Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 16, 2025
CITY OF UNION CITY
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2025 AT 7:08 P.M.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL
34009 ALVARADO-NILES ROAD
UNION CITY, CA 94587
AND VIA TELECONFERENCE
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chairperson Seyi Mclelland, Vice-Chairperson Ignacio Romero, Commissioner Jo Ann Lew and Alternate Francisco Elizondo
ABSENT: Commissioners Lee Guio and Prairna Gupta Garg
STAFF: Derek Farmer, Planning Manager; Natalie Dean, Associate Planner; Samuel Fluhmann, Assistant Planner; Diana Cangco, City Engineer; Juliet Vaughn, Legal Counsel and Tracey
Barragan, Administrative Assistant III
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2.1 Planning Commission Minutes for Regular Meeting of September 4, 2025 (Action Minutes)
Commissioner Lew reported she provided a correction to comments she made on Page 4 of 5 of the September 4, 2025 meeting (Action Minutes) for Item 6, the Good of the Order, which is to be corrected to read:
Commissioner Lew announced Saturday, September 27, 2025 at 10:00 AM there is a ceremony for Union City Boulevard bike lanes project.
Commissioner Lew added a Desk Item was prepared to show the correction.
The Action Minutes for the regular Planning Commission meeting for September 4, 2025 were accepted, as corrected.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 CONTINUED HEARINGS: None
4.2 NEW HEARINGS:
4.2.1 Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church, Owner; Use Permit (UP-25-001), Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church, is seeking Use Permit (UP-25-001) approval for a new wireless facility on the roof of an existing, one-story, 20,374 square-foot building and ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 16, 2025
to increase the height of the building from 28 feet 5 inches to 43 feet 5 inches; and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) approval for the construction of a new 2,320 square-foot roofmounted enclosure and a 359 square-foot equipment groundmounted enclosure. The site is located at 32975 AlvaradoNiles Road within the Private Institutional (PI) Zoning District.
Staff is recommending this project be considered
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines.
Natalie Dean, Associate Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation for Use Permit (UP25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) for the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church.
Ms. Dean reported a Desk Item was prepared in response to concerns from resident Eugene Ho, who raised concerns with traffic, hours of operation and view impacts from his residence. Staff also received a question from Commissioner Lew regarding the project which staff responded to in the Desk Item. Commissioner Lew asked if the building would support the weight of the proposed wireless facility. The applicant provided a response and reported that AT&T completed roof mapping of the structural integrity of the existing roof, and the findings were that the roof and foundation will support the additional weight but there will be structural upgrades to the existing building, which is a common occurrence for wireless facilities that are roof-mounted. He added the majority of the heavy equipment will be located on the ground.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution approving Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001).
Vice-Chairperson Romero recognized Commissioner Lew’s questions about the structural integrity of the building. Since the building is to be used by the public, he wanted it on the record that when the permit is approved the building will be structurally sound.
Ms. Dean explained that when the project is approved the applicant will obtain permits from the Building Department and that information will be available to the public. She added it is uncertain it will be made readily available on the City website.
Vice-Chairperson Romero also wanted the public to be assured the building will be structurally sound.
Planning Manager Derek Farmer reiterated the applicant will be required to submit for building permits, which will require the applicant to comply with required structural calculations pursuant to the California Building Code (CBC) and added these are all public documents the public may view when issued.
Vice-Chairperson Romero referenced Page 3 of Exhibit A, which showed a generator on the rooftop to be used in the event of an emergency. He asked if that is accurate.
Ms. Dean clarified the generator will be located on the ground within an enclosure.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked about the location of the emergency shutoff valve for the generator.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 16, 2025
Ms. Dean deferred to the applicant but noted her understanding that only professionals will be allowed to enter the enclosure or use the ladder for access to the wireless enclosure.
Mr. Farmer explained there are stipulations in the CBC related to such structures and those stipulations will be enforced when the building permit is reviewed by the Building Division to include all state-mandated emergency shut-off devices for wireless installations.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked if the applicant is acting in good faith and if alternative sites will be considered, and he asked why that information is not being provided.
Ms. Dean referred to the Alternative Site Analysis included in the agenda packet. She understood some of the alternative sites are not technically feasible, may already have a wireless facility and the property owner did not want to lease more space to additional service providers, or the peer reviewer was unable to contact anyone at those sites. The peer reviewer, Doug Herring and Associates, was present via Zoom and able to respond to questions.
Vice-Chairperson Romero again referenced the generator and asked staff to define “feasible hours” to operate and asked if there will be a set time when the generator will operate given concerns with the close proximity of nearby residences.
Ms. Dean understood the generator would be tested weekly but would not run constantly.
She added a Nosie Analysis was prepared as part of the project and was peer reviewed and met the established requirements in the Union City Noise Ordinance.
Commissioner Elizondo asked about the Radio Frequency (RF) emissions which he understood were also peer reviewed. He also asked if the consultant who conducted the peer review was also available via Zoom.
Ms. Dean stated Mr. Herring and David Burgess, who conducted the peer review, were available via Zoom and the peer review can be made available to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Farmer clarified the consultants are consultants to the City and questions can be asked now and the Commissioners do not have to wait for the public hearing.
Commissioner Elizondo asked if the peer review is independent or if it involved someone hired by AT&T.
Ms. Dean explained the consultant was hired by Union City and worked for the City. She suggested questions about details on the testing and Radio Frequency (RF) emissions would be better clarified by the consultants.
David Burgess, Douglas Herring and Associates, reported he prepared the RF Emissions Peer Report. He clarified a system could not be tested prior to being built, but they did the standard engineering analysis and standard predictive analysis of the RF emissions.
He added that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines for the project provide a methodology for conducting such an analysis. Waterford Associates, hired by AT&T, conducted an analysis which he peer-reviewed. He then conducted his own analysis and found the Waterford Associates analysis to be valid.
Mr. Burgess explained the guidelines for emission safety are based on at least 1,500 different medical experiments and medical research reports conducted by doctors and Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 16, 2025
biologists around the world over the last few decades. He added those tests are the basis for the guidelines we are following here and according to the methodology, the FCC recommends for this type of analysis that everything falls within the guidelines. The guidelines have built-in safety margins anywhere from a factor of 50 to a factor of 200 and were detailed in the report.
Commissioner Elizondo asked if there was an AT&T project in a different city and close to residents that can be used as a comparable to the subject application.
Mr. Burgess suggested AT&T will have to be asked for that information. In terms of hazards to residents, the main effect of RF emissions from these frequencies is just heat, with no other known theorized or demonstrated biological effect other than heat. He added whether the FCC Guidelines are sufficient is a question for a doctor and further added the guidelines the FCC followed were based on guidelines from a national organization, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and based on well over 1,500 different lab studies, which had been reviewed in the most recent publication by at least 100 different doctors and biologists.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Chairperson Mclelland asked the applicant to respond to Mr. Ho’s email.
Carl Jones, Applicant, AT&T Mobility, reported the application was submitted to the City in February 2025 and AT&T has been working with staff to come up with a design that is the least intrusive and also fits the coverage needed by AT&T. He added the project will provide broadband and wireless Internet services not only for the local area but for first responders, the community and those that travel and do business in the area. He emphasized the first responder network is driving the site. He added that in 2017, AT&T was awarded a federal contract to deploy FirstNet, it’s Band 14, which is designated for first responders. I have been issued another round of funding ring and would be glad to spend AT&T’s money in the City based on the City of Union City Police Chief having reached out to AT&T, reporting some issues with the Police Department’s bandwidth in certain parts of the City.
Mr. Jones reported 75 percent of 911 calls are made from cell phones and 80 percent of households now rely solely on cellular phones and no longer have land lines. He added AT&T has worked with City staff and followed the City’s guidelines to ensure the equipment will be camouflaged and integrated into the existing building. He further added AT&T has installed equipment on many rooftops, and he identified another site located at 32145 Alvarado-Niles Road, the Farmer’s Building, which is very similar to the subject site. He stated AT&T has mirrored some of that design for the subject application, made adjustments by placing the equipment in the center of the rooftop as the least intrusive method, and also added 15 feet in height so the antennas can be set back from the edge of the roof while also reaching as many residential homes as possible.
Mr. Jones suggested since the pandemic that more and more public safety officers are working from home, people pursuing online classes, etc., and it is imperative for AT&T to improve their mobile coverage. He added AT&T considered nine different sites and spent a great deal of time, a little bit more time than that spent by the peer reviewer, trying to get in contact with some of the industrial sites in Union City, including one that actually leased roof space to carriers, but in the end and after three or four months, the property owner did not commit to a multi-year lease. He further added there are industrial properties in Union City owned by large international corporations, but even after numerous mailers and reaching out to on-site real estate agents, those efforts were unsuccessful. Mr. Jones commented the subject site is one of the last places AT&T could go after exhausting other Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 16, 2025
alternative sites and the church is willing to lease space for the rooftop and groundmounted equipment.
Mr. Jones confirmed AT&T will file for a building permit and all of the structural and engineering work for the building will be public information and once they submit the construction drawings, all the calculations will be included. He described the generator “like an RV generator,“ small and contained within a Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) wall.
He added a Noise Study was provided that showed the generator will meet all noise standards at the property line and will only operate in emergencies and in the event the site goes dark. He added that since 911 frequencies will go through the site, assurance is needed for a generator backup.
Maintenance of the generator will occur one to two times a month and can be scheduled during working hours between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He added the generator will operate for about 10 minutes during that time and will not be heard at the property line since it will be enclosed within the CMU wall. He further added a sound-proofing barrier will be included.
Mr. Jones further clarified most of the weight of the equipment will be on the ground floor space adjacent to the side of the building, around 300 square feet in size, and the antennas will be on the roof with a stealth surround to hide all of the antennas from view and made to appear as being part of the building with faux windows, painted and textured to match. He stated there will be no visual impacts to the neighboring properties and suggested everyone will benefit from the improved public safety. He added he hoped the Planning Commission would approve the project, particularly since public safety should outweigh any concerns with the project.
Ms. Jones explained that AT&T has worked with the City’s consultant and legal counsel has advised the project cannot be denied based on concerns with Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) since that is against federal law. He added AT&T has shown the site will be in full compliance and with regular tests to be conducted to ensure the facility remains within the guidelines.
Chairperson Mclelland asked the applicant to respond to Mr. Ho’s email and to opine whether his [Mr. Ho’s] concerns were valid.
Mr. Jones stated he had not seen the email and asked for a summary.
Chairperson Mclelland summarized Mr. Ho’s comments as follows:
• His main concern is the potential devaluation of surrounding properties. • Mr. Ho had done some mapping and estimated the number of homes that will be impacted, mainly on the southern side of Condor Street and 16 homes on the northern side of Condor Street.
• Mr. Ho suggested a potential devaluation of $2.8 million, which is significant and greater than 10 percent.
• Mr. Ho did not object to the improvement of network connectivity but asked if there was a better way to address that need.
Chairperson Mclleland found Mr. Ho’s concerns to be valid and asked the applicant to respond to those concerns.
Mr. Jones reported that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) supported broadband infrastructure, and there were studies that showed access to such infrastructure will have higher property values. Mr. Jones further stated that Joint Venture Silicon Valley completed a study in July 2021; the findings were statewide, and the analysis found that Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 16, 2025
there were statistically significant increases in residential real estate valuation after construction of wireless sites. He acknowledged there were some cases where the public opposed a cell site and real estate agents came forward and spoke to the difficulty selling homes due to the lack of wireless broadband coverage in the area. He added he experienced that type of situation in South Lake Tahoe where there has been an effort to reduce the number of telecom sites in that community, which made it difficult for first responders and was a challenge to provide coverage to residential properties due to the terrain.
Mr. Jones stated he believes AT&T has worked with City’s Planning staff to find the best location. Mr. Jones stated are many sites in Union City that will not permit a wireless facility, making it difficult for AT&T to find a property that is zoned, permitted, and has a landlord willing to lease for a long period of time. He went on to note that AT&T has 25 cell sites in the City of Folsom, his hometown, 17 of which are located in City parks; his property value trebled over the past 25 years, and he did not lose any money in real estate.
He added, in that case, great coverage was provided to the local Police Department and first responders have commented on how great the network is and that it is not saturated.
He further added he hoped the same for Union City.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked of the number of AT&T sites in Union City.
Mr. Jones was uncertain of the number of AT&T sites in Union City since there were a number of macro and small cell sites and he could not provide an accurate number. He added that information is proprietary.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked why it is so important to locate the proposed site at the subject location and whether first responders had supported the plan. He also asked with whom from first responders he had spoken, and if it was with the Union City Police Chief.
Mr. Jones reiterated that the proposed site was important to provide the required coverage for first responders who had requested it and that public safety was the number one reason. He added that he has a newly funded search ring in Union City and is excited he may be back in front of the Planning Commission in the not-too-distant future. He also clarified that someone from the Union City Police Department has reached out to AT&T.
When he received the search ring, the notes indicated the Union City Police Department had reached out to identify a lack of AT&T coverage and that the Department was using band 14 FirstNet. He added that as to whether the applicant had reached out to any other first responders, he generally reached out to Fire Departments but was unsure whether or not the Union City Fire Department was also on FirstNet.
Vice-Chairperson Romero explained he wanted the general public to understand why the project is needed, which is why he wants to know if the applicant had, in fact, spoken with first responders. He wants to ensure the public is taken care of and the site is safe for the general public. He again asked for clarification on the hours of operation for the generator and asked if the operation of the generator will be predetermined.
Mr. Jones reiterated the generator will only run in the event of an emergency but clarified there it will be run for maintenance purposes one or two times a month, usually during the daytime pursuant to City code. No maintenance will be conducted at night.
Vice-Chairperson Romero requested clarification whether the subject location is the last site available and that the other alternative sites are not interested in a 25-year lease.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 16, 2025
Mr. Jones confirmed the Vice-Chair’s understanding and reiterated the other sites were not viable, as previously stated, and added that some sites are unable to accommodate another carrier.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked if the applicant had conducted any outreach to the surrounding homes and whether AT&T has notified residents of the application.
Mr. Jones clarified that notification is not done by AT&T but is provided pursuant to the planning or jurisdictional requirements, with residents within 300 feet of a project site typically notified. He stated he was uncertain of the Union City Municipal Code (UCMC) requirements.
Vice-Chairperson Romero understood the structure will meet the regulatory requirements but asked that the general public be made aware of the drawings for the project and that the public be made to feel safe and have faith with something that will be placed on the roof.
Mr. Jones advised the church requested a copy of the as-builts for their own records.
Commissioner Elizondo asked about the location of the nearest AT&T wireless facility.
Mr. Jones noted a coverage map was provided and identified all of the AT&T macro sites within a three-mile radius. He added since he is uncertain what the City’s ordinance required, he asked the RF engineers to identify all macro sites on the coverage map within a certain mile radius.
Chairperson Mclelland asked for clarification if AT&T has, in fact, exhausted all options and if this is truly the last option/site available. She again referenced the email from Mr.
Ho and asked if there is a better way to address the connectivity issue.
Mr. Jones replied yes.
Mohammad Rahmann, 32190 Condor Drive, Union City, stated the facility will be located behind his home and added he has a family with four children and his brother’s family also lives with him. He too referenced Mr. Ho’s email, stated Mr. Ho is one of his neighbors and he shares the concerns with the possible devaluation of neighbors’ properties. He referenced a statement on the NAR website, which stated in part “the results show a significant impact that proximity of towers has on residential property sales prices.
Proximity on residential properties depends on their distance from the residential properties. The closer a residential property is the greater the impact it is on the selling price of the residential property.” He also referenced an article he found online that indicates although it can be below the FCC guidelines, studies show that an array of health complaints including dizziness, nausea, headaches, tinnitus and insomnia can occur. He added the facility will be located behind his home, will be visible, and his backyard is small, and the facility will be around 20 feet from his home and backyard. He objected to the project for those reasons.
Bonnie Hancokien, explained she was speaking on behalf of herself and her neighbor, Cokien Ho, both residents of Condor Drive. She expressed concern with the potential health impacts and commented while there is no definitive and proven link to living so close to a cell site, it is still a subject of ongoing scientific debate. She added there are a few neighbors whose backyards will be right behind this wireless facility, and many residents are elderly, retired and stay at home all day and the exposure will be non-stop and constant. She stated the project will have an impact on property values. She asked about the needs of first responders and asked if there are alternative service providers Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 16, 2025
that can be considered for first responders. She stated while the site may improve service to residents, it will come at a cost and added residents have alternatives for service providers for better coverage, but she is unsure that alternatives are also available to first responders. She asked if AT&T is the only option.
At this time, staff explained that if speakers require the assistance of a translator, the speaker’s time limit will be increased to six rather than three minutes. Otherwise, speakers will continue to be limited to three minutes each.
Wais Ayubi, asked where the equipment will be located. He stated he understood the antennas would be located in a structure to be built at 2,300 square feet, but asked what side of the church the actual equipment would be located and the type of structure.
Chairperson Mclelland asked for staff to respond.
City Attorney Vaughn responded that she recommends the comment be completed and we can address them generally to the public at the end.
He also asked about the size of the structure and the amount of space AT&T is leasing from the church. He stated his background was a wireless engineer who is familiar with the process. He asked for information because when a carrier comes in and leases a structure, other carriers sublease from them, which is part of the reason why the first carrier that goes in requests a larger square footage. If the application moved forward, he wants a condition imposed that the applicant cannot sublease the site. He also stated if there are multiple antennas, the frequency studies will have to be redone. He asked if there is some information on why this facility is needed in the first place and added, as a resident who lived behind the church for 20-years and an AT&T customer for 20-years, he never experienced a dropped call. He suggested it would be easy to provide a report showing the number of dropped calls in a two-mile radius that can be compared against other areas of Union City to determine whether or not there is a problem with connectivity.
Mr. Ayubi added that while everyone wants cell service, they did not want it behind their properties. He asked for assurance the facility is needed, and if so, it will be only for AT&T and not be subleased to multiple carriers. He pointed out carriers typically required a lease at a minimum of 20 years with 24/7 access. He asked if that was true in this case.
Weifeng Chen, stated his property is also located behind the church and his backyard faced the church. His concern was with radiation exposure and while the studies suggest it is okay, he is uncertain of the impacts from exposure after many years. He also shared the concern with a possible devaluation of his property and the fact the tower will operate 24/7, which may impact the elderly and those who stay at home. He asked if there will be information provided on a website that will include the details of the plan and the figures for the emissions from the facility. He added, as a long-time AT&T customer, he had not experienced any issues with coverage. He questioned why the tower is needed at this location, and wants to see a report that shows the reception is poor in the area and that shows the tower is the last option for AT&T.
Saurabh Talway, aka “Sunny,” echoed the comments from Mr. Ayubi. He appreciated the Planning Commission asked detailed questions which made him feel safe in the neighborhood. He asked about the first responders that experienced dropped calls and poor reception and questions whether they were all using AT&T cell phones. He added he wanted to see a report that details the first responders who are experiencing bad service. He relayed a personal experience where he had to contact 911 for his in-laws who have dementia, are elderly and also residents of Condor Drive. He stated in that case and given the close proximity of the Police Department to his home, the response was Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 16, 2025
within seconds after calling 911. He asked about the RF emission impacts on the brain, particularly if a cell tower were to face one’s head. He explained he purchased his residence for the sunlight and wildlife, which can also be affected by the facility, and emphasized the importance of his preference to live in the suburbs, close to nature, trees and having sunlight because he worked at home. He also expressed concern with the precedent that could be set if this application for AT&T is approved. He also asked about the number of similar AT&T facilities approved and installed and if the RF emissions from those facilities can be provided by a consultant independent of AT&T.
David Witkowski, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Oku Solutions, LLC, Electrical Engineer and RF Microwave Expert, who is an Independent Consultant retained by the applicant to conduct peer review, introduced himself to the Planning Commission.
Christine Chen, asked why the applicant did not consider an industrial commercially zoned property rather than a residential site. Her backyard backed to the parking lot and will be close to the building where the facility will be located. She added, as someone who is retired, she was home daily and will be impacted by the facility and is concerned with impacts from potential radiation exposure. She further added she spoke with her neighbors after she received notice about the application and many neighbors were unaware of the application with no information on the City website, although information is posted in the hall at the church. She stated many of her neighbors are currently healthy, and she asked the City, the church and AT&T, where they could go if something happened and again suggested the facility would be better located in a commercial or industrial as opposed to a residential area.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Lew stated she is familiar with AT&T and the former Pac Bell, and is familiar with their contracts, services and installation procedures since she has been a contracting officer for the federal government for at least 20-years, having contracted for telephone and wireless services and all types of telecommunications. She added she is also familiar with the project and stated there will be no tower proposed on the roof of the church and the antennas will be hidden in the building, and admittedly will emit RF signals, but the antennas themselves will not be visible.
Commissioner Lew commented there appeared to be some discrepancy on the height of the building, which staff should clarify, but the picture in the planning packet showed a small corner of the structure to be built on the roof will be visible to Condor Drive. She added the City determined the project will not impact the views from Condor Drive, but she recognized there is some disagreement on that determination.
The views shown from the PowerPoint presentation were again presented.
Commissioner Lew explained that from Condor Drive, the view of the structure itself when installed on the roof, is small and will not block light or any views.
Chairperson Mclelland stated she did not have concern with the views but did share the concern with the potential health impacts.
Commissioner Lew clarified again there would not be a tower and understood another study on the RF emissions cannot be done until after the site has been built.
Chairperson Mclelland emphasized that it is her concern and at that point the site will have already been built.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 16, 2025
Commissioner Lew noted that telecommunications do not stay in one place, they are always moving forward but can be changed out in the future for better equipment and antennas. She also referenced the Alternative Sites Analysis and asked staff if the report is posted on the City website.
Ms. Dean advised the report was supposed to be posted on the City website.
Mr. Farmer confirmed the information had been posted.
Commissioner Lew explained for the benefit of the audience that all of the information presented to the Planning Commission is available on the City website and that information can be downloaded. She added that the Alternative Sites Analysis identifies how many other wireless sites are located in and close to the subject neighborhood and is unsure how many wireless sites are located in Union City. She commented there is a church half a mile from her home, which did not allow a wireless site to be built on the roof and can be considered a win for the almost all residential neighborhoods with the exception of the Four Corners Shopping Center. She added she prefers not to have wireless facilities so close to her home, but they are discussing property located in the Private Institutional Zoning District, and not a private property. She also noted that the Alternative Sites Analysis provides information on the sites AT&T had looked at but were unable to reach an agreement for a contract to build a wireless facility.
Vice-Chairperson Romero expressed concern with public safety, which is of the utmost importance and wanted to see something that can be attached to the application that proves the structure will be safe. He also expressed concern that the applicant could not confirm that he spoke to first responders, and how the public had been notified of the application, suggesting that had the applicant done some outreach beforehand it may have calmed some nerves.
Commissioner Elizondo agreed it is important to determine the importance of the facility to first responders.
Chairperson Mclelland asked if the Planning Commission needed more information before moving forward and in her view, a lot more needed to be answered.
Juliet Vaughn, Legal Counsel, reminded the Planning Commission that the City is under a legally required timeline to decide the project and can face legal action if it did not make a decision by the October 27, 2025, Shot Clock deadline.
Chairperson Mclelland asked whether her fellow Commissioners were seeking additional information or were ready to vote.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked about the process if clarifying information is requested.
Ms. Vaughn asked whether the clarifying information is something the applicant or the consultants can respond to or whether it is something that requires time outside of the meeting.
Chairperson Mclelland understood more information on first responder feedback is being requested.
Vice-Chairperson Romero wanted to ensure that first responders were on board with the process.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 16, 2025
Ms. Vaughn advised that all of the projects that come to the Planning Commission are reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments prior to presentation to the Planning Commission. Staff received no specific comments from Police or Fire on the application.
Mr. Farmer confirmed applications were referred to Police and Fire staff had a weekly Development Review Committee meeting, which included Police and Fire staff as part of that weekly review. He added this project was considered by the Development Review Committee at least eight to ten times due to the complexity involved with a number of reports, studies and issues related to the project.
In response to Vice-Chairperson Romero, Mr. Farmer reiterated that Police and Fire reviewed the project and were on board.
Ms. Dean also confirmed Police and Fire have reviewed the project and they had no negative comments.
Chairperson Mclelland again clarified the Shot Clock deadline of October 27, 2025.
Commissioner Elizondo asked if the application can be approved with conditions.
Mr. Farmer explained that the Chair may re-open the public hearing to allow the applicant to make additional comments in response to the Planning Commission’s concerns, or conditions may be added to the project as long as they are related to the findings necessary for the Planning Commission to take action either for or against the project.
He cautioned against imposing any conditions related to information not already seen given the FCC Shot Clock deadline and tolling agreement. He added staff did not want to have anything that will be conditioned on additional information the Planning Commission has not already seen to this point and cannot be clarified at this time.
Ms. Vaughn responded to comments from the audience and advised the public comment period is closed. She added staff can address concerns after the meeting but cannot take any additional public comment after the three-minute time limit per speaker has expired.
Mr. Farmer confirmed with the City Attorney that the appeal rights needed to be read into the record for the benefit of the audience regardless of the action taken on the application.
Commissioner Lew stated she was ready to vote.
Commissioner Elizondo asked when construction will begin on the project.
Mr. Farmer advised the public hearing can be re-opened to allow the applicant to respond to the question.
Chairperson Mclelland reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to respond to questions.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
Vice-Chairperson Romero commented he had taken some notes on the public comments, and he asked the applicant if the site will be leased out to someone else in the future.
Mr. Jones suggested that it is speculative and up to the church whether or not it wanted to lease additional ground space to another carrier, although in his opinion, the roof will not hold another carrier due to the support structures.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 16, 2025
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked about the impacts to wildlife and the ecosystem.
Mr. Jones deferred to David Witkowski, a member of the applicant’s team and EMF expert.
He reiterated that AT&T has worked with the City’s peer reviewer who did a great in-depth review of all of the documents provided to the City. He added Mr. Witkowski was also part of the 2021 Joint Venture Silicon Valley statewide study earlier referenced.
Mr. Witkowski explained that the standards were developed by the IEEE and he is a Senior Member of IEEE and a member of the committee that developed the standards. He is also the author of two studies on property valuations published by Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a non-profit based in the region. He clarified when looking at the systematic review that many studies had been done on the question of impacts to flora and fauna, with an analysis on quality and the claims about effects. He added when looking at quality and the claims about effects, they found a trend where the highest quality studies on flora or fauna had found no effect on flora and fauna and lower studies claimed to find effects but because they were lower studies, they will be discounted. He further added that in his professional opinion, there will be no effect on wildlife.
Mr. Witkowski responded to the concerns with birds and commented he climbed towers for many years, and one of the things they dealt with on towers were birds’ nests since they liked to be up high and that it is a safe place for the nests. He added he has been on towers on a number of occasions and has not scared birds away and welcomed any other questions including any questions on real estate valuation.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked for elaboration on the real estate valuation concerns.
Mr. Witkowski explained that Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a non-profit organization founded in 1993, conducted two studies on real estate valuation. A hedonic analysis or spatial difference and differences method was used and the economist used for the 2021 study was a real estate economist and Ph.D., Chief Economic Officer for house.com and Trulia, Veritas Urbis. What happened in that study was that they took 10-years of data and looked at 1,100 towers over the course of ten years from 2010 to 2020 and $11,000,000 plus real estate transactions and computationally measured whether or not there were effects on properties near to wireless facilities as opposed to comparable properties that were further away.
Mr. Witkowski stated the study found no significant difference in devaluation and depending on jurisdictions (with examples provided for communities in Santa Rosa, which have different trends than communities like Visalia) showed a property value increase given the current hyper-connected generation who wanted devices to work and wanted to be connected. He acknowledged the NAR had published some things it saw as a problem with this, but having spoken with the leadership of the NAR and in the aftermath of his report, he was told there is a religious war going on in the NAR about this subject, with a faction that believes there is an effect and a faction that did not believe there was an effect.
He detailed the studies done, including studies he had done, and a study done by Monnig (unintelligible), Valbridge, Affuso and Le described as one of the better studies, which talked about how there is a disamenity for aesthetically displeasing towers if one lived next to a large metal structure that is visible that has an effect, although camouflaged sites have no disamenity on property valuations. He concluded, based on everything he has seen in the subject plan, this will be a well-camouflaged structure and in his professional opinion and having done work in this area, he suggested there will be no opportunity for disamenity for property valuation on nearby residences.
Vice-Chairperson Romero commented that some of the neighbors asked for drop call data and asked if there is any data that can be provided to help explain the need for this.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 October 16, 2025
Mr. Witkowski clarified he was contracted by the company that did the EMF Study, Waterford Associates, and he did not have access to that data since he is not contracted with nor an employee of AT&T and cannot provide that data to the Planning Commission.
Vice-Chairperson Romero understood the site will be small enough where it will not be leased out.
Mr. Jones stated many AT&T sites are co-locatable and are required to have a Master Lease Agreement with all carriers. He added that under the federal license that is issued for each site, they must be available for co-location and when dealing with a private landlord, it is on the private landlord whether to enter into an agreement with another carrier or not, which will require Planning Commission approval and is not a guaranteed right.
Vice-Chairperson Romero understood the church will be compensated for the placement of the equipment.
Mr. Jones confirmed the church will be compensated and stated the projected forecast for beginning construction will be the third to fourth quarter of 2026.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Lew moved that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001).
Vice-Chairperson Romero seconded. A Roll Call vote was taken.
The motion passed 3-1. Chairperson Mclelland voted no.
Mr. Farmer read into the record the appeal clause pursuant to Union City Municipal Code Section 18.052.088 (c) where a decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in writing within 10-calendar days, submitted to the City Clerk and subject to a filing fee.
Chairperson Mclelland declared a recess at 8:51 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with all Planning Commissioners present with the exception of Commissioners Guio and Gupta Garg.
4.2.2 Sarah Lantimo, Project Applicant; K Square Investment LLC; Owner; Use Permit (UP-25-004) – Hypnovia is seeking Use Permit (UP-25-004) approval for a massage/body work
business expansion to an existing Hypnotherapy Office. The site is located at 30669 Union City Boulevard within the (VMU) Village Mixed Use Zoning District. Staff is recommending the project be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Under Section 15301,
Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.
Samuel Flumann, Assistant Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation for Use Permit (UP-25-004), for Sarah Lantimo, Applicant, on behalf of K Square Investment LLC, Owner, for Hypnovia.
Mr. Fluhmann reported a Desk Item was prepared in response to questions/comments from Commissioner Lew to clarify that all information in Exhibit B is accurate, the “back Planning Commission Minutes 14 October 16, 2025
room” shown on Pages A02 and A03 in Exhibit A will be the “back massage room” as indicated on Page 2 of Exhibit B; the floor plan side of the presentation was updated to reflect this and the applicant will send a revised plan set for the approved project file to document this change.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution approving Use Permit (UP-25-004).
Commissioner Elizondo asked for clarification of the hours of operation since he understood the doors would be shut at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Fluhmann confirmed the business will shut down at 8:00 p.m.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked in the event of an emergency where the Fire Department and ambulance will park since the parking slide in the PowerPoint presentation where the stalls are located appeared too tight. He asked if the street will be impacted in any way and referenced Sheet A01 which shows the location and asked if emergency services will use the street side.
Mr. Fluhmann explained the front entrance for the existing hypnotherapy office is the front entrance from the parking lot.
Mr. Farmer clarified when the development was subject to Site Development Review it was also subject to all of the clearance requirements for public safety and public access, with the fire lane width and all of those features reviewed for compliance. He added when the project was approved, all of the different reviewing agencies in the City conditioned the project for public safety and access.
Vice-Chairperson Romero wants it stated for the public that there could be some individuals who may require emergency services. He also understood there would be no changes to the exterior and asked for clarification.
Mr. Fluhmann stated based on the project materials, no changes to the exterior are proposed.
Mr. Farmer clarified there is a condition of approval for the project that any future signage will be required to be consistent with the approved Master Sign Program for the center and the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Vice-Chairperson Romero understood there will be no modifications to the interior walls.
He asked if there will be any impacts to the adjacent residents of the mixed-use development.
Mr. Fluhmann confirmed there will be no interior construction of any kind and the applicant proposed adding a front massage room and two massage tables. He added there should be no impact to the adjacent residential uses.
Commissioner Lew found staff had done a great job on the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Sarah Lantimo, Applicant, reported her hypnotherapy business has been located in Union City for the past 11 years; she works with people who suffer from panic attacks and anxiety through a holistic approach; she loved Union City; and was a member of the Merchant Association Board when the Art and Wine Festival was held. She added the business Planning Commission Minutes 15 October 16, 2025
plans will add a front massage room, two massage tables and a massage therapist will come in to provide more healing, body work and relaxation with the mind and adding the body component will be like a different user experience for the practice and is intended to provide and promote a healthy lifestyle.
Commissioner Lew liked the business ideas.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked about the number of employees to be added to the business.
Ms. Lantimo clarified she is looking at adding one to two employees; she is renting a large space, and the proposal will provide a nice addition; and she is currently in a long-term lease and is trying to be creative to expand the business and bring in new people.
Vice-Chairperson Romero asked if the applicant foresaw hiring additional employees which may impact the parking in the lot.
Ms. Lantimo stated there has always been parking available in the lot and neither she nor her clients had experienced any problems with parking.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Vice-Chairperson Romero found the project to be a good plan and a good business to bring to the City, which will bring additional revenue and provide key services. He encouraged the City to come up with groups like this that will help businesses grow and stated Union City is a great city that will benefit from such additional businesses.
Vice-Chairperson Romero moved to adopt the attached resolution approving Use Permit (UP-25-004).
Commissioner Lew seconded. A Roll Call vote was taken.
The motion passed 4-0.
5. COMMISSION MATTERS
5.1 Follow-up on Planning Commission Referrals to the City Council Mr. Farmer reported no items were referred to the City Council since the last Planning Commission hearing.
5.2 Upcoming Applications for the Regular Planning Commission meeting on November 6, 2025
Mr. Farmer reported the Planning Commission meeting of November 6, 2025 will include an application for a Use Permit and Administrative Site Development Review for a new Single-Family residence at 400 Appian Way
6. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Vice-Chairperson Romero announced the month of October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which is near and dear to his heart.
7. ADJOURNMENT: 9:25 P.M.