3 (*NEW)
Collaborative Partnerships for Affordable Housing
The City shall continue to establish and support collaborative partnerships with non-profit organizations, affordable housing builders, and for-profit developers to gain greater access to various sources of affordable housing funds. [Source: New Policy] HE-2.4 (*NEW)
Financial and Regulatory Incentives
The City shall continue to offer financial and regulatory incentives, such as density bonuses, fee deferrals, reductions, or waivers, where feasible, to reduce the costs and/or to remove impediments to developing affordable housing. [Source: New Policy] HE-2.5 (*NEW)
Affordable Housing on City-owned Land
The City shall encourage the development of affordable housing on City-owned sites. [Source: New Policy]
HE-2.6 (*NEW)
Affordable Housing on Faith-based Sites
The City shall explore creative approaches to encouraging affordable housing on land owned by faith-based organizations. [Source: New Policy]
City Council/RSA Agenda 1284 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS | 9-9 HE-2.7 (*NEW)
Flexible Mixed-use Zoning Standards for Affordable Housing The City shall allow developments of 100 percent affordable housing to meet the commercial ground floor requirement in mixed-use zones (where required) with other uses that activate the ground floor, including leasing offices, lobbies, residential amenity spaces, and other resident- or community-serving uses. [Source: New Policy]
Implementation Programs
HE-2.A
Affordable Housing Ordinance
The City shall continue to implement the Affordable Housing Ordinance, which requires market-rate development to provide for below market rate units. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-B.a]
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Economic and Community Development Department
 Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects are processed through the Planning Department  Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: 375 lower-income housing units and 125 moderate-income housing units to expand housing mobility opportunities for lower- and moderate-income households
HE-2.B
Support Affordable Housing Development
The City shall annually monitor available State and federal funding and partner with affordable housing developers in applying for funds. The City shall continue to provide incentives and funding, as available, as gap financing for affordable housing throughout the city, with priority granted to projects housing extremely low-income households and special needs groups, such as seniors and persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, and/or enriched with supportive services, such as childcare, health programs, or similar community support services. [Source:
2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-B.b, modified] Responsibility: City Council, Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Research Federal, State, and Local funding opportunities annually and pursue funding as available through coordination with non-profit partners and affordable housing developers
 Funding: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, Affordable Housing In-lieu fees, HOME, Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) funds, and other State and Federal funds
 Objective: 125 250 very lower and 175 low-income housing units City Council/RSA Agenda 1285 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
9-10 | GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 HE-2.C
Monitor Publicly-Owned Land
The City shall regularly review the inventory of City-owned surplus, vacant, or underused land, no longer needed for current or foreseeable future public operations, that should be considered for sale or lease for development of affordable housing and/or shelters. The City shall issue a Notice of Availability or other competitive application processes to solicit affordable development proposals that incorporate innovative designs and housing options. The City shall also continue to monitor the status of available land owned by other public agencies and actively work with developers that may wish to develop such properties for affordable housing. If the publicly owned sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory are not developed with the anticipated number of lower- or moderate-income units or within two years of the specified timeframe (see Programs HE-1.C and HE-1.E), the City shall make no net loss findings or find replacement sites consistent with Government Code Section 65863. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-A.e, modified] Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Monitor public lands at least annually (see Programs HE-1.C and HE1.E for specific schedule of actions on City-owned sites in the inventory)  Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: 300 435 lower-income, 570 moderate-income, and 200 above-moderate income housing units on City-owned land
HE-2.D (*NEW)
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Promotion
The City shall promote the development of accessory dwellings units by supporting efforts to construct ADUs. Efforts may include:
⚫ Monitoring legislative changes related to ADUs annually and Uupdating, as necessary, the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations included in Chapter 18.34 and City handouts to ensure consistency with State law and reflect best practices. ⚫ Amending the ADU Ordinance to allow two ADUs on parcels of a certain size if one of them is deed-restricted as lower income.
⚫ Supporting efforts and outreach by County and Regional agencies regarding ADU construction, including participation in ADU informational training, regional working groups, and development of preapproved plans.

The City shall promote ADU tools and resources to homeowners throughout the city to promote mixed-income neighborhoods. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HEA.f, modified]  Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Update the current ADU ordinance by July 1, 2023. Review legislative changes annually in September and update ordinance as necessary to comply with State law before January 1st of the following year; participate in regional efforts on an ongoing basis; amend the ordinance by June 2024 to expand the number of allowed ADUs
 Funding: General Fund/Staff time
City Council/RSA Agenda 1286 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS | 9-11  Objective: 120 ADUs, with approximately 25 percent in high resource areas to improve housing mobility
HE-2.E (*New)
Monitor Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Legislation
The City shall monitor legislative changes related to ADUs and amend Zoning Ordinance Chapter

18.34, Accessory Dwelling Units, as necessary to maintain compliance with State law. [Source:

New Program]
 Responsibility: City Council, Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Ongoing monitoring and updates, as needed  Funding: General Fund, Community Development Block Grant funds  Objective: Compliance with State law
HE-2.FE (*NEW)
Religious Facility Housing Overlay
AB 1851 (Religious Facility Housing) provides relief in parking requirements when a religious institution partners with a nonprofit organization to provide affordable housing on site. The City shall adopt an overlay or another zoning mechanism that would allow and provide incentives for developing affordable housing on religious facility properties, including transitional housing and emergency shelters. [Source: New Program]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: FY 26/2725/26
 Funding: General fund/Staff time
 Objective: 50 units of affordable or transitional housing HE-2.FG (*NEW)
Housing Authority-owned Site in Decoto
The City shall work with the Housing Authority of Alameda County (HACA) to develop creative approaches to providing affordable housing on the HACA-owned site in the Decoto neighborhood. The City shall provide technical support, which may include permit streamlining, facilitating lot consolidation or zoning amendment, and/or support with neighborhood outreach. [Source: New Program]  Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Meet with Housing Authority at least annually starting in FY 25/2624/25 and develop a schedule of actions to report on in annual progress reports
 Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: 10 units of affordable housing
City Council/RSA Agenda 1287 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
9-12 | GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 Housing Preservation
GOAL HE-3
To preserve and maintain existing housing to promote
continued housing affordability and stability.

POLICIES1.H
HE-3.1
Preserve At-risk Affordable Housing
The City shall work with property owners and nonprofit housing providers to preserve deed-restricted affordable units at risk of conversion to market rents and extend the affordability covenants in perpetuity whenever feasible. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-B.8, modified] HE-3.2 (*NEW)
No Net Loss of Housing Stock
The City shall ensure that sites being redeveloped for housing do not result in a net reduction in housing unit capacity, consistent with Government Code Section 66300(d). [Source: New Policy] HE-3.3 (*NEW)
Preserve Mobile Home Communities
The City shall strive to preserve mobile home communities as an important source of affordable housing. [Source: New Policy]
HE-3.4 (*NEW)
Replacement Housing Unit Requirement
The City shall require the replacement of housing units for any new development (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) proposed on a site in the Housing Element inventory that meets the following conditions, consistent with the requirements of Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3):
⚫ currently has residential uses or within the past five years has had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, and
⚫ was subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low-income, or
⚫ subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or
⚫ occupied by low or very low-income households. [Source: New Policy] City Council/RSA Agenda 1288 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS | 9-13 Implementation Programs
HE-3.A
Monitor and Preserve Affordable Units
The City shall monitor affordability agreements for existing affordable housing units and maintain close contact with property owners regarding long-term plans for the affordable units. The City shall provide financial and/or technical assistance to property owners whose affordability restrictions will expire within 36 months for preservation and/or rehabilitation of the affordable units. In the event at-risk units are not preserved, the City shall require projects that received government funding and/or were granted a density bonus to comply with the required noticing procedures under State law, including providinge at least three years notice prior to the conversion of any deed-restricted affordable rental units to market rate and providing additional notice at 12 and 6 months. The City shall also minimize displacement of current tenants by negotiating an antidisplacement policy or relocation mitigation with the owner, whenever possible. [Source: 2015- 2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-B.d, modified]  Responsibility: City Council, Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Begin engaging property owners in FY 24/25  Funding: In-lieu fees, Affordable Housing Impact Fees, and HOME  Objective: Preservation of 206 at-risk affordable units Housing Services and Assistance
GOAL HE-4
To assist Union City households in obtaining and maintaining adequate housing.

POLICIES
HE-4.1
First-time Homebuyers
The City shall support first-time homebuyers in accessing programs available through the County, with an emphasis on providing homeownership opportunities for black households and other households of color which historically could not access homeownership. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-C.1, modified]
HE-4.2
Housing Choice Vouchers
The City shall support the continued use of Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) by Union City residents and shall encourage landlord participation in the HCV program. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-C.2]
City Council/RSA Agenda 1289 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
9-14 | GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 HE-4.3
Foreclosure Assistance
The City shall strive to minimize the number of foreclosures by linking potential homebuyers with homebuyer education and counseling services. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-C.3] HE-4.4 (*NEW)
Rental Assistance for Mobile Home Park Residents
The City shall continue to provide rental assistance, based on available funding, to the Tropics Mobile Home Park to maintain affordability for mobile home park residents. [Source: New Policy] HE-4.5
Accessible Information on Affordable Housing
The City shall ensure that information on affordable housing programs is readily available throughout the city and in multiple languages. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy HE-C.4, modified] Implementation Programs
HE-4.A
First Time Homebuyer Program
The City shall continue to promote first time homebuyer programs to Union City residents, including Alameda County (AC) Boost and the Alameda County Downpayment Assistance Loan Program. The City shall collaborate with the County on an outreach strategy targeted at providing homeownership opportunities for black households and other households of color which historically could not access homeownership. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-C.a]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Initiate collaboration with County in FY 23/24  Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: Connect 15 Union City households with first-time homebuyer resources to increase awareness of housing mobility opportunities HE-4.B
Housing Choice Voucher Program
The City shall continue to support the Housing Authority of Alameda County (HACA) in its continuing collaboration administration with the Housing Authority of and the utilization of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program to assist very low-income Union City households. The City shall collaborate with the Housing Authority on an educational campaign to educate landlords about their obligation to accept vouchers under fair housing laws and to encourage landlords in single-family neighborhoods to actively participate in the HCV Program as a way to affirmatively further fair housing. The City will host or co-sponsor at least one workshop during the planning period and will distribute mailers to landlords within the city. The City will also maintain resource links to the Housing Authority on its website. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-C.c, modified]  Responsibility: City Council, Economic and Community Development Department City Council/RSA Agenda 1290 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS | 9-15  Time Frame: Initiate collaboration with HACA in FY 24/25 with the goal of supporting an educational campaign for landlords before 2026  Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: Increase HCVs in Union City single family neighborhoods by 5 percent Note: There are currently (2022) 727 HCVs in Union City.

HE-4.C
Homebuyer Education and Foreclosure Counseling
The City shall support the efforts of local HUD-approved counseling agencies in their homebuyereducation, post-purchase, and default/foreclosure counseling efforts. The City shall post information on the City website about foreclosure counseling, toll-free hotlines, foreclosure prevention programs, and other resources available for residents facing possible foreclosures. The City shall ensure that materials are available in multiple languages to reach a broad spectrum of the community. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-C.d, modified]  Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Update website in FY 24/25 and review every two years thereafter  Funding: General Fund/Staff time
 Objective: Prevent foreclosures
HE-4.D
Rental Assistance Program
The City shall continue to provide rental assistance, as funding is available, to very low- and extremely low-income residents at the Tropics Mobile Home Park. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-C.e]
 Responsibility: Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Annual certification
 Funding: Housing Successor Agency funds
 Objective: Rental assistance to 170 households
HE-4.E
Multilingual Outreach on Affordable Housing Opportunities The City shall continue to provide outreach to community residents throughout the city to inform them of opportunities to access affordable housing. The City shall place general information regarding affordable housing programs as well as promoting specific projects on the City website, in the City newsletter, at City Hall, in the local newspaper, and on local cable access. The City shall also continue to participate in annual housing fairs and other presentations and workshops to promote the City’s housing programs in the community. The City shall ensure materials are available in multiple languages. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Implementation Program HE-B.e]  Responsibility: City Council, Economic and Community Development Department  Time Frame: Prepare outreach materials in FY 23/24 and update annually as necessary. Conduct workshops at least annually
City Council/RSA Agenda 1291 Tuesday, May 23, 2023
SECOND REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | APRIL 2023MAY 2023
9-16 | GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS UNION CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031  Funding: General Fund/Staff time, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
 Objective: Increase access to information about affordable housing opportunities Neighborhood Preservation
GOAL HE-5
To maintain healthy neighborhoods by improving the condition of the existing housing stock and the integrity of residential neighborhoods.