Community Needs Assessment Summary Report
UNION CITY PARKS AND
RECREATION MASTER PLAN
March 20, 2026
1 Union City Parks and Recreation Community
Needs Assessment Summary Report
Preface
In 2025, the City of Union City (City) retained Gates Studio to prepare a Community Needs Assessment Summary Report (Report) as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) project. This report provides an objective, data-driven understanding of how the current park system, recreation facilities, programs, and operations align with the needs and priorities of the community today and into the future.
A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was utilized. The assessment integrates community input gathered through surveys, stakeholder interviews, and public engagement; demographic and trend analyses; a comprehensive inventory of parks and facilities; a level of service analysis; and benchmarking against peer agencies and National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA) performance standards.
Findings from this report will guide the development of strategic priorities and recommendations in the forthcoming Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Together, these efforts will help ensure that the City’s parks, recreation programs, and public spaces continue to enrich the quality of life, foster community connections, and promote health and wellness for all residents and users.
The report includes the following sections:
● Section 1: Introduction
● Section 2: Demographics and Trends
● Section 3: Park and Recreation System Overview
● Section 4: Community Engagement
● Section 5: Key Findings and Priorities
Publication date: March 20, 2026
Prepared by GATES STUDIO for the Union City Community and Recreation Services Department
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
2 Figure 0-1. System- recreation facilities. City’s parks and wide map of Union
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
3 Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................1 Section 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Purpose and Methodology...........................................................................................5
1.2 Project Goals..............................................................................................................7
1.3 Union City Today.........................................................................................................8
1.4 Planning Context ........................................................................................................9 Section 2: Demographics and Trends.................................................................................16
2.1 Demographics Today ................................................................................................16
2.2 Demographic Trends.................................................................................................19
2.3 Population Projections..............................................................................................20
2.4 National Recreation Trends .......................................................................................20 Section 3: Park and Recreation System Overview ...............................................................23
3.1. Site Classifications ..................................................................................................23
3.2. Inventory .................................................................................................................28
3.3. Distribution and Equity.............................................................................................30
3.4 Level of Service.........................................................................................................36 Section 4: Community Outreach .......................................................................................46
4.1. Overview .................................................................................................................46
4.2 Overall Needs and Community Direction ...................................................................48
4.3 Survey and Pop-Up Summary ....................................................................................51
4.4 Stakeholder and Community Meeting Summary.........................................................52 Section 5: Key Findings and Priorities ................................................................................55
5.1 Top Department and Systemwide Needs ...................................................................55
5.2 Top Park and Facility Needs.......................................................................................56
5.3. Parkland Opportunities ............................................................................................60
5.4 Operational and Programming Findings .....................................................................61
5.5 Conclusion...............................................................................................................62 Appendix
● Appendix A: Amenity Inventory
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
4 SECTION 1:
INTRODUCTION
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
5 Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Methodology
Purpose: Union City is updating its Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan), the first in 25 years, to ensure the system reflects current community needs and is positioned to meet future demand. As the City continues to grow and evolve, the Master Plan will serve as a strategic framework to guide park, facility, and recreation program investments over the next 15 years. The Union City Strategic Plan FY 2019-2020 through FY 2024-2025 Final Update includes a strategy to develop a ten-year parks operations, maintenance and capital improvement plan.
Goal D: Environmental Sustainability and Infrastructure: Create a healthy, sustainable community and maintain and improve the City’s infrastructure.
Strategy: Develop a ten-year parks operations, maintenance, and capital improvement plan.
The City’s 2040 General Plan, with a 15-year horizon, also establishes a goal to comprehensively update the existing 1999 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. While the 1999 Plan provided broad guidelines, it lacked actionable direction, long-term cost estimates, or specific implementation recommendations. Since that time, Union City has grown significantly, adding 11 new parks without a corresponding increase in staffing or updated planning. The City now maintains 34 parks totaling over 112 acres. These parks range from small pocket parks to larger community parks.
Additionally, the City benefits from parks and open space managed by other entities such as East Bay Regional Park District, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and Alameda County Water District.
The purpose of the Community Needs Assessment Report is to provide a comprehensive, datadriven analysis of the existing parks and recreation system, identifying strengths, gaps, and opportunities for improvement. Findings from this assessment will directly inform the goals, strategies, and implementation actions of the Master Plan, with a focus on reimagining existing spaces, enhancing accessibility and inclusivity, and ensuring that Union City’s parks and recreation system remains safe, sustainable, and responsive to the community’s needs.
Methodology:
The methodology for the Community Needs Assessment integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of Union City’s parks and recreation system. It combines research, data collection, community engagement, and benchmarking analyses to identify current conditions, community priorities, and opportunities for improvement.
The following steps outline the key methods and analytical tools used to gather and evaluate information for this assessment, forming the basis for recommendations included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
6 Step 1: Review and Research
Review of Existing Planning and Department Efforts
With the support of City staff, the consultant team conducted a comprehensive review of existing planning documents and relevant policies to establish a foundation for this assessment. This included the 1999 Parks Master Plan, the Union City 2040 General Plan, specific and area plans, transportation and development plans, applicable state and county policies, climate action and sustainability plans, and any prior park and recreation assessments. Previous and current fiscal budgets and expenditures, staffing patterns and assignments, capital improvement projects, and programming were additionally evaluated to assess and understand current cost recovery and staffing capacity. The review provided critical context regarding past goals, current priorities, and future growth expectations that influence the parks and recreation system.
Community Outreach
The first phase of community engagement took place from September through October 2025. The consultant team coordinated and facilitated outreach efforts with City staff to effectively collect information about residents’ needs, preferences, challenges, and aspirations related to parks and recreation. Input was gathered through multiple channels, including an online survey, community pop-up events, stakeholder focus groups, interviews with City Council members and key staff, and community webinars. This outreach established a clear understanding of the community’s priorities and informed the direction of the strategy and implementation phases of the Master Plan.
Recreation Trends
National and regional recreation trends were analyzed to identify evolving patterns in participation, facility use, and recreation preferences. Emerging trends identified by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) for 2024–2025 were evaluated alongside regional shifts and themes surfaced through the community engagement process. These insights help ensure that the City’s system remains responsive to both national best practices and local needs.
Step 2: Analysis
Demographic Analysis
Demographic data was collected and analyzed using the 2023 U.S. Census American Community Survey (five-year estimates). The analysis examined population size, age distribution, race and ethnicity, household composition, and housing characteristics. Data from 2014 and 2024 were compared to assess decade-long demographic changes, while projections through 2040–2045 were reviewed to anticipate future trends. This analysis provides a foundation for understanding how population shifts may influence future recreation demand.
Benchmarking
To evaluate Union City’s system performance, benchmarking was conducted against three neighboring comparable communities selected in collaboration with City staff. These communities
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
7 include the cities of Newark, Milpitas, and San Leandro, and were chosen for their comparable population size, demographics, and park system characteristics. Key indicators, including overall park acreage, recreation facilities, outdoor amenities, and park maintenance and department staffing, were analyzed using publicly available data and municipal reports.
In addition, NRPA’s Agency Performance Review1 standards were referenced to compare Union City’s metrics with national averages and standards for similarly sized communities. This comparison provided valuable insight into where Union City’s system aligns with, exceeds, or can improve based on peer and national benchmarks.
Level of Service
The Level of Service (LOS) analysis utilized the aforementioned studies and evaluated how effectively Union City’s existing parks and recreation system meets community needs. Using mapping and service area analysis, the assessment measured park and recreation facility accessibility in terms of distribution across the City. These findings highlight areas where Union City performs strongly or where gaps exist relative to peer communities and NRPA standards. Such insights will guide future investment, ensuring that resources are directed strategically to enhance equity, access, and efficiency within the park system.
1.2 Project Goals
The goals of the Park and Recreation Master Plan project are to:
1. Create a clear plan for the future: Develop a realistic, easy-to-follow roadmap that will guide decisions and investments in parks and recreation over the next 15 years.
2. Ensure the plan reflects community voices: Engage and listen to residents and key community stakeholders throughout the planning process to ensure the final plan represents what people want, need, and value in their parks, facilities, and recreation programs.
3. Improve what is in place: Take care of existing parks and facilities by identifying where updates, repairs, or new features are needed.
4. Ensure parks and programs are inclusive of everyone: Work to make sure all residents— of all ages, abilities, backgrounds, and neighborhoods—can enjoy Union City's parks, facilities, and recreation opportunities.
5. Promote community health and connection: Create spaces and programs that encourage physical activity, mental well-being, and opportunities for people to gather and connect.
6. Plan creatively for a built-out city: Look for new ways to add parks and recreation spaces in areas with available land, especially in growing neighborhoods and redevelopment areas; and maximize space already available in existing parks and facilities. 1 NRPA metrics data: https://www.nrpa.org/publications-research/parkmetrics/.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
8 1.3 Union City Today
Union City is located within the “East Bay” of the San Francisco Bay Area, at the edge of Silicon Valley. The City is along the Interstate 880 corridor, 20 miles north of San Jose and 20 miles south of Oakland. The larger cities of Hayward and Fremont surround the City to the north, south, and west. Scenic hillsides frame the eastern edge of the City, and the San Francisco baylands of Hayward form the western boundary. Union City is well connected to the regional transportation system, with Interstate 880 and direct access to State Route 84 (Dumbarton Bridge) that connects the City to the Peninsula and Silicon Valley. The transit station is served by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Union City Transit and AC Transit, and Dumbarton Express bus lines (Union City 2040 General Plan, 2019).
Union City encompasses 19.4 square miles, approximately half of which lies within the largely undeveloped Hillside Area. In recent years, the City has shifted to becoming more transit-oriented as it transforms the area around the Intermodal Station with higher-density residential and mixeduse developments. Planning for the Station District began in the late 1990s. The vision for the Station District is to create an urban community where you can live, work, and play with an emphasis on robust bicycle and pedestrian circulation, shared open spaces including paseos and plazas, and higher-density mixed-use and mixed-income residential development near transit.
Residential mixed-use projects along 11th Street include Union Flats and Station Center, a 157-unit affordable family housing development. Outside of the Station District, the City's General Plan, including the certified Housing Element, and Zoning emphasize higher density multi-family and mixed-use residential uses on infill sites throughout the City.
Approximately 58% of Union City’s land area (more than 7,100 acres) is designated as open space, encompassing the extensive baylands the Bay shoreline to the west and the expansive hillside lands to the east. Much of these areas are not managed by Union City, but by partner agencies such as the East Bay Regional Park District and the Alameda County Flood Control District.
These areas serve as critical ecological resources and provide accessible outdoor recreation opportunities that complement Union City’s park system. Within the city limits, Union City operates a diverse network of developed parks, sports fields and courts, and community facilities that offer a broad range of recreation and enrichment programs and social services for residents of all ages. These sites vary widely in size, setting, and function, collectively supporting both active and passive experiences and contributing to a well-rounded community recreation system.
Like many Bay Area communities, Union City has very limited undeveloped land remaining for new parks or large-scale development. Future growth will mainly focus on compact, higher-density development that will occur largely through development/redevelopment of sites within the larger Station District area, in addition to other infill sites throughout the City. As the City evolves into a more compact and amenity-rich environment, planned growth patterns will shape how residents access parks, sports fields, recreation facilities, and community services within a higher-density context. Within this framework, the General Plan and Station District Specific Plan provide strategic direction for fostering a strong sense of place, enhancing quality of life, and supporting long-term
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
9 fiscal resilience while ensuring that the parks and recreation system remains aligned with Union City’s changing urban form.
Union City Parks and Recreation
Union City’s Community and Recreation Services (CRS) Department oversees the use and programming of the City’s parks, recreation facilities, fields, and community programs while Public Works Grounds Division oversees the general upkeep, maintenance, and repair of parks and facilities and works closely with the CRS Department. The CRS Department manages a broad network of parks, athletic fields and courts, indoor recreation facilities, and specialized amenities, ensuring these public spaces remain safe, well-maintained, and accessible. CRS manages facility scheduling and rentals and supports both daily operations and long-term planning for the City’s recreation system. To support these efforts, the CRS Department partners across City departments and external organizations to plan, host, and offer a variety of programs, services, and events throughout the year.
Beyond facility management, CRS delivers a wide range of programs that promote health, wellness, learning, and community connection. These offerings span youth and adult sports, aquatics, senior services, homeless support services, mental health and case management services, early childhood programs, therapeutic recreation, cultural arts, special events, recreation classes, and general resident services. Through their programming and strong partnership with the New Haven Unified School District, CRS helps ensure residents of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds have access to recreation and enrichment opportunities that benefit and strengthen community life.
1.4 Planning Context
Previously adopted plans, as well as ongoing planning efforts, inform the strategies of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This section outlines the City's relevant long range planning efforts, that will inform the development of the Master Plan recommendations and serves as the foundation upon which this document builds.
Hillside Area Plan (1995)
The City adopted the Hillside Area Plan in 1995 to guide development within the approximately 6,100-acre Hillside Area located to the north and east of Union City. The plan provides a policy framework for open-space preservation, resource protection, and the careful integration of future trails, recreational facilities, and public spaces within this sensitive landscape. It also informs the location and design of parks, trails, and greenways, ensuring that any amenities are developed with respect for environmental preservation, natural resource protection, scenic views, and long-term ecological sustainability. The Plan resulted in two ballot initiatives (Measure B and Measure II) and the allows for limited residential uses subject to preparation of a Specific Plan for the Hillside area.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
10 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1999)
The 1999 Union City Parks and Recreation Master Plan served as the City’s foundational long-range guide for developing, managing, and enhancing its park and recreation system. The plan provided a comprehensive framework for expanding the park system as Union City’s population increased, influencing the addition of new parks and recreation amenities over the past two decades. As the City now undertakes its first major update in more than 25 years, the 1999 plan remains an important reference point, highlighting both its past recommendations and the need for a modern, forward-looking approach to meet current and future community needs.
Climate Action Plan Update (CAP 2.0) (in progress)
Currently, the City is in the process of updating its 2010 Climate Action Plan (CAP). This update, known as CAP 2.0, will incorporate updated GHG emissions data and current state policy requirements to ensure consistency with applicable laws and guidance. CAP 2.0 will establish 2023 as the baseline year, updating the assumptions used in the 2010 CAP, and focuses on strategies that address the City’s largest sources of GHG emissions, including transportation and energy use.
CAP 2.0 is intended to inform the Master Plan by identifying potential strategies that may support reduced reliance on vehicle travel and encourage more sustainable access to parks, open spaces, and community facilities. Together, the two plans are expected to align policy direction and implementation approaches in ways that advance broader climate, mobility, and community livability objectives.
Union City 2040 General Plan (2019)
In 2019, Union City updated their General Plan through 2040. This document sets forth a set of standards and goals for the City to accomplish in various systems. The 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies, and implementation strategies that address a variety of topics, which directly impact the Union City community, including parks and open space. The following General Plan goals seek to protect and maintain open space, maintain and expand the parks and recreation system, and visualize a sustainable future.
● Goal Economic Development (ED)-4: Provide desirable amenities and create places that attract businesses to locate in Union City.
● Goal Health and Quality of Life (HQL)-2: Maintain, expand, and improve Union City’s parks and recreation facilities to meet existing and future needs. ● Goal HQL-3: Ensure that recreation, arts, culture, and other community programs reflect the diverse needs of the community and are available to all residents. ● Goal HQL-4: Facilitate the provision of social services for all Union City residents. ● Goal HQL-6: Meet the quality of life needs of Union City’s seniors through recreational, educational, housing, and daycare opportunities.
● Goal HQL-7: To ensure residents are given opportunities to participate in the land use planning and decision-making process through clear communication of information and engagement opportunities.
● Goal HQL-8: The City shall celebrate its diversity and work towards creating a community where residents feel safe and are free of prejudice and discrimination.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
11 ● Goal HQL-9: Ensure all members of the community have equal access to a clean and healthy environment.
● Goal Land Use (LU)-1: Strategically support infill development and redevelopment to transform Union City into a distinctive community with a dynamic, transit-oriented city center, attractive shopping and entertainment areas, and thriving and innovative work places.
● Goal LU-5: Foster development of residential neighborhoods that are attractive and safe. ● Goal LU-8: Provide for governmental, utility, institutional, educational, cultural, faithbased, and social facilities and services that are located and designed to complement and minimize incompatibility with Union City’s neighborhoods, commercial and employment districts, and nearby sensitive uses.
● Goal Community Design (CD)-1: Ensure physical changes to the built environment enhance the City’s form and help to create a stronger sense of place. ● Goal CD-2: Protect and enhance the visual and physical access to the hillsides, baylands, and creeks.
● Goal CD-5: To create a vibrant and inviting public realm that enhances Union City’s identity and encourages community gathering.
● Goal CD-6: Use public art as a way to beautify and enhance the public realm and create a sense of identity for Union City’s different neighborhoods and districts. ● Goal Mobility (M)-2: To provide a robust and interconnected bicycle and pedestrian circulation system throughout the City.
● Goal Public Facilities and Services (PF)-2: To operate and function in a sustainable manner, use public revenues and resources efficiently, and provide professional, highquality service to residents and businesses. ● Goal PF-3: Ensure the provision of a water system with adequate supply, distribution, and storage facilities to provide safe and reliable water to meet the existing and future needs of the City.
● Goal PF-5: Provide a stormwater collection system that reduces excess runoff and minimizes flood potential from existing and future development, reduces impacts to water quality, improves environmental quality, and incorporates nature-based flood management and green infrastructure.
● Goal PF-11: Ensure excellent schools that provide high-quality educational services, foster civic pride, and serve as neighborhood and community centers. ● Goal Special Areas (SA)-2: To develop the core of the Station District surrounding the Intermodal Station as a major transit hub, business center, and residential address that is well connected with the rest of the city.
● Goal SA-4: To transform the Station East area into a vibrant, 21st century employment district that is a center of prosperity and innovation, focused on providing a quality experience for those who live and work in Union City.
● Goal SA-5: To provide for a variety of housing opportunities and create additional open space and park opportunities along the Quarry Lakes Parkway site that will serve as a new gateway to Union City.
● Goal SA-10: To enhance the Decoto neighborhood and preserve the neighborhood’s historic character by protecting its historic buildings and the neighborhood’s pattern and scale.
● Goal SA-11: To preserve and enhance the “Old California Town” character of the Historic Alvarado District and continue to redevelop the Historic Alvarado District as a vibrant destination-oriented commercial center.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
12 Union City FY 2019-20 and FY 2024-25 Strategic Plan (2019) The City of Union City’s Strategic Plan for FY 2019–20 through FY 2024–25, adopted in September 2019, serves as the City Council’s overarching roadmap for setting priorities, guiding resource allocation, and strengthening long-term governance and service delivery. Several components of the plan directly support the parks and recreation planning effort, including commitments to maintain and improve city infrastructure, expand and enhance the bicycle and pedestrian network, and develop a ten-year parks operations, maintenance, and capital improvement plan. These priorities reinforce the Master Plan’s focus on equitable access, sustainable investment, and highquality recreational amenities, ensuring that the modernization of Union City’s park system aligns with broader citywide goals for connectivity, community well-being, and long-term resilience.
Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan (2021)
Union City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) provides a framework for strengthening connections between neighborhoods and parks, positioning walking and cycling as vital modes of access to recreation and open space. The BPMP outlines a multi-modal vision to make Union City more walkable, bikeable, and physically inclusive. The mended 2023 vision directly supports the goals of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan by improving active transportation to support equitable and safe connectivity to public assets such as parks and recreation facilities.
Station District Specific Plan (2022)
The Station District Specific Plan, adopted in October 2022, focuses on the area surrounding the Union City transit station, promoting higher-density residential, commercial, and mixed-use development while improving pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections. For the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Station District Specific Plan highlights opportunities to integrate pocket parks, green streets, plazas, and active recreation spaces within a transit-oriented development framework, ensuring that new growth is complemented by accessible open space and recreation amenities.
2023-2031 Housing Element (2023)
The 2023–2031 Housing Element Update, certified by the State of California in May 2023, is Union City’s strategic plan to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by accommodating 2,728 new units, including 1,358 affordable units. The City had approved 1,491 units as of May 2023, and also created new zoning districts in the City to help facilitate the development of housing (Alameda County Municipal Service Review Report, 2024). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an Addendum to the certified General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the increased demand for public services including future park facilities associated with the Cycle 7 Housing Element population projections. The General Plan EIR analysis concluded, "the impact on public services would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR, and there would be no new impacts beyond what the EIR evaluated. Several of the identified housing sites lie adjacent to or within special districts with planned open-space connections.”
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
13 Alameda County Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Review Report (2024)
The Local Agency Formation Commission of Alameda County (Alameda LAFCO) initiated this Community Services Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) update in 2023 for 14 cities, four special districts, and seven County Service Areas (CSAs) within the County. This MSR encompasses a comprehensive assessment of community services in Alameda County, including street maintenance and lighting, library, parks and recreation, mosquito and vector abatement, and lead abatement services. Key information on Union City’s plans and Capital Improvement Project (CIPs) allocation was provided in the MSR report.
Key Development Projects (Ongoing)
The following development projects are currently underway in Union City and are expected to influence future growth, land use, and infrastructure throughout the City. These projects were reviewed to provide context for the current and projected community needs, and to inform strategic planning for parks, recreation, and public amenities. Understanding these initiatives ensures that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan aligns with anticipated population growth, and emerging community priorities, supporting equitable access to high-quality recreational spaces across Union City. Parkland and amenities planned in these projects will be beneficial in fulfilling level of service needs if feasible.
Station East Residential/ Mixed-Use Area
The Station East Residential Project will facilitate the construction of approximately 811 market rate and affordable multi-family units, which will include additional park and open space opportunities. Designed to be pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly the project emphasizes connectivity to surrounding streets, transit, and regional trail networks, including the planned Quarry Lakes Parkway corridor.
Gateway Property
Initially owned by Caltrans, this property was transferred to the City to allow the construction of Quarry Lakes Parkway and to sell the remaining land for housing. This property is in the City’s Housing Element and is stated to accommodate approximately 535 market rate and affordable housing units. Detailed planning for the new neighborhood is in the beginning stages. As the process moves forward, there will be opportunity for public comment. For the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Station East provides opportunities for new growth and planned parks and public spaces that provide equitable access and support community programming within the City.
Quarry Lakes Parkway Project
The Quarry Lakes Parkway Project is a planned multi-use trail and roadway corridor designed to connect residential neighborhoods, transit hubs, and regional open spaces, including Quarry Lakes Regional Park and the Alameda Creek Trail. The project emphasizes walkability, bike access, and recreational connectivity, by creating safe, low-stress routes for active transportation and access to natural areas. For parks planning, the Parkway serves as a key corridor for linking new and
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
14 existing park facilities, enhancing regional trail access, and supporting recreational programming that integrates both local and regional open spaces. Arroyo Park is expected to gain acreage from this project, plans will need to be considered for future improvements on site.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
15 SECTION 2:
DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
16 Section 2: Demographics and Trends
Union City is home to a diverse population of 68,141 people2from various cultural, racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. Over forty-five percent (45%) of residents in the City were born outside the United States.
3 This diversity is one of Union City’s greatest strengths and a unifying element of the community.
As Union City continues to evolve, understanding changes in the community’s demographic profile is essential to anticipating and planning for future needs in the parks and recreation system. This demographic analysis, informed by data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the 2023–2031 Union City Housing Element Update (2023), provides a foundation for anticipating trends over the next 15 years to help guide future planning for parks and recreation in Union City.
2.1 Demographics Today
Age
Union City’s 2023 age profile reflects a maturing community with a distribution that has notable implications for long-term planning. The City’s median age is approximately 41, driven by a steadily increasing share of residents aged 65 and older, who now account for nearly seventeen percent (17%) of the population.
4 At the same time, youth under age 18 comprise about eighteen percent (18%) of all residents, demonstrating that families with children remain a significant component of the community. The duality of an expanding older adult population alongside a consistent youth presence indicates that Union City must plan for a broad spectrum of age-related needs. The resulting demographic structure emphasizes the importance of balancing investments in youth and senior programming, multigenerational amenities, and services that support healthy aging and accessibility.
Race and Ethnicity
Union City’s racial and ethnic composition in 2023 demonstrates a highly diverse and continuously evolving community profile. Asian residents comprise the majority of the population (56%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (19%), and White (18%) residents, with additional representation across Black or African American (5%), American Indian and Alaska Native (1%), Native Hawaiian 2 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05. Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2023.DP05?q=Union+City+city,+California. 3 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). Place of Birth by Nativity and Citizenship Status. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table B05002. Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2023.B05002?q=Union+City+city,+California. 4 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05. Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2023.DP05?q=Union+City+city,+California.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
17 and Pacific Islander (1%), and multiracial groups (10%). 5 The multiracial population in particular
continues to expand, reflecting broader regional and national trends toward increasing racial diversity. This vast range of cultural backgrounds shapes community expectations, facility use patterns, and service needs. As Union City continues to diversify, planning efforts must ensure that programs, communication strategies, and public spaces are culturally responsive, equitable, and reflective of the community’s multifaceted identity.
Languages
A substantial share of Union City residents speak a language other than English at home, demonstrating the City’s significant linguistic diversity and the need for inclusive communication strategies. In 2023, approximately sixty-four (64%) of residents reported speaking a non-English language, including those who speak Spanish (12%), Indo-European language (21%), and an Asian or Pacific Island language (30%).
6 Civic engagement and communication strategies should
continue to reach a wide range of language groups as inclusive language-access strategies support not only equitable outreach but also community integration and social cohesion.
Households and Families
Union City’s household profile reflects a predominantly family-oriented community supported by a housing stock largely composed of single-family homes. As of 2020, approximately sixty-three percent (63%) of all units were single-family detached homes, followed by thirteen percent (13%) single-family attached, four percent (4%) small multifamily (two to four units), sixteen percent (16%) larger multifamily buildings, and five percent (5%) mobile homes (Housing Element, 2023). 7 According to the most recent 2023 estimates, the City contains about 21,202 households with an average household size of 3.16 persons.
8 A significant majority of households have one or more people under 18 years old (34%), reflecting broader age trends in the community. Income distribution further shapes planning considerations, with fifty-six percent (56%) of households earning above the Area Median Income (AMI) of $137,194 in 2023, while ten percent (10%) fall below thirty percent (30%) of the AMI (Housing Element, 2023; U.S. Census Data, 2023). This household structure highlights the continued need for family-oriented and multigenerational amenities.
5 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05. Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2023.DP05?q=Union+City+city,+California. 6 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). Language Spoken at Home. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1601. Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1601?q=Union+City+city,+California. 7 Economic & Community Development Department. (2022, June). Housing Element 2023-2031. Union City; City of Union City.
8 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). Households and Families. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1101. Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1101?q=union+city.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
18 Disability Characteristics
Union City has a disability rate of ten percent (10%), slightly above the Alameda County average of
9.9% but below California’s overall rate of eleven percent (11%). Among residents aged 65 and older, approximately 70% report a disability, highlighting the need for accessible amenities, mobility support, and age-friendly services. Disabilities are also present across other age groups, with roughly twelve percent (12%) of adults aged 18–64 and five percent (5%) of youth under 18 affected.
9 These figures indicate the importance of designing programs and facilities that provide inclusive, accessible programs, services, and spaces for residents of all ages and abilities.
Table 2-1. Union City Demographic Data (2023)
Demographic Data Union City
City Jurisdiction Size / Area 19 Square Miles
Population (2023) 68,141
Race and Ethnicity Quantity Percentage
White 12,221 17.9%
Black or African American 3,627 5.3%
American Indian or Native American 571 0.8%
Asian 38,075 55.9%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander
588 0.9%
Other 6,524 9.6%
Two or More Races 6,535 9.6%
Hispanic 13,162 19.3%
Languages Spoken at Home other than English 40,335 64%
Total Households 21,202
Average Household Size
3.16 people per
household
Total Families 16,843
Average Family Size 3.54 people
Median Household Income (2023) $137,194
Residents living with a Disability 7,037 10.4%
9 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). Disability Characteristics. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1810. Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1810?q=union+city
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
19 2.2 Demographic Trends
Union City is undergoing significant demographic shifts, marked by both rapid aging and increasing diversity. Over the past decade, the City’s median age has risen (by 15%), driven largely by a fortythree percent (43%) surge in the older adult population. In contrast, the number of residents aged 18 and under has declined by twenty-six percent (26%), indicating that Union City is aging at an unprecedented pace.
At the same time, the City’s racial and ethnic makeup is becoming more diverse. Residents identifying as a single race declined by six percent (6%), with notable decreases among those identifying as White (–21%) and Black or African American (–7%). Meanwhile, populations identifying as American Indian, Asian, and especially two or more races have increased—the latter rising by 27%, the largest gain across all groups. These trends illustrate Union City’s shift away from a more homogenous racial profile toward a more multiracial and culturally varied community.
Additionally, the Hispanic population declined by fifteen percent (15%), indicating a broader transition in the City’s cultural landscape as Asian populations continue to grow.
While Union City is aging rapidly, the City’s ongoing investment in new mixed-use and multifamily housing provides an opportunity to attract younger households over time. This evolving demographic landscape will play a central role in shaping future community needs, services, and priorities.
Since 2012, the number of households in Union City has grown modestly, while the number of families has increased at a faster pace. Union City has a relatively high median household income of approximately $137,000, rising one hundred fifty percent (150%) over the past decade, indicating strong overall economic capacity among residents and a generally higher ability to participate in fee-based recreation programs. Meanwhile, approximately ninety-one percent (91%) of Union City’s workforce resides outside of the City, which could result in higher daytime use during the week since these users may visit local parks and public spaces during work hours in addition to Union City residents. However, parks will see their highest use still on weekends. While residentbased planning standards remain appropriate for long-term level-of-service calculations, the combination of high household incomes and a substantial inbound workforce suggest a need for a diverse recreation system that balances programmed amenities with accessible, low-barrier public spaces that serve both residents and visiting users.
As new high-density and affordable housing developments are also introduced, the family population is expected to continue growing and evolving. This will increase the demand for familyoriented amenities, including parks, playgrounds, and community programs that support children and caregivers, as well as potentially adjusted fee programs.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
20 2.3 Population Projections
Under the 2040 General Plan, Union City is projected to grow by approximately 11,486 residents by 2040, accompanied by 2,728 new housing units.
10 As outlined in the 2023–2031 Housing Element,
1,358 of these units must be affordable to very low- and low-income households to satisfy the City’s RHNA requirements.
11 The Station District represents the most significant opportunity area, with the capacity to accommodate roughly 4,000 new housing units and an associated population increase of about 9,400 residents.
12 This infusion of new housing will serve both current and future Union City households, contributing to a more compact, mixed-use, and transit-oriented community. As the City grows and density increases, demand on parks, recreation facilities, and community programs will intensify. This trajectory points to the need for strategic planning to ensure adequate parkland, accessible amenities, and continued maintenance and programming capacity to support a larger and more diverse population.
2.4 National Recreation Trends
Every year, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) publishes the most popular park and recreation trends. Over the past few years, the following trends point to several converging forces reshaping parks and recreation practice:
● Climate resilience and extreme-weather adaptation
● Shifting program preferences and participation patterns ● Increased emphasis on equity and therapeutic/adaptive services ● Technology and data integration for operations
● Ongoing fiscal and staffing pressures
Climate-related concerns, including increasing temperatures, regional wildfire smoke, and more frequent extreme weather events, are influencing how parks and recreation facilities are planned and used. Periods of extreme heat are increasing demand for shaded gathering areas, expanded tree canopy, cooling features such as water play and heat-resilient park materials. Episodes of poor air quality associated with wildfire smoke have heightened the importance of flexible indoor recreation and community spaces that can serve as temporary refuge areas, particularly for vulnerable populations. In addition, more intense storm events underscore the need for sustainable landscape design strategies, including improved drainage, permeable surfaces, and adaptive vegetation suited to changing climate conditions.13 10 Union City. (2019, December 10). 2040 General Plan. Union City; City of Union City. 11 Economic & Community Development Department. (2022, June). Housing Element 2023-2031. Union City; City of Union City.
12 Dyett & Bhatia. (2022, October). Union City Station District Specific Plan. Union City; City of Union City. 13 Dolesh, R. J. (2024, November 21). Top Tends in Parks and Recreation 2025. Retrieved from National Recreation and Park Association: https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2024/december/top-trends-in-parks-andrecreation-2025
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
21 Equity and inclusive access are central themes that agencies continue to prioritize in programming and capital to reach underserved communities, by expanding therapeutic and adaptive recreation, and removing access barriers (language, mobility, affordability). Recent trends illustrate the need for parks to serve both social and mental health goals, not just physical activity.
Operationally, NRPA’s Agency Performance Review and related resources emphasize persistent funding and staffing constraints, which increase the importance of partnerships, maintenance prioritization, and data-driven asset management. At the same time, technology (GIS, sensor data, market reports, etc.) is being used more widely to target services, justify investments, and optimize maintenance and programming.
Recent NRPA standards and performance benchmarks show that communities across the country are experiencing increased demand for close-to-home parks, multigenerational facilities, and culturally relevant programming; this closely mirrors Union City’s evolving demographics and development patterns. As Union City anticipates population growth, greater residential density, and shifting age and cultural compositions, NRPA trends provide a useful goal to stay relevant and meet community needs. This indicates that Union City’s parks and recreation system is operating within the same pressures and opportunities seen in comparable communities.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
22 SECTION 3:
PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM OVERVIEW
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
23 Section 3: Park and Recreation System Overview
Union City’s Community and Recreation Services (CRS) Department oversees a comprehensive network of 34 parks that include neighborhood and community parks, playgrounds, sports fields, tennis and basketball courts, picnic areas, two off-leash dog parks, and an interconnected system of inner-city trails and greenbelt. The CRS Department also operates seven indoor community recreation facilities which support year-round programming and community use. Across this system, Union City provides a broad spectrum of recreational opportunities for all age groups, including fitness and wellness activities, youth sports, cultural and community events, and programs for older adults. Collectively, these parks and facilities function as vital, well-used community assets that foster social connection and a strong sense of place.
3.1. Site Classifications
Union City does not currently utilize a formal park classification system. The 1999 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PR Master Plan 1999) referenced national standards for park classifications; however, these were not customized to reflect Union City’s unique system or community context. The PR Master Plan 1999 utilized the National Guidelines for Parks to classify Union City’s parks. These classifications are exhibited in Figure 3-1 and provide a description of the park characteristics and criteria for size and location. It is expected that this classification system will be updated and tailored to Union City in the updated Master Plan.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
24 Figure 3-1: 1999 Parks Master Plan Classification Guidelines (p.7)
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY REPORT
25 Figure 3-2. System-wide map of Union City’s parks and recreation facilities.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY REPORT
26 Figure 3-3. System-wide map of Union City’s parks.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY REPORT
27 Figure 3-4. System-wide map of Union City’s recreation facilities.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
28 3.2. Inventory
Union City maintains a well-developed and diverse parks and recreation system that includes a balanced mix of neighborhood and community parks, specialty facilities, plazas, and recreation facilities. The system provides residents with access to athletic fields, playgrounds, picnic areas, trails, sports courts, and community centers that support both passive and active recreation. Many parks are integrated into residential neighborhoods, reinforcing walkability, and passive recreation, while larger parks offer sports amenities, event spaces, reservable picnic areas, and programmed recreation opportunities that serve the broader City. Union City’s facilities reflect the community’s cultural and multigenerational character, offering spaces for youths, adults, seniors, and family gatherings. Overall, the City’s parks and recreation system serves as a vital public resource, supporting health, wellness, social connection, and access to nature for its growing and increasingly diverse population.
The 2040 General Plan (2019) highlights access to approximately 7,150 acres of open space land when including parks, recreational facilities, trails, and open space, with approximately 1,800 acres being publicly accessible.
Parks and Facilities
Union City offers a network of 34 parks (see Table 3-1) across 112.8 acres, including Decoto Plaza which is leased to a childcare agency and not operated or managed by the City of Union City at this time. In addition to its park system, the City operates seven recreation facilities including a senior center, teen center and teen workshop, youth center, sports fitness center, and boxing gym, offering multigenerational programming and year-round activities.
Open Space Parkland
Union City residents have access to several open space areas, such as Garin/Dry Creek Pioneer Regional Park which extends into the City, Quarry Lakes Regional Park bordering the City’s southern edge, and the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve situated directly west of the City. Within five miles are Vargas Plateau Regional Park, Coyote Hills Regional Park, and the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
Leased Parkland
● Liberty Park is on a 40-year lease signed July 11, 2011, between the City of Union City and the Liberty Park Homeowners Association (“Lessor”), a California nonprofit. According to the agreement, the City maintains and programs the park. Any major site improvements are at the cost and expense of the City and in coordination with the Lessor. The City is permitted to use the property for public use, including without limitation: park and recreation facilities/centers, swimming pools, sound wall(s), picnic areas, and parking lots. ● Cesar Chavez Park (adjacent to Old Alvarado Park) is owned by the State Land Commission. The City upgraded the park several years ago, but any additional improvements will require a written agreement. The Commission has stated that the land is not to be developed and will remain a park site.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
29 Table 3-1. Union City Park and Facility Inventory
Park Name Acreage District Address
1 Accinelli Park 4.1 4 4525 Navarro Drive
2 Arroyo Park 5.7 1 35199 Perry Road
3 Casa Verde Park 11.8 3 3161 San Juan Place
4 Cerruti Park 0.3 4 4572 Novato Street
5 Charles F. Kennedy Park 10.5 2 1333 Decoto Road
6 Contempo Park 8.2 4 32300 Meteor Drive
7 Courthouse Landing Park 0.4 3 Cambridge Way & Barrons Way #7 8 Decoto Plaza (under lease) 0.5 2 500 E Street
9 Drigon Dog Park 2.6 2 Seventh Street & Mission Boulevard 10 Dry Creek Park 2.3 2 1003 Westgard Street
11 Fred Castro Park 0.2 2 Tenth Street & G Street (1000 G Street) 12 Heritage Oak Park 0.2 1 2505 Trailside Way
13 Liberty Park 1 3 Amy Place (3834 Amy Place)
14 Mariner Park 4.4 3 Regents Boulevard & Dorado Drive
15 Old Alvarado/ Cesar Chavez Park 4.3 3 3871 Smith Street 16 Pacific Point Park 0.3 2 1127 Silver Street
17 Park Ridge Park 0.4 2 34773 Chesapeake Drive
18 Pioneer Park 2.4 4 48 38 Blythe Street (Jean Dr & Blythe St) 19 Ponderosa Cove Park 0.2 4 34750 Williams Way
20 Pride Rock Park (DIPSA) 0.3 1 1882 Flagstone Drive
21 San Andreas Park 3.9 3 31321 San Andreas Drive
22 Seabreeze Park 7.8 4 32600 Carmel Way
23 Seven Hills Park 3.4 2 384 Florence Street
24 Shorty Garcia Park 3 2 33940 Seventh Street
25 Station Plaza 1.9 2 34937 11th Street & Duncan Way
26 Sugar Mill Landing Park 1.8 3 Alvarado-Niles Road & Dyer Street 27 Tidewater Park 0.6 3 30694 Tidewater Drive
28 Town Estates Park 6 1 2438 Andover Drive
29 Union Landing Park 0.9 4 33000 Regents Boulevard
30 Veterans Memorial Park 7.8 4 4525 Dyer Street
31 William Cann Civic Center Park 7.2 1 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road 32 William Cann Neighborhood Park 7.5 1 Marsh Hawk Road & Dowe Avenue 33 Willow Park (DIPSA) 0.73 2 120 Blue Spruce Lane
34 Windflower Park (DIPSA) 0.18 2 34533 Windflower Lane TOTAL ACREAGE 112.8
Facility Name Sq Ft District Address
1 10th Street Community Center (Boxing gym) 4,700 2 33948 10th Street 2 Holly Community Center 18,200 3 31600 Alvarado Boulevard 3 Kennedy Youth Center 11,000 2 1333 Decoto Road
4 Mark Green Sports Center 34,000 3 31224 Union City Boulevard 5 Larry Orozco Teen Bike Workshop 1,800 2 33623 Mission Boulevard 6 Ruggieri Senior Center 14,500 2 33997 Alvarado-Niles Road 7 William May Jr. Teen Center 4,000 2 1200 J Street
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 88,200
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
30 Trails
Union City works in collaboration with East Bay Regional Park District and the Alameda County Flood Control District to co-manage and connect to regional trail systems, notably linking to Quarry Lakes, Dry Creek, Coyote Hills, and Ardenwood Historic Farm. The City also partners with Alameda County, particularly via transportation planning and multi-use trail development in the Alameda Creek/Niles Canyon corridor, reflecting a shared commitment to expanding active access to natural areas. Additionally, Union City plays a role in the San Francisco Bay Trail network, coordinating with regional bodies associated with the Bay Trail Partners and other local jurisdictions to complete trail gaps and ensure continuity across jurisdictional boundaries. Table 3- 2 showcases the existing trail segments within Union City that residents have access to and the City shares responsibilities with the other agencies.
Table 3-2. Trails in Union City.
Trail Segment Start End Length
Dry Creek Trail Whipple Road Mission Boulevard 0.36
Union City Boulevard (Bay Trail) North City limit (Old Alameda Creek/Ward Creek)
Southern City limit (Alameda
Creek)
3.36 Ponderosa Landing Greenway Stream/Channel Bulmer Street 0.35 Seabreeze Trail Creek Carmel Way 0.3
Old Alameda Creek Trail North City limit (Old Alameda
Creek/Ward Creek)
Smith Street/Alvarado Niles Road
Intersection
1.3 Dyer Trail Smith Street/Alvarado Niles
Road Intersection
Whipple Road 0.63
Alameda Creek Trail Connector
(Interstate 880)
San Andreas Drive William Cann Park at Alameda
Creek Trail
1.15 Alameda Creek Trail Connector
(Alvarado Niles Road)
Alameda Creek 13th Street 1.9
Alameda Creek Trail Connector
(Civic Center)
Alameda Creek Decoto Road 0.62
Decoto Neighborhood Trail H Street D Street 0.34
Alameda Creek Trail (East-West) Eastin Court /South City limit Decoto Road .83 Paved (3.54 total distance)
Total managed trails 11.14
3.3. Distribution and Equity
Union City’s parks and recreation system is influenced by the physical separation created by Interstate 880, which divides the City into eastern and western areas with distinct development patterns and characteristics. While the west side contains some of the City’s most established, heavily used, and well-loved community parks, many of which serve as major gathering and activity hubs, it also includes a higher proportion of older, compact neighborhoods with limited land for new park development. As a result, smaller parks are more common on the west side of Union City.
On the east side, where more recent residential growth has occurred, the park system tends to include larger and newer park sites, providing broader recreation options but serving a more
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
31 dispersed population. Smaller parks, though prevalent, are not as common as on the west side.
This spatial arrangement creates a nuanced distribution pattern of which both sides of the City benefit from significant assets, yet their park types, capacities, and surrounding conditions differ.
These dynamics demonstrate the importance of understanding geographic barriers, neighborhood formation, public policies and investments, and historic development patterns shape park access and service levels throughout Union City.
Recreation facilities, similar to parks, also differ between the east and west sides of Union City.
Though extremely popular and beloved, the west side, only hosts two out of the seven recreation facilities operated by the City (see Figure 3-4). The Mark Green Sports Center and Holly Community Center both serve a wide variety of age groups and uses. Five of the seven facilities are located on the east side and provide a multitude of recreation opportunities and uses, including youth, teen, and senior centers, as well as a boxing gym and teen bike shop.
Furthermore, while the City has 34 parks and seven recreation facilities, residents also have access to nearby regional parks and trails, the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and New Haven Unified School Districts facilities and amenities. Together, these assets illustrate that the distribution of facilities across Union City is shaped by land use regulations, public investment priorities, public partnerships, and historic development patterns, in combination with available land, producing distinct but complementary open space, parks, sports fields, and facility networks on each side of Interstate 880.
½ Mile Walkshed
A ½-mile walkshed analysis, generated utilizing the Trust for Public Land’s ParkServe database (2025), to determine which residents can reach a park within a comfortable 10-minute walk. It highlights where park access is strong and where gaps exist, supporting more equitable planning and helping identify areas that may need new parks or improved pedestrian connections.
According to the ParkServe database (2025), ninety-two percent (92%) of Union City residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, which is very high compared to many other U.S. cities.
This analysis illustrates that Union City’s existing parks provide strong coverage across much of the community, particularly in residential areas on both the east and west sides of the City. The light green service areas illustrated from each park shown in Figure 3-5 displays that many neighborhoods fall within a short walk of a park or open space, demonstrating a generally welldistributed system at a citywide scale. However, the purple areas, which represent locations not served by a 10-minute walk radius, highlight meaningful gaps where residents lack convenient pedestrian access to a neighborhood-serving park.
While Union City’s park system provides robust walkable access across many existing neighborhoods, some gaps remain, particularly in developing, industrial, and geographically constrained areas. As the City continues to infill and densify, especially around the Station District and major corridors, ensuring an equitable 10-minute access requires strategic placement of new
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
32 parks, joint-use partnerships, and thoughtful integration of open space into redevelopment projects. Several patterns that emerge from this analysis include:
● The central and southwestern portions of Union City exhibit the most extensive overlap of 10-minute walking sheds, reflecting the high concentration of parks in these residential areas. This indicates relatively strong walkable access for many neighborhoods. No new park sites need to be prioritized in this area.
● The purple areas along the northern border and portions of the southeastern neighborhoods show clear gaps in park access. However, these areas encompass industrial, commercial, or private residential areas that include privately owned green spaces that provide access for nearby workers or residents. ● Interstate 880 acts as a geographic barrier for walkable access. Even if parks lie within a short geographic distance, limited pedestrian crossings and the scale of the freeway reduce realistic walking access, contributing to gaps near the corridor. ● The Station District and nearby mixed-use redevelopment zones contain fewer existing parks and therefore show less coverage. As these areas absorb Union City’s future population growth, the gap in walkable park access will become more pronounced unless new parks or publicly accessible open spaces are integrated into redevelopment plans. The Station District Specific Plan currently dedicates land for park and open space. It is integral the City ensures the development of these dedicated park and open space areas as these projects are constructed to increase available parkland to residents. ● Open space is extensive along the eastern hills and western shoreline, providing residents access to these areas and contributing to overall parkland distribution equity.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
33 Figure 3-5. ½-mile Walkshed in Union City Relative to Parks and Facilities (TFPL ParkServe, 2025).
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
34 Public Transit Access
Union City Transit is the City’s locally operated bus system. Its routes are coordinated with the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) transit system train schedules and provides seamless connections to Alameda County (AC) Transit and the Dumbarton Express, offering unified access to transportation options throughout the Bay Area.
Since these transit services intersect or pass near many of the City’s parks, community centers, and sports facilities, residents without cars, including youth and seniors, have reliable publictransport access to a wide range of recreation amenities. For example, major centers such as Holly Community Center and Mark Green Sports Center are reachable via these bus networks, as are several neighborhood parks. Beyond fixed-route bus service, Union City Transit also provides micro-transit (“Flea”) and ADA-required paratransit options. The system’s operations are partially supported by funding from Measure BB, a countywide sales tax approved by Alameda County voters which helps sustain local transit services.
The geographic distribution of parks across the Decoto, Alvarado, and newer residential areas align well with these transit routes, ensuring that most transit-served neighborhoods have walkable access to a park or recreation facility. Planned projects, such as the Quarry Lakes Parkway, will strengthen this connectivity further by introducing a multi-use path and enhanced east-west corridor linking residents, transit stops, and several regional open-space destinations, including Dry Creek Regional Park, Quarry Lakes, and Alameda Creek Trail.
Despite these strengths, several challenges limit full transit-based park access. Many bus routes serving park-adjacent corridors have reduced frequency during evenings and weekends, the highest recreational use time. Additionally, the walkability and comfort of routes between bus stops and parks vary; areas with incomplete sidewalks, insufficient lighting, or sparse bike infrastructure can pose barriers.
Table 3-3. Union City Transit Bus Routes Providing Access to Parks Park Bus Routes
Dry Creek Park 1, 3, 8
Charles F. Kennedy Park 1, 2, 5, 9
Accinelli Park 3, 8
Old Alvarado Park / Community Park 5, 7
Casa Verde Park 2, 9
Seven Hills Park 3
Arroyo Park 2
Veterans Memorial Park 7
Seabreeze Park 7
Contempo Park 7
Pioneer Park 2
Shorty Garcia Park 3
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
35 Figure 3-6. Union City Public Transit Map (Union City Transit, 2025).
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
36 3.4 Level of Service
A Level of Service (LOS) analysis comparing Union City to national standards and similar peer communities provides a framework for evaluating how well Union City’s parks, recreation facilities, and amenities meet the current and future needs of its residents. By evaluating the quantity and capacity of recreation assets relative to population size, a LOS analysis identifies service gaps, areas where demand exceeds capacity, and areas of strong system performance. For Union City, a community experiencing demographic change, varied development patterns on the east and west sides, and increased pressure on aging infrastructure, this analysis is essential for understanding how equitably and effectively the park system serves residents today and how it must evolve to support a growing and diversifying population in the future.
National Standard Comparison
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) publishes widely recognized standards and median values that help municipalities assess whether their parks and recreation systems align with common practices across the country. By comparing Union City’s current inventory to NRPA’s national benchmarks, this analysis provides a deeper perspective on how well the existing system meets typical levels of service, where it exceeds national norms, and where opportunities for improvement may exist. This comparison supports long-range planning decisions and ensures that Union City’s parks and recreation system remains responsive to evolving community expectations and industry best practices.
Parkland
Union City’s managed parkland level of 1.66 acres per 1,000 residents falls below NRPA benchmarks, placing the City far outside even the lower quartile for agencies serving 50,000 to 99,999 residents, where typical provision ranges from 4.7 acres (lower quartile) to 9.2 acres (median) and up to 16.5 acres (upper quartile) per 1,000 residents (Figure 3-4). This means Union City provides only about eighteen percent (18%) of the NRPA median and less than half of the lower-quartile standard, indicating one of the more constrained parkland supplies among peer communities nationwide. Such limited acreage restricts the City’s capacity to meet demands and limits opportunities for equitable distribution of recreational access. To achieve even minimal alignment with national norms, Union City would need to add additional acres of parkland, indicating the critical need for a long-term, proactive parkland acquisition strategy as a component of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
While Union City’s managed parkland falls below NRPA benchmarks, it is uniquely situated in proximity to substantial publicly accessible open space that is owned and managed by other agencies, such as East Bay Regional Park District, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Alameda County Water District, and New Haven Unified School District. When this additional parkland and open space are considered, the total acreage available to Union City residents increases to approximately 1,800 acres, resulting in a LOS of 26 acres per 1,000 residents. This
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
37 service level substantially exceeds peer community and national benchmarks and significantly expands access to outdoor recreation opportunities for residents.
Figure 3-7 showcases NRPA’s national standard for parkland in jurisdictions with a population of 50,000-99,999 people, which Union City falls into with its 68,000 population. The average is relatively 9.2 acres per 1,000 residents, with the lower quartile being closer to 4.7 acres per 1,000 residents. This averages the national standard and does not take into consideration available land and urban density.
Figure 3-7 Number of residents per park for jurisdiction of 20,000-50,000 residents (NRPA, 2025).
Recreation Facilities
Union City manages 88,200 square feet of indoor space, equating to approximately 1.3 square-feet per resident. As shown in Table 3-4, Union City generally meets or exceeds NRPA standards for most recreation facility types. However, to align more closely with current national benchmarks, the City would benefit from the addition of a recreation center in the near term, offering two recreation centers in the City when considering the Mark Green Sports Center. Looking ahead, anticipated population growth further reinforces the need for a new recreation/sports center, senior center, and community center long-term to ensure the system continues to meet evolving community needs and supports equitable access to indoor recreation opportunities.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
38 Table 3-4. NRPA Comparison, Community Facilities, 2025. 2025 NRPA Recreation Community
Facilities
Population per Facility
UNION CITY
Union City Level of
Service
(2026 - existing)
Total Needed to Meet NRPA
Standard
Jurisdiction: 50,000 to 99,000 people
Union
City
Existing
Quantity
Number of
Union City
Residents
Served per
Facility
Additional
Quantity
Needed for
Union City’s
2026 Population
Additional
Quantity
Needed for
Union City to
Meet 2040
Projected
Population
Facilities
Number of
Residents per
Facility Pop: 68,141 Pop: 79,845
Recreation/Sports
Facility
(includes gyms)
1 per 31,805 2 1 per 34,071 +1 (3 total)
Meets
Standard
Community
Centers 1 per 50,284 1 1 per 68,141 Meets Standard +1 (2 total) Senior Centers 1 per 64,937 1 1 per 68,141 Meets Standard +1 (2 total) Aquatic Centers 1 per 60,770 0* 0 per 68,141 Meets Standard +1 (1 total) Teen/Youth
Centers 1 per 59,694 3 1 per 22,714 Meets Standard Meets Standard * A community pool is available in the summer months via a JUA with New Haven Unified School District.
Amenities
Shown in Table 3-5, Union City meets or exceeds NRPA standards for the majority of outdoor recreation facility types. Amenities such as playgrounds, basketball courts, tennis courts, dog parks, outdoor pools, skate parks, volleyball court, and synthetic fields show no current shortfalls when LOS is calculated using the City’s current (2023) population of 68,141. These findings suggest the City has invested in a balanced mix of facilities that generally align well with national standards.
Although Union City meets the baseline NRPA standard in some areas, the comparison identifies several recreation facility categories where the City falls below NRPA recommended provision levels. The gaps identified below represent opportunities for future strategic improvements and investments for the City’s parks and recreation system. ● Diamond fields represent one of the most significant unmet facility needs. Even with a population growth of almost 80,000 by 2040, the shortfall remains the same due to the City’s current ratio being far below the NRPA benchmark. ● Rectangular multi-use fields are in high demand and currently undersupplied at more than double the NRPA standard. As a core amenity supporting soccer, lacrosse, football, and multi-sport programming, this gap represents a key planning priority.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
39 ● Pickleball continues to be one of the fastest-growing recreational activities nationally.
Union City currently provides no dedicated pickleball courts, placing it well below national norms. Introducing pickleball courts or providing them through a joint-use agreement would help meet community demand and align with established standards. ● The City currently operates at a slightly lower-than-recommended level of service for aquatic facilities. With expected population growth, constructing an aquatic facility, in addition to the New Haven Unified School District's Dan Oden Swim Complex, or a splash pad play feature would bring Union City into alignment with national standards.
In summary, to meet the 2025 NRPA standards for outdoor recreation amenities, Union City will need to add seven (7) diamond fields, six (6) rectangular fields, two (2) tennis courts, eight (8) pickleball courts, and one (1) swimming pool or splash pad by 2040. However, through Union City’s joint use agreement with the New Haven Unified School District, the service levels for tennis courts and rectangular fields are satisfied and only three (3) diamond fields are needed.
It is important to note that NRPA level-of-service (LOS) standards are provided for informational and comparative purposes only and may not fully reflect City priority or current park usage patterns and community demand. Thus, the NRPA benchmarks serve as a reference point rather than a required standard.
As the Master Plan process advances, the project team will evaluate these considerations alongside peer city comparisons and City staff and community feedback to confirm local demand, prioritize investments, and ensure that future facility improvements support equitable access for residents across all areas of the City. The Master Plan will ultimately identify a realistic allocation of amenities that reflects local conditions and community priorities while working to enhance overall levels of service for desired park and recreation facilities.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
40 Table 3-5. NRPA Comparison, Outdoor Amenities, 2025
2025 NRPA Outdoor Park and
Recreation Facilities
Population per Facility
UNION CITY
Union City Level of
Service
(2026 – Existing)
Total Needed to Meet NRPA Standard
Jurisdiction: 50,000 to 99,000 people
Union
City
Existing
Quantity
Number of
Union City
Residents
Served per
Amenity
Additional Quantity
Needed for Union
City’s 2026
Population
Additional Quantity
Needed for Union
City to meet 2040
Project Population
Amenity
Number of
Residents per
Amenity Pop: 68,141 Pop: 79,845
Playgrounds 1 per 3,643 35 1 per 1,947 Meet Standard Meet Standard Basketball Courts 1 per 8,447 16 1 per 4,259 Meet Standard Meet Standard Diamond fields 1 per 4,560 8 1 per 8,518 +7 (15 total) Meet Standard Rectangular fields 1 per 5,946 5 1 per 13,628 +6 (11 total) Meet Standard Tennis Courts 1 per 5,818 10 1 per 6,814 +2 (12 total) Meet Standard Dog parks 1 per 55,250 2 1 per 34,071 Meet Standard Meet Standard Swimming pools
(outdoor) 1 per 48,064 0 0 per 68,141 Meet Standard +1 (1 total) Skate parks 1 per 61,384 1 1 per 68,141 Meet Standard Meet Standard Pickleball courts 1 per 8,592 0 0 per 68,141 +8 (8 total) Meet Standard Volleyball courts 1 per 29,214 1 1 per 68,141 +1 (1 total) Meet Standard Fitness zones/exercise
stations 1 per 32,500 13 1 per 5,242 Meet Standard Meet Standard Splash pads / spray
grounds 1 per 51,000 0 0 per 68,141 +1 (1 total) Meet Standard Synthetic fields 1 per 33,799 2 1 per 34,071 Meet Standard Meet Standard Peer Community Benchmark Comparison
In addition to evaluating Union City’s parkland and amenity levels of service against NRPA national benchmarks, it is also important to understand how the City compares to local peer city benchmarks. A benchmark comparison study between Union City and three peer cities (Newark, San Leandro, and Milpitas) was conducted to understand the successes and gaps in Union City’s park and recreation system, and identify areas where the City can capitalize and expand on certain assets offered (see Table 3-6). These peer communities were selected based on similarities to Union City in terms of location, population size, demographics, community scale, and park and recreation system characteristics. Some residents from these communities also utilize Union City parks and facilities, providing useful context for evaluating which amenities and service models may be most effective in meeting local and regional park and recreation needs.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
41 Table 3-6. Union City Comparison to Peer Cities: Benchmark Community Demographics Data Points Union City Newark San Leandro Milpitas
City Jurisdiction Size / Area 19 Sq.Mi. 14 Sq.Mi. 15 Sq.Mi. 14 Sq.Mi.
Population (2023) 68,141 47,145 88,531 78,216
Median Household Income (2023) $137,194 $164,909 $98,068 $208,941 Race and Ethnicity Qnty % Qnty % Qnty % Qnty %
White 12,221 17.9% 11,044 23.4% 22,417 25.3% 9,077 11.6% Black or African American 3,627 5.3% 1,727 3.7% 8,778 9.9% 1,601 2.1% American Indian or Native
American 571 0.8% 387 0.8% 1,134 1.3% 260 0.3%
Asian 38,075 55.9% 20,316 43.1% 31,055 35.1% 56,274 72.0% Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander 588 0.9% 738 1.6% 1,173 1.3% 79 0.1%
Other 6,524 9.6% 6,303 13.4% 12,972 14.7% 5,703 7%
Two or More Races 6,535 9.6% 6,630 14.1% 11,002 12.4% 5,222 7% Hispanic 13,162 19.3% 13,499 28.6% 25,460 28.8% 9,077 13% *Demographic data: U.S. Census 2023 5-year American Community Survey (referenced in November 2025).
Union City occupies a mid-range position among its peer cities in both size and population, with a land area of 19 square miles—larger than Newark and Milpitas and slightly larger than San Leandro—and a population of approximately 68,000, placing it between Newark and the more populous San Leandro and Milpitas. Economically, Union City’s median household income ($137,194) is significantly higher than San Leandro’s but lower than the more affluent Newark and Milpitas, suggesting a socio-economic profile characterized by relative stability but with notable affordability pressures common across the region. Racial and ethnic composition is where Union City stands out most distinctly: the City has a majority Asian population (56%), a demographic characteristic shared with Milpitas (72%) but far more pronounced than in Newark (43%) and San Leandro (35%). Union City’s proportions of White, Black, Hispanic, and multiracial residents generally fall between the lower ranges seen in Milpitas and the higher levels found in Newark and San Leandro, reinforcing its position as a highly diverse but uniquely Asian-majority community.
Parkland, Facility, and Amenity LOS Assessment
This Level of Service (LOS) analysis evaluates how Union City’s provision of parkland and recreation amenities compares with three peer communities—Newark, San Leandro, and Milpitas.
The findings help identify relative strengths, deficiencies, and opportunities for targeted investment as the City plans for future community needs. Table 3-6 displays how Union City compares to its peer communities in, parkland acreage, indoor recreation facilities, and other amenity assets.
Parkland
Union City maintains 34 parks, representing a moderately sized park system when compared with its peer cities. While Newark provides fewer parks and Milpitas and San Leandro operate larger systems, Union City performs well when park supply is measured in relation to population. With 2,065 residents per park, Union City exceeds the performance of both Newark and San Leandro and closely aligns with the peer average. This indicates that Union City residents enjoy comparatively strong access to local parks.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
42 In terms of acreage, Union City provides 112.8 acres of parkland, which is similar in scale to San Leandro but lower than both Newark and Milpitas. When population is considered, Union City offers 1.66 acres per 1,000 residents, slightly below the peer average of 2.08 acres but higher than San Leandro. Union City would need to add approximately 20-30 acres of parkland to meet the average.
However, as previously noted, when considering the adjacent open space lands and New Haven Unified School District facilities, the level of service jumps to 26 acres per 1,000 residents – far exceeding its peers and national standard. Identifying ways to maximize or build more developed parks remains integral to the master plan process as additional parkland offers opportunities to explore expanded connections, enhanced usability, and resident awareness initiatives.
Community Recreation Facilities
Union City maintains seven community recreation facilities, exceeding the number offered by its peer jurisdictions. By providing a broader range of facilities, including multiple youth/teen centers and a sports center with an indoor gym, Union City’s residents benefit from a notably high level of access to dedicated amenities. The City’s offering of senior and community facilities compares fairly well with its peers.
Union City offers 1.29 square feet of indoor recreation space per resident, which is significantly higher than the peer average of 1.07 square feet. As a result, Union City outperforms the peer city average in overall facility offerings.
Table 3-7. Union City Comparison to Peer Cities: Level of Service Analysis, 2025.
City UNION CITY NEWARK SAN LEANDRO MILPITAS PEER CITY
AVG. 2023 Population 68,141 47,145 88,531 78,216
Parks and Facilities Totals
Total Parks
Total Parks
34 14 26 36 25
Total Park Acres 112.8 126.0 104.0 187.0 139
Acres per 1,000
people 1.66 2.67 1.17 2.39 2.08
Total Facilities
Total Facilities 7 3 6 6 5
Total Square
Feet 88,200 79,000 53,000 72,342 68,114
Resident per
1 Square Foot 1.29 1.68 0.60 0.92 1.07
Recreation Facilities
Recreation Center
with Gym
Residents per 1
facility
Quantity: 2
34,071
Quantity: 1
47,145
-
Quantity: 1
78,216 78,216
Community Center
Residents per 1
facility per Quantity: 1
68,141
Quantity: 1
47,145
Quantity: 1
88,531
Quantity: 1
78,216 63,440
Senior Center
Residents per 1
facility
Quantity: 1
68,141
Quantity: 1
47,145
Quantity: 1
88,531
Quantity: 1
78,216 71,297
Aquatics Center
Residents per 1
facility
Quantity:
0*
Quantity: 1
47,145
Quantity: 1
88,531
Quantity: 1
78,216 71,297
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
43 UNION CITY NEWARK SAN LEANDRO MILPITAS PEER CITY
AVG.
Teen / Youth
Center
Residents per 1
facility
Quantity: 3
22,714 - -
Quantity: 1
78,216 78,216
Park Amenities
Diamond Field
(Baseball/ Softball)
Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 8
8,518
Quantity: 7
6,735
Quantity: 11
7,111
Quantity: 11
7,111 6,985
Rectangular Field Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 5
13,628
Quantity: 6
7,858
Quantity: 3
29,510
Quantity: 5
15,643 17,670
Multi-use Field Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 4
17,035
Quantity: 8
5,893
Quantity: 1
88,531 - 47,212
Basketball Court Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 16
4,259
Quantity: 6
2,245
Quantity: 5
5,902
Quantity: 8
4,601 4,249
Tennis Court Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 10
6,814
Quantity: 8
5,893
Quantity: 17
5,208
Quantity: 25
3,129 4,743
Volleyball Court Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 1
68,141
Quantity: 1
47,145
Quantity: 4
22,133
Quantity: 1
78,216 49,165
Playground Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 35
1,947
Quantity: 10
3,143
Quantity: 25
2,767 Quantity: 26
1,955
2,622
Picnic Areas
(reservable)
Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 24
2,839 -
Quantity: 25
3,541
Quantity: 6
13,036 8,289
Skate Park Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 1
68,141
Quantity: 1
47,145
Quantity: 1
88,531
Quantity: 1
78,216 71,297
Dog Park Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 2
34,071
Quantity: 1
47,145
Quantity: 1
88,531
Quantity: 2
39,108 58,261
Restroom Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 10
6,814
Quantity: 3
15,715
Quantity: 14
6,324
Quantity: 18
4,345 8,795
Amphitheater Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 2
34,071 -
Quantity: 3
29,510
Quantity: 9
8,691 19,101
Fitness Areas Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 13
5,242 - -
Quantity: 18
4,345 4,345
Aquatics
Pool Residents per 1
amenity
Quantity: 0 Quantity: 1
47,145
Quantity: 3
29,510
Quantity: 3
26,072 34,242
Splash Pad Residents per 1
amenity Quantity: 0
Quantity: 1
47,145 - - 47,145
Amenity Distribution
Union City generally provides better-than-average access to several high-demand amenities, particularly those that serve neighborhood and community recreation needs. Overall, residents benefit from favorable access to:
● Playgrounds, with the strongest ratio among all peer cities. ● Reservable picnic areas, outperforming the peer average and supporting family and group activities.
● Basketball courts and tennis courts, both of which meet or exceed peer standards. ● Multi-use and rectangular sports fields, which remain competitive and often outperform peer ratios, indicating that field capacity is meeting current demand. ● Fitness areas, offering more than two of the three peer communities.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
44 These strengths emphasize the City has placed consistent emphasis on providing accessible park and facility amenities that serve a broad range of users.
Gaps and Opportunities
The analysis reveals several areas where Union City underperforms or where amenity access may be insufficient in meeting community expectations and improvements to current facilities and parks that should be prioritized.
Although the City’s park acreage meets a reasonable standard relative to its population, particularly when considering adjacent open spaces and school district facilities, data suggests that additional parkland acquisition for developed neighborhoods or community parks may be needed over time to remain competitive with regional peers and to effectively serve future growth.
Therefore, Master Plan recommendations should include strategies and ideas for parkland acquisition, development projects with dedicated parkland, and prioritization of additional joint use agreements, and expanding partnerships with public and private agencies to fulfill such needs over the next 15 years.
A clear strength of Union City is its offering of community recreation facilities. However, while there is a benefit to having multiple youth and teen oriented recreation spaces, it also highlights the potential need to expand multi-generational program spaces and facilities (i.e., community and recreation centers) to meet the evolving needs of an aging and growing community.
The most notable service gap for amenities and key facilities is in aquatics. The Dan Oden Swim Complex, the largest swimming pool in Union City, is owned by the New Haven Unified School District. Through a joint use agreement, the Swim Complex is available to the City to offer programming to the general public during the spring and summer months. Unfortunately, this results in a significantly insufficient aquatic service ratio in comparison to all the peer cities that offer pool facilities, indicating an unmet need for additional aquatic capacity. Similarly, Union City does not currently offer a splash pad, a feature available in some peer cities and increasingly expected as a family-friendly amenity today. Furthermore, some specialized features such as amphitheaters and dog parks, are more limited to Union City residents compared to peer communities. These service level gaps present opportunities for the City to diversify its recreation and facilities system for year-round programming and activities for all ages.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
45 SECTION 4:
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
46 Section 4: Community Outreach
4.1. Overview
To meaningfully inform the strategic direction, priorities, and recommendations, of the Union City Parks and Recreation Master Plan, community outreach was critically important to ensure broad, inclusive participation. Through a collaborative effort by Union City staff and the consultant team, the initial phase of the project included a first round of public engagement (Round 1) to understand how residents use parks and recreation facilities today, identifying challenges within the current system, and clarifying priorities for the next 15+ years.
Between August and October 2025, the City implemented a comprehensive outreach plan to engage residents and community stakeholders of all ages in the project through promotional activities and materials, such as email announcements, social media, community events, dedicated project website, and flyers. As a result, the City outreached more broadly to over 58,000 community members, and reached over 16,000 residents with targeted engagement activities that generated input and feedback from more than 900 participants. More specifically, outreach efforts included a citywide community survey, two pop-up events at well-attended community gatherings, a virtual meeting, and 17 stakeholder focus groups representing youth, seniors, sports organizations, elected officials, community members, City leadership and staff, school/school district, and other key partners.
Across all outreach activities, a consistent message emerged: Union City’s parks and recreation system is highly valued and heavily used, and the community wants to see thoughtful reinvestment to ensure facilities remain safe, inclusive, modern, and welcoming for future generations.
Outreach Process
The community outreach and engagement activities conducted throughout the first phase of the project (Round 1) were designed to gather broad, representative input on existing conditions, community priorities, and long-term aspirations for parks and recreation facilities and programming. The engagement strategy included multi-lingual materials, digital and in-person formats, and activities hosted at established community events to encourage inclusive participation. A community survey provided statistically meaningful input regarding priorities and trends, while pop-up events and stakeholder meetings added context, nuance, and a deeper understanding of community concerns.
This multi-layered engagement approach generated both quantitative data and qualitative insights and ensured input reflected Union City’s diverse community, including youth, families, seniors, community organizations, elected officials, and City leadership and staff.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
47 Community outreach and engagement activities included the following:
Community Survey (September 5 – October 12, 2025)
A citywide survey served as the primary quantitative input tool and received 733 total responses.
The survey was offered in digital and print formats and multiple languages to broaden accessibility, with responses submitted in English (702), Spanish (22), and Chinese (9). The survey gathered input on park usage patterns, facility conditions, recreation preferences, priorities for investment, and perceived challenges.
Pop-Up Events (September 19 and October 4, 2025)
Two in-person pop-up engagement events were held at well-attended community gatherings— Movies in the Park and the Our Lady of the Rosary International Festival— engaging 86 participants. These events provided informal, accessible opportunities for residents to share feedback in a conversational format and helped reach community members who may not typically attend public meetings.
Virtual Community Meeting (October 1, 2025)
A virtual public meeting provided an additional forum for discussion and live feedback, with six participants in attendance. The meeting included a presentation on the Master Plan process and an opportunity for questions and dialogue.
Stakeholder Focus Groups (September–October 2025)
Seventeen (17) targeted stakeholder meetings were conducted in person and remotely, engaging 75 participants. These discussions were designed to gather in-depth perspectives from groups with specific interests, operational responsibilities, or lived experience related to parks and recreation. Stakeholder meetings included representatives from the following:
● Youth/Teens
● Sports organizations and user groups
● Inclusive support and accessibility advocates
● Seniors/older adults
● Community member discussion groups (three sessions)
● Mayor and City Council Members (five meetings)
● Schools/school district
● Emergency services (Fire, Police, emergency response, etc.) ● Union City Community and Recreation Services and Public Works Departments ● Union City Executive Leadership (two meetings)
These conversations provided valuable qualitative insight into Union City’s parks and recreation system strengths, operational challenges, partnership opportunities, and long-term facility needs.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
48 Participant Profile
Individuals participating in Round 1 outreach activities included representation from diverse demographic groups, with particularly strong involvement from adults, long-time residents, and frequent park users.
More than eighty percent (80%) of survey respondents live in Union City, and nearly half have lived in the community for over 10 years. Community pop-up event participants included many residents of the neighborhoods where the events took place, rooting feedback in true, local experiences.
The top three age ranges for survey respondents that voluntarily provided demographic information are: 1) Adults age 36-50 (39%), 2) Adults age 51-65 (23%), and 3) Adults age 18-35 (15%). While not as prominent as the adult demographics, participants under age 18 were also involved in the process and provided valuable feedback through surveys, pop-up events, and stakeholder meetings.
The community input and feedback confirmed that Union City residents regularly recreate in public spaces. Forty-three percent (43%) of survey participants visit parks or recreation facilities more than once per week, and twenty-six percent (26%) report daily use.
4.2 Overall Needs and Community Direction
Community feedback conveyed a clear and consistent direction for the future of parks and recreation in Union City: repair, renew, and connect.
Across the community engagement activities, residents expressed strong appreciation for the City’s parks and programs, describing them as essential spaces for recreation, family life, wellness, and social connection. At the same time, participants emphasized the need to prioritize maintenance, modernization, and comfort before expanding the system. Renovating existing parks and improving maintenance emerged as the top priorities for the Master Plan, reflecting a desire to reinvest in aging infrastructure and ensure these facilities are safe, functional, comfortable, and accessible.
In addition to physical improvements, residents called for expanded access to recreation opportunities for all ages and abilities, stronger community events and programming, and thoughtful enhancements that make parks more welcoming and usable year-round. The findings from the citywide engagement efforts highlight a shared vision of parks as the social and recreational heart of the community—spaces that foster belonging, civic pride, and connection.
Key Themes and Trends
In the Round 1 community engagement activities, the following themes emerged consistently across the survey, focus groups, community meetings, and pop-up events.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
49 Renovation and Maintenance
Reinvestment in existing parks and recreation facilities clearly stands as the community’s highest priority for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. According to survey and pop-up event results, renovating existing parks (47%) and improving maintenance (36%) received the most votes.
Deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, restroom conditions, and worn courts and fields were frequently cited as barriers to optimal use. In general, community members emphasized visible stewardship and modernization of the amenities they already rely on over system expansion. The community’s high frequency of park use reinforces the expectation that public spaces remain safe, clean, and well-maintained.
Comfort and Safety
Comfort and safety strongly influence how parks are used and experienced. Lighting ranked as the most requested park enhancement (36%), and shade amenities were the most requested improvement (38%), according to survey and pop-up responses. Participants emphasized that shaded seating, improved lighting, and well-maintained gathering areas contribute to a welcoming environment for families, youth, and seniors. Community members also expressed interest in parks that remain usable during warm weather and into evening hours, underscoring the importance of climate-responsive design and visible safety measures.
Trails and Connectivity
For Union City residents, walking is central to park use. According to survey responses, fifty-nine percent (59%) of survey participants reported walking to parks and recreation facilities, and walking or hiking was the most common activity overall. Residents expressed interest in widening certain paths, strengthening bike and pedestrian linkages, enhancing trail networks, and improving connectivity between parks.
Nature and Open Space
Union City’s natural landscapes are highly valued community assets. Trees, lawns, and plants ranked among the most liked park features (42%), and enhancing opportunities to enjoy nature was identified as a leading Master Plan priority (25%) by survey and pop-up participants.
Community members emphasized preserving mature trees, expanding shade canopy, and balancing recreational amenities with green space preservation. Opportunities for wildlife observation and nature education were also important to the community.
Aquatics Enhancements
Aquatics facilities and programming emerged as a major topic during outreach. Aquatics programs ranked as the second most desired recreation offering, and many residents highlighted the need to modernize and expand access to the Dan Oden Swim Complex, a New
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
50 Haven Unified School District facility. Community members also expressed interest in year-round swimming, expanded lessons, and facilities that meet contemporary standards.
Sports and Fitness
Demand for sports and fitness amenities in Union City remains strong. According to survey responses, sports courts and fitness equipment were ranked the top two most desired recreation facility enhancements, and providing more opportunities for playing sports was identified as a key Master Plan priority. The community enthusiastically supported soccer, tennis, and pickleball and requested a variety of enhancements to sports and fitness experiences.
Residents called for more diverse fitness programs, resurfaced courts, improved lighting, expanded capacity, and equitable scheduling access to accommodate both organized leagues and casual play.
Community Connection
Parks and recreation facilities serve as the social heart of Union City. According to community members, parks provide vital opportunities for social gatherings and serve as community hubs for connection, identity, and local pride. Community events ranked as the most desired recreation program, and attending events is one of the primary reasons residents visit parks. Residents expressed enthusiasm for concerts, cultural celebrations, holiday events, movie nights, and other events that reflect Union City’s diverse and connected community.
Equity and Inclusion
Inclusive design and equitable access are clear community expectations. Outreach participants emphasized ADA accessibility, all-abilities play spaces, affordable programming, and equitable distribution of amenities across neighborhoods. With eighteen percent (18%) of survey respondents identifying as seniors, and strong representation from families and long-term residents, multi-generational access was identified as a critical consideration for future planning.
Play and Water Play
Playgrounds are among the most frequently used park amenities, with forty-three percent (43%) of survey participants reporting playground use. Residents emphasized upgrading aging equipment, improving safety surfacing, and providing supporting amenities such as shade and seating at playgrounds. In addition, adding water features or splash pads ranked as the thirdhighest Master Plan priority (29%), reinforcing strong demand for play-based, family-oriented amenities. Overall, community feedback supported play environments that are as flexible, comfortable, and inclusive of multiple age groups and abilities.
Community Challenges
In addition to key themes and priorities, community members identified recurring challenges within the current system, including:
● Deferred maintenance and aging infrastructure
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
51 ● Safety and security concerns
● Communication gaps about programs and events
● Limited access to a centralized, full-service aquatics facility ● Capacity constraints and overuse in certain locations ● The need for strengthened partnerships and shared-use agreements Conclusion
During the first phase of community outreach, Round 1 engagement activities for the Union City Parks and Recreation Master Plan revealed a community that is deeply connected to its parks and recreation facilities and highly invested in their future. Residents are not seeking dramatic expansion, but rather strategic reinvestment by prioritizing maintenance, modernization, comfort, safety, accessibility, and inclusive programming.
4.3 Survey and Pop-Up Summary
The Union City Parks and Recreation Master Plan community survey and pop-up events engaged over 800 participants, providing a comprehensive snapshot of local values, preferences, and needs for parks and recreation facilities. The findings reveal a community that values its parks as vital spaces for recreation, family life, health, and connection, but also one that is asking the City to focus on care, modernization, and inclusivity to ensure parks and recreation facilities remain welcoming and functional into the future.
As noted previously, most survey respondents are Union City residents, nearly half have lived in Union City for more than a decade, and about one-third identify as parents or caregivers of young children. Survey respondents also represent the City’s diverse demographics, with strong participation from Asian and Hispanic/Latino residents and a varied age range, including youth, adults, and seniors. Collectively, these community members perceive Union City’s parks as essential spaces that support both structured and unstructured recreation for all ages.
Results reveal a community desire for well-maintained, comfortable, and inclusive public spaces.
Participants overwhelmingly called for the City to focus on repair and renewal, ensuring that aging infrastructure—from playgrounds and sports fields to restrooms and lighting—is addressed as a priority. At the same time, they expressed enthusiasm for enhanced recreation amenities that support active and social lifestyles. Strong demand for sports courts, including tennis, pickleball, and basketball, reflects both family and adult recreation interests, with emphasis on upgrades to improve the condition of these amenities. Similarly, aquatic facilities emerged as a popular topic; respondents want improved access, year-round operation, and modernization of the Dan Oden Swim Complex to match regional standards. Water play options, such as splash pads, were also ranked as a top priority. These facility-related needs align with broader calls for shade, seating, and pathway connectivity that make parks and recreation facilities more comfortable and usable for all ages and abilities.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
52 Top Priorities for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan When asked to identify priorities for the future of Union City’s parks and recreation system, survey and pop-up respondents most frequently selected the following:
1. Renovating existing parks and recreation facilities (47%)
2. Improving park and facility maintenance (36%)
3. Adding water features or splash pads (29%)
4. Enhancing opportunities to enjoy nature (25%)
5. Providing more opportunities for playing sports (22%) These priorities reinforce the broader direction expressed throughout the survey and pop-up engagement, which is a strong preference for reinvestment in existing facilities, alongside targeted enhancements that support active recreation, nature-based experiences, and family-oriented amenities.
4.4 Stakeholder and Community Meeting Summary
Union City staff and the consultant team conducted extensive outreach, inviting community members citywide to share their experiences, perspectives, and ideas related to the City’s parks and recreation system. As part of this effort, a targeted outreach strategy engaged 75 participants in focus groups representing a broad range of interests, including youth, seniors, City staff, emergency response agencies, sports organizations, community leaders, educators, and elected officials. In addition, a publicly noticed virtual community meeting provided residents with another opportunity to learn about the Master Plan and share input.
Residents and stakeholders expressed strong appreciation for Union City’s parks and recreation programs, dedicated staff, and range of facilities. At the same time, they underscored the importance of maintaining and modernizing existing assets—and, where appropriate, expanding the system—to meet evolving community needs. Aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, and limited financial and staffing capacity were consistently identified as key challenges to be addressed through the Master Plan.
Inclusion and accessibility emerged as central priorities. Participants encouraged universal design to ensure parks and programs serve residents of all ages and abilities. Recommendations included expanding all-abilities and adaptive facilities, incorporating family restrooms, improving accessible paths and play areas, and exploring development of a dedicated inclusive park or playground.
Stakeholders also supported stronger collaboration with the New Haven Unified School District to improve public access to school-based facilities such as pools, fields, and courts.
In addition, maintenance and user comfort were recurring topics. Upgrades to restrooms, lighting, shade structures, seating, and playground equipment were viewed as essential to improving safety and usability. Participants also noted mosquito control, restroom access and proximity, and timely routine maintenance as important considerations. Resource management strategies—including
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
53 tiered fee structures, resident-priority systems, and shared-use agreements—were discussed as ways to maximize limited City resources.
Furthermore, stakeholders consistently described parks as vital community gathering spaces.
Events such as pop-ups, food truck nights, and cultural festivals were celebrated for fostering social connection and reflecting Union City’s diversity. Participants encouraged expanding arts, music, and neighborhood-based programming while strengthening communication and outreach to increase awareness and participation.
Finally, participants identified several potential facility and program enhancements, including consideration of a year-round aquatics center, a pump track or bike park, and expanded fitness amenities. These investments were viewed not only as recreational improvements, but as contributions to community health, equity, and livability. Stakeholders emphasized that future investments should align with broader City initiatives, reflect fiscal responsibility, and include sustainable plans for long-term maintenance and staffing.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
54 SECTION 5:
KEY FINDINGS AND
PRIORITIES
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
55 Section 5: Key Findings and Priorities
The following are high-level summaries of the Community Needs Assessment Report.
5.1 Top Department and Systemwide Needs
Site Classification System
Developing a classification system tailored specifically to Union City’s parks would provide greater clarity and consistency in how parks are planned, designed, and managed. A City-specific system will help establish distinct park types with corresponding design guidelines, amenity standards, and service expectations. This framework would help City staff guide future park development and maintenance, ensure equitable distribution of amenities across the community, and promote a cohesive and well-balanced parks and recreation system.
Improved Public Access
Findings highlight several opportunities for the City to partner with AC Transit and transportation planners to strengthen transit frequency near major parks (particularly on weekends) to improve equitable access. Enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle experience between transit stops and nearby parks through crosswalk improvements, sidewalk upgrades, lighting, and protected bikeways would further reduce accessibility barriers. Investing in parks located in neighborhoods with lower transit coverage can further help ensure that residents’ can benefit from equitable access to recreational amenities citywide.
Level of Service Needs
Overall, Union City demonstrates strong performance in providing community-serving amenities and maintaining an efficient park system relative to its population. The City’s provision of playgrounds, sports courts, and field space is competitive or superior to peer communities.
Parkland acreage is adequate but slightly below regional and national norms, when not including open space and parks managed by other entities, suggesting long-term acquisition if feasible should be considered as the population grows. The most significant needs emerge in the area of aquatic facilities, multi-generational spaces and facilities, and select specialized amenities.
Addressing these gaps, either through acquisition or joint use agreements and partnerships, would enhance system balance, improve equity of access, and align Union City more closely with regional standards in the southern East Bay.
Maintenance Plan
Maintenance challenges have emerged as a consistent concern for parks and recreation facilities, with issues such as aging facilities, outdated or inaccessible playgrounds, overgrown landscapes, pathways disrupted by tree roots, worn site furnishings, and some restrooms experiencing security concerns.
Despite significant population growth in Union City over the past two decades, the City’s parks and maintenance staff levels have remained largely unchanged since the early 2000s. In recent years,
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
56 additional demands from increased unhoused populations and illegal dumping have required grounds staff to dedicate a substantial portion of their time to addressing these issues, limiting their ability to perform the necessary routine maintenance to keep parks at the level of quality residents expect. This has furthermore strained Department budgets allocated to park maintenance.
As a result, additional staffing has been identified as necessary to sustain park facilities, support safe and clean public spaces, and meet the growing needs of the community. These conditions highlight ongoing pressures on the system and the importance of prioritizing staff capacity, budgets, and projects to efficiently provide quality recreation activities, facilities, and parks. A dedicated maintenance plan would provide Union City’s Public Works Department with a clear, proactive framework for preserving the quality, safety, and longevity of its parks and facilities. Such a plan could outline maintenance standards, routine care schedules, staffing and equipment needs, and protocols for addressing repairs before they become costly or disruptive. It could also include asset inventories, life-cycle replacement strategies, and guidelines for prioritizing improvements based on equity, usage, and condition. By implementing a structured maintenance plan, the City can keep record of parks and facilities maintenance, thereby enhancing operational efficiency to improve the visitor experience.
Any efficiencies to staffing relative to park and facility maintenance should be prioritized in the Master Plan process. The Master Plan will serve as an opportunity to identify tools, technology, staffing allocation, and schedules, and other mechanisms to help combat any challenges the Public Works Department currently experiences.
5.2 Top Park and Facility Needs
Existing Conditions
A condition assessment for each park and recreation facility was conducted in summer 2025. Site visits to the park sites occurred on the following dates:
● July 23, 2025; City staff accompanied the Gates Studio consultant team to highly active and popular park sites.
● July 30, 2025; Gates Studio consultant team conducted individual site visits to remaining park sites, which included small and low-active parks.
● August 19, 2025; City staff accompanied the Group 4 Architecture consultant team to the seven recreation facilities.
The assessment evaluates each site’s overall condition across several key factors, including access, usability, comfort, safety, accessibility compliance, maintenance, circulation, functionality, and activity levels. Based on these criteria, sites were rated as good/excellent, fair, or in need of improvement.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
57 Parks
Most parks are rated in fair condition due to aging amenities, outdated or non-functioning utilities, and limited accessibility. The common needs identified through the site visits and assessments include pathway repaving, new site furnishings, upgraded irrigation systems and controllers, improved lighting for nighttime safety, and additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)- compliant amenities, parking, and walkways. Despite these deficiencies, the parks are well used, serving as active destinations for daily and organized recreation, leisure, and community gatherings. The top priority needs identified for parks through the facility assessment are as follow:
• Accessible and multi-generational play areas
• New playground equipment
• Shaded picnic areas
• Standardized or consistent style site furnishings (trash cans, picnic tables, drinking fountains, benches, signage, etc.)
• Repaved walking paths
• Enhanced utilities, including lighting and irrigation systems • More group gathering opportunities and community events • Updated sports facilities and amenities
Recreation Facilities
Some of the facilities evaluated by consultant Group 4 Architects were identified as high priorities in terms of modernization, accessibility, and code compliance.
William May Jr. Teen Center, Larry Orozco Teen Bike Workshop, and 10th Street Boxing Center:
These facilities do not comply with current ADA, Title 24 accessibility and energy standards, or modern building codes. These three facilities need modernization to meet safety, accessibility, energy efficiency, and code requirements. All are aging buildings (over 50 years old)—Larry Orozco Teen Bike Workshop and 10th Street Boxing Center, from staff interviews it appears that these centers have never been renovated for their repurposed uses. The William May Jr. Teen Center has been closed for years and requires major repairs.
Holly Community Center
The Holly Community Center at 31600 Alvarado Boulevard, built in 1984 and expanded in 1991, has had few upgrades since its original construction. The City has identified the Holly Community Center in its Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list to modernize the facility with updates such as a new fire alarm system, improved lighting and flooring, kitchen remodel, accessibility upgrades, painting, and a new trash enclosure. A feasibility study is currently underway by City staff and consultants to assess the building’s accessibility compliance, interior and exterior conditions, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire systems, as well as opportunities for remodeling and system upgrades.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
58 Ruggieri Senior Center
The Ruggieri Senior Center, built in 1997, continues to be a highly utilized facility providing programs for seniors focused on health, recreation, and social engagement. While well maintained and with some recent renovations, the facility is now over 25 years old and shows signs of aging in its finishes, lighting, and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems. Many rooms suffer from insufficient storage, dated furnishings, and a lack of ADA compliance. The outdoor areas and surrounding landscaping have also experienced wear over time and would benefit from a refresh. Planned improvements should focus on light emitting diode (LED) lighting upgrades, HVAC control modernization, acoustic treatments, expanded storage, and enhanced technology and security systems. These updates will ensure that the Senior Center remains a safe, welcoming, and adaptable facility for the City’s growing senior population.
Mark Green Sports Center and Kennedy Youth Center
The Mark Green Sports Center and Kennedy Youth Center are generally in good condition and need only minor renovations. At the Mark Green Sports Center, after about twenty years of use, would benefit from upgrades that include refinishing gym floors, replacing lights with LEDs, minor HVAC repairs, and locker room plumbing updates. The Kennedy Youth Center, renovated in 2018, mainly needs improvements to acoustics, lighting, and security system, that includes new cameras and exterior lights.
New Park Amenity and Recreation Facility Opportunities
Based on the amenity needs analysis (Table 5-1), Union City may benefit from thoughtfully expanding several elements of its parks and recreation system by 2040 to keep pace with anticipated growth and evolving community interests. While many amenities appear well aligned with current needs, several areas present opportunities for future investment that would strengthen the system’s overall capacity.
The most notable opportunities for improvement relate to sports and active recreation. Over time, the City could consider adding multi-use fields to support increasing demand for field sports and provide more flexibility for leagues and community use. Court-based recreation also shows room for enhancement, with potential for five additional tennis courts and eight pickleball courts, reflecting the rising popularity of these sports. Other amenities that may warrant consideration include an aquatic facility and two splash pads, each of which would expand family-friendly recreation opportunities.
The analysis also highlights a potential need for one additional community center, senior center, and aquatic facility by 2040 to maintain access to indoor and summer programs, classes, and gathering spaces as the population grows, ages, and densifies.
All together, these suggested enhancements continue to build upon Union City’s strong parks and recreation foundation, adding targeted amenities that enhance access, promote health and wellness, and support a vibrant and well-connected community.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
59 Table 5-1. Suggested Total Needed Amenities and Facilities, 2025 Note: The rows in bold indicate where additional parks and outdoor amenities and community recreation facilities are needed based on NRPA standards to meet current and future population growth.
NRPA
Guidelines
Avg.
Standard
for Peer
Cities
‘26
UC
QTY:
Union
City
Level of
Service
Standard
Proposed
Guideline
(based on
NRPA and
Peer
Cities)
Quantity of New
Amenities Needed
Based on Population
TOTAL
QUANTITY
OF
AMENITIES
NEEDED
by 2040
Current
Population
(2023)
Future
Population
(2040)
68,141 79,845
PARKS AND OUTDOOR AMENITIES
1 per x residents
Playgrounds 1/3,643 1/2,622 35 1/1,947 1/3,133 0 0 35
Basketball
courts
1/8,447 1/4,249 16 1/4,259 1/6,348 0 0 16
Diamond
fields 1/4,560 1/6,985 8 1/8,518 1/5,773 +4 +2 14
Rectangular
fields 1/5,946 1/17,670 5 1/13,628 1/11,808 +1 +1 7
Tennis Courts 1/5,818 1/4,743 10 1/6,814 1/5,281 +3 +2 15 Dog parks 1/55,250 1/58,261 2 1/34,071 1/56,756 0 0 2
Swimming
pools
(outdoor)
1/48,064 1/34,242 0 - 1/41,153 0 +1 1
Skate parks 1/61,384 1/71,297 1 1/68,141 1/66,341 0 0 1 Pickleball
courts
1/8,592 1/13,896 0 - 1/11,244 +6 +2 8
Volleyball
courts
1/29,214 1/49,165 1 1/68,141 1/39,190 +1 0 2
Fitness
zones/exercise
stations
1/32,500 1/4,345 13 1/5,242 1/18,423 0 0 13
Splash pads /
spray grounds 1/51,000 1/23,573 0 - 1/51,000 +1 +1 2
Synthetic fields 1/33,799 1/50,894 2 1/34,071 1/42,347 0 0 2
COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES
Recreation
centers (with
gym)
1/31,805 1/78,216 2 1/34,071 1/55,011 0 0 2
Community
centers
1/50,284 1/63,440 1 1/68,141 1/56,862 +1 0 2
Senior centers 1/64,937 1/71,297 1 1/68,141 1/68,117 0 +1 2 Aquatics
centers
1/60,770 1/71,297 0 - 1/66,033 0 +1 1
Youth/Teen
Center 1/59,694 1/78,216 3 1/22,714 1/68,955 0 0 3
* Union City’s existing aquatic facility is managed by the New Haven Unified School District but shares programming responsibilities with the Union City Community and Recreation Services (CRS) Department during the Spring and summer months.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
60 5.3. Parkland Opportunities
Union City’s primary mechanism for building new parks or renovating and/or expanding existing parks is through parkland dedication or fees paid by new residential development. The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) grants the City the authority to require developers to set aside land or pay parkland in-lieu fees when residential land is subdivided. The intent of the Quimby Act is to help cities retain current ratios of park acres per 1,000 residents into the future.
Under California State law, the dedication requirement ranges from up to 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents to up to 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents, depending on the amount of parkland a City currently has. The City’s current parkland ratio is 1.7 acres per 1,000 residents. Consistent with State law, the City adopted the maximum allowed standard of 3.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 new residents. Whenever residential land is subdivided for new ownership housing, the developer must dedicate land at the ratio of 3.0 acres per every 1,000 new residents or pay an equivalent inlieu fee based on the fair market value of the land. The fees can be used to build new parks or improve existing parks. The City also collects a Park Facilities Fee on new rental housing, which can only be used to build new parks.
New Parkland
Additional parks will be implemented through the ongoing mixed-use development projects that may be both privately and publicly maintained.
● Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP) Project will add approximately 3 to 4 acres of dedicated parkland and a new sports field.
● Station East Project includes two new public parks, totaling 1.6 acres. The parks include a dog park with an adjacent play area and a grand park with a sports court, shaded picnic area, gaming tables, open lawn space, and restrooms. Additional green space is proposed through paseos, landscaped areas, and a fitness park totaling approximately 1 acre.
This will raise the total acreage to 118 acres in the community.
Acquisition
The flat lands located along Mission Boulevard between May Road and O’Connell Lane are currently owned by Masonic Homes of California. In the Hillside Area Plan, two policies identify possible opportunities to use the flatlands for recreational purposes:
• Policy 9. Land use in flat lands along Mission Boulevard Undeveloped flat lands in the Hillside Area along Mission Boulevard shall be retained in agricultural or open space use, or shall be used for recreation • Policy 10. Provision of a community sports facility
The construction of a community sports facility in the Hillside Area along Mission Boulevard shall be encouraged.
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
61 These two policies identify future recreational opportunities that the City may wish to pursue should the possible acquisition or long-term lease be made available. These flatlands offer an opportunity to expand parkland acreage.
Furthermore, areas showing gaps in park access along the northern border offer several potential vacant or open space parcels that could be explored for future parkland acquisition. Table 5-2 shares parcel information and approximate acreage.
Table 5-2. Vacant or Available Land in Park Access Gap Zones Parcel Number Acreage 2025 Cost Evaluation Notes
475 -0070-011-00 2.0 acres $5.1 million Vacant industrial land 475 -0090-005-00 1.2 acres Unknown Church property with open space area
475 -0090-005-00 2.0 acres Unknown Warehouse with open space area
087-0092-085-00 5-7 acres Joint-Use Agreement Barnard - White Middle School fields and running track
TOTAL ACREAGE 12 acres
Collectively, these acquisitions or joint-use agreements could provide an additional 32 acres of parkland to Union City, raising the total to 144 acres or 150 acres if including new parkland development.
5.4 Operational and Programming Findings
Union City’s Community and Recreation Services (CRS) Department delivers a robust and competitive recreation program portfolio with strong participation and cost-recovery performance.
The CRS Department is responsible for operating community centers and parks, and planning and delivering recreation programs and community events, while the Public Works department oversees maintenance, repairs, and upkeep of parks, facilities, and community centers. Current staffing levels in both programming and, especially, park maintenance/operations are stretched and fall short of national and regional benchmarks for Union City’s size, park acreage, and service expectations.
To sustain existing service quality, accommodate population growth, and address emerging national trends (inclusivity, mental wellness, climate-resilient aquatics, etc.), the following operational and staffing priorities are recommended for the Community and Recreation Services and Public Works Departments:
Key Recommendations – Operations, Park Maintenance and Staffing ● Increase Park Maintenance Staffing: Current 8.5 FTE dedicated to 112.8 developed + 22.2 undeveloped park acres (13.3–15.9 acres/FTE) meets the minimum national guideline but places Union City in the lower quartile of NRPA peer agencies and below industry level-of-
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
62 service calculations, which recommend approximately 14–15 dedicated park maintenance FTE (an addition of roughly 5.5–6.5 FTE).
● Establish Formal Park Maintenance Standards and Levels of Service: Adopt clear Level 1–4 maintenance classifications by asset type (athletic fields, developed parks, trails, undeveloped land) to align staffing, budgeting, and public expectations and to provide measurable performance metrics.
● Improve Workload Tracking and Data Collection: Transition from paper-based daily worksheets to a digital work-order/system for grounds maintenance crews to accurately capture time spent on parks vs. medians/right-of-way/medias, response times, illegal dumping, encampment removal, and seasonal workload peaks. This data is essential for future evidence-based staffing requests.
● Rebalance Staffing Allocation: Current allocation (81% Programming / 14% Operations and Maintenance) is heavily skewed toward programming compared to NRPA peers (typically 31% programming / 45% O&M). As new facilities and parks come online, incrementally shift resources or add dedicated O&M positions to prevent further strain on existing grounds crews.
● Prepare for Program Growth with Flexible Staffing: Current allocation of staffing to operate and manage community centers and parks, and oversee citywide recreation programming and community events; 17 full time and 6.5 part-time staff, with seasonal staff to support as needed. This staffing model is adequate and in the upper quartile, but expansion into identified gaps (trips and tours, expanded aquatics, after-school programs, inclusive/adaptive offerings, etc.) and response to rising demand will require additional fulltime and/or reclassification of some part-time/seasonal roles. ● Protect Core Programming Strengths While Closing Gaps: Maintain high-performing core offerings (themed/special community events, team and racquet sports, fitness, aquatics, arts, etc.) that exceed 75% peer penetration while strategically adding resources to address the three clear programming gaps relative to peers: trips and tours, golf programming, and dedicated after-school programs.
Implementing these staffing enhancements and operational improvements will position Union City to maintain its high level of community recreation service, keep parks safe and attractive, and meet the growing and diversifying needs of its 68,000 residents through 2040 and beyond.
5.5 Conclusion
In conclusion, the assessment and analysis conducted over the past few months affirms that Union City’s parks and recreation system is a vital community asset, providing a strong foundation of facilities, amenities, and regional connectivity. At the same time, it identifies opportunities to enhance equity, access, and programming to meet the needs of a growing and changing population. Analysis of existing parks, trails, open space, fields, and recreation infrastructure, together with consideration of planned development, regional connections, neighborhood
UNION CITY PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
63 connectivity, and community input, underscores the importance of strategic prioritization and planning to guide future investments.
To address community interests and facility enhancement needs, key priorities should include increasing staffing levels, reinvesting in aging infrastructure, modernizing facilities, improving ADA accessibility, and incorporating standardized maintenance practices to ensure comfort, safety, and usability for residents of all ages and abilities. The assessment also highlights gaps that constrain the City’s ability to meet current and future demand, including the lack of a year-round public aquatic facility, expanded access to sports fields and courts, and additional multigenerational indoor recreation and fitness spaces. Addressing these gaps will require strategic facility investment, partnerships, and innovative approaches to maximize community access to quality recreation programs, programming, facilities, amenities, and open space.
Improving accessibility and connectivity is another critical focus. While most residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, geographic barriers such as Interstate 880 and uneven pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure limit equitable access. Strengthening multimodal links, enhancing wayfinding, and coordinating with transit partners will help ensure parks and facilities remain reachable and welcoming across all neighborhoods. Establishing a modern park classification system and a comprehensive maintenance plan will further support equitable service distribution and long-term system sustainability.
Overall, the findings point to a clear direction for the forthcoming Parks and Recreation Master Plan: prioritize renewal of existing spaces, close service gaps, expand inclusive and multigenerational recreation opportunities, strengthen connectivity across the system, and strategize programming, maintenance staffing, and operations to be more efficient. By focusing on these priorities, Union City can enhance the resilience, equity, and quality of its parks and recreation system, ensuring it continues to enrich community life now and into the future.
PARK NAME
Acreage / SqFtDistrictAddressBarbecue GrillsBenchBike RacksDog waste stationDrinking FountainLightingLooped Walking PathPark signParking LotPicnic AreasPicnic TablesReservable Picnic AreasRestroomsShade StructureWaste Receptacles (Trash/Recycling)Amphitheater/Outdoor StageCommunity GardenDog ParkFitness Station(s)Playground/Play AreaPump TrackSkate ParkSwingsWater Play/Splash PadBackstopBaseball/Softball FieldCricketMulti-use FieldSoccer FieldSynthetic FieldBasketball Court (full or half court)Horseshoe CourtPickleball CourtTennis CourtVolleyball Court 112.8 -- -- 83 170 53 16 27 13 24 34 7 70 198 24 10 7 53 2 0 2 13 35 0 1 41 0 7 8 1 27 5 3 16 4 0 10 1 Accinelli Park 4.1 4 4525 Navarro Drive 1 6 6 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 √ 1 1 Arroyo Park 5.7 1 35199 Perry Road 2 6 1 1 1 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 √ 2 4 Casa Verde Park 11.8 3 3161 San Juan Place 4 6 3 3 3 3 7 1 3 3 3 √ 4 Cerruti Park 0.3 4 4572 Novato Street 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 √
Charles F. Kennedy Park 10.5 2 1333 Decoto Road 13 14 7 2 1 1 1 9 31 4 1 1 2 2 √ 1 4 Contempo Park 8.2 4 32300 Meteor Drive 5 16 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 18 1 1 5 1 1 2 √ 3 Courthouse Landing Park 0.4 3 Cambridge Way & Barrons Way (BARRONS WAY #7) 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 √ Drigon Dog Park 2.6 2 Seventh Street & Mission Boulevard 13 6 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 √ Dry Creek Park 2.3 2 1003 Westgard Street 3 2 4 1 1 1 2 11 1 1 4 2 √ Fred Castro Park 0.2 2 Tenth Street & G Street (1000 G Street) 2 1 1 Heritage Oak Park 0.2 1 2505 Trailside Way 1 1 1 1 1 1
Liberty Park 1.0 3 Amy Place (3834 Amy Place) 3 1 3 4 1 2 √ 1 Mariner Park (including Greenbelt) 4.4 3 Regents Boulevard & Dorado Drive 6 7 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 √ 1 Old Alvarado/ Cesar Chavez Park 4.3 3 3871 Smith Street 7 31 4 2 1 1 5 21 4 1 2 10 1 2 1 1 √ 1 1 1 Pacific Point Park 0.3 2 1127 Silver Street 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 √ Park Ridge Park 0.4 2 34773 Chesapeake Drive 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 √ Pioneer Park 2.4 4 4B38 Blythe Street (Jean Dr & Blythe St) 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 √ Ponderosa Cove Park 0.2 4 34750 Williams Way 3 1 1 √
Pride Rock Park (DIPSA) 0.3 1 1882 Flagstone Drive 3 4 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 4 √ San Andreas Park 3.9 3 31321 San Andreas Drive 3 4 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 √ Seabreeze Park 7.8 4 32600 Carmel Way 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 2 1 5 1 2 2 1 √ Seven Hills Park 3.4 2 384 Florence Street 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 √ 1 Shorty Garcia Park 3 2 33940 Seventh Street 1 1 9 2 2
Sugar Mill Landing Park 1.8 3 Alvarado-Niles Road & Dyer Street 1 1 1 √ Tidewater Park 0.6 3 30694 Tidewater Drive 3 1 1 1 1 √
Town Estates Park 6 1 2438 Andover Drive 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 4 14 2 1 1 1 1 1 √ 1 1 Union Landing Park 0.9 4 33000 Regents Boulevard 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 4 √ Veterans Memorial Park 7.8 4 4525 Dyer Street 4 10 7 1 1 1 5 14 2 1 2 2 2 √ 1 6 William Cann Civic Center Park 7.2 1 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road 8 6 1 1 1 1 9 11 2 8 1 1 6 William Cann Neighborhood Park 7.5 1 Marsh Hawk Road & Dowe Avenue 5 5 1 1 1 5 12 2 1 2 1 2 6 √ Willow Park (DIPSA) 0.73 2 120 Blue Spruce Lane 3 6 5 1 1 2 1 8 3 1 √ Windflower Park (DIPSA) 0.18 2
34533 Windflower Lane 4 4 1 2 1
Decoto Plaza Park 0.5 2 500 E Street 1 1
Station Plaza (UC Pyramid Park & 11th Street Fountain) 1.9 2 34937 11th Street & Duncan Way 32 1 1 5
CITY MAINTAINED PROPERITIES*
Park Standard Amenities Outdoor Recreation Facilities Athletic/Sports Appendix A: Union City Parks Amenity Inventory
Published: March 16, 2026
1 1