Agenda packet — Union City City Council, November 13, 2025

November 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 4
City Council
Special Meeting Agenda

NOTICE AND AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

SPECIAL MEETING
GARY SINGH, Mayor
SCOTT SAKAKIHARA, Vice Mayor (District 4)
LANCE NISHIHIRA, Councilmember (District 1)
JAIME PATIÑO, Councilmember (District 2)
JEFF WANG, Councilmember (District 3)
Thursday, November 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM
City Hall – Tom Kitayama City Council Chambers
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC HEARINGS

3.1. Continue Public Hearing from November 13, 2025 to December 9, 2025 to Consider an Appeal by Saurabh Talwar, Sunita Goyal, Christine Chen, Jon Kuo, Mohammad Fasiur Rahman, Weifeng Chen, and Wais Aubi of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) for a New Wireless Facility at the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN: 475-0148-002-00); and Adopt a Resolution: (1) Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Review; 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. Staff is Recommending that 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

4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Comments Limited to Items Not on the Special Meeting Agenda

5. ADJOURNMENT
November 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 4
City Council
Special Meeting Agenda

MEETING INFORMATION
The City Council is legally authorized to act only on items listed on the agenda.

Regular City Council meetings are held in person on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.

Meetings can also be observed via Zoom: http://citycouncil-live.unioncity.org.

Meetings are broadcast live on UCTV Channel 15 and live-streamed on the City's website:
https://bit.ly/3x9mEiR.

Public Comment: If you wish to speak, please fill out a speaker card and submit it before the Oral Communications section. This helps the Chair allocate the appropriate time for speakers.

Members of the public cannot provide comments via Zoom unless specifically permitted, as detailed below. Remote access is subject to technical availability. If the Zoom platform or other technology fails, the City Council will proceed with the meeting in person unless prohibited by law.

Public Records: Documents related to agenda items are available for review on the City's website (https://www.unioncity.org) or during business hours at the City Clerk's Office, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.

Accessibility: If you require special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (510) 675-5448 at least 72 hours before the meeting. Closed captioning is available for all regular City Council meetings.

ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
In-Person Public Comment:

Members of the public may address the Council on any agenda item or during the Public Input portion of the meeting. To speak, please fill out a speaker card with your name and city of residence. If you would like a follow-up from the City, you may also provide your mailing address.

Completing a speaker card and providing your name, city, or mailing address are not required to make a public comment but are requested for record-keeping purposes.

Written Comment:

To submit written comments on an agenda item or during Public Comment, please email [email protected]. Include "Public Comment" in the subject line and reference the agenda item number. Written comments will be forwarded to the City Council and made publicly available.

Public Comment via Zoom:

As noted above, the public may not address the Council via Zoom unless required by AB 2449. If the City is required to provide this opportunity, the Mayor will announce it at the beginning of the meeting. If allowed, raise your virtual hand on Zoom to indicate that you would like to speak on a specific agenda item.

CITY COUNCIL NORMS AND GUIDELINES
(Resolution No. 6129-23; Adopted May 23, 2023)
The Union City Council abides by the following norms:

November 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 4
City Council
Special Meeting Agenda

1. We conduct ourselves in a professional manner, treat everyone with respect, and act with high integrity, always putting the interests of the City of Union City ahead of self-interests in accordance with our code of ethics.

2. We respect the Council-Manager form of government, and do not interfere with the City Manager's role or any professional duties of City staff.

3. We recognize that matters of confidential nature are to be kept private and undisclosed.

4. We respect each other's opinions and are supportive of each other's work advocating for the City, and we ensure that all voices are heard. We do not criticize others for having a different point of view, and we agree to disagree respectfully.

5. We understand that the City Council acts as a body, all members are equal, and policy direction is only given by a majority vote of the City Council. Once a decision is made, all members of the City Council must respect the City Council's direction.

6. We will be prepared for City Council meetings and ask our questions of the City Manager in advance so we can avoid surprising City staff at meetings.

7. We do not criticize City staff publicly or to others and will refrain from directing them. Instead, we will take our concerns and questions privately to the City Manager.

8. We will govern on an at-large basis, although elected by districts. We will maintain a citywide perspective and consider the needs and interests of the entire community.

9. We will continue to allocate resources based on long-term strategic priorities and efforts, with consideration of citywide service levels and financial capacity.

10. We understand customer service is the priority and each member of the City Council will help constituents regardless of the district in which they reside or from which a Councilmember themselves is elected.

11. We recognize the significant importance of attendance and participation at City Council meetings in proceeding with City business. All members of the City Council should endeavor to miss no more than two regular meetings per calendar year absent extraordinary circumstances. Members of the City Council should, absent unforeseen circumstances, provide a minimum of sixty days' notice to the City Council of planned absences during the Good of the Order or Items Referred by Council portion of the City Council agenda, as appropriate.

May these Council Norms be administered and enforced in the following manner:

1. Councilmembers have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met by the Council, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government.

2. The Mayor and the Council have the responsibility to intervene when action of its members are in violation of Council Norms.

3. The City Council can review and revise the Council Norms as needed.

4. During City Council discussions, deliberations, and proceedings, the Mayor is designated with the primary responsibility to ensure that Councilmembers adhere to the Council Norms.

November 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 4
City Council
Special Meeting Agenda

CERTIFICATION OF MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA POSTING
This notice and agenda were posted on the City's website and the City Hall bulletin board at least 24 hours prior to the meeting date, in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. /s/Thai Nam Pham, MMC, CPMC
City Clerk
City Council Staff Report Page 1 of 4 November 13, 2025 Agenda Item No. 3.1
DATE: November 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joan Malloy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Continue Public Hearing from November 13, 2025 to December 9, 2025 to Consider an Appeal by Saurabh Talwar, Sunita Goyal, Christine Chen, Jon Kuo, Mohammad Fasiur Rahman, Weifeng Chen, and Wais Aubi of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) for a New Wireless Facility at the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN: 475-0148-002-00); and Adopt a Resolution: (1) Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Review; 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.

Staff is Recommending that 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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommend that the City Council continue the public hearing for appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) to December 9, 2025, to allow the applicant time to meet with the property owner to discuss a modified project design (i.e., from roof mounted facility to monopole) and for staff to confirm the process /timeline should the property owner agree to an alternate design.

The appeal was heard at the November 4, 2025, Special City Council meeting, and the City Council continued the hearing to November 13, 2025. This report includes all of the attachments included in the City Council Staff Report from November 4, 2025.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item does not have alignment with a specific Strategic Plan strategy.

BACKGROUND
5 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 4 November 13, 2025 The scope of the approved Use Permit (UP-25-001) included a new wireless facility on the roof of the multi-purpose building located at the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church (32975 Alvarado-Niles Road). The building is one-story and measures approximately 20,374 square feet. The Use Permit also allowed an associated increase in the building height from 28 feet, 5 inches to 43 feet, 5 inches to accommodate a new structure to screen the wireless facility. The PI Zoning District allows an increase in the maximum permitted height from 35 feet to 50 feet, subject to the issuance of a use permit.

The Site Development Review approval (SD-25-001) allowed the construction of a new, 2,320-square-foot roof-mounted enclosure housing nine (9) antennas and a 359-squarefoot ground-mounted wireless equipment enclosure located adjacent to the multi-purpose building.

UP-25-001 and SD-25-001 were approved by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2025, and appealed on October 23, 2025. The Planning Commission’s decision is stayed until the City Council acts on the appeal. The City Council heard the appeal at a Special Meeting held on November 4, 2025, and, with the applicant’s agreement, continued the Public Hearing to November 13, 2025. See Attachments 2 through 14 for an overview of the Planning Commission and City Council public record, including public comments received after the November 4 appeal hearing.

Under rules adopted by the FCC in 2019, a local agency has 150 days to act on an application to deploy a wireless facility on a new structure. The applicant and the City agreed in writing to extend the deadline to October 27, 2025, to complete the peer review and the Planning Commission hearing. The agreement was extended again to November 14, 2025, to accommodate the appeal process.

DISCUSSION
On November 4, 2025, the City Council considered the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project. On a 5-0 vote, the City Council continued the public hearing to November 13, 2025, to allow the applicant to meet with the site’s property owner to discuss updating the design of the proposed, roof-mounted wireless facility to a monopole. The meeting date of November 13 was chosen because the current Tolling Agreement expires on November 14, and either the Tolling Agreement must be extended or the City Council must take action on the appeal by that date.

Staff recommend that the City Council continue the public hearing to December 9, 2025, to provide additional time for the applicant to coordinate with the property owner on the change to the project design, conduct due diligence on the change to the project scope, and explore other options. A Zoning Text Amendment is required to allow for monopoles in the Private Institutional (PI) Zoning District, and the monopole would be subject to the City’s Use Permit and Site Development Review process consistent with the process currently identified for new monopoles. The additional time will allow City staff to confirm the following steps in the process and timeline, should the property owner agree to modify the design. This analysis will also inform the development of any future extensions to the tolling agreement.

Staff spoke with Andrew Lesa, Vice President of Operations at Epic Wireless, a member 6 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 3 of 4 November 13, 2025 of the applicant team, who attended the November 4 City Council meeting. Mr. Lesa and staff mutually agreed to extend the Tolling Agreement to December 12, 2025, to provide some additional time to complete the tasks listed above, especially given the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. An updated Tolling Agreement was sent to the applicant on Monday, November 10, for AT&T’s signature. It is anticipated that all parties will sign the Tolling Agreement before the City Council hears this item on November 13.

Staff will be sending an email to the individuals who submitted public comments and provided email addresses regarding the upcoming meeting and the staff’s recommendation to continue the item to December 9, 2025.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council further continue the public hearing to December 9, 2025, to decide on the appeal, to allow time for the applicant to meet with the property owner to discuss an alternative design for the wireless facility; and to allow staff time to work on next steps, including extension of the tolling agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant paid the required application fee established in the current Master Fee Schedule.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council continue the public hearing of November 13, 2025, to December 9, 2025, to decide on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001).

Prepared by: Natalie Dean, Associate Planner
Submitted by: Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director Attachments:

1. Attachment 1: Draft City Council Resolution Approving Use Permit (UP-25-001), Site Development Review (SD-25-001)
Exhibit A - Project Plans
Exhibit B - Statement of Use
Exhibit C - Photo Simulations

2. Attachment 2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 10/16/2025

3. Attachment 3: Draft Planning Commission Resolution dated 10/16/2025

4. Attachment 4: Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/16/2025

5. Attachment 5: Desk Item dated 10/16/2025

6. Attachment 6: Appeal Letter dated 10/19/2025

7. Attachment 7: Noise Analysis

8. Attachment 8: Alternative Sites Analysis

9. Attachment 9: Public Comment dated October 24, 2025

10.Attachment 10: Public Comment dated October 30, 2025

11.Attachment 11: City Council Staff Report dated November 4, 2025

12.Attachment 12: Public Comment dated November 4, 2025 7 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 4 of 4 November 13, 2025

13.Attachment 13: Public Comment dated November 5, 2025

14.Attachment 14: Public Comment dated November 11,2025 8 of 153
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 of 7 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT (UP-25-001) FOR A NEW WIRELESS FACILITY ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING, ONE-STORY, 20,374 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING AND TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING FROM 28 FEET, FIVE INCHES TO 43 FEET, 5 INCHES; AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-25-001) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,320 SQUARE-FOOT, ROOF-MOUNTED
ENCLOSURE AND 359 SQUARE-FOOT GROUND-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT
ENCLOSURE AT 32975 ALVARADO-NILES ROAD
WHEREAS, the applicant Carl Jones of AT&T Mobility, for AT&T, on behalf of 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 to increase the height of the building from 28 feet, five inches to 43 feet, 5 inches; and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) for the construction of a new 2,320 squarefoot roof-mounted enclosure and 359 square-foot ground-mounted equipment enclosure; and
WHEREAS, the 3.8-acre project site is located at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN: 475 -0148-002-00); and
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan designation of Private Institutional (PI) and a Zoning designation of Private Institutional (PI); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65905 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) applications on October 16, 2025, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered the staff report dated October 16, 2025, incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff report, and all other recommendations, reports, and testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Draft Resolution No. x-25 recommending approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD25-001) to the City Council on a vote of 3-1; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.52.088, an appeal of the Planning Commission decision filed by Saurabh Talwar, Sunita Goyal, Christine Chen, Jon Kuo, Mohammad Fasiur Rahman, Weifeng Chen, and Wais Aubi on October 23, 2025; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Union City on November 4, 2025, to consider the appeal and at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered a staff report dated November 4, 2025, and all other recommendations, reports and testimony before making a decision on the project; and
9 of 153
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Appeal - UP-25-001/ SD-25-001

Page 2 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing on November 4, 2025, received the staff presentation and public testimony, and continued the hearing to November 13, 2025, at 6:00 p.m; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission record, the staff report and attachments, and additional written public comments received through the date of the continued hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Union City does hereby find as follows:

California Environmental Quality Act

1. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines.

Use Permit (UCMC Sec. 18.56.060)

2. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and the purposes of the Private Institutional (PI) District. The project, as conditioned, will screen all equipment within a new rooftop enclosure; equipment will also be located on the ground in a concrete masonry unit CMU enclosure. The new facility will promote orderly and beneficial development by improving the availability of wireless service for residents and businesses. The new facility is compatible with the character of development in the PI Zoning District; the new wireless facility will be designed to match the existing building in terms of architecture, color, and materials.

3. The location of the use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties within the vicinity. The project will adhere to all required conditions from the City and responsible agencies. Under UCMC Section 18.114.100, wireless telecommunication facilities must meet standards and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and any agency with the authority to regulate radio frequency emissions of wireless telecommunication facilities. The Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report For AT&T Mobility, dated September 5, 2025, attests the project meets said standards and requirements. Further, the height is increasing by fifteen (15) feet, the minimum required to accommodate the antennas and will be constructed upon the roof of an existing building and outside of any required setbacks for structures at the site.

Page 3 of 7 ends

cemeteries, churches, private educational facilities, private non-profit and service organizations, and continuing care retirement communities. The wireless facility will utilize the existing building at the site for the project. The new wireless facility will improve the coverage for AT&T and improve service to customers in the vicinity. The project complies with Title 18 by providing a use that promotes and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and the general welfare of the people.

There are no specific plans applicable to the site.

Private Institutional (PI) District (UCMC Sec. 18.51.030.C)

5. The maximum height limit shall be 35 feet. This height limit may be increased to a maximum of 50 feet subject to a use permit. The height of the project will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use within the surrounding area. The height of the proposed structure is 43 feet and five inches and is set back approximately 80 feet from the adjacent residential lots. As shown in the photo simulations, there are no impacts to light.

Wireless Telecommunication Facilities (UCMC Sec.18.114.130)

6. The project has been designed per the requirements of UCMC Chapter 18.114. The location of the project has been designed to meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC and PUC pertaining to RF emissions standards. The applicant has provided all plans, documents and reports that evidence compliance with requirements for design, safety, noise, and wireless gap coverage per the requirements of this Chapter 18.114.130. The project is consistent with all provisions in this chapter regarding general requirements, location, height and design.

Additionally, the project has been conditioned to comply with all applicable standards for operations and maintenance.

7. The equipment will be screened and set back from the right-of-way as much as feasible. The wireless facility will be enclosed with a rooftop structure designed to match the architecture of the building. The equipment enclosure will be located on the ground in an enclosure, also designed to match the existing building.

8. The new wireless facility will fill a significant gap in coverage and capacity shortfall in the applicant's service area and as designed, is the least intrusive means of doing so. The applicant has submitted documentation that demonstrates a coverage gap in this area; these documents have been reviewed by the City’s consultant who has confirmed and concurred with these conclusions. The project has been sited per all setback requirements and has been designed to minimize visual and related aesthetic impacts to nearby neighbors and views from public right of ways.

Site Development Review (UCMC Sec. 18.76.045)

Page 4 of 7 ends

located in an FRP enclosure on top of an existing building, that is currently used as a faith-based institution. The FRP structure will be designed and painted to match the architecture and colors of the existing building, thereby minimizing potential visual impacts when viewed from public rights of way and residential areas. There are no specific plans applicable to the site.

10. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, which seeks to promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and the general welfare of the people and to promote the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. The approval of this application is consistent with the requirements of the PI Zoning District in which the site is located by being a stealth design that matches the existing building; the project also promotes orderly, attractive development and the stability of land values and investments, by preventing the establishment of uses or the erection of structures having undesirable qualities, or which would not meet the specific intent clause or performance standard requirement of the zoning title. The presence of the new antennas will improve the coverage for AT&T and improve service to customers in the vicinity and for the needs of residents, businesses, and first responders in the City of Union City.

11. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of site development review as outlined in Section 18.76.010. The project, as conditioned, promotes attractive development, investment in the community and the general welfare, by preventing structures which are not properly related to their sites. The project has been sited and designed to minimize potential visual and related aesthetic impacts to nearby residents and will be painted and screened to blend in with existing structures and surrounding site amenities compatible with the existing religious facility. The presence of the new antennas will improve the coverage for AT&T and improve service to customers in the vicinity and for the needs of residents, businesses, and first responders in the City of Union City.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of Union City hereby approves Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001), as set forth in Exhibits A, B and C, and subject to the following Conditions of Approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division

1. All actual site improvements shall be made with adherence to the plans listed in Exhibit A, except as they may be modified by other conditions of approval listed below. Any variation or modification from the approved plans are subject to the review and approval of the Economic and Community Development Department.

2. This application shall expire one year from the date of Planning Commission approval unless building permits have been issued and construction diligently pursued.

3. The applicant and/or property owner shall include an annotated copy of the approved Planning Commission Resolution with each set of detailed construction plans 12 of 153
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Appeal - UP-25-001/ SD-25-001

Page 5 of 7 ends

submitted for plan check review. Notations to the plans shall be made to clearly indicate how all conditions of approval will be or have been complied with.

Construction plans shall not be accepted without the annotated final conditions of approval included as a note sheet with each set of plans.

4. The applicant and/or property owner shall apply for and take out all required building and fire permits prior to beginning any on-site work. Plans submitted to the Building Division and Fire Department must demonstrate compliance with all applicable local and state requirements.

5. The applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors have obtained a valid City of Union City business license for the duration of the project.

6. The applicant and/or property owner shall ensure the wireless facility complies with applicable FCC Regulations regarding radio frequency and any and all recommendations for safety requirements including but not limited to those safety recommendations listed in the Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report For AT&T Mobility, dated September 5, 2025.

7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit samples and details of color palettes and all exterior materials, for review and approval by the Economic & Community Development Department. Any future amendments or changes to the approved painting schemes shall be submitted to the Economic and Community Development Department for approval prior to the full painting of the proposed structure.

8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall note on plans submitted for building permits that all visible exterior surfaces, including conduits or other equipment, are to be constructed of non-reflective materials, match the existing background in terms of color and materials, and be concealed and screened.

9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall note on plans submitted for building permits that the wireless telecommunication facility lighting shall be designed to meet but not exceed minimum requirements for security and safety, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, and in all instances shall be designed to avoid glare and minimize illumination on adjacent properties.

10.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall note on plans submitted for building permits that no advertising be placed on any part of the wireless facility, equipment, or the equipment enclosure.

11.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall show on plans submitted for building permits that the wireless telecommunication facility shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in 13 of 153
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Appeal - UP-25-001/ SD-25-001

Page 6 of 7 ends

hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. The provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism shall be provided.

12.Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall pay the General Plan Cost Recovery Fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The current fee is $1.00 per $1,000.00 of construction valuation per City Council Resolution Number 3379-07.

13.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall note and demonstrate on plans submitted for building permits that the wireless telecommunication facility project shall comply with the operations and maintenance standards of UCMC Sec. 18.114.090 at all times.

14.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall note on plans submitted for building permits that the wireless telecommunication facility shall install and maintain conspicuous signage identifying the name and phone number of a party to contact in the event of an emergency. The design, materials, colors, and location of signs shall be subject to Director approval. Contact information shall be kept current.

15.Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, each owner or operator of the wireless telecommunication facility shall obtain and maintain current at all times a business license issued by the City.

Building Division

16.A comprehensive review will be conducted upon submission of a complete plan set and all required documentation. Project plans submitted for a building permit must fully comply with the California Building Codes in effect at the time of submission.

Fire Department

17.Plans to meet building and fire codes adopted at time of building plan submittal.

Public Works Department

18.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work within the public right-of-way.

19.The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Public Works Department prior to any site disturbance for the project.

20.The applicant shall coordinate the execution of non-exclusive easement(s) with the relevant utility agency/company. If the utility easement to be dedicated is for the benefit of the utility agency and not the “public,” the City will not be involved with the execution and recordation of the easements.
14 of 153
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Appeal - UP-25-001/ SD-25-001

Page 7 of 7 ends

21.The applicant shall coordinate with PG&E to ensure that PG&E’s facilities/easements are not impacted, as outlined in PG&E’s letter dated February 10, 2025.

Environmental Programs

22.The applicant/property owner is hereby advised that unauthorized discharge of any kind to the storm water system, which includes the streets and gutters, is prohibited, and that such discharges, whether intentional or not, are subject to penalties up to $20,000 per violation per day. This applies both to the construction phase and to routine facility operations.

23.The applicant/property owner shall note on plans for building permit submittal indicating the total volume of battery electrolyte in the equipment cabinets under AT&T control at this site at project completion.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on this 13th day of November 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

GARY SINGH
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J.

KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
15 of 153
SITE NAME: ALVARADO-NILES ROAD

EXHIBIT A
16 of 153
17 of 153
18 of 153
19 of 153
20 of 153
21 of 153
22 of 153
23 of 153
24 of 153
25 of 153
26 of 153
27 of 153
28 of 153
29 of 153
30 of 153
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive Suite 100
Folsom, CA. 95630
Fax (916) 781-5927

DATE: 4/17/2025
Union City
Economic and Community Development
34009 Alvarado-Niles Rd.

Union City CA 94578
AT&T Project / Statement of Use
Re: Proposed New AT&T rooftop Wireless Telcom Facility
AT&T Site Ref# CBL00155/Alvarado Niles & Medallion Dr.

Located at: 32975 Alvarado-Niles Rd, Union City, CA 94587. APN: 475-148-2 This is an Unmanned AT&T wireless telecom facility:
• Operations of the project will occur 12 months a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day consistent with the continuous schedule of normal telephone company operations. • The facility is "unmanned" and will be visited on an "as needed" basis only. No more than two technicians will attend the facility. Their schedule will be on a 24-hour basis in the event of an emergency or power outage. No more than two service vehicles, being either a van or a small pickup truck will visit the facility.
• The equipment located on the roof and within AT&T’s lease area will be used for telephone operations. • There will be no supplies or materials stored on the site. • There will be no noise (No A/C units), glare, dust or odors associated with the facility. • There will be no drop-off/pickups.
• The telecom equipment will be concealed on the rooftop and the ground equipment will be secured behind a new proposed 9ft tall CMU block wall textured and painted to match the exterior of the building and completely hidden from public view.
• Site maintenance will be done by a mobile technician 1-2 times per month.

EXHIBIT B
31 of 153

33 of 153
34 of 153
35 of 153
36 of 153
Planning Commission Staff Report Page 1 of 11 October 16, 2025 Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

DATE: October 16, 2025
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 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 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 Roof-Mounted Enclosure and a 359 Square-Foot Equipment Ground-Mounted Enclosure. The Site Is Located at 32975 Alvarado-Niles 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
SIZE OF PARCEL: 167,378 square feet (3.8 acre)
GENERAL PLAN: Private Institutional (PI)
SURROUNDING LAND USES:

Table 1 – Surrounding Land Uses
Location General Plan Designation Zoning District Land Use North Special Industrial (MS) MS Business/Office
South Residential (6 - 10 du/ac) RS 4500 Single-family Residential East Office Commercial (CO) CPA Office/Commercial
West Residential (10 - 17 du/ac) RM 2500 Multi-family Residential ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

ATTACHMENT 2
37 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 of 11 October 16, 2025 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 LOCATION MAPS:

I. PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND
The project applicant, Carl Jones of AT&T Mobility, on behalf of Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church is seeking Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) approvals to allow for a new wireless facility on top of the existing building currently used as social hall and gym. The building is one-story and measures 20,374 square feet. The project will increase the height of the building to add a new 2,320 Figure 1 – Zoning Map of 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road
Figure 2 – Location Map of 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road
Project Site

N

N
Project Site
RM 2500
MS
RS 4500
CPA
38 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 of 11 October 16, 2025 square-foot enclosure to house nine (9) new antennas. The project also includes a 359 square-foot enclosure for ground equipment. The project plans and statement of use are included as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.

The site is located at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road within the Private Institutional, (PI), Zoning District. The site includes the original church (Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church), as well as a separate building used as social hall, gymnasium, and classrooms.

There is also one single-family residence on the lot that is being used as a residence.

The site was originally developed in 1963 with the construction of the existing Buddhist church building, approximately 4,228 square feet in size. In 1973, the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church applied for, and the City approved Use Permit UP-16-73 to construct a new 20,374 square-foot facility for religious, educational, and public assembly purposes.

II. PROJECT ANALYSIS
A. Permit Requirements
New wireless facilities in the PI Zoning District are subject to Administrative Use Permit and Administrative Site Development Review, per Union City Municipal Code (UCMC) Section 18.114.040, Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Use Table. Per UCMC Section 18.51.030, Required Conditions, for the PI Zoning District, the maximum height for buildings is 35 feet, but may be increased to a maximum of 50 feet if the Planning Commission finds that such excess height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use within the surrounding area. Per UCMC Section 18.08.140, "height of building" means the vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable, gambrel or hip roof. The current height of the existing building upon which the wireless facility will be located is 28 feet 5 inches from the ground to the coping. The wireless facility would increase the overall height of the building by 15 feet to a total height of 43 feet 5 inches from the ground to the coping of the wireless facility; therefore, triggering the need for a use permit for the height.

In addition to the height allowance, the use permit request will address the administrative use permit requirement. Per UCMC Section 18.54.040, Limitations, the Zoning Administrator can determine that an administrative use permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission if an applicant applies for a use permit, which was done. The use permit addresses both the building height, and the wireless facility use and simplifies and streamlines the approval process.

In accordance with UCMC Section 18.114.040.B, when a proposed wireless telecommunications facility would substantially modify an existing building, the Director may require Site Development Review rather than handle the matter administratively.

Because of the proposed modifications and given the site’s location at the intersection of an arterial and a residential collector street, as well as its immediate adjacency to singlefamily homes, the Director has determined Planning Commission review is appropriate.

To ensure that design, compatibility, and technical impacts are evaluated, the Director has required processing under UCMC Chapter 18.76 and has also directed that the application be subject to peer review, per UCMC Section 18.114.120.D. Further, Site Development Review provides greater opportunity for input and oversight. 39 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 4 of 11 October 16, 2025 B. Project Design and Development Standards Compliance
The project is subject to UCMC Chapter 18.114 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, the purpose of which is to provide standards for the development, location, siting, and installation of wireless telecommunication facilities.

Location
Per UCMC Section 18.114.060, the antennas and equipment will be located so as not to be readily visible, as shown in the Photo Simulations, Exhibit C. The proposed antenna facility will be housed in an approximately 2,320 square-foot FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer) enclosure and be located behind the parapet on the highest roof of the existing building. The enclosure will feature a stealth design as a second story addition, designed to match the existing building in terms of architecture, colors, and materials. The wireless facility will be outside of any required setbacks for structures at the site. The proposed structure will be set back 80 feet from the adjacent residential lots at the rear of the site.

A 359 square-foot lease area to accommodate an equipment enclosure, also designed to match the existing building, will be located on the ground, adjacent to the east side of the building. The enclosure for equipment will also be located outside of any required setbacks.

Design
The project meets the design requirements of UCMC Section 18.114.080. Below is the list of requirements, with a description of how the project complies with each. • All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be designed and located so as not to be readily visible, by means of design, placement, screening, and camouflage.

The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennas feasible to accomplish the owner or operator's coverage or capacity objectives.

The existing height of the building from the ground to the top of the parapet is 28 feet 5 inches. The enclosure will be architecturally integrated to appear as a second-story addition to the building on which it is mounted. The facility will be constructed on the roof, projecting 15 feet above the parapet, bringing the total height of the building to 43 feet 5 inches.

The existing building has a hipped roof that slopes down on all four sides, and a parapet wall that extends above the roofline. The wireless facility will also feature a hipped roof with a short parapet above.
• Colors and materials for facilities shall be chosen to minimize visibility. All visible exterior surfaces shall be constructed of non-reflective materials. Facilities shall be painted or textured using colors to match or blend with the primary background.

Attached antennas (antennas affixed to an existing structure that is not considered a component of the attached antenna) shall be painted and/or textured to match the existing support structure.
40 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 5 of 11 October 16, 2025 The FRP screening will be designed and painted to match the architecture, color, and texture of the existing building on which it will be located. Fenestration will be added to the FRP enclosure, so as to appear as an authentically active space. To address potential visibility and aesthetic concerns, Condition of Approval # 8 requires all visible exterior surfaces, including conduits or other equipment, to be constructed of non-reflective materials, match the existing background, and to be concealed and screened.
• All equipment shelters or cabinets shall be concealed from public view or made compatible with the architecture of surrounding structures.

The separate 359 square-foot equipment enclosure will be located on the ground, adjacent to the building on the east side. It will enclose wireless equipment, cabinets, and a generator to serve the facility. The equipment enclosure will measure nine (9) feet, ten (4) inches in height and be constructed of concrete masonry units (CMU). The equipment enclosure will be camouflaged with paint and exterior materials that will match the existing building that supports the wireless facility.
• Wireless telecommunication facility lighting shall be designed to meet but not exceed minimum requirements for security, safety, or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, and in all instances shall be designed to avoid glare and minimize illumination on adjacent properties.

Condition of Approval # 9 will require that facility lighting be designed to meet requirements for security, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, as well as to be designed to prevent light spillage, or glare, onto adjacent properties.
• No advertising shall be placed on telecommunication antennas or other equipment.

Condition of Approval # 10 will require that no advertising be placed on any part of the wireless facility, equipment, or the equipment enclosure. • All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances.

Condition of Approval # 11 will require the provision of warning signs, anti-climbing devices, etc., to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism and to reduce the potential for the wireless facility to become an attractive nuisance. • Building-mounted antennas and any ancillary equipment shall not be permitted unless they are on scale and architecturally integrated and camouflaged with the building design in such a manner as to be visually unobtrusive.

The enclosure will provide ladder access from the ground to the lower roof of the existing building and then to the upper roof where the new wireless facility will be 41 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 6 of 11 October 16, 2025 located. The ladders and all exterior equipment will be camouflaged to match the existing surroundings and buildings.
• Where feasible, antennas should be placed directly above, below or incorporated with vertical design elements of a building to help in camouflaging.

As detailed above, the enclosure will be architecturally integrated to appear as a second-story addition to the building on which it is mounted. • Roof-mounted antennas shall be screened from public view and located the maximum distance from the edge of the roof as technologically feasible.

The applicant positioned the antennas to reduce emission exposure as much as technologically feasible.

Easements
The project proposes a fiber conduit from an existing AT&T fiber box at the northwest corner of the lot to connect to the proposed equipment enclosure through a new, six-footwide AT&T non-exclusive utility easement. A second, 15-foot-wide, non-exclusive access easement is proposed at the easterly driveway on Alvarado-Niles Road. The easements will allow AT&T to access the ground equipment enclosure and the wireless facility on the roof. The easements are non-exclusive in the event of a collocation for an additional wireless facility by another provider. No aspect of the project, including the easements, will eliminate parking spaces at the site. See Condition of Approval # 21 for requirements for applicant to coordinate the execution of the non-exclusive easements with the relevant agency or company.

Peer Review
Per UCMC Sec. 18.114.120.D, the Director has the discretion to authorize peer review by independent technical experts to review any material submitted as part of this application. The City authorized a peer review of the applicant’s required application materials, which included the Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Compliance Report, noise analysis, coverage, and the alternative site analysis. The City’s consultant, Douglas Herring & Associates (DHA), provided services to conduct a professional peer review of the applicant’s submitted technical studies. DHA procured the expertise of subcontractors that specialize in the fields as related to the various analyses provided by the applicant. The coverage analysis and evaluation of radio frequency (RF) emissions was performed by cellular technology expert David Allen Burgess. Peer review of the noise analysis was performed by acoustical expert Michael Thill of Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Finally, the evaluation of the alternative sites analysis was performed by Doug Herring, Principal of DHA.

The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires the City of Union City to act “within a reasonable period of time.” Under rules adopted by the FCC, there is a legal presumption that a local government has violated this “reasonable period of time” requirement if it takes longer than 150 days to act on an application to deploy a wireless facility using a new structure. However, the period of time for review of an application may be extended by written agreement between the applicant and the City. Due to the required 42 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 7 of 11 October 16, 2025 peer review of the application, the applicant and the City of Union City agreed in writing to extend the 150-day “shot clock” deadline to October 27, 2025.

The project has been determined to comply with relevant federal standards from the FCC.

Materials related to the peer review and radio frequency levels have not been included as attachments to this staff report, as they are not relevant to the findings needed for a conditional use permit application or site development review.

Radio Frequency Emissions
Per the author of the RF emissions standards peer review, FCC OET Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields”, defines methodologies for estimating whether or not a particular radio system installation exposes people to excessive levels of radio energy. This document may be referred to as “OET-65” (Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65). This technical bulletin provides guidelines for evaluating compliance with the FCC's RF safety standards.

The peer review of the applicant’s initial RF report submittal concluded that the closest rooftops on Condor Street would be as high as 94% of the OET-65 limit. Though the level did not exceed the FCC OET Bulletin 65 recommendations for general public exposure, it was very close. In light of this conclusion, staff requested that the applicant move the antennas farther from the residences so the emissions levels would be reduced.

The applicant resubmitted plans to show a repositioning of the antennas, as well as an updated Radio Frequency Report. The peer review of the updated plans and report concluded the exposure on the closest rooftops of the Condor Street residences would be reduced from 94% of the OET-65 limit to 83% - 85% and recommends that the updated Waterford report of September 5, 2025, be accepted as a valid exposure estimate.

Mr. Burgess concludes that the expected RF exposure levels for surrounding residences are below the recommended safety limits, even for people standing on rooftops outside the structures under all possible conditions and that there is no reason to expect that this system would present any hazard to residents at those locations.

Noise
The ground equipment enclosure supporting the wireless facility will include a generator and an air conditioning unit for one of the cabinets, both of which will generate noise. The applicant provided a noise analysis, Attachment 2, for the project, which was peer reviewed by the City’s Environmental Consultant. Per UCMC Section 9.40.041, Residential Property Noise Limits, no noise shall be produced on residential property by a noise level more than 10 dBA above local ambient outside of the property. Under UCMC Section 9.40.030, local ambient noise is not less than 40 dBA. The peer review concluded that the calculated noise levels from the project as proposed will comply with the noise limits established by the City of Union City. The peer reviewer’s calculation accounted for the attenuation provided by the proposed CMU wall enclosure, which will shield the equipment’s operational noise levels from the nearest sensitive receptors.

Wireless Coverage
43 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 8 of 11 October 16, 2025 The purpose of the installation is to help AT&T bring improved wireless communication capacity and coverage, which would benefit residents, public services, and roadway safety in Union City. The wireless facility will close a demonstrated coverage gap that currently exists in Union City. The coverage map is excluded as an exhibit because it includes proprietary information.

The peer review concluded that based on publicly available information, AT&T does have a coverage problem in the area around the proposed site, and that the projected coverage improvement appears valid according to the analysis.

Alternative Sites Analysis
Per the applicants’ Alternative Site Analysis, Attachment 3, nine alternative sites in the general vicinity of the proposed wireless facility were evaluated. However, the peer review concluded that the sites available for leasing were infeasible for technical reasons, or contact was not able to be made for the sites in the analysis.

Consistency with the General Plan
The project is consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Private Institutional (PI). The PI designation provides for private institutional uses that include but are not limited to cemeteries, churches, private educational facilities, private nonprofit and service organizations, and continuing care retirement communities. The wireless facility, which is a conditionally permitted use in the PI Zoning District, will utilize an existing building at the site for the project.

The Public Facilities and Services Element of the 2040 General Plan includes Policy PF- 8.8 Minimize Visual Impacts concerning the siting and screening of wireless communications facilities. This policy requires that wireless facilities meet the following conditions:

To minimize the visual impact of wireless communication facilities, the City shall ensure that these facilities meet the following conditions:

1. Monopoles and large cellular infrastructure are located away from residential and open space areas;
The proposed wireless facility would be located within a roof-mounted facility on the roof of an existing building used as a faith-based organization, or church. The location of the facility ensures the radio frequency levels would not exceed the FCC’s limits for exposure to the general public.

2. Small cell sites and supporting infrastructure are designed to minimize visibility in the public rights-of-way and residential areas;
The proposed wireless facility would be located within a structure on the roof of an existing building used for a faith-based organization. The roof-top structure would be designed to integrate with the existing building’s architecture to appear as a second-story addition. All conduit and supporting 44 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 9 of 11 October 16, 2025 infrastructure would be enclosed and screened, minimizing potential visual impacts.

3. When possible, are located on existing buildings, existing poles, or other existing support structures;
The proposed wireless facility would be located behind the parapet on the roof of an existing building that is currently used as a faith-based organization.

4. Are collocated with other compatible facilities whenever possible; Currently, there are no existing wireless facilities on the roof of building or at the site, in general.

5. Are painted, camouflaged, textured, or disguised to resemble trees, flag poles, etc., to better blend with the surrounding environment; and All of the antennas would be entirely enclosed within the rooftop structure and not visible. The wireless facility structure would be designed to match the existing building, in terms of colors and materials.

6. Include well-designed equipment enclosures that incorporate walls or fences and landscaping to provide screening and deter graffiti or are installed in underground vaults where feasible.

The cabinets and equipment will be enclosed in a 359 square-foot concrete masonry units (CMU) structure on the ground, adjacent to the east side of the existing building, measuring nine feet, four inches in height and will be camouflaged to match the colors and materials of the existing building so as not to be visible.

The General Plan supports the ongoing expansion and enhancement of modern communication infrastructure in the City. The presence of the antennas will improve the coverage for AT&T by adding to the existing coverage in the City while meeting the intent of the telecommunication infrastructure objectives that the General Plan encourages in developing and maintaining modern communication infrastructure that supports the City’s economy, businesses, and residents. Overall, this project is consistent with the applicable policies in the General Plan.

C. Noticing & Communication
Consistent with State law noticing requirements, public hearing notices were published in the newspaper on September 28, 2025, and mailed to neighbors within 300 feet of the project site boundary on October 1, 2025. As of October 8, 2025, Staff has not received any public feedback regarding the project.

D. Conclusion
The project is consistent with the applicable policies in the General Plan and is compliant with the Union City Municipal Code. DRC recommends that the Planning Commission 45 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 10 of 11 October 16, 2025 approve UP-25-001 and SD-25-001 and make the required findings as provided in Section III of this report and discussed in the attached resolution, in support of this approval.

III. REQUIRED FINDINGS
Use Permit
Section 18.56.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council based on the following findings in granting Use Permit approval.

1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and the purposes of the district in which the site is located;

2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;

3. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plans, and will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18.

Private Institutional (PI) District
Per UCMC Section 18.51.030, the maximum height limit shall be 35 feet. This height limit may be increased to a maximum of 50 feet subject to a use permit. Before the approval of any structure which exceeds 35 feet, the Planning Commission must make the following finding.

1. That any such excess height which exceeds 35 feet to a maximum of 50 feet will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use within the surrounding area.

Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
All of the following findings are required for approval of any use permit, administrative use permit, site development review, or administrative site development review under UCMC Section 18.114.130:

1. That the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.114;

2. That the proposed wireless telecommunication facility will not be readily visible, unless it is demonstrated that it is not technically feasible to incorporate additional measures that would make the facility not readily visible; and

3. That the wireless telecommunication facility is necessary to prevent or fill a significant gap in coverage or capacity shortfall in the applicant's service area and is the least intrusive means of doing so.

Site Development Review
46 of 153
Agenda Item No. 4.2.1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Page 11 of 11 October 16, 2025 Section 18.76.045 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make the following findings in granting Site Development Review approval.

1. Approval of this application is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans;

2. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of Title 18 and the requirements of the PI, Private Institutional, Zoning District; and

3. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of Site Development review as outlined in Section 18.76.010.

IV. ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001), as proposed;

2. Approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001), with modified conditions;

3. Denial of Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001), with stated findings; or

4. Continue the matter for further consideration.

V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) subject to conditions, and make the required findings discussed in the attached resolution in support of this approval.

Prepared by
Natalie Dean, Associate Planner
Attachments

1. Attachment 1: Draft Planning Commission Resolution Approving UP-25-001, SD-25- 001.

2. Exhibit A - Project Plans

3. Exhibit B - Statement of Use

4. Exhibit C - Photo Simulations

5. Attachment 2 - Noise Analysis

6. Attachment 3 - Alternative Site
47 of 153
RESOLUTION NO. X-25

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY APPROVING USE PERMIT (UP-25-001) FOR A NEW WIRELESS FACILITY ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING, ONE-STORY, 20,374 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING AND TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING FROM 28 FEET 5 INCHES TO 43 FEET 5 INCHES; AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-25-001) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,320 SQUARE-FOOT, ROOF-MOUNTED ENCLOSURE AND 359 SQUARE-FOOT GROUND-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE AT 32975 ALVARADO-NILES ROAD (APN: 475-0148-002-00)
WHEREAS, the applicant Carl Jones of AT&T Mobility, for AT&T, on behalf of 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 to increase the height of the building from 28 feet five inches to 43 feet 5 inches; Site Development Review (SD-25-001) for the construction of a new 2,320 square-foot roofmounted enclosure and 359 square-foot ground-mounted equipment enclosure.

WHEREAS, the 3.8-acre project site is located at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN: 475 -0148-002-00); and
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan designation of Private Institutional (PI) and a Zoning designation of Private Institutional (PI); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65905 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) applications on October 16, 2025, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered the staff report dated October 16, 2025, incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony; and
WHEREAS, the project plans and supporting documents, labeled Exhibits A, B, and C, are attached hereto and made a part hereof.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City does hereby find as follows:

That the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

California Environmental Quality Act

1. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines.

Use Permit (UCMC Sec. 18.56.060)
ATTACHMENT 3
48 of 153
Planning Commission Resolution Number #
UP-25-001, SD-25-001 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road

2. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and the purposes of the Private Institutional (PI) District. The project, as conditioned, will screen all equipment within a new rooftop enclosure; equipment will also be located on the ground in a concrete masonry unit CMU enclosure. The new facility will promote orderly and beneficial development by improving the availability of wireless service for residents and businesses. The new facility is compatible with the character of development in the PI district; the new wireless facility will be designed to match the existing building in terms of architecture, color, and materials.

4. The project is consistent with the General Plan, specifically the Public Facilities and Services Element, which encourages the development of state-of-the-art communication infrastructure and services to bolster the City’s economic competitiveness and support businesses and residents. The project is consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Private Institutional (PI). The PI designation provides for private institutional uses that include but are not limited to cemeteries, churches, private educational facilities, private non-profit and service organizations, and continuing care retirement communities. The wireless facility will utilize the existing building at the site for the project. The new wireless facility will improve the coverage for AT&T and improve service to customers in the vicinity. The project complies with Title 18 by providing a use that promotes and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and the general welfare of the people.

There are no specific plans applicable to the site.

Private Institutional (PI) District (UCMC Sec. 18.51.030.C)

Wireless Telecommunication Facilities (UCMC Sec.18.114.130) 49 of 153
Planning Commission Resolution Number #
UP-25-001, SD-25-001 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road

6. The project has been designed per the requirements of UCMC Chapter 18.114. The location of the project has been designed to meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC and PUC pertaining to RF emissions standards. The applicant has provided all plans, documents and reports that evidence compliance with requirements for design, safety, noise, and wireless gap coverage per the requirements of this chapter. The project is consistent with all provisions in this chapter regarding general requirements, location, height and design. Additionally, the project has been conditioned to comply with all applicable standards for operations and maintenance.

7. The equipment will be screened and set back from the right-of-way as much as feasible. The wireless facility will be enclosed in a rooftop structure designed to match the architecture of the building. The equipment enclosure will be located on the ground in an enclosure, also designed to match the existing building.

8. The new wireless facility will fill a significant gap in coverage and capacity shortfall in the applicant's service area and, as designed, is the least intrusive means of doing so.

The applicant has submitted documentation that demonstrates a coverage gap in this area; these documents have been reviewed by the City’s consultant who has confirmed and concurred with these conclusions. The project has been sited per all setback requirements and has been designed to minimize visual and related aesthetic impacts to nearby neighbors and views from public right of ways.

Site Development Review (UCMC Sec. 18.76.045)

9. The project is consistent with the General Plan, specifically the Public Facilities and Services Element, which encourages the development of state-of-the-art communication infrastructure and services The project is consistent with the General Plan Policy PF-8.8, Minimize Visual Impacts, as the proposed wireless facility will be located in an FRP enclosure on top of an existing building, that is currently used as a faith-based institution. The FRP structure will be designed and painted to match the architecture and colors of the existing building, thereby minimizing potential visual impacts when viewed from public rights of way and residential areas. There are no specific plans applicable to the site.

10.Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, which seeks to promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and the general welfare of the people and to promote the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. The approval of this application is consistent with the requirements of the PI Zoning District in which the site is located by being a stealth design that matches the existing building; the project also promotes orderly, attractive development and the stability of land values and investments, by preventing the establishment of uses or the erection of structures having undesirable qualities, or which would not meet the specific intent clause or performance standard requirement of the zoning title. The presence of the new antennas will improve the coverage for AT&T and improve service to customers in the vicinity and for the needs of residents, businesses, and first responders in the City of Union City.
50 of 153
Planning Commission Resolution Number #
UP-25-001, SD-25-001 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road

11.Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of site development review as outlined in Section 18.76.010. The project, as conditioned, promotes attractive development, investment in the community and the general welfare, by preventing structures which are not properly related to their sites. The project has been sited and designed to minimize potential visual and related aesthetic impacts to nearby residents and will be painted and screened to blend in with existing structures and surrounding site amenities compatible with the existing religious facility. The presence of the new antennas will improve the coverage for AT&T and improve service to customers in the vicinity and for the needs of residents, businesses, and first responders in the City of Union City.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

PLANNING DIVISION

2. This application shall expire one year from the date of Planning Commission approval unless building permits have been issued and construction diligently pursued.

3. The applicant and/or property owner shall include an annotated copy of the approved Planning Commission Resolution with each set of detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review. Notations to the plans shall be made to clearly indicate how all conditions of approval will be or have been complied with.

Construction plans shall not be accepted without the annotated final conditions of approval included as a note sheet with each set of plans.

6. The applicant and/or property owner shall ensure the wireless facility complies with applicable FCC Regulations regarding radio frequency and any and all recommendations for safety requirements including but not limited to those safety 51 of 153
Planning Commission Resolution Number #
UP-25-001, SD-25-001 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road
recommendations listed in the Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report For AT&T Mobility, dated September 5, 2025.

7. Building Materials and Finishes. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit samples and details of color palettes and all exterior materials, for review and approval by the Economic & Community Development Department. Any future amendments or changes to the approved painting schemes shall be submitted to the Economic and Community Development Department for approval prior to the full painting of the proposed structure.

11.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall show on plans submitted for building permits that the wireless telecommunication facility shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. The provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism shall be provided.

12.Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/property owner shall pay all applicable fees (Capital Facilities Fee, Park Facilities Fee, etc.) that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

13.Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall pay the General Plan Cost Recovery Fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The current fee is $1.00 per $1,000.00 of construction valuation per City Council Resolution Number 3379-07.

14.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall note and demonstrate on plans submitted for building permits that the wireless 52 of 153
Planning Commission Resolution Number #
UP-25-001, SD-25-001 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road
telecommunication facility project shall comply with the operations and maintenance standards of UCMC Sec. 18.114.090 at all times.

15.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant and/or property owner shall note on plans submitted for building permits that the wireless telecommunication facility shall install and maintain conspicuous signage identifying the name and phone number of a party to contact in the event of an emergency. The design, materials, colors, and location of signs shall be subject to Director approval. Contact information shall be kept current.

16.Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, each owner or operator of the wireless telecommunication facility shall obtain and maintain current at all times a business license issued by the City.

BUILDING DIVISION

17.A comprehensive review will be conducted upon submission of a complete plan set and all required documentation. Project plans submitted for a building permit must fully comply with the California Building Codes in effect at the time of submission.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

18. Plans to meet building and fire codes adopted at time of building plan submittal.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

19.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work within the public right-of-way.

20.The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Public Works Department prior to any site disturbance for the project.

21.The applicant shall coordinate the execution of non-exclusive easement(s) with the relevant utility agency/company. If the utility easement to be dedicated is for the benefit of the utility agency and not the “public,” the City will not be involved with the execution and recordation of the easements.

22.The applicant shall coordinate with PG&E to ensure that PG&E’s facilities/easements are not impacted, as outlined in PG&E’s letter dated February 10, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

23.The applicant/property owner is hereby advised that unauthorized discharge of any kind to the storm water system, which includes the streets and gutters, is prohibited, and that such discharges, whether intentional or not, are subject to penalties up to $20,000 per violation per day. This applies both to the construction phase and to routine facility operations.
53 of 153
Planning Commission Resolution Number #
UP-25-001, SD-25-001 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road

24.The applicant/property owner shall note on plans for building permit submittal indicating the total volume of battery electrolyte in the equipment cabinets under AT&T control at this site at project completion.
54 of 153
Planning Commission Resolution Number #
UP-25-001, SD-25-001 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Union City held on October 16, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

MOVED:

SECONDED:

APPROVED
________________________
Seyi Mclelland, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_________________________
Carmela Campbell, Secretary
55 of 153
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
56 of 153
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.
57 of 153
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 58 of 153
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 59 of 153
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 60 of 153
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. 61 of 153
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 62 of 153
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 63 of 153
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.
64 of 153
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.
65 of 153
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. 66 of 153
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. 67 of 153
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 68 of 153
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 69 of 153
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.
70 of 153
Desk Item, No. 4.2.1
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2025
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: USE PERMIT (UP-25-001), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-25-001) Staff received questions/comments from Planning Commissioner, Jo Ann Lew, regarding the project. The following are the questions received and staff responses (in red italics).

Staff also received two written comment letters from Mr. Eugene Ho, a nearby resident. In his first letter, Mr. Ho requested project drawings or visual simulations and clarification regarding the proposed use, and expressed concerns related to traffic and hours of operation. In his second letter, Mr. Ho raised additional concerns regarding potential view impacts. In response, staff referred Mr. Ho to the October 16, 2025, Planning Commission agenda packet, which includes the relevant project plans and visual materials.

Commissioner Lew Comments

1. The staff report indicates on page 1 that a portion of the new wireless facility will be constructed “on the roof of an existing, one-story, 20374 square-foot building.” This building was approved by the City in 1973 via Use Permit UP-16-73. Can the roof and the foundation of this building support the additional weight of the proposed wireless facility? Please clarify.

The applicant has advised in response to the comment that AT&T has completed a roof mapping on the structural integrity of the existing roof, and that the preliminary findings indicate the roof and foundation of the building can support the additional loading; however, there will be some structural upgrades to the existing building, i.e., additional support beams etc., which is very common and standard practice when wireless carriers install equipment on existing buildings.

The majority of the heavy equipment will be installed on the ground, and within the AT&T ground space lease area and not on the roof.

Attachment 5
71 of 153
72 of 153
73 of 153
74 of 153
75 of 153
76 of 153
77 of 153
78 of 153
Formal Appeal to Oppose Proposed AT&T; Cell
Phone Antenna Installation
From:

Saurabh Talwar & Sunita Goyal ([email protected]) Christine Chen ([email protected])
Jon Kuo ([email protected])
Mohammad Fasiur Rahman ([email protected])
Weifeng Chen ([email protected])
Wais Aubi ([email protected])
32198 Condor Drive
Union City, CA 94587
Date: October 19, 2025
To:

City Clerk’s Office
City of Union City
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Subject: Formal Appeal Opposing AT&T; Cell Phone Antenna Installation — Project Name: Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) at 32975 Alvarado Niles Road (APN:
475-0148-002-00)
Dear Union City Clerk and Members of the City Council,
This appeal is submitted in response to the public hearing for Project Name: (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001), Project Location: 32975 Alvarado Niles Road (APN 475-0148-002-00), held on October 16th at 7:00 PM PST in the City Hall Council Chambers.

During that hearing, we residents were each given only three minutes to speak about our concerns, and no clarifications or answers were provided to our questions. This was deeply disrespectful and demonstrated a lack of concern for the residents directly impacted by this project. Such a constrained format prevented genuine community dialogue and meaningful participation.

While some of these questions may have been addressed verbally during the meeting, residents respectfully request that all such responses be documented and made available in written form for public record, transparency, and future reference.

We also want to note the following procedural concerns:

1. We were notified only 10 days prior to the hearing, and there was no indication that this was the final hearing.

2. Several of the commissioners expressed interest in obtaining additional information from AT&T; Mobility to address resident concerns regarding safety, well-being, and the peaceful existence of those living nearby. However, the City’s legal counsel intervened, indicating that a decision had to be made that same evening.

It is deeply concerning and troubling that the City Commission proceeded to vote and grant the permit despite commissioners openly expressing uncertainty about key safety and well-being issues. Let the ATTACHMENT 6
79 of 153
record show that the City made the decision to approve AT&T;’s permit primarily to comply with legal timelines rather than adequately addressing resident concerns. We respectfully request clarification of our legal rights and the specific timeline obligations that compelled the City to move forward in this manner.

Furthermore, this hearing was organized by the City of Union City — not AT&T.; Residents, including ourselves, learned about the proposed installation only from the City’s public notice. AT&T; made no direct outreach or prior communication to homeowners living adjacent to the proposed site.

We therefore, the undersigned residents of Union City, formally oppose AT&T;’s proposed installation of a cell-phone antenna on the Buddhist Church property located directly behind our homes. We respectfully request that this appeal be entered into the official public record and fully considered before any permit decision is made.

1. Lack of Resident Notification, Transparency, and Respectful Engagement AT&T; made no effort to inform or consult nearby residents before advancing this project. No mailers, door notices, or informational meetings were provided. Residents only became aware through the City’s notice. The hearing’s time limits, lack of responses, and rushed decision reinforced the perception that this process lacked transparency and public respect.

2. Undisclosed Agreement with the Buddhist Church
AT&T; has not disclosed the terms of its agreement with the Buddhist Church where it intends to install the antenna and ground equipment. Residents deserve to know details such as lease length, compensation, maintenance obligations, insurance, and liability responsibilities.

3. Questionable Public Safety Justification and Missing Data AT&T;’s consultants stated the installation is needed because first responders allegedly experience poor reception in this area. However, when residents requested historical data or 911 call failure reports, no evidence was provided.

5. Health, RF Emissions, and Heat Concerns
AT&T;’s claimed FCC compliance relies on outdated 1996 standards that do not reflect modern 4G/5G cumulative exposure. Independent studies — including the U.S. National Toxicology Program (2018) and Ramazzini Institute (2021) — report biological effects below those thresholds.

We request that Union City require AT&T; to submit and publicly release a Site-Specific, Independent RF and Thermal Emission Compliance Report, including real-world RF data from existing installations of the same antenna model and how many are located near residential homes.

6. Maintenance Noise, Generator Testing, and Resident Notification The antenna’s generator and cooling systems will generate recurring noise. Union City should require AT&T; to sign a Written Maintenance and Noise Management Agreement defining approved testing hours, noise-control measures, and 48-hour advance notification to residents.

7. Alternative Site Evaluation and Transparency
Union City should compel AT&T; to evaluate alternative sites such as industrial or commercial zones and conduct a new public hearing with adequate time for residents to ask questions and receive answers.
80 of 153

8. Requests for City Action
We respectfully request that the City of Union City:

1. Deny or defer the permit pending independent evaluations.

2. Require full public release of RF, thermal, and noise data.

3. Mandate a Maintenance and Noise Management Agreement.

4. Require AT&T; to disclose its agreement with the Buddhist Church.

5. Obtain independent verification of first-responder (911) claims.

6. Require RF reports for identical antenna models and similar proximities.

7. Conduct a new, transparent public hearing allowing ample resident input.

9. Conclusion
Union City residents deserve transparency, scientific accountability, and respectful civic engagement.

The limited speaking time, rushed approval, lack of written responses, and AT&T;’s absence of direct communication have left the community feeling ignored and disrespected.

Sincerely,
We, the undersigned residents of Union City, respectfully submit this appeal:

Saurabh Talwar & Sunita Goyal – 32198 Condor Drive – [email protected] Christine Chen – [email protected]
Jon Kuo – [email protected]
Mohammad Fasiur Rahman – [email protected]
Weifeng Chen – [email protected]
Wais Aubi – [email protected]
81 of 153
June 30, 2025
Epic Wireless Group
8700 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 400
Granite Bay, CA 95746
Re: Noise Assessment Letter
32975 Alvarado-Niles Rd.,
Union City, CA 94587
Site CBL00155- Alvarado-Niles Road & Medallion Drive is a proposed AT&T Macro site located in the Union City Jurisdiction, CA. AT&T is proposing to add a pre-manufactured equipment cabinet with a door mounted heat exchanger and a new emergency backup generator. Based on our review of the project drawings and technical specifications, the following is a summary of our noise assessment of the proposed equipment.

Per City of Union Chapter 9.40 Community Noise Standards

9.40.30 Definitions
D. "Local ambient" or "local ambient noise level" means the lowest sound level repeating itself at a certain location during a six-minute period as measured with a precision sound level meter, using slow response and "A" weighting. The local ambient noise level shall be determined with the noise source at issue silent, and in the same location as the measurement of the noise level of the source or sources at issue. However, for purposes of this chapter, in no case shall the local ambient be considered or determined to be less than 40 dBA. If a significant portion of the local ambient is produced by one or more individual identifiable sources which would otherwise be operated continuously during the six-minute measurement period and contributing significantly to the ambient sound level, determination of the local ambient shall be accomplished with these separate identifiable noise sources silent.

9.40.41 Residential property noise limits
No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than 10 dBA above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.

9.40.42 Commercial and industrial property noise limits No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than twelve dBA above the local ambient at any point outside of the property line.

9.40.43 Public property noise limits
A. No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on public property, a noise level more than fifteen dBA above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more, unless otherwise provided in this chapter. 7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150
Frederick, MD 21703
(703) 596-1022 Office
(540) 242-3195 Fax
www.waterfordconsultants.com
ATTACHMENT 7
82 of 153
B. B. Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dBA measured at a distance of fifty feet are exempt from this chapter when approval therefore has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity, except as provided elsewhere in this Code.

C. C. Vehicle horns, or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall not be used when the vehicle is at rest, or when a situation endangering life, health, or property is not imminent.

NOISE ANALYSIS
Of the supporting equipment planned for this project, Table 1 below presents the primary noise sources of concern.

Table 1 – Supporting Equipment Noise Data
Noise
Source
Equipment
Type
Make Model Size
Manufacturer’s
Published Noise
Data (dBA)
Noise Data
Reference
Distance (ft)
A AC Cabinet Delta WUC ESOF030-HCU01 -- 75 5
B Generator Generac SDC030 30kW 63(1) 23
[1] Sound pressure is based on Gen Set with Level 2 sound attenuated enclosure, full-load operating conditions.

Our review of the package did not reveal any other significant noise sources. The equipment is proposed to be installed on private property behind an 8’ high CMU wall with stucco finish.

To properly present this assessment, our noise modeling has assumed the following scenarios:
1) Ambient noise is not considered.
2) Heat Exchanger on the pre-manufactured equipment cabinet runs continuously. 3) The generator is operating in full load condition.
4) Our analysis does not include noise reduction factors such as air attenuation, vegetation and ground effects, which become significant at large distances and, 5) other existing on-site equipment creating noises are ignored.

The subject site and its adjacent properties are located within the Union City Jurisdiction, and the telecommunications compound sit within the APN 475-0148-002 property. The nearest adjacent property line is located to the South on APN 475-0171-104. Property use is Residential. The measurement of sound shall be taken from the nearest site’s property line, towards the source of the sound, which equates to 93ft distance from cabinet A/C unit to the property line and 98ft from the generator to property line horizontally.

Generator is for emergency backup during power failure conditions. Generator is exercised once a week for one half hour maximum during daytime hours only. A/C unit on the pre-manufactured cabinet can run 7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150
Frederick, MD 21703
(703) 596-1022 Office
(540) 242-3195 Fax
www.waterfordconsultants.com
83 of 153
Digitally signed by Robert Jerry
Lara -- Stantec
Date: 2025.07.01 09:23:05-04'00'
continuously. Unit will run during the day and nighttime. Noise levels measurements per Table 1, calculated to the property line of the nearest property, are as follows:

Noise Source ‘A’ – A/C Cabinet = 40.1 dBA
Noise Source ‘B’ – Generator = 43.0 dBA
Combined Sources – Total of 45 dBA
Based on the Union City Jurisdiction ordinance, the anticipated noise level of the proposed equipment meets the Jurisdiction standard of 50dBA. i.e, ambient noise level plus residential property noise limits (40dBA + 10 dBA). As sound pressure levels attenuate with increasing distance from the sound source, noise levels due to the supporting equipment at all remaining surrounding property lines, are anticipated to be less than city`s requirements, meeting the noise standards outlined in this report.

CONCLUSION
Based on the project documentation, our noise assessment indicates that the proposed AT&T Telecommunications Facility complies with the requirements mandated by the Union City Jurisdiction at all adjacent property lines per stated noise metrics outlined in the above table. To avoid any misunderstanding, I hereby state that to the best of my knowledge, belief and professional judgment, this report represents an accurate appraisal of Vertical bridge equipment, based upon careful evaluation of Manufacturer’s data to the extent reasonably possible.

Please reach out if I can be of further assistance.

Respectfully Submitted,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Robert J Lara
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150
Frederick, MD 21703
(703) 596-1022 Office
(540) 242-3195 Fax
www.waterfordconsultants.com
84 of 153
Alternative Sites Analysis
AT&T Mobility
Rooftop Wireless Telecommunications Facility
At
32975 Alvarado-Niles Rd, Union City, CA 94587
Site ID: CBL00155
ATTACHMENT 8
85 of 153
2 Introduction
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) has a significant gap in its service coverage in Union City, Alameda County. AT&T proposes to install a new stealth wireless communications facility (“WCF”) on the rooftop of the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church located at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Rd, Union City, CA (“Proposed Facility”) as a means to fill AT&T’s gap in coverage in this portion of the city. This property is located in an (PI) Private Institutional zoning district within the city of Alameda.

The Proposed Facility consists of installing a “New” rooftop Stealth cupola to house and camouflage AT&T’s proposed (9) panel antennas, and associated equipment on the rooftop.

Additionally, AT&T will install (1) outdoor (WUC) walk up equipment cabinet and emergency backup generator within a new 359 sq. ft. AT&T lease area adjacent to the building, enclosed by a new 9 ft. tall CMU wall textured and finished to match the existing building. The “New” proposed rooftop cupola will be designed in scale and architecturally integrated and camouflaged with the existing church building features, finished, painted and textured to match the existing structure and designed to be visually unobtrusive from the public right of way.

The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to fill the significant gap of the alternatives investigated by AT&T as explained below.

Objective
AT&T Mobility has identified a significant gap in its service coverage in Union City, Alameda County, in an area roughly bordered by Whipple Rd. to the north, Dowe Ave. to the east, Lake Ontario Drive. to the south, and Santa Maria Drive. to the west. The Proposed Facility will improve coverage to many dozens of homes in several neighborhoods, numerous businesses, offices, schools, churches and other points of interest in the immediate vicinity. The service coverage in this portion of the city is described in the accompanying Radio Frequency propagation maps.

Methodology and Zoning Criteria
The location of a WCF to fill a significant gap in coverage is dependent upon topography, zoning, existing structures, collocation opportunities, available utilities, access and a willing landlord. Wireless communication is line-of-sight technology that requires WCFs to be in relatively close proximity to the wireless handsets to be served. AT&T seeks to fill a significant gap in service coverage using the least intrusive means under the values expressed in the City’s code of ordinances chapter 18.114 (wireless communications facilities), AT&T is steered by the City’s code and guidelines to ensure that the proposed wireless facility is in scale and architecturally integrated and camouflaged with the existing building design in such a manner as to be visually unobtrusive, with the Roof-mounted antennas being screened and completely concealed from public view and located the maximum distance from the edge of the roof as 86 of 153
3 technologically feasible. AT&T seeks to meet the Code requirements and provide the best available design by placing this stealth (WCF) on the rooftop of the building in an (PI) Private Institutional Use zone property at the minimum height needed to address the significant service coverage gap.

Analysis
AT&T investigated potential alternative sites for facilities to fill the identified coverage gap in this portion of the city. AT&T searched for, but did not find, feasible collocation opportunities in and around the coverage objective. Due to the need for antennas with a centerline height of Approx. (40) feet above ground level, AT&T proposed a stealth WCF in the form of a “New” rooftop Stealth cupola in the center of the rooftop to house, conceal and camouflage AT&Ts proposed panel antennas, and associated equipment. The following map shows the locations of the Proposed Facility and the alternative sites that AT&T investigated. The alternatives are discussed in the analysis which follows.

Location of Candidate Sites
87 of 153
4 Proposed Rooftop Facility – 32975 Alvarado-Niles Rd, Union City, CA 94587 Conclusion: Based upon location, a willing landlord and the superior coverage as shown in the AT&T Radio Frequency coverage service maps, the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means for AT&T to meet its service coverage objective.

The subject property is located at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Rd, Union City, CA in a (PI) Private Institutional zone district. AT&T proposes to install a “New” rooftop Stealth cupola to house and camouflage AT&Ts proposed (9) panel antennas, and associated equipment. Additionally, AT&T will install a (WUC) outdoor equipment cabinet and emergency back-up generator within a new 359 sq. ft. AT&T lease area adjacent to the building, enclosed by a new 9 ft tall CMU wall finished and textured to match the existing building. The new proposed rooftop cupola will be designed in scale and architecturally integrated and camouflaged with the existing church building features, finished, painted and textured to match the existing structure and designed to be visually unobtrusive from the public right of way.

The Proposed Facility is designed to protect the zoning integrity and aesthetic quality of the area, whilst in compliance with the goals of the City’s General Plan. AT&T proposes to use the most feasible means to conceal and minimize the visual impact of the wireless communications facility by integrating the design and camouflage the equipment by completely concealing the equipment within the new stealth cupola on the rooftop. Effectively the new stealth cupola installed in the center of the rooftop will completely screen and conceal the facility from travelers along Alvarado-Niles Rd. The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to fill the significant gap of the alternatives investigated by AT&T. 88 of 153
5 Alternative 1 – Omni Logistics (5G LLC) 33201 Dowe Ave, Union City Conclusion: Not Available
This property is located approximately 0.47 miles north of the Proposed Facility. After considerable time of working with the leasing agents (5G LLC) for the property. The owners decided that they were Not willing to enter a long-term lease with AT&T for a telecom facility at this location.
.
89 of 153
6 Alternative 2 - Rooftop site @ Farmers Ins. building 32145 Alvarado-Niles, Union City Conclusion: Not Available
This property is located approximately 0.61 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility. There is an existing rooftop wireless provider at this location. Unfortunately, the property owners informed AT&T that there is not any additional space for colocation on the property. Therefore, the property is not viable to lease space to AT&T for a WCF. 90 of 153
7 Alternative 3 - Rooftop site @ Crown Plaza Hotel 32083 Alvarado-Niles Rd, Union City Conclusion: Not Available
This property is located approximately 0.73 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility. There is an existing rooftop wireless provider at this location. However, the property Mgr./representative informed AT&T that they were not interested in leasing additional rooftop space to AT&T and or another carrier for a WCF.
91 of 153
8 Alternative 4 – Slimline Monopole Cesar Chavez Middle School 2801 Hop Ranch Rd, Union City
Conclusion: Not Viable or available
The Existing Slimline Monopole tower is located approximately 0.20 miles southwest from the Proposed Facility. The existing Slimline Monopole tower is owned by Crown Castle Corporation and is Not viable due to unavailable tower space and structural capacity for AT&T’s proposed equipment. Additionally, the school district is not interested in leasing additional ground space to AT&T for a WCF.
92 of 153
9 Alternative 5 – 33210 Transit Ave, Union City, CA
Conclusion: Not available
This property is located approximately 0.49 miles northeast from the Proposed Facility. The property owners were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF. 93 of 153
10 Alternative 6 - Batory Foods 1604 Whipple Rd, Union City Conclusion: Not available
This property is located approximately 0.72 miles northwest from the Proposed Facility. The property owners were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF. 94 of 153
11 Alternative 7- 33200 Dowe Ave, Union City, CA 94587
Conclusion: Not available
This property is located approximately 0.48 miles northeast from the Proposed Facility. The property owners were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF. 95 of 153
12 Alternative 8- church of Latter Rain 33115 Central Ave, Union City CA Conclusion: Not available
This property is located approximately 0.65 miles northeast from the Proposed Facility. The church board/representatives were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF. 96 of 153
13 Alternative 9- Existing lattice tower 33467 Western Ave, Union City Conclusion: Not viable or available
This property is located approximately 0.57 miles west of the Proposed Facility. The existing lattice tower is owned by (ATC) American tower Corporation and is Not viable due to unavailable tower space, structural capacity and insufficient ground lease space within the existing ATC leased premises for AT&T’s proposed equipment.

Conclusion
The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of Union City, Alameda County. Denial of AT&T’s application would materially inhibit AT&T’s ability to provide and improve service in this portion of the city.
97 of 153
From: Eugene Ho <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2025 2:57 PM
To: Gary Singh <[email protected]>; Lance Nishihira <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Mayor and Council Members <[email protected]>; Natalie Dean <[email protected]>; Tracey Barragan <[email protected]>; Public Comment <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Update, Appeal for Wireless Communications Facility permit affecting Ivywood Neighborhood Mayor Sing h and Councilm ember Nishihira: I apol ogize in advance for this long em ail, but I wanted to inform you that an Appeal has been filed agai nst the Uni on City Planni ng Commissi on's October 16 approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001), under Site De Mayor Singh and Councilmember Nishihira:

I apologize in advance for this long email, but I wanted to inform you that an Appeal has been filed against the Union City Planning Commission's October 16 approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001), under Site Development Review (SD-25-001) for 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road, which sits in District 1. The Permit is for AT&T to install a new Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) containing 9 antennas on the roof of the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church, which abuts numerous residences on Condor Drive. The Appeal Hearing seems to be scheduled for November 4. Note, the Appeal was submitted by one of our neighbors at 32198 Condor Drive, but other households in the neighborhood directly affected by this Project are organizing together to better address this Appeal hearing.

I have an existing e-mail thread with the Planning Commission that contains written questions and concerns submitted before the October 16 hearing, and additional concerns and objections after the Hearing was complete. I will forward this to you under separate cover. In the meantime, I'd like to highlight some of the bigger objections justifying the Appeal.

ATTACHMENT 9
98 of 153
99 of 153
Significant Homeowner property value impacts, $2.8-5.6M:
- I've outlined in the mail that will be following, the objections provided post-Hearing, around a negative impact estimate to the value of our homes that would be from -10% to -20%. The range as provided by the National Association of Realtors
https://www.nar.realtor/cell-phone-towers
go as high as -20% impact.

Another resource: https://ehsciences.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Cell-Towers-Drop-PropertyValues.pdf Conservatively estimating only half of the homes on our block being directly affected (16 of the 32 homes), the eastern half of the block that is closer to the Church property, total impact in today's dollars would be $2.8-5.6M. If you include the homes in the western half, the impact only multiplies. More details are in the following mail.

Radio Frequency Emissions will be excessive for those bedrooms closest to antennas; analysis has many gaps:
- The Applicant confirms via their own peer review that given the orientation and distance of these 9 antennas to the adjacent homes, exposure will be at 83-85% of maximum, or excessive, radiation levels, as measured against Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65, aka OET-65. Bulletin is available here (see Appendix A, p. 67):
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf What the Applicant does not include is that exposure levels in OET-65 are defined at most with 30 min. of exposure. The Applicant's antennas will be exposing our neighborhood's 2nd story bedrooms 24/7 nonstop, which is significantly much more than 30 min. at a time. - The Applicant qualifies whatever exposure levels they're measuring against to a report by Waterford Consultants dated September 5, 2025. The only report by Waterford Consultants provided in the hearing material are for noise level exposure, and not RF exposure. The Applicant provides that RF emissions evaluation was performed by David Allen Burgess. But there are no reports by Burgess in the Hearing Agenda material of any kind, and especially any that detail exposure levels separate from what is described by the FCC OET-65 above. At best, the Applicant submission material are incomplete. At worst, the Applicant is being misleading about the RF exposure impacts. And since the Applicant's contract is for 25 years, the accumulated impact would be beyond significant for the neighborhood families.

Practically speaking:
- There are better places to position such a high powered Wireless Communication Facility with 9 antennas, other than 90-250 ft. from the children's bedrooms of 16-32 households; especially considering the dearth of commercial and industrial properties, and private and public (US Post Office?) literally on the other side of Alvarado-Niles, all the way up to Whipple.

Technically speaking:
- As outlined in the Planning Commission Hearing material, Section 18.56.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council based on the following findings in granting Use Permit approval.
#2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

As outlined above, as per FCC exposure guidelines, there will be significant public health impacts positioning the antenna so close to homes.

And the negative impact of up to $5.6M in today's property values will be materially injurious. - Also, as the site is in a Private Institutional zone, the maximum height of any structure would be 35 100 of 153
ft. The Applicant is requesting to build to 43 ft. 5 in. Required Conditions for exception to increase the PI Zone maximum height to 50 ft. from 35 ft., as outlined in the Hearing Agenda, are that the Planning Commission finds that such excess height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use within the surrounding area.

In the Hearing on October 16, our neighbors have already objected to the structure being at the rear windows of their homes. For those most affected with homes abutting the Church, as measured by the Applicant, that distance is 80 ft. of setback, plus 10 ft. of backyard setback of the homes, at 90 ft. total.

If there's anything you can do to help our Appeals process, I think our Neighborhood would be very grateful. There must be better solutions to address AT&T's wireless networking problems, than to position them less than 100 ft. from our neighbors' families.

Eugene Ho
32189 Condor Drive
650-224-6963
101 of 153
Aaron M. Shank
[email protected]
Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur LLP
41 South High Street
Suites 2800-3200
Columbus, OH 43215
Direct: 614.227.2110
Fax: 614.227.2100
www.porterwright.com
October 30, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Mayor & City Council
Union City
([email protected])
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
RE: AT&T’s Response to Appeal from Approval of Wireless Facility 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City
AT&T Site ID CBL00155
Dear Mayor Singh, Vice Mayor Sakakihara, and Councilmembers Nishihira, Patiño, and Wang:

I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T), to respectfully request the City Council affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of AT&T’s application seeking to place a new stealth rooftop wireless communications facility (“Proposed Facility”). AT&T has taken great care to site and design the Proposed Facility to meet applicable county, state, and federal standards.

The Proposed Facility will address a critical need to improve wireless service coverage to this portion of Union City. Indeed, AT&T’s significant gap in service coverage affects hundreds of city residents, businesses, and visitors. In addition to providing significant improvements to 4G LTE and 5G services, the Proposed Facility will provide FirstNet services to support first responder communications.

Some residents have appealed the approval based largely on safety and aesthetic concerns. But the Proposed Facility has been carefully sited to comply with applicable regulations and to minimize community impacts.

Indeed, as the evidence in the public record shows, it will comply with applicable safety laws, including the Federal Communications Commission’s radio frequency emissions regulations. The Proposed Facility is the best available and least intrusive means to close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in this portion of the city.

AT&T’s Proposed Facility
AT&T’s project team developed the current proposal in collaboration with the property owner and the city. As the Planning Commission Resolution approving AT&T’s application explains, the Proposed Facility “will be screened and set back from the right-of-way as much as feasible” and it “will be enclosed in a rooftop structure designed to match the architecture of the building” with related equipment “located on the ground in an enclosure, also designed to match the building.” As the photosimulations of the Proposed Facility that were submitted with the application show, this facility will blend well with its surroundings and will have a minimal visual impact. AT&T is particularly proud of the proposed design, which will hardly be noticeable as anything other than a second level to the existing building ATTACHMENT 10 102 of 153
City Council, Union City
October 30, 2025

Page 2 ends

AT&T Needs the Proposed Facility to Provide and Improve Wireless Services AT&T’s radio frequency engineers have identified a significant gap in service coverage and capacity in the city, including a large area that is roughly bordered by Whipple Road to the north, Dowe Avenue to the east, Ontario Drive to the south, and Santa Maria Drive to the west. The Proposed Facility is also an important part of AT&T’s commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet. Created by Congress, the First Responder Network Authority selected AT&T to build and manage this first-ever nationwide first responder wireless network. The Proposed Facility will provide new service on Band 14, which is the nationwide frequency set aside by the U.S. government for public safety.

Deployment of FirstNet in the target gap area will improve public safety by putting advanced wireless technologies into the hands of public safety agencies and first responders.

AT&T worked hard to carefully select this location to reduce impacts to the community while maintaining a clear line-of-sight for signals to provide reliable in-building wireless service coverage to the target gap area. AT&T thoroughly investigated alternative sites and designs, evaluating numerous properties in the gap area, to make sure that its Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap. These alternatives are listed and analyzed in AT&T’s Alternative Sites Analysis. (See Attachment B.) As the Planning Commission’s approval resolution explains, the Proposed Facility “will fill a significant gap in coverage and capacity shortfall in the applicant’s service area and, as designed, is the least intrusive means of doing so.” Indeed, the city’s consultant confirmed these conclusions.

Denial of AT&T’s Application Would Materially Inhibit AT&T From Providing and Improving Vital Wireless Telecommunications Services
Placing the Proposed Facility as proposed will close AT&T’s significant gap in in-building coverage in this large gap area. AT&T’s Application seeks to provide hundreds of residents, businesses, and visitors with adequate and reliable in-building wireless services and improving first responder communications in the area.

Denial would leave AT&T without any means to reliably serve this area.

The Proposed Facility will improve critical wireless services to the area, which are needed now more than ever as customers increasingly use mobile phones as their primary communication devices. In fact, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention studies the extent of mobile phone use, and recently found that more than 91% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes.1 Additionally, customers rely on their mobile phones to do much more than just voice communication, including E911 service, video streaming, GPS, Internet access, and texting. In fact, California reported to the FCC that there were more than 23.3 million wireless calls and 98,065 texts to 911 in 2023 (the most recent year for state level data).2 Approval of AT&T’s Proposal Comports with Federal Law
The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 (“TCA”) provides rights to wireless service providers and establishes limitations upon state and local zoning authorities with respect to applications for permits to construct personal wireless service facilities. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Act was enacted in part to prioritize and streamline deployment of wireless 1 See Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2023, available at Wireless Substitution: State-Level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2023. 2 See Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (Dec. 30, 2024), at 14, available at FCC-16th-Annual-911FeeReport-2024.pdf. 103 of 153
City Council, Union City
October 30, 2025

Page 3 ends

technologies on a national basis.3 Indeed, rapid deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities, like the Proposed Facility, is an important national issue, especially given the trend of Americans eliminating traditional landline telephone service in favor of wireless communications.

Substantial Evidence Must Guide Local Process
The TCA defines the scope and parameters of the county’s overall review of AT&T’s Application.

Under the Act, the city’s review of AT&T’s applications must be based on substantial evidence.4 The “substantial evidence” requirement means that a local government’s decision must be “authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence.” In other words, a local government must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the applicable regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit. Indeed, a decision denying wireless siting application “is invalid” if it not supported by the locality’s own regulations.5 RF Emissions Cannot Be Considered Here
The TCA also specifically precludes local governments from considering any alleged effects of radio frequency emissions in making decisions as to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities “to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions.”6 Here, it is beyond dispute that the Proposed Facility will operate below applicable FCC limits. In connection with AT&T’s application, a Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report was prepared by Waterford Consultants and was certified by a California Registered Professional Engineer. The report confirms that the Proposed Facility will operate well within (and actually far below) all applicable FCC exposure limits.

Given the compliance with the FCC standards, AT&T’s application cannot be rejected based on concerns about radio frequency emissions.

Avoiding An Unlawful Prohibition
The TCA also prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless facility where doing so would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”7 Courts have found an “effective prohibition” exists where a wireless provider demonstrates (1) a significant gap in wireless service coverage, and (2) that the proposed facility would provide the “least intrusive means,” in relation to the land use values embodied in local regulations, to provide the service 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115-16 (2005) (“Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 110 Stat. 56, to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to ‘encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.’ Ibid. One of the means by which it sought to accomplish these goals was reduction of the impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, such as antenna towers.”).
4 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
5 See, e.g., Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 993; Metro PCS, Inc., 400 F.3d at 725 (“we must take applicable state and regulations as we find them” in applying the substantial evidence requirement). 6 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) , which states, “[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.” 7 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
104 of 153
City Council, Union City
October 30, 2025

Page 4 ends

coverage necessary to fill that gap.8 Where, as here, a wireless carrier satisfies both of these requirements, state and local standards that would otherwise be sufficient to permit denial of the facility are preempted and the local government must approve the wireless facility.9 In fact, the burden shifts to the local government to prove that a less intrusive alternative exists. To meet this burden, the local government would need to show that another alternative is available that fills the significant gap in coverage, that it is technically feasible, and is less intrusive than the proposed facility.10 In addition, the FCC has ruled that an effective prohibition occurs whenever the decision of a local government materially inhibits wireless services.11 The FCC explained that the “effective prohibition analysis focuses on the service the provider wishes to provide, incorporating the capabilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including facilities deployment to provide existing services more robustly, or at a better level of quality, all to offer a more robust and competitive wireless service for the benefit of the public.”12
AT&T has demonstrated it has a significant service coverage gap in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility. AT&T’s coverage maps (submitted with its application and made part of the public record) depict and describe the service coverage gap that AT&T is experiencing in this portion of the city. Specifically, AT&T needs to be able to provide reliable in-building service coverage in the gap area.13 The proposed service coverage from the Proposed Facility is depicted in the coverage maps. These coverage maps show that placing the Proposed Facility in this location will close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap.

AT&T has also demonstrated that no less intrusive locations are available and feasible to close the gap. AT&T’s Alternative Sites Analysis in the public record shows that AT&T conducted a comprehensive search of potential alternatives in the broader geographic area to find the best available and least intrusive site. This analysis presents a meaningful comparison of all candidate locations, describes the Proposed Facility, and explains why the other sites and designs are not viable. Neither 8 See e.g., Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 734-35 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S.Ct. 808 (2015); Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 Id., 572 F.3d at 998-999.
11 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018) (“Infrastructure Order”) at ¶ 35; see also, In the Matter of California Payphone Association Petition for Preemption, Etc., Opinion and Order, FCC 97-251, 12 FCC Rcd 14191 (July 17, 1997); see also City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, City of Portland v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2855 (2021).
12 Infrastructure Order at n. 95.
13 Courts within the Ninth Circuit and across the country hold the in-building standard is the appropriate benchmark for finding a significant service coverage gap exists. See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 4:02-cv-03442-PJH, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2006) (held that large “coverage holes” that “extend to the interior of buildings,” are actionable under the Act); TMobile W. Corp. v. City of Huntington Beach, No. 2:10-cv-02835-CAS (Ex), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148170, *11-12, *49 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) (held that “providing reliable in-building wireless service . . . is essential, and its absence constitutes a significant gap in coverage”; ruled T-Mobile demonstrated significant gaps in in-building coverage); L.A. SMSA Ltd. P'ship. City of L.A., No. 2:16-cv-04954-FLA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160046, *21-26 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021) (gaps in in-home wireless service coverage constitute a significant coverage gaps).
105 of 153
City Council, Union City
October 30, 2025

Page 5 ends

AT&T nor the city has identified another viable site. As the analysis demonstrates, the Proposed Facility is not only the best available and least intrusive means to do so, it is the only way for AT&T to bring critical wireless services to the area. Approval of AT&T’s application is required to avoid an unlawful effective prohibition. The Planning Commission’s approval thus comports with federal law, and the Council should likewise approve AT&T’s application and deny the appeal.

The Appeal Does Not Support Denial
The appeal does not raise concerns to justify upending the proper approval of AT&T’s application.

Even if the City Council was to identify a code-based reason to disfavor the Proposed Facility, the city is preempted from effectively prohibiting wireless service. As a practical matter, there is no need to risk violating federal law. The Proposed Facility is well-designed, meets applicable standards, and will provide vast improvements to wireless services for customers and first responders alike. AT&T offers the following responses to the issues raised by the appeal:

Agreement with Property Owner. AT&T identified this church property as the least intrusive means to close its significant service coverage gap. The terms of the city’s approval, rather than lease terms, are the appropriate measure of AT&T’s responsibilities. For example, the city’s approval controls the permit duration, maintenance, and insurance obligations. Further, the terms of the lease are confidential.

FirstNet. The appeal calls into question the Proposed Facility’s public safety benefits. Again, the Proposed Facility will close a significant service coverage gap for the city’s residents, businesses, and visitors. Wireless connectivity is critical, especially with the vast majority of households relying on wireless telephones are their primary communications devices. In addition, the Proposed Facility will provide dedicated wireless service to first responders. First conceived by the 9/11 Commission Report as a necessary strategy to coordinate first responder communications, Congress created FirstNet as the first ever nationwide first-responder wireless network. AT&T was then awarded the contract to build out FirstNet.

The appeal confuses FirstNet with 911 calls. FirstNet is a means for first responders to communicate, not for residents to reach out to first responders. In fact, FirstNet users have priority over other users so that, in the event of an emergency, first responder communications will take precedence over other users on the same frequency. The Proposed Facility will provide new service on Band 14, which is the nationwide high-quality spectrum set aside by the U.S. government for public safety.

Deployment of FirstNet in the subject area will improve public safety by putting advanced wireless technologies into the hands of public safety agencies and first responders.

The appeal seeks verification of the improvements that will be made to FirstNet capabilities by construction of the Proposed Facility. FirstNet signals are provided over AT&T’s 4G LTE spectrum. The coverage maps that AT&T submitted with its application depict before and after coverage levels on AT&T’s 4G LTE spectrum. These maps thus help show the need to improve FirstNet here and the scope of that improvement once the Proposed Facility is on air.

Health Concerns. The appeal raises concerns about the health effects of radio frequency emissions from the Proposed Facility. Again, AT&T’s Proposed Facility will comply with the FCC’s RF emissions standards. The city is, therefore, preempted from considering these concerns.14 In fact, the city’s consultant confirmed the Proposed Facility will comply with these federal standards. 14 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
106 of 153
City Council, Union City
October 30, 2025

Page 6 ends

26832799.1
Noise. The appeal contends the Proposed Facility will generate noise and asks the city to require AT&T to agree to certain noise standards. But that has already taken place. The noise study that AT&T submitted with its application, which is part of the public record for this matter, shows that the facility will comply with the city’s noise standards. Moreover, the noise study was conducted using maximum load conditions for the air conditioner and generator even though the generator is for emergency backup during power outages and exercised once per week for maintenance.

Alternative Sites Analysis. The appeal asks the city to compel AT&T to analyze alternatives. In fact, however, AT&T conducted a comprehensive alternative sites analysis, the documentation of which was submitted in connection with AT&T’s application and is part of the public record. AT&T considered 10 candidate sites – the proposed site and 9 alternatives – in this portion of the city. The other 9 alternatives were either unavailable, infeasible, or both.

The appeal does not identify an alternative, let alone one that is available, feasible, and less intrusive. Nor did AT&T or the city identify an available, feasible, and less intrusive alternative. Thus, as the Planning Commission and city’s consultant agreed, AT&T’s Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap.

Conclusion
AT&T is working diligently to upgrade its network to provide and improve wireless services in the city. AT&T has shown that federal law strongly supports (indeed, requires) approval, and there is no substantial evidence on which the city could deny AT&T’s application. AT&T urges the City Council to approve AT&T’s application and deny the appeal.

Sincerely,
Aaron M. Shank
107 of 153
City Council Staff Report Page 1 of 8 November 4, 2025
Agenda Item No. 3.1
DATE: November 4, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joan Malloy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal by Saurabh Talwar, Sunita Goyal, Christine Chen, Jon Kuo, Mohammad Fasiur Rahman, Weifeng Chen, and Wais Aubi of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) for a New Wireless Facility at the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN: 475-0148-002-00); and Adopt a Resolution: (1) Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Review; 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. The Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Under Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and consider an appeal by Saurabh Talwar, Sunita Goyal, Christine Chen, Jon Kuo, Mohammad Fasiur Rahman, Weifeng Chen, and Wais Aubi, of the Planning Commission’s approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001), and Site Development Review (SD-25-001), for a new wireless facility located at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road, and adopt a resolution: (1) Denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Review; 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.

Attached is a draft City Council Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and approving Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001). The attached resolution includes Exhibits A, B, and C: Project Plans, Statement of Use, and Photo Simulations.

The Planning Commission approved Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) at its October 16, 2025, meeting on a 3-1 vote. Attached to this staff 108 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 8 November 4, 2025
report are the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 2), Draft Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 3), Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Attachment 4), Planning Commission Desk Item (Attachment 5), Appeal Letter (Attachment 6), Noise Analysis (Attachment 7), and Alternative Sites Analysis (Attachment 8). Public comment letters received after the appeal was filed are included as Attachment 9 and Attachment 10 and are discussed below.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item does not have alignment with a specific Strategic Plan strategy.

BACKGROUND
Carl Jones of AT&T Mobility, on behalf of the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church, was granted approval of a Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD25-001) by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2025, to allow for a new wireless facility at the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road.

The site includes the main church building, a separate multi-purpose building used as a social hall, gymnasium, and classrooms (the location of the proposed wireless facility), and a residence used by the church minister. The project site has a General Plan and Zoning designation of Private Institutional (PI), which is the designation typically applied to sites that accommodate religious institutions.

The scope of the approved Use Permit (UP-25-001) included a new wireless facility on the roof of the multi-purpose building, which is one-story and measures approximately 20,374 square feet, and an associated increase in the height of the building from 28 feet, 5 inches to 43 feet, 5 inches to accommodate a new enclosed structure to screen the wireless facility. The PI Zoning District allows an increase in the maximum permitted height from 35 feet to 50 feet, subject to the issuance of a use permit. The Site Development Review approval (SD-25-001) allowed the construction of a new, 2,320- square-foot roof-mounted enclosure housing nine (9) antennas and a 359-square-foot ground-mounted wireless equipment enclosure located adjacent to the multi-purpose building.

The project plans, statement of use, and photo simulations are attached to the draft City Council Resolution (Attachment 1) and labeled Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, respectively. The attached Planning Commission staff report provides a detailed overview of the project and the project’s compliance with applicable requirements (Attachment 2).

The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the City of Union City to act “within a reasonable period of time.” Under rules adopted by the FCC in 2019, there is a legal presumption that a local government has violated this “reasonable period of time” requirement if it takes longer than 150 days to act on an application to deploy a wireless facility on a new structure. If a municipality exceeds this period of time, it could face legal action. However, the period for reviewing an application may be extended by written agreement between the applicant and the City. The applicant and the City agreed in writing to extend the 150-day “shot clock” deadline, initially set for October 27, 2025, to provide additional time to complete the peer review process and for the item to be heard by the Planning Commission. The City and the applicant then extended the tolling agreement to November 14, 2025, to accommodate the appeal process. 109 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 3 of 8 November 4, 2025

DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission heard the project on October 16, 2025. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Draft Resolution (Attachment 3) approving the project on a 3:1 vote with Chairperson McClelland dissenting. For an overview of the discussion that took place and the public comments received at the Planning Commission meeting, see attached “Draft” meeting minutes (Attachment 4). A Desk Item was also prepared (Attachment 5), which addressed some comments/questions received from Commissioner Lew and a resident prior to the meeting.

Appeal Process Overview
On October 19, 2025, Saurabh Talwar, Sunita Goyal, Christine Chen, Jon Kuo, Mohammad Fasiur Rahman, Weifeng Chen, and Wais Aubi emailed a letter to the City Clerk, opposing said project. Their appeal was officially filed with the required fee on October 23, 2025. See Appeal Letter dated October 19, 2025 (Attachment 6). The Appeal was timely and duly filed pursuant to Union City Municipal Code 18.52.088(C).

The City Council is required to hold a public hearing on the Appeal and, following the hearing, may affirm, affirm in part, reverse, or modify the decision being appealed based upon findings of fact particular to the matter. The City Council may adopt additional conditions of approval as the facts warrant.

Staff Analysis
As conditioned, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Union City Municipal Code. In addition, the project complies with FCC standards. The Economic & Community Development Director, per UCMC Section 18.114.120(D), authorized a thirdparty, independent, peer review of the project’s following technical reports: the Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Compliance Report; the noise analysis; coverage map analysis; and the alternative site analysis. The peer review was conducted by Douglas Herring & Associates (DHA). The Noise Analysis and Alternate Sites Analysis are attached to this staff report (Attachments 7 and 8, respectively).

The peer review concluded:

1. The RF exposure levels for surrounding residences are below the required safety limits established by the FCC.

2. Calculated noise levels from the proposed project will comply with the noise limits established by Union City Municipal Code Chapter 9.40, and the CMU wall enclosure will shield the equipment’s operational noise levels from the nearest sensitive receptors.

3. AT&T has demonstrated a coverage gap in the area around the proposed site, and the projected coverage improvement appears valid.

4. According to the alternative sites analysis, the sites available for leasing were infeasible for technical reasons or a lack of property owner support. Of the property owners/managers who responded to inquiries, all confirmed the information in the report.

As detailed above, an appeal letter was submitted (Attachment 6). See below excerpts from the letter and staff’s feedback shown as italicized text. 110 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 4 of 8 November 4, 2025

1. Lack of Resident Notification, Transparency, and Respectful Engagement AT&T made no effort to inform or consult nearby residents before advancing this project.

No mailers, door notices, or informational meetings were provided. Residents only became aware through the City’s notice. The hearing’s time limits, lack of responses, and rushed decision reinforced the perception that this process lacked transparency and public respect.

The project was found to be consistent with State law and UCMC Section 18.52.082, which requires notice to the public and surrounding neighbors 10 days prior to the public hearing. Public notices were published in the Argus Newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation within the City, on September 28, 2025, and mailed to neighbors within 300 feet of the project site boundary on October 1, 2025.

2. Undisclosed Agreement with the Buddhist Church
AT&T has not disclosed the terms of its agreement with the Buddhist Church, where it intends to install the antenna and ground equipment. Residents deserve to know details such as lease length, compensation, maintenance obligations, insurance, and liability responsibilities.

Private agreements between wireless service providers and property owners are not within the purview of the City of Union City. Because lease agreements are not within the City’s purview, they are not a required part of the application. The City has no basis to seek this information, and business arrangements of this nature are often proprietary and confidential.

3. Questionable Public Safety Justification and Missing Data AT&T’s consultants stated the installation is needed because first responders allegedly experience poor reception in this area. However, when residents requested historical data or 911 call failure reports, no evidence was provided.

After the Planning Commission meeting, City staff reached out to the Police Department and IT staff regarding comments by the AT&T representative at the public hearing on how the proposed wireless facility would support first responder communications. IT staff reported that the City’s Police Department and its vehicles rely on AT&T's FirstNet wireless service. Firstnet is a nationwide public safety communications network designed specifically for first responders and established to address the critical communication challenges public safety personnel face during emergencies such as natural disasters. IT staff added that since 2023, they have been reporting to AT&T low signal levels and limited bandwidth issues with the Firstnet system. IT staff also provided feedback that a new wireless facility would significantly enhance connectivity and bandwidth, addressing the problems Police Department staff have been experiencing, and greatly benefit the City’s first responders. AT&T staff did not reach out to the Police Department or IT staff regarding the application for the proposed wireless facility, and Planning staff were unaware of the relationship between the proposed facility and prior feedback to AT&T regarding its FirstNet service.

4. Proximity and Impact on Residential Neighborhood
The proposed site sits immediately behind multiple private homes. The tower’s height, design, and associated mechanical units will disrupt the visual landscape and may lower property values.
111 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 5 of 8 November 4, 2025
The purpose of UCMC Chapter 18.114 states, “The regulations are designed to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare and the visual quality of the City of Union City while allowing the appropriate development of telecommunication activities throughout the City.” The project is consistent with all provisions in this chapter regarding general requirements, location, height, and design, while improving service coverage in the vicinity.

The antennas will be enclosed within a rooftop structure with a stealth design that mimics a second-story addition and matches the existing building in terms of architecture, colors, and materials. The equipment that supports the operation of the antennas will be located on the ground in a 359-square-foot enclosure, also designed and painted to match the existing building.

To comply with the design requirements of UCMC Section 18.114.080, the applicant located the antennas and equipment so as not to be readily visible, as shown in the Photo Simulations, Exhibit C. “Readily visible" is defined in UCMC Section 18.114.030 as an object that can be seen from public view and distinguished as an antenna and not sufficiently camouflaged or designed to be compatible with the appurtenant architecture or building materials.

The proposed roof-mounted antenna enclosure of the wireless facility meets required setbacks. It is located approximately 80 feet from the rear property line of the site, which it shares with the adjacent residential neighborhood located along Condor Drive. On average, the homes along Condor Drive are set back an additional 15 feet from the shared property line for a total setback of approximately 95 feet from the adjacent residences.

The applicant considered installing a new monopole, which would have provided greater siting flexibility, but was precluded because monopoles are not allowed within the PI Zoning District.

5. Health, RF Emissions, and Heat Concerns
AT&T’s claimed FCC compliance relies on outdated 1996 standards that do not reflect modern cumulative exposure to 4G/5 G. Independent studies — including the U.S.

National Toxicology Program (2018) and Ramazzini Institute (2021) — report biological effects below those thresholds. We request that Union City require AT&T to submit and publicly release a Site-Specific, Independent RF and Thermal Emission Compliance Report, including real-world RF data from existing installations of the same antenna model and the number of installations located near residential homes.

Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits state and local governments from regulating the placement, construction, and modification of wireless service facilities based on environmental or health concerns if the facilities comply with federal radio frequency (RF) safety standards. As such, the City did not attach the RF Emissions Report to the staff report. See page 7 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 2) for additional details regarding the project’s RF emissions.

The applicant’s coverage analysis and RF emissions were peer-reviewed by a cellular technology expert, David Burgess, the City’s consultant. Mr. Burgess concluded that the expected RF exposure levels for surrounding residences are below the recommended FCC safety limits, even for people standing on rooftops outside the structures under all 112 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 6 of 8 November 4, 2025
possible conditions, and that there is no reason to expect that this system would present any hazard to residents at those locations. Mr. Burgess also confirmed that the report was prepared consistently with accepted standards.

Mr. Burgess explained that the guidelines for emission safety are based on at least 1,500 medical experiments and research reports conducted by doctors and biologists worldwide over the last few decades. He added that those tests are the basis for the FCC guidelines, and that the guidelines include built-in safety margins ranging from a factor of 50 to 200.

6. Maintenance Noise, Generator Testing, and Resident Notification The antenna’s generator and cooling systems will generate recurring noise. Union City should require AT&T to sign a Written Maintenance and Noise Management Agreement defining approved testing hours, noise-control measures, and 48-hour advance notification to residents.

The project proposes an equipment area, enclosed by 8-foot CMU walls, on the east side of the multi-purpose building. The project must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which is included in Chapter 9.40 of the Union City Municipal Code. A condition of approval was also added, reiterating this requirement. A Noise Study prepared by the applicant (Attachment 7) concluded that the operation of the project equipment, including the generator and equipment cabinet, would not exceed applicable standards. A peer review of the noise analysis was conducted by acoustical expert Michael Thill of Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., the City’s consultant. The peer review confirmed the Noise Study’s analysis and conclusions and indicated that the proposed CMU wall enclosure attenuated the equipment’s operational noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors.

After the project is operational, if there are concerns about noise levels associated with the equipment, Article VII, Noise Complaints, of the City’s Noise Ordinance provides for submitting a complaint to the City.

7. Alternative Site Evaluation and Transparency
Union City should compel AT&T to evaluate alternative sites, such as industrial or commercial zones, and conduct a new public hearing with adequate time for residents to ask questions and receive answers.

Per the City’s Wireless Submittal Requirements checklist, the applicant submitted an Alternative Site Analysis (Attachment 8) showing nine (9) alternate sites, including collocation opportunities, measuring up to .72 miles from the project site. The analysis indicated the sites were not feasible due to a variety of issues, including a lack of property owner authorization, insufficient space in the facility, or structural integrity issues with existing facilities that would prevent the addition of additional antennas. The Alternative Site Analysis was peer reviewed by Douglas Herring, the City’s consultant. Of the property owners/managers who responded to Mr. Herring’s inquiries, all of them confirmed the findings in the report.

8. Requests for City Action
We respectfully request that the City of Union City:

1. Deny or defer the permit pending independent evaluations.

2. Require full public release of RF, thermal, and noise data.

3. Mandate a Maintenance and Noise Management Agreement.

4. Require AT&T to disclose its agreement with the Buddhist Church. 113 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 7 of 8 November 4, 2025

5. Obtain independent verification of first responder (911) claims.

6. Require RF reports for identical antenna models and similar proximities.

7. Conduct a new, transparent public hearing allowing ample resident input.

Some of these items are addressed in the discussion above. In contrast, others are unrelated to the findings necessary for the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the appeal under the Municipal Code.

9. Conclusion
Union City residents deserve transparency, scientific accountability, and respectful civic engagement. The limited speaking time, rushed approval, lack of written responses, and AT&T’s absence of direct communication have left the community feeling ignored and disrespected.

Comment noted.

Additional Public Comment
The City received additional public comments after the appeal was filed. The resident who submitted the two written comment letters referenced in the Desk Item (Attachment 5) also submitted a third comment letter on October 24, 2025 (Attachment 9). On October 30, 2025, the City received a letter from the applicant’s attorney (Attachment 10).

Conclusion
As conditioned, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Union City Municipal Code. In addition, the project complies with relevant FCC standards. The City engaged Doug Herring and Associates to peer-review technical studies submitted by the applicant, who confirmed the conclusions of the various studies. The antennas will be enclosed within a rooftop structure designed to integrate with the existing building in terms of architecture, colors, and materials. The equipment supporting antenna operation will be located on the ground in a 359-square-foot enclosure, also designed and painted to match the existing building. Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and confirm the Planning Commission’s decision.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund. The processing of this application by City staff has been paid in full through the required application fees established in the current Master Fee Schedule.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and consider an appeal by Saurabh Talwar, Sunita Goyal, Christine Chen, Jon Kuo, Mohammad Fasiur Rahman, Weifeng Chen, and Wais Aubi, of the Planning Commission’s approval of Use Permit (UP-25-001), and Site Development Review (SD-25-001), for a new wireless facility located at 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road, and adopt a resolution: (1) Denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Review; or (2) Denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Review, with modified 114 of 153
Agenda Item No. 3.1
City Council Staff Report Page 8 of 8 November 4, 2025
conditions; or (3) Approving the Appeal and denying the Use Permit and Site Development Review.

Prepared by: Natalie Dean, Associate Planner
Submitted by: Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director Attachments

1. Attachment 1: Draft City Council Resolution Approving Use Permit (UP-25-001), Site Development Review (SD-25-001)

2. Exhibit A - Project Plans

3. Exhibit B - Statement of Use

4. Exhibit C - Photo Simulations

5. Attachment 2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 10/16/2025

6. Attachment 3: Draft Planning Commission Resolution dated 10/16/2025

7. Attachment 4: Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/16/2025

8. Attachment 5: Desk Item dated 10/16/2025

9. Attachment 6: Appeal Letter dated 10/19/2025

10. Attachment 7: Noise Analysis

11. Attachment 8: Alternative Sites Analysis

12. Attachment 9: Public Comment Letter dated October 24, 2025

13. Attachment 10: Public Comment Letter dated October 30, 2025 115 of 153
From: Eugene Ho
To: Saurabh Talwar; Thai Nam Pham
Cc: Christine Chen; Jon Kuo; Mohammad Fasiur Rahman; Weifeng Chen; Wais Aubi; Derek Farmer; Tracey Barragan; Swati Sharma; Sunita Goyal; Sooraj Ram;
Anjana Bai; SATISH KUMAR;
Natalie Dean; City Clerk; Saurabh Talwar
Subject: Re: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road; Oct. 16 Public Hearing
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:35:50 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.

Warning: Unusual sender <
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.

Hi, Thai:

Please add to the the public record an additional written public comment:

The original hearing proposal for Use Permit (UP-25-001), Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church, that was approved during the October 16 Public Hearing, included:

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
The exemption details are here:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I8CE6FB435B4D11EC976B000D3A7C4BC3? viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData= (sc.Default)&bhcp=1
The relevant sections to the exemption are:

Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to:
(c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.

Note, the proposed new Wireless Carrier Facility includes:
... Construction of a New 2,320 Square-Foot Roof-Mounted Enclosure and a 359 Square-Foot 116 of 153
Equipment Ground-Mounted Enclosure.

So 2,320 + 359 = 2,679 sq. ft., is beyond and exceeds the 2500 sq. ft. allowed for an exemption. So the exemption would be invalid, and the Approval from October 16 should be revoked. Subsequent actions should include all required studies and reports as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, to ensure, as the California Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation states:
... public agencies to “look before they leap” and consider the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions.

Details of the CEQA are here:
https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/
Thank you.

Eugene Ho and Jean Hsien
--
On Monday, November 3, 2025 at 08:16:03 AM PST, Thai Nam Pham < wrote:

Dear Mr. Talwar,
Thank you for your email and for providing the additional signatures and correspondence. The appeal record has already been finalized in accordance with City procedures, and no further names can be added to the list of formal appellants.

Your email and attachments will, however, be included in the public record for tomorrow’s hearing as written public comment and forwarded to the City Council for review.

You and the residents listed are welcome to attend and speak during the public hearing.

Sincerely,
Thai Nam Pham, MMC, CPMC????
City Clerk, City of Union City
Office:510.675.5448
Email:
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City • CA • 94587
www.unioncity.org
Book time to meet with me
117 of 153
Outlook
Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road; Oct. 16 Public Hearing From Saurabh Talwar <
Date Sun 11/02/2025 11:02 AM
To Natalie Dean <[email protected]>
Cc Christine Chen < Jon Kuo < Mohammad Fasiur Rahman
< Weifeng Chen < Wais Aubi < Thai Nam
Pham <[email protected]>; Derek Farmer <[email protected]>; Tracey Barragan <[email protected]>; <
< <
< <
< Swati Sharma < Sunita Goyal
< < Sooraj Ram
< < Anjana Bai <
2 attachments (369 KB)
Appeal against RF Antenna Installation-3.pdf; signature_page1.pdf; WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.

External sender <
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.

Hi Natalie,
Here is the scanned copy of the Appeal with all the signatures from all the applicants supporting this appeal for your reference.

Thanks,
Sunny
On Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 10:44 AM Saurabh Talwar < wrote:

Hi Natalie,
We have already paid the fees $1118 for the hearing which is taking place on November 4th.

Could you please update the list of applicants who will be present on the November 4th hearing since the list on the notice does not include some people.

Here is the additional list of people who will be present at the hearing. 11/3/25, 8:24 AM Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles … about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 1/4
118 of 153
Swati Sharma
Edward Bruesard
Marco Hernandez
Dennis Mamaril
Sana L
Susan Quant Jose Quant
Co Ha
Priscilla Tseng
Jingchun Wang
James Brand
Mina Sharma
David Lill
Janet Strickler
Peidong Chen
Geraldine D.

Bonnie Han
Anjana Bai
Minhajur Mohammed
Stiven Shi
Christine Chen
Thitipoon Tang
Sonny Mamari
Mohammad Rahman
Sreenivasa Rao
Kristine Arao
Thanks for your help.
11/3/25, 8:24 AM Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles … about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 2/4
119 of 153
Regards,
Sunny
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:30 AM Natalie Dean <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning,
To finish filing the appeal, bring payment for the $945 appeal fee plus the $173 public noticing fee directly to Finance, along with a copy of the October 19, 2025, appeal letter for reference. Once payment is received, we’ll consider the appeal officially filed under UCMC §18.52.088(C)(2), and the Planning Commission’s approval will remain stayed pending City Council consideration.

Per 18.52.088(C)(2), the appeal shall be filed within 10 calendar days of the Planning Commission decision. If the last day for appeal is not a City Hall working day, the appeal period shall extend to the next City Hall working day. Appeals filed beyond the appeal period shall not be accepted.

October 26 is the 10th calendar day after the appeal; therefore, Monday would be the last day to appeal. It is recommended the appeal and fee are filed today by 5 pm. Pay with check payable to the City of Union City, or credit card.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
‑ Natalie Dean
From: Natalie Dean
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 9:33 AM
To: 'Saurabh Talwar & Sunita Goyal' < 'Christine Chen' < 'Jon Kuo' < 'Mohammad Fasiur Rahman' < 'Weifeng Chen'
< 'Wais Aubi' <
Cc: Derek Farmer <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road; Oct. 16 Public Hearing
Hello,
11/3/25, 8:24 AM Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles … about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 3/4
120 of 153
This is a friendly reminder that the City of Union City requires a fee for the appeal of the subject project. A hearing has been noticed for November 4, 2025.

The fee is $945 plus $173 for noticing. You may pay with a credit card or with a check made payable to The City of Union City.

Please contact me at the phone number below to discuss as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Natalie Dean
Associate Planner, City of Union City
Office: 510-675.5382
34009 Alvarado‑Niles Rd
Union City • CA • 94587
www.unioncity.org
11/3/25, 8:24 AM Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles … about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 4/4
121 of 153
To:

The Honorable Eric Swalwell, U.S. House of Representatives Union City Planning Commission
Chairwoman McLelland, Union City Planning Commission
Carmela Campbell, Union City Development Services
Date: October 31st 2025
Dear Congressman Swalwell, Chairwoman McLelland, Ms. Campbell, and Members of the Union City Planning Commission,
On behalf of the residents of Condor Drive in Union City between Hop Ranch and Dowe, we are writing to formally appeal the City’s approval of AT&T’s proposed wireless telecommunications facility located behind our homes, on the grounds of the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church (SACBC). We respectfully request your support in ensuring a fair, transparent, and evidence-based re-evaluation of this project.

We believe the City’s current approval process has overlooked critical environmental, safety, and equity considerations. Below are the key issues we urge you to review and help escalate:

Since not all residents received my earlier questions before the hearing, I am restating them here and respectfully request that they be entered into the public record and reviewed during the appeal process.

1. Lack of Timely and Transparent Notification
AT&T notified residents only once — on October 24th (we received the postcard mailer around Oct. 4?) — near the very end of the 150-day City review window (150 days for action as per FCC guidelines).

The City notified residents of a Public Hearing to take place only 11 days before the FCC deadline to act, with approval or denial.

This deprived our neighborhood of any meaningful opportunity to evaluate or respond before key decisions were made. It also deprived AT&T from earnestly responding to any written and verbal questions and requests for more information on the project. It should be noted that submitted and accepted questions for the Public Hearing were not shared with AT&T in advance, and subsequent responses from AT&T have been incomplete.

Such conduct appears disingenuous and inconsistent with the spirit of public engagement that underpins due process. A single, last-minute notice to dozens of affected families cannot be considered genuine community consultation and belies the purpose of a Public Hearing.

Instead, the October 16 session resembled more of a Public Notice. 122 of 153
We request that the City establish mandatory multi-stage public notification requirements for future wireless projects — including an initial outreach phase well before hearings are scheduled.

2. Incomplete Site Selection and Lack of Objective Alternatives It remains unclear why the chosen site — directly adjacent to family homes — was deemed the only viable option when Union City’s abundant nearby commercial and industrial corridors offer numerous suitable alternatives.

The Applicant’s Alternative Site Analysis lists only nine rejected sites, and other unnamed sites being dismissed because, “the property owner could not be reached or contacted.” During the hearing, it was evident that many nearby commercial properties were never meaningfully pursued.

If AT&T struggles to contact property owners, could the City’s Development Office (e.g., Ms.

Carmela Campbell’s team) assist in facilitating outreach? From Hop Ranch to Western, and from Alvarado-Niles to Whipple, there are at least a dozen viable commercial parcels that would avoid residential intrusion.

Basing site selection on factors like “churches being easier to work with” or “lower leasing costs” is not a legally valid justification for placing high-emission, high-maintenance equipment in a residential neighborhood, less than 100 ft. from adjacent homes by their stated measure.

We request:
● Documented proof that all commercial/industrial alternatives were evaluated using objective criteria.
● A transparent site comparison study, inclusive of community feedback.

3. Misleading Visual Representations
The Applicant’s elevation renderings are misleading and incomplete.

As presented, the images appear to have been taken from inches off the ground, not the perspective of an average adult human. The “North View” facing Condor Drive is especially deceptive — using a neighboring home to obscure what would otherwise appear as a 60–80 ft–wide, 43+ ft–high structure looming behind residential properties.

Homeowners and Residents deserve accurate visual simulations that reflect the true neighborhood impact. We urge that the City require AT&T to resubmit visual studies taken from standard adult-eye height, clearly showing the view from Condor Drive and neighboring yards. 123 of 153

4. Excessive Environmental and Noise Impact
The site’s unpaved lot will produce significant dust, exhaust, and noise, especially during nighttime maintenance.

Industry standards indicate that once operational, AT&T will likely sublease portions of the 2,320 sq. ft. space to 5–6 other carriers, resulting in multiple and repeated site visits and disturbances, often between 1:00–4:00 a.m.

We ask:
● How will the City enforce noise ordinances and public nuisance laws during late-night maintenance?
● Will the City assume liability for repeated residential disruptions if this permit is granted? ● Will the City consider a binding condition restricting the tower to AT&T-only operations to prevent uncontrolled subleasing?
● Perform basic sound/noise monitoring at property fence lines to establish current noise levels for daylight and night.

If AT&T refuses such a clause, that refusal alone validates residents’ concerns about future multi-carrier expansion.

If the City believes subleasing will not occur, it should include a legally binding condition restricting tower access to AT&T only. Should AT&T object to this clause, that objection will validate residents’ concerns about future multi-tenant expansion.

5. Lack of Complete Health and RF Radiation Risks and Impacts Neither the City nor AT&T has provided an independent, peer-reviewed study demonstrating the long-term safety of RF emissions for a tower that could eventually host dozens of antennas (potentially 45+) less than 100 ft. from numerous homes.

We request:
● An independent RF and environmental safety study (Health Risk Assessment, HRA), conducted by a mutually selected third party and funded by AT&T. ● Full public disclosure of RF emission modeling, cumulative exposure data, and maintenance frequency reports.

6. Severe Negative Economic Impact on Property Values
Multiple reputable sources confirm substantial and measurable economic harm from visible cell towers:
124 of 153
● Recent real-estate research suggests that “proximity to macro-cell towers in residential neighborhoods can contribute to measurable reductions in property values, primarily due to buyer perception, aesthetic impact, and increased maintenance traffic.” National Association of Realtors data indicates a 2–7% valuation reduction for homes adjacent to wireless infrastructure. While some newer California studies show minimal effect for small-cell street pole installations, those findings do not apply to macro-grade antenna facilities located directly next to family homes and overnight maintenance access create a very different burden on residents. ● Environmental Health Sciences Report (2025) — “If the cell tower was deployed near residential property, property values decreased an average of 9.78%. Realtors say cell towers can cut home values by up to 20%, with 94% of buyers saying they would pay less or avoid such properties.”
(Source)
Given that the proposed tower will be within 300–500 feet of multiple rear-facing windows, the nearest being 90 feet, the projected collective devaluation to our neighborhood could total $2.8–$5.6 million.

It is deeply concerning that our City would approve a project imposing millions in home equity loss on its taxpayers when viable commercial sites exist very nearby.

7. Lack of Verified Public-Safety Justification
When asked during the hearing which public safety department requested additional network coverage, the Applicant’s response — “I don’t know” — was both insufficient and alarming.

If this project is justified under the guise of public safety, then residents are entitled to documented requests or technical analysis from Union City or Alameda County emergency response agencies confirming such a need.

Without this evidence, citing “emergency coverage” as a rationale is invalid and misleading.

8. Negative Long-Term Impact and Neighborhood Equity
Our Ivywood neighborhood was developed just 22 years ago, in 2003. A 25-year tower lease that diminishes property values, disrupts peace, and exposes families to uncertain health (Lack of HRA) and environmental risks would be short-sighted and inequitable.

We fully support improved technology and reliable wireless coverage — but not at the expense of public health, safety, and neighborhood equity.

9. Requests for Action
125 of 153
We respectfully urge the City and your offices to:

1. Pause all permit approvals until an independent site, environmental, and RF study is completed. We request an injunction if needed, and will file one if required to effect this pause.

2. Require revised visual-impact renderings taken from realistic human perspectives.

3. Commission an independent RF and environmental impact and safety study jointly overseen by residents and funded by AT&T, with analysis and results made public.

4. Investigate potential procedural violations related to AT&T’s delayed community notification.

5. Direct the Development Office to help AT&T engage with commercial property owners to relocate this project away from homes and into its abundant commercial and industrial areas.

6. Federal procedural compliance be reviewed concerning AT&T’s last-minute notification practices.

7. The City requires accurate elevation renderings showing real neighborhood perspectives.

Conclusion
We believe Union City deserves technological advancement without sacrificing fairness, safety, or transparency. We urge your offices to ensure that public health and community welfare remain paramount over corporate convenience.

Thank you for your time, leadership, and commitment to protecting the integrity of Union City’s residential neighborhoods.
126 of 153

From: Sreeni Rao
To: Natalie Dean; Tracey Barragan; Public Comment; Mayor and Council Members Cc: Durga Devarakonda;
Subject: Fwd: Update, Appeal for Wireless Communications Facility permit affecting Ivywood Neighborhood Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:29:19 PM
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.

Warning: Unusual sender <
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.

Dear Council members and City officials of Union City:

My wife and I are residents of Union CIty, our address is below. I am writing to express my full support for this appeal filed by Eugene and several of my neighbors AGAINST setting up the transmission tower that AT&T is planning in a very residential neighborhood.

Every one of the arguments made below is accurate, reasonable and worthy of deeper deliberation. I feel the permit is being issued without proper consideration to the core values that the city government should abide by: supporting the financial well-being of all residents, first and foremost. Instead, for the City Council to even consider a move like this that impacts homeowners very adversely, is incomprehensible. For AT&T, it is simply a marketing trick to add to their TV ads that their coverage has increased by several % points. Like rightly pointed out below, there are so many other locations that could give them the same benefits.

I ask that you withdraw permission to AT&T to set up this tower.

Best Regards,
Sreenivasa D. Rao
Kanakadurga D. Rao
32217 Condor Dr.

Union City, CA.

From: Eugene Ho <
Date: October 25, 2025 at 5:57:12 AM GMT+8
To:

Cc:

Subject: Update, Appeal for Wireless Communications Facility permit affecting Ivywood Neighborhood Mayor Singh and Councilmember Nishihira:

Alternative Sites analysis needs more and better work:
- I had asked in my written questions before the Hearing, if there's a better way to address AT&T's attempts to improve their network coverage in the area. The Alternative Sites analysis includes only 9 rejections, alongside the Applicant's confirmed and acknowledged inability with some sites to contact existing property owners. As you can see from the included map below, there are clearly many more numerous businesses in the concentrated commercial and industrial area between Hop Ranch and Western, and from Alvarado-Niles to Whipple. It does not seem the Applicant conducted enough effort to secure an alternative site more appropriate than in a private property surrounded by family residences. We are asking for a better alternative to be selected. 128 of 153
Significant Homeowner property value impacts, $2.8-5.6M:
- I've outlined in the mail that will be following, the objections provided post-Hearing, around a negative impact estimate to the value of our homes that would be from -10% to -20%. The range as provided by the National Association of Realtors https://www.nar.realtor/cell-phone-towers
go as high as -20% impact.

Another resource: https://ehsciences.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Cell-Towers-Drop-Property-Values.pdf Conservatively estimating only half of the homes on our block being directly affected (16 of the 32 homes), the eastern half of the block that is closer to the Church property, total impact in today's dollars would be $2.8-5.6M. If you include the homes in the western half, the impact only multiplies. More details are in the following mail.

The Applicant provides that RF emissions evaluation was performed by David Allen Burgess. But there are no reports by Burgess in the Hearing Agenda material of any kind, and especially any that detail exposure levels separate from what is described by the FCC OET-65 above. At best, the Applicant submission material are incomplete. At worst, the Applicant is being misleading about the RF exposure impacts. And since the Applicant's contract is for 25 years, the accumulated impact would be beyond significant for the neighborhood families.

Technically speaking:
- As outlined in the Planning Commission Hearing material, Section 18.56.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council based on the following findings in granting Use Permit approval. 129 of 153
#2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

As outlined above, as per FCC exposure guidelines, there will be significant public health impacts positioning the antenna so close to homes.

And the negative impact of up to $5.6M in today's property values will be materially injurious. - Also, as the site is in a Private Institutional zone, the maximum height of any structure would be 35 ft. The Applicant is requesting to build to 43 ft. 5 in. Required Conditions for exception to increase the PI Zone maximum height to 50 ft. from 35 ft., as outlined in the Hearing Agenda, are that the Planning Commission finds that such excess height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use within the surrounding area.

Eugene Ho
<1761342614404blob.jpg>
130 of 153
131 of 153
132 of 153
133 of 153
was actually submitted. So the approval was based on, "trust us, but we won't show you our work, reviewed by people we paid." Per my other mail (different thread), the Applicant confirms that given the orientation and distance of these 9 antennas to the adjacent homes, exposure will be at 83-85% of maximum, or excessive, radiation levels, as measured against Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65, aka OET-65. The Bulletin was not provided, but I was able to locate it here (see Appendix A, p. 67 for exposure level limits):
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf What the Applicant does not include is that exposure levels in OET-65 are defined at most with 30 min. of exposure. Per Sunny Talwar's questions at today's meeting, whose 2nd bedroom windows would be facing directly at the site at eye level, is how exposure risks are determined with 24/7 exposure, not just 30 min. It cannot be accepted at face value that the Applicant is being sincere with their statements or thorough with their analyses that everything is compliant with FCC guidelines without releasing the data to back it up. Note, the Applicant had already provided in their earlier material that David Allen Burgess was their consultant who performed their RF Emissions Evaluation. As you saw, David Burgess responded via video on today's call. But there was no account by him on RF exposure or safety. Any subsequent site reviews must include released analysis around RF exposure risks, and reviewed by an independent resource or agency.

Lastly, Councilmember Patino's concerns about litigation by the Applicant if a permit denial is actioned must be considered. But as outlined below in this thread, the permit relies on a CEQA exemption that should be invalid in this case, as the site size is beyond the exemption limits. Per CEQA Section 15303, an exemption is limited to 2500 sq. ft. The combined project size is 2679 sq. ft. So the City would have grounds for denial outright, pending complete CEQA compliance. From today's meeting, the Planning Commission said this objection was reviewed, and did not apply, but they did not provide more information around their conclusion. I think this exemption invalidation needs to be reconsidered more closely, and more transparently.

Thank you All again for your support in making sure Union City does the right thing as best it can for its people. This is the Leadership our City needs and deserves.

Eugene Ho and Jean Hsien
e >

134 of 153
135 of 153
136 of 153
City take steps to ensure that local environmental balance is not further disrupted by technological infrastructure.

Community and Aesthetic Concerns:

The presence of a large antenna structure near residential properties can also impact property values and the visual character of our neighborhood. Many residents, myself included, value Union City’s family-friendly, environmentally conscious atmosphere. I believe there are alternative sites — such as commercial or industrial zones — where this installation would be more appropriate and less disruptive.

Request for Action:

I respectfully request that the City:

1.Reconsider the proposed location of this antenna installation.

2.Conduct or commission an independent environmental and health impact assessment before proceeding.

3.Provide a transparent opportunity for public comment and community input prior to any approval.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that Union City will prioritize the wellbeing of its residents and the protection of our local environment in making its decision.

Sincerely,
Sooraj Ram
137 of 153
138 of 153
Note, AT&T already provides their publicly available coverage map here:
https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html
139 of 153
From what they're declaring on their public website, which has legal marketing requirements to be correct, there are no holes or gaps in 5G+ coverage in Union City. If they have new data that shows holes or gaps in coverage, they should provide this new data.
- Reminder that the CEQA exemption stated in the Planning Commission resolution (and not by me) was specifically Section 15303. And given the oversize total square footage of the project beyond the Exemption's stated 2500 sq. ft., the Exemption is invalid, and should be considered as enough reason to deny the current Project as it exists.

As you mentioned, it would be great to have a neighborhood coffee chat or update in the coming weeks.

We can coordinate folks to come down to the nearby City Offices if that works best.Thanks again for your help in representing the Residents and making sure Union City gets the best infrastructure it deserves, and not the easiest.

Eugene
--
On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 08:32:30 PM PST, Eugene Ho wrote:

Mayor Singh, Councilmember Nishihira, Coucilmember Patino, Councilmember Wang, and Vice Mayor Sakakihara:

I just finished watching the Appeals Hearing for the Wireless Communications Facility proposed in our neighborhood. I wish I was able to join in person alongside my fellow neighbors, but I've been out of town.

Thank you for representing our concerns and asking your pointed questions to the Applicant. I appreciate the move to continue the Hearing, pending investigation of an alternative solution of the monopole on the corner of Dowe and Alvarado-Niles. This would be a step in the right direction.

I would like to provide some feedback to the current proposal of exempting monopoles restrictions on all PI zoned sites. The Applicant asked if the exemption was for just this site and application, or for all sites.

It seemed the Planning Commission was quick to respond, saying it would be city-wide, and not opt for a lower-risk, project-only exemption. I would recommend if the monopole on the corner of Dowe and 140 of 153
Alvarado-Niles was to be selected and approved, it should be only for this site, to reduce future conflicts and exposure across the remaining PI sites and neighborhoods across the City. The Applicant seemed openly enthusiastic about potentially deploying large monopoles in every PI zone across the City in the future under this new proposed amendment and loophole.

More importantly, I would like to suggest another option, as Councilmember Nishihira may have been leaning towards earlier in the hearing around the quality of the Alternative Sites Analysis, that it was incomplete, lacks transparency, and is likely missing better alternatives than what has been presented. If taller monopoles are within the zoning codes of industrial areas, and the Applicant is recommending anything within 1/2 mile of wherever the other cell locations are, per my earlier mails (different thread with the Planning Commission), there are an abundance of commercial and industrial sites from AlvaradoNiles to Whipple, and between Hop Ranch and Western - I'm sure you all know. Surely there is space for an appropriate monopole in that vast area, starting just across the street? Even public land, e.g. the US Post Office? And if the Applicant is unable to contact relevant property managers or owners, can our Union City Development Office help with these contacts? If the City can issue business permits, surely we can find the right people to address?
Also, in Councilmember Wang's defense, all the neighborhood concerns about the health effects of strong antennas so close to bedroom windows are justified. The Applicant regularly stated that via their peer review, everything is within FCC guidelines, but as the Planning Commission acknowledged, no data was actually submitted. So the approval was based on, "trust us, but we won't show you our work, reviewed by people we paid." Per my other mail (different thread), the Applicant confirms that given the orientation and distance of these 9 antennas to the adjacent homes, exposure will be at 83-85% of maximum, or excessive, radiation levels, as measured against Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65, aka OET-65. The Bulletin was not provided, but I was able to locate it here (see Appendix A, p. 67 for exposure level limits):
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf What the Applicant does not include is that exposure levels in OET-65 are defined at most with 30 min. of exposure. Per Sunny Talwar's questions at today's meeting, whose 2nd bedroom windows would be facing directly at the site at eye level, is how exposure risks are determined with 24/7 exposure, not just 30 min. It cannot be accepted at face value that the Applicant is being sincere with their statements or thorough with their analyses that everything is compliant with FCC guidelines without releasing the data to back it up. Note, the Applicant had already provided in their earlier material that David Allen Burgess was their consultant who performed their RF Emissions Evaluation. As you saw, David Burgess responded via video on today's call. But there was no account by him on RF exposure or safety. Any subsequent site reviews must include released analysis around RF exposure risks, and reviewed by an independent resource or agency.

Thank you All again for your support in making sure Union City does the right thing as best it can for its people. This is the Leadership our City needs and deserves.

Eugene Ho and Jean Hsien
--
On Monday, November 3, 2025 at 09:33:34 PM PST, Eugene Ho > wrote:
141 of 153
Hi, Thai:

Please add to the the public record an additional written public comment:

Note, the proposed new Wireless Carrier Facility includes:
... Construction of a New 2,320 Square-Foot Roof-Mounted Enclosure and a 359 Square-Foot Equipment Ground-Mounted Enclosure.

Details of the CEQA are here:
https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/
Thank you.

Eugene Ho and Jean Hsien
--
142 of 153
143 of 153
144 of 153
Jingchun Wang
James Brand
Mina Sharma
David Lill
Janet Strickler
Peidong Chen
Geraldine D.

Bonnie Han
Anjana Bai
Minhajur Mohammed
Stiven Shi
Christine Chen
Thitipoon Tang
Sonny Mamari
Mohammad Rahman
Sreenivasa Rao
Kristine Arao
145 of 153
146 of 153
147 of 153
148 of 153
Continued Wireless
Facility Appeal
(32975 Alvarado-Niles Road)
Item 3.1
149 of 153
2 Background
Owner: Southern Alameda
County Buddhist
Church
Applicant: Epic Wireless
Location: 32975 AlvaradoNiles Road
Lot Size: 3.8 Acres
150 of 153
3 Wireless Facility Enclosure
Building Parapet
Property Line
Edge of Building Roof
80’.+/-
23’. 4”
15 ft.
151 of 153
4 Project Timeline
10/16/25 PC approved roof-mounted wireless facility
10/23/25 PC decision appealed
11/4/25 City Council Heard Appeal; Item cont’d to 11/13/25 11/13/25 Staff Recommendation: Continue public hearing to 12/9/25 11/14/25 2
nd Tolling Agreement Expiration
12/9/25 Proposed Continued Hearing Date
12/12/25 3
rd Tolling Agreement expiration
152 of 153
5 Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council further continue the public hearing for the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of UP25-001 and SD-25-001 to December 9, 2025 153 of 153

Union City City CouncilNovember 13, 2025

Union City City Council
November 13, 2025