Appeal of New Wireless Facility
UP-25-001/SD-25-001
Item 3.1
2 Background
Owner: Southern Alameda
County Buddhist
Church
Applicant: AT&T Mobility
Location: 32975 AlvaradoNiles Road
Lot Size: 3.8 Acres
3 Background
•General Plan / Zoning
Private Institutional
(PI)
•Allows for roof
mounted wireless
facilities on
buildings/does not
allow for new
monopoles
Project Site
MS
PI
RM 2500
RS 4500
MS
CPA
ML
4 Wireless Facility Enclosure
Building Parapet
Property Line
Edge of Building Roof
80’.+/-
23’. 4”
15 ft.
5 Proposed
Site Plan
23’, 4”
Equipment
Enclosure
6 View from Dowe Avenue
7 View from Corner of Alvarado-Niles
Road /Dowe Avenue
8 View from Alvarado-Niles Road
9 View from Condor Drive
10 Planning Commission Review and Appeal Process
• PC reviewed October 16, 2025
• Approval on a 3:1 vote
• PC Attachments included in CC report
• Appealed October 23, 2025
• Subject to provisions included in Municipal Code Chapter
18.52 11
Peer Review (UCMC Sec. 18.114.120.D)
Radio Frequency Emissions – RF exposure levels below
FCC’s recommended safety limits
Noise – Confirmed estimated Noise levels comply with City’s Noise Ordinance
Wireless Coverage – Demonstrated coverage problem; no
issues with analysis
Alternative Sites Analysis – Sites available for leasing were infeasible; of sites confirmed information was consistent with Sites Analysis
12 Overview of Appeal Letter (Attachment 6)
1. Lack of Resident Notification, Transparency,
Engagement
2. Undisclosed Agreement with Buddhist
Church
3. Public Safety Justification, Missing Data
4. Proximity/Impact on Residential Neighborhood
13 Overview of Appeal Letter (Cont.)
5. Health, RF Emissions, Heat Concerns
6. Maintenance / Generator Noise, Resident Notification
7. Alternative Site Evaluation/Transparency
8. Request for City Action
14 FCC Shot Clocks & Tolling Agreements
• Rules adopted by the FCC
• “Reasonable period of time”
• Violated if it takes longer than 150 days to act
• Extension of time must be agreed upon by applicant/City in written agreement
• First extension granted to October 27
• Second extension granted to November 14
15 Public Comment
• Two emails received from Mr. Eugene Ho (Attachment 9) • Comment letter from AT&T responding to Appeal (Attachment 10)
• Email from Saurabh Talwar (received via email 11/2/25) • Email from William Lum (received via mail 11/3/5)
• Additional email from Mr. Ho regarding CEQA determination (received via email 11/4/25)
• Email from Sreenivasa D. Rao and Kanakadurga D. Rao
(received via email 11/4/25)
16 Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of UP25-001 and SD-25-001 and Adopt a resolution: (1) Denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Review (Staff Recommendation); or (2) Denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Review, with modified conditions; or (3) Approving the Appeal and denying the Use Permit and Site Development Review