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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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