Agenda packet, regular meeting — Union City City Council, December 9, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

square yards of roadway area throughout the City (see Exhibit B); and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2025, the City of Union City released a Notice Inviting Bids for the Citywide Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, City Project No. 25-01; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, the City received eleven bids from roadway contractors (see Exhibit A), with the apparent low base bid of $1,953,459 submitted by Frontline General Engineering Construction, Inc., of San Lorenzo, California; however, following a detailed review, staff determined that the bid was non-responsive because it did not include an executed copy of Addendum No. 1, which was a required component of the bid submission; and
WHEREAS, the next lowest bidder, G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc., of San Carlos, California, is deemed the lowest responsive and responsible bidder with a bid amount of $1,992,760; and
WHEREAS, the two lowest bids were within 5% of each other and the low bid is approximately 20% under the engineer’s estimate of $2,503,555, which is mainly attributable to the off-peak construction period; and
WHEREAS, G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc., has performed satisfactory work for the City in the past, and staff recommends awarding the Annual Citywide Pavement Rehab Project, City Project No. 25-01, to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the recommended Total Construction Budget, in the amount of $2,391,312, includes the construction contract ($1,992,760), a contingency amount of 15% of the construction contract ($298,914), and engineering support at 5% of the construction contract ($99,638); and
WHEREAS, the Annual Citywide Pavement Rehab Project, City Project No. 25- 01, in the amount of $2,391,312, will be funded with a $75,000 grant of California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery funds in the Capital Projects Grants Fund (Account Number 41092105-57125), $700,000 in SB 1 Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation funds (Account Number 25192501-57128), $278,000 in Traffic Congestion Relief funds (Account Number 25292501-57128), $800,000 in Solid Waste Vehicle Impact funds (Account Number 26292501-57128), and $538,312 in Measure BB (2014) funds (Account Number 26492501-57128), as identified in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 2025-2026 through FY 2029-2030.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby awards the construction contract for the Annual Citywide Pavement Rehab Project, City Project No. 25-01, to G. Bortolotto & Company Inc., in the amount of $1,992,760.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby approves a Total Construction Budget, with contingencies and engineering support, in the amount of $2,391,312, for the Annual Citywide Pavement Rehab Project, City Project No. 25-01.
221 of 613
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Award Construction Contract for the Annual Citywide Pavement Rehab Project

Page 2 of 3 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of December 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
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A – Bid Summary

2. Exhibit B – Project Map
222 of 613

CITY OF UNION CITY

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY PROJECT NO. 25-01

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
Sealed proposals for the work shown on the plans entitled: CITYWIDE STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-01, will be received at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Union City, City Government Building, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, California, until Wednesday, November 12th, 2025, 2:00PM PST, at which time they will be publicly opened and read in the Council Chambers of said building. Please be advised that the project is expected to be awarded at the City Council meeting on November 25, 2025, with construction anticipated to begin in Spring 2026, weather permitting.

The Contractor shall possess a Class A and/or C-12 California contractor’s license at the time this contract is awarded.

Bids are required for the entire work described herein. This contract is subject to the State contract nondiscrimination and compliance requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 12990.

Bid Package & Bid Package Location. All of the project work is to be done in accordance with the bid package on file with the Public Works Department - City of Union City, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, California 94587. Eligibility to bid on this project requires bid package to be electronically obtained from the City. Bid package may be obtained at no charge via email request to the City at [email protected]. Non-biddable plans and specifications shall be available to view at various Builders’ Exchanges throughout the Bay Area and on the City of Union City website at www.unioncity.org.

General Work Description: The work to be done, in general, consists of street 2” mill & fill overlay, asphalt rubber cape seals and slurry micro-surfacing, concrete work, delivering advance public notifications, implementing traffic controls, removing weeds from the roadway, removing and replacing traffic striping, markings, and other related work indicated and required by the plans, Standard Specifications, and these special provisions. Estimate for the project is Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000). The allotted time to complete the project will be 60 working days (5-calendar day).

All questions should be emailed or telephoned to Eddie Yu of City of Union City, email:
[email protected] or telephoned to (510) 675-5303. The successful bidder shall furnish a Payment Bond, a Performance Bond, and a Maintenance Bond.

Minimum wage rates for this project as predetermined by the Secretary of Labor are set forth in the special provisions. If there is a difference between the minimum wage rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor and prevailing wage rates determined by the Department of Industrial Relations for similar classifications of labor, the contractor and his subcontractors shall pay not less than the higher wage rates.

Pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code, the general prevailing rate of wages in the county in which the work is to be done has been determined by the Director of the wage rates appear in the Department of Transportation publication entitled General Prevailing Wage Rates, 223 of 613
(current semi-annual which have been predetermined and are on file with the Department of Industrial Relations are referenced but not printed in said publication. 224 of 613

Page 1 of 2 ends

BID SUMMARY
PROJECT: Citywide Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project (City Project No. 25-01) Project Manager: Eddie Yu, Civil Engineer II
DATE: Friday, November 14, 2025
TIME: 2:00 p.m.

LOCATION: City Council Chambers
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
No. BIDDERS BID AMOUNT
*CORRECTED*

BID AMOUNT

1. Rapid Grading Service $2,059,000.00

2. VSS International, Inc. $2,095,325.00

3. Pavement Coatings Co. $2,053,727.10

4. Radius Earthwork Inc. $2,156,641.78

5. QA Constructors Inc. $2,262,090.66

6. Terocons Inc $2,385,574.00

7. Frontline General Engineering Construction Inc. $1,953,458.04

8. Interstate Grading & Paving Inc. $2,310,914.00

9. G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. $1,992,759.43

10. S&H Construction, Inc. $2,568,600.00

11. Cato’s General Engineering, Inc $2,205,762.00 $2,226,462.00 225 of 613

Page 2 of 2 ends

I, Christopher Chang, Administrative Specialist – Confidential with The City of Union City, do hereby certify that on Friday, November 14, 2025, I received and opened 11 (eleven) bids for the above-mentioned project.
* Note: All bid amounts will be verified by the Engineer. Any corrections will be shown in the column above.
________________________________
Christopher Chang
Administrative Specialist – Confidential
City of Union City
226 of 613

BASE BID
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT 1 Mobilization LS 1 175000 $ 143,501.28 $ 143,501.28 $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 41,818.00 $ 41,818.00 2 Traffic and Pedestrian Control LS 1 175000 $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 157,500.00 $ 157,500.00 $ 195,281.80 $ 195,281.80 $ 283,428.00 $ 283,428.00 3 Clearing, Grubbing, and Removals LS 1 60,000 $ 18,835.20 $ 18,835.20 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 49,283.42 $ 49,283.42 4 Crack Seal/Crack Mastic/Patching Compound LS 1 100,000 $ 47,664.00 $ 47,664.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 85,000.00 $ 85,000.00 $ 86,250.00 $ 86,250.00 $ 100,700.00 $ 100,700.00 5 Cape Seal, 2-Layer System (Asphalt Rubber Chip Seal + Polymer-Modified Slurry Seal) SY 75,418 791,891 $ 849,206.68 11.26 $ 7.26 $ 547,534.68 $ 8.65 $ 652,365.70 $ 7.35 $ 554,322.30 $ 9.25 $ 697,616.50 $ 6 Polymer Modified Slurry (1-Layer, Type II Seal) SY 8,655 30,291 $ 5.63 $ 48,727.65 $ 3.40 $ 29,427.00 $ 3.90 $ 33,754.50 $ 4.00 $ 34,620.00 $ 3.25 $ 28,128.75 7 Full Width Cold Planing (2” Thick) SY 20,430 132,795 $ 4.91 $ 100,311.30 $ 5.60 $ 114,408.00 $ 6.15 $ 125,644.50 $ 5.40 $ 110,322.00 $ 3.71 $ 75,795.30 8 Type A Hot Mix Asphalt (2” Thick) TON 2,298 367,740 $ 150.55 $ 345,963.90 $ 138.00 $ 317,124.00 $ 150.00 $ 344,700.00 $ 172.00 $ 395,256.00 $ 121.90 $ 280,126.20 9 Base Failure Repair (6" Removal & 6" HMA Replacement) TON 439 120,728 $ 197.87 $ 86,864.93 $ 199.00 $ 87,361.00 $ 220.00 $ 96,580.00 $ 392.00 $ 172,088.00 $ 227.90 $ 100,048.10 10 Remove & Replace Sidewalk SF 180 6,300 $ 25.56 $ 4,600.80 $ 21.00 $ 3,780.00 $ 24.50 $ 4,410.00 $ 28.00 $ 5,040.00 $ 19.08 $ 3,434.40 11 Remove & Replace Cub & Gutter LF 110 27,500 $ 38.82 $ 4,270.20 $ 130.00 $ 14,300.00 $ 105.00 $ 11,550.00 $ 120.00 $ 13,200.00 $ 84.80 $ 9,328.00 12 Remove & Replace ADA Curb Ramp (Type C) EA 33 297,000 $ 2,365.79 $ 78,071.07 $ 7,500.00 $ 247,500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 214,500.00 $ 6,150.00 $ 202,950.00 $ 6,360.00 $ 209,880.00 13 Surface-Applied Tactile Warning Mat (Retrofit Installation) EA 43 27,950 $ 864.64 $ 37,179.52 $ 1,300.00 $ 55,900.00 $ 600.00 $ 25,800.00 $ 892.00 $ 38,356.00 $ 1,325.00 $ 56,975.00 14 Install Basic Crosswalk LF 546 6,552 $ 16.26 $ 8,877.96 $ 11.50 $ 6,279.00 $ 11.00 $ 6,006.00 $ 10.50 $ 5,733.00 $ 11.13 $ 6,076.98 15 Install Continental Crosswalk LF 170 3,570 $ 36.97 $ 6,284.90 $ 23.00 $ 3,910.00 $ 22.00 $ 3,740.00 $ 21.00 $ 3,570.00 $ 22.26 $ 3,784.20 16 Install Ladder Crosswalk LF 55 1,320 $ 66.38 $ 3,650.90 $ 30.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 26.00 $ 1,430.00 $ 26.00 $ 1,430.00 $ 26.50 $ 1,457.50 17 Install 12" Thermoplastic Stripe (Stop Bar) LF 955 11,460 $ 14.70 $ 14,038.50 $ 11.00 $ 10,505.00 $ 11.00 $ 10,505.00 $ 10.50 $ 10,027.50 $ 11.13 $ 10,629.15 18 Install Detail 9 Stripe (Lanelines) LF 1,373 5,492 $ 3.47 $ 4,764.31 $ 1.75 $ 2,402.75 $ 1.30 $ 1,784.90 $ 1.30 $ 1,784.90 $ 1.33 $ 1,826.09 19 Install Detail 22 Stripe (Double Yellow No Passing Zone) LF 5,272 47,448 $ 5.31 $ 27,994.32 $ 4.25 $ 22,406.00 $ 4.20 $ 22,142.40 $ 4.00 $ 21,088.00 $ 4.24 $ 22,353.28 20 Install Detail 38 Stripe (Channelizing Line) LF 243 608 $ 12.43 $ 3,020.49 $ 4.00 $ 972.00 $ 3.70 $ 899.10 $ 3.50 $ 850.50 $ 3.71 $ 901.53 21 "Stop" Legend LF 45 11,700 $ 479.18 $ 21,563.10 $ 400.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 370.00 $ 16,650.00 $ 355.00 $ 15,975.00 $ 371.00 $ 16,695.00 22 "Speed Limit" Legend LF 8 2,160 $ 490.10 $ 3,920.80 $ 250.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 211.00 $ 1,688.00 $ 203.00 $ 1,624.00 $ 212.00 $ 1,696.00 23 "Stop Ahead" Legend LF 1 350 $ 2,960.80 $ 2,960.80 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 846.00 $ 846.00 $ 812.00 $ 812.00 $ 848.00 $ 848.00 24 "Turn Arrowhead" Legend LF 5 1,500 $ 670.16 $ 3,350.80 $ 275.00 $ 1,375.00 $ 238.00 $ 1,190.00 $ 228.00 $ 1,140.00 $ 238.50 $ 1,192.50 25 "Thru+Turn Arrowhead" Legend LF 1 450 $ 1,798.00 $ 1,798.00 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 $ 291.00 $ 291.00 $ 279.00 $ 279.00 $ 291.50 $ 291.50 26 Adjust Monument Box to Grade EA 20 25,000 $ 795.31 $ 15,906.20 $ 900.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 980.50 $ 19,610.00 27 Adjust Storm Drain Manhole Cover to Grade EA 2 2,500 $ 4,142.40 2,071.20 $ 1,100.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,356.80 $ 2,713.60 $ 28 Adjust ACWD Water Valve to Grade (revocable) EA 27 33,750 $ 497.07 $ 13,420.89 $ 900.00 $ 24,300.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 980.50 $ 26,473.50 29 Adjust ACFC Fire Hydrant Water Valve to Grade (revocable) EA 9 11,250 $ 1,164.53 $ 10,480.77 $ 900.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 980.50 $ 8,824.50 30 Adjust USD Sewer Manhole to Grade (revocable) EA 21 26,250 $ 1,146.97 $ 24,086.37 $ 1,100.00 $ 23,100.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 26,250.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 1,590.00 $ 33,390.00 TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT $ 2,503,555 1,953,458.04 $ 1,992,759.43 $ 2,053,727.10 $ $ 2,095,325.00 2,059,000.00 $ % Under Below the Engineer's Estimate 22% 20% 18% 18% 16%

UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMMOUNT $ 133,775.00 133,775.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 140,000.00 $ 140,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ $ 169,183.50 169,183.50 $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 159,000.00 $ 159,000.00 $ 188,000.00 $ 188,000.00 $ 69,000.00 $ 69,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ $ 48,375.00 48,375.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 31,575.00 $ 31,575.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ $ 89,250.00 89,250.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 74,000.00 $ 74,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ $ 563,372.46 7.47 $ 6.00 $ 452,508.00 $ 7.21 $ 543,763.78 $ 10.00 $ 754,180.00 $ 10.00 $ 754,180.00 $ 9.00 $ 678,762.00 $ $ 27,696.00 3.20 $ 6.00 $ 51,930.00 $ 3.05 $ 26,397.75 $ 5.00 $ 43,275.00 $ 6.00 $ 51,930.00 $ 8.00 $ 69,240.00 $ $ 111,343.50 5.45 $ 3.50 $ 71,505.00 $ 6.06 $ 123,805.80 $ 6.50 $ 132,795.00 $ 5.00 $ 102,150.00 $ 15.00 $ 306,450.00 $ $ 386,339.76 168.12 $ 290.00 $ 666,420.00 $ 200.00 $ 459,600.00 $ 140.00 $ 321,720.00 $ 200.00 $ 459,600.00 $ 300.00 $ 689,400.00 $ $ 120,896.21 275.39 $ 300.00 $ 131,700.00 $ 500.00 $ 219,500.00 $ 220.00 $ 96,580.00 $ 250.00 $ 109,750.00 $ 350.00 $ 153,650.00 $ $ 5,805.00 32.25 $ 42.00 $ 7,560.00 $ 55.51 $ 9,991.80 $ 30.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 35.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 70.00 $ 12,600.00 $ $ 20,694.30 188.13 $ 110.00 $ 12,100.00 $ 124.71 $ 13,718.10 $ 100.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 60.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 80.00 $ 8,800.00 $ $ 283,800.00 8,600.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 214,500.00 $ 7,470.71 $ 246,533.43 $ 9,500.00 $ 313,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 264,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 3,300.00 $ $ 36,120.00 840.00 $ 900.00 $ 38,700.00 $ 550.00 $ 23,650.00 $ 800.00 $ 34,400.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 64,500.00 $ 450.00 $ 19,350.00 $ $ 6,022.38 11.03 $ 15.00 $ 8,190.00 $ 12.00 $ 6,552.00 $ 14.00 $ 7,644.00 $ 40.00 $ 21,840.00 $ 200.00 $ 109,200.00 $ $ 3,748.50 22.05 $ 18.00 $ 3,060.00 $ 57.00 $ 9,690.00 $ 26.00 $ 4,420.00 $ 40.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 250.00 $ 42,500.00 $ $ 1,443.75 26.25 $ 18.00 $ 990.00 $ 60.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 33.00 $ 1,815.00 $ 50.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 150.00 $ 8,250.00 $ $ 10,533.65 11.03 $ 10.00 $ 9,550.00 $ 10.00 $ 9,550.00 $ 14.00 $ 13,370.00 $ 20.00 $ 19,100.00 $ 15.00 $ 14,325.00 $ $ 1,798.63 1.31 $ 10.00 $ 13,730.00 $ 4.00 $ 5,492.00 $ 2.50 $ 3,432.50 $ 10.00 $ 13,730.00 $ 10.00 $ 13,730.00 $ $ 22,142.40 4.20 $ 6.00 $ 31,632.00 $ 10.00 $ 52,720.00 $ 6.00 $ 31,632.00 $ 12.00 $ 63,264.00 $ 12.00 $ 63,264.00 $ $ 894.24 3.68 $ 9.00 $ 2,187.00 $ 7.00 $ 1,701.00 $ 3.50 $ 850.50 $ 10.00 $ 2,430.00 $ 10.00 $ 2,430.00 $ $ 16,537.50 367.50 $ 600.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 220.00 $ 9,900.00 $ 300.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 300.00 $ 13,500.00 $ $ 1,680.00 210.00 $ 400.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 530.00 $ 4,240.00 $ 225.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 2,800.00 $ $ 840.00 840.00 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 530.00 $ 530.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 699.00 $ 699.00 $ $ 1,181.25 236.25 $ 400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 750.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 3,000.00 $ $ 288.75 288.75 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 270.00 $ 270.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 $ $ 16,125.00 806.25 $ 2,200.00 $ 44,000.00 $ 925.00 $ 18,500.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 38,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 24,000.00 $ $ 3,225.00 1,612.50 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 1,280.00 $ 2,560.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ $ 20,317.50 752.50 $ 2,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 925.00 $ 24,975.00 $ 950.00 $ 25,650.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ $ 19,350.00 2,150.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 19,800.00 $ 925.00 $ 8,325.00 $ 950.00 $ 8,550.00 $ 850.00 $ 7,650.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ $ 33,862.50 1,612.50 $ 3,000.00 $ 63,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 1,550.00 $ 32,550.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $ $ 2,226,462.00 2,156,641.78 $ 2,262,090.66 $ 2,310,914.00 $ 2,385,574.00 $ 2,568,600.00 $ 14% 11% 10% 8% 5% -3%
11 Radius Earthwork Inc. Cato-s General Engineering Inc. QA Constructors Inc. Insterstate Grading & Paving Inc. S&H Construction,Inc 10 Terocons Inc.

CITY OF UNION CITY
34009 Alvarado Niles Road
Frontline General Engineering
Construction, Inc
2025-26 Citywide Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project (City Proj. No. 25-01)

BID SCHEDULE
6 1
VSS International, Inc.
7 8 9
4 G. Bortolotto & Company Inc. Pavement Coating Co. Rapid Grading Service 2 3 5
227 of 613

City Council Staff Report Page 1 of 4 December 9, 2025
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.10
DATE: December 9, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joan Malloy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc., For Additional Compensation to Provide Engineering Services to Implement the Phase II Safety Improvements in Support of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project
No. 14-14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. (“RSE”), in the amount of $199,200, for a total contract amount of $624,200, to provide engineering services to implement the Phase II safety improvements at the existing Decoto Road railroad crossing at the Oakland Subdivision tracks and the improvements associated with the closure of I Street, in support of the AtGrade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item is aligned with the following City Council priorities:

Goal C: Economic, Community Development and Public Safety Strategy 2: Facilitate the build out of the greater Station District Area through the construction of the Quarry Lakes Parkway, completion of the pedestrian rail crossing, and implementing the recommendations of the Southern Alameda County Regional Rail Integration Study to make the Station District a passenger rail hub served by ACE.

Goal D: Environmental Sustainability and Infrastructure Strategy 2: Implement the City’s capital improvement plan.

BACKGROUND
Since the early 2000s, the vision of the Union City Intermodal Station Project has been to 229 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.10
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 4 December 9, 2025 3 0 create a two-sided BART Station with a new east entrance connection to the Station District Area, a 30-acre plus planned TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) site located along both sides of 11th Street. The completion of the at-grade pedestrian crossing will finally convert the BART Station into a two-sided station by constructing a new concrete walkway across the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision tracks to connect BART with the public East Plaza in the Station District Area.

On May 9, 2019, the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. (C5320), in the amount of $40,000, to provide engineering design services for specific components of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14 (“Project”).

On July 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5503-19, authorizing the City Manager to execute the “Public At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Agreement: BART Pedestrian Crossing with Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”) (C5376), for the BART Pedestrian Crossing (DOT 859611R) at the Oakland Subdivision (Mile Post 27.08), City of Union City, Alameda County, California, (Public At-Grade Crossing Permit), UP Real Estate Folder No: 3055-45 (“Original Agreement”), in the amount of $288,200, for the AtGrade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

In order to open the new At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14, which is currently under construction, the City is required by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) to implement various railroad-related improvements, including making safety improvements at the existing Decoto Road railroad crossing at the Oakland Subdivision tracks and permanently closing the I Street at-grade railroad crossing between 11th Street and 12th Street on the Oakland Subdivision tracks (see Attachment 1).

On November 22, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5865-21, which approved the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with RSE (C5850), in the amount of $60,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $100,000, for engineering services to support the Project, including the preparation of preliminary engineering plans according to UPRR standards, as well as updating the railroad signal preemption calculations at the Decoto Road railroad crossings at Oakland Subdivision tracks.

On December 13, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6053-22, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with RSE (C5850b), in the amount of $75,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $175,000, to provide engineering design services in support of the Decoto Road railroad crossing safety improvements.

On April 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6287-24, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with RSE (C5850c), in the amount of $250,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $425,000, to continue providing engineering services for the Decoto Road railroad crossing safety improvements, including incorporating and responding to UPRR’s review comments to complete the final Track Plan, Profile and Details, the Decoto Road Plan, Profile and Details, and the traffic signal railroad crossing and preemption/interconnect 230 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.10
City Council Staff Report Page 3 of 4 December 9, 2025 3 0 analysis for the adjacent city traffic signals.

The Phase II construction at Decoto Road and the I Street Closure will begin once the project is bid and when all permits are secured from UPRR. This project is anticipated to go to bid by mid-2026.

DISCUSSION
RSE is preparing the Final Design for the Decoto Road Railroad Crossing (Oakland Subdivision) which is a component (Phase II) of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14, which is currently under construction.

The Phase II project requires railroad-related safety improvements along the Oakland Subdivision tracks including new railroad safety gates and signals, new sidewalks and railroad preemption.

The second component of this Phase II project consists of making required changes for the permanent closure of I Street.

The Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with RSE, in the amount of $199,200, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $624,200, will allow the consultant to continue providing engineering services for the Decoto Road railroad crossing (Oakland Subdivision) safety improvements. The consultant’s tasks will include Project Management, Final Design, Traffic Signal Programming (Preemption related) and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E), which will allow the Phase II project to go to bid. The scope also includes bid and design support during construction and preparation of As-Built plans at the completion of construction.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $199,200, will be funded with $99,200 from the Public Improvements Fund (Account Number 41691414-57115) and $100,000 from the DIPSA Development Fund (Account Number 26691414-57115), as identified in the approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 to Fiscal Year 2029- 2030.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. (“RSE”), in the amount of $199,200, for a total contract amount of $624,200, to provide engineering services to implement the safety improvements at the existing Decoto Road railroad crossing at the Oakland Subdivision tracks and the improvements associated with the closure of I Street, in support of the AtGrade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

Prepared by: Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
Submitted by: Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
231 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.10
City Council Staff Report Page 4 of 4 December 9, 2025 3 0 Attachments

1. Draft Resolution

2. Attachment 1 – Map Locations of Improvements
232 of 613
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FOURTH

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
RAIL SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$199,200, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $624,200, TO

PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT BART PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 14- 14 WHEREAS, since the early 2000s, the vision of the Union City Intermodal Station Project has been to create a two-sided BART Station with a new east entrance connection to the Station District Area, a 30-acre plus planned TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) site located along both sides of 11th Street; with the completion of the at-grade pedestrian crossing project will finally make the Union City BART Station a two-sided station, with a new concrete walkway across the existing UPRR tracks directly connecting it to the East Plaza in the Station District Area; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2019, the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. (“RSE”) (C5320), in the amount of $40,000, to provide engineering for specific components of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5503-19, which authorized the City Manager to execute the Public At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Agreement: BART Pedestrian Crossing with Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”) (C5376) for the BART Pedestrian Crossing (DOT 859611R) at the Oakland Subdivision (MP 27.08), in the amount of $228,200, for the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14; and
WHEREAS, in order to construct the new At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART (City Project No. 14-14), which is currently under construction, the City is required by the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) to implement various railroad-related improvements , including making safety improvements at the existing Decoto Road railroad crossing at the Oakland Subdivision tracks and permanently closing the I Street at-grade railroad crossing between 11th Street and 12th Street on the Oakland Subdivision tracks; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5865-21, which approved the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with RSE (C5850), in the amount of $60,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $100,000, for engineering services to support the Project, including the preparation of preliminary engineering plans according to UPRR’s standards, as well as updating the railroad signal preemption calculations at the Decoto Road railroad crossings at Oakland Subdivision tracks; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6053-22, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with RSE (C5850b), in the amount of $75,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $175,000, to provide engineering design services in support of the Decoto Road railroad crossing safety improvements; and 233 of 613
Resolution 2025-XXX
Approve Fourth Amendment to CSA with RSE

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6287-24, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement (C5850c), in the amount of $250,000, for total not-to-exceed contract amount of $425,000, to continue to provide engineering services for the Decoto Road railroad crossing safety improvements, including incorporating and responding to UPRR’s review comments to complete the final Track Plan, Profile and Details, the Decoto Road Plan, Profile and Details, and the traffic signal railroad crossing and preemption/interconnect analysis for the adjacent city traffic signals; and
WHEREAS, the Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with RSE, in the amount of $199,200, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $624,200, will allow the consultant to continue to provide engineering services for the Decoto Road railroad crossing (Oakland Sub) safety improvements. The consultant’s tasks will include Project Management, Final Design, Traffic Signal Programming (Pre-emption related) and preparation of plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E), which will allow the project to go to bid. The scope also includes bid and design support during construction and preparation of As-Built plans at the completion of construction; and WHEREAS, the Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with RSE, in the amount of $199,200, will be funded with $100,000 of Public Improvements funds (Account Number 41691414-57115) and $99,200 of DIPSA Development funds (Account Number 26691414-57115), as identified in the approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 to Fiscal Year 2029-2030.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $199,200, for a total contract amount of $624,200, to prepare PS&E for the Decoto Road At-Grade Crossing and I Street Closure Improvements to provide engineering services for the Decoto Road Railroad Crossing (Oakland Sub) & I St. Closure improvements in support of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.
234 of 613
Resolution 2025-XXX
Approve Fourth Amendment to CSA with RSE

Page 2 of 3 ends

235 of 613
Resolution 2025-XXX
Approve Fourth Amendment to CSA with RSE

Page 3 of 3 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of December 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
236 of 613
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD PERMIT REQUIREMENTS & CONDITIONS1

NEW AT-GRADE

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSING AT BART

DECOTO ROAD

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

IMPROVEMENTS
“I” ST. AT-GRADE

CROSSING
(CLOSURE)
At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
237 of 613
City Council Staff Report Page 1 of 3 December 9, 2025
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.11
DATE: December 9, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joan Malloy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consor PMCM, Inc. for Inspection Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consor PMCM, Inc., in the amount of $150,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $524,000, for inspection services.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item is aligned with the following:

Goal D: Create a healthy, sustainable community and maintain and improve the City’s Infrastructure.

BACKGROUND
The inspection staff of the Public Works Engineering Division is authorized to have a team of three employees: a Supervising Construction Inspector, a Lead Construction Inspector, and a Public Works Inspector. The Public Works inspection staff monitors the construction of various projects to ensure that they meet City engineering standards and are built to City specifications. There are several significant projects currently in construction, including the following Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and land development projects:
• Annual Citywide Pavement Rehab
• BART Pedestrian At-Grade Crossing (to East Plaza)
• City Hall Workstation Modernization, Phase II
• Station East Residential/Mixed Use
• Nuvera Homes/Turk Island Seabreeze Park Improvements
• Citywide Full Trash Capture Device Installation
• HMGP Ruggieri Senior Center Generator
• Union Landing Pylon Sign Lighting Repair
238 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.11
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 3 December 9, 2025 3 0 The following CIP projects are either due to begin construction or due to be sent out to bid soon:
• City Hall Server Room Secondary Battery Backup
• Holly Center Modernization
• Kennedy Park Improvements, Phase I
• Sports Center HVAC Repairs
Additionally, the inspection staff members oversee all the encroachment permit work done in the City. The City requires utility companies and development contractors who construct utility, traffic signal, roadway, or sidewalk improvements within the City’s public rights-of-way to get an encroachment permit to ensure that proposed improvements meet the City’s design criteria and standards. Over the past four fiscal years, the City has issued approximately 1,662 encroachment permits totaling over $2,182,000 in revenue.

The significant amount of revenue generated by encroachment permits is deposited into the General Fund.

On June 1, 2023, the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Park Engineering, Inc. (C5997), in the amount of $74,000, to provide assistance with public works inspections.

Due to an unforeseen increase in workload, staff requested additional funds for inspection support, and, on September 26, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6205-23, approving the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Park Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $174,000.

On December 12, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6236-23, approving the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Park Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $274,000, for continued inspection support during staffing shortages.

On February 25, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-026, approving the Third Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Park Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $374,000, for continued inspection support for ongoing staffing shortages.

On May 28, 2025, the City executed a Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consor PMCM, Inc., documenting the consultant’s name change from Park Engineering, Inc., to Consor PMCM, Inc.

DISCUSSION
The Public Works Department continues to see a significant increase in workload as projects that were previously stalled due to the worldwide pandemic are now moving forward. In addition, there is a vacant Public Works Inspector position. These two factors of increased workload and limited staffing require additional support from contract inspectors to meet the inspection demands. With the approval of this Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consor PMCM, Inc., in the amount of $150,000, the City will be able to continue to provide timely inspection services. 239 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.11
City Council Staff Report Page 3 of 3 December 9, 2025 3 0 Staff continues to be satisfied with the performance of Consor PMCM, Inc., and considers their role essential to maintain the level of service that the Engineering Division needs to provide until the Public Works inspection staff is at a level that can fully handle the inspection demands of increasing development and growth within the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consor PMCM, Inc. is $150,000 and will be funded with $51,000 of Measure BB (2014) funds (Account Number 26433004-54110), $88,000 of Gas Tax funds (Account Number 25033004-54110), and $11,000 of Measure BB Bike & Pedestrian funds (Account Number 26733004-54110).

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consor PMCM, Inc., in the amount of $150,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $524,000, for Inspection Services.

Prepared by: Jose Gutierrez, Supervising Construction Inspector Submitted by: Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
Attachments

1. Draft Resolution
240 of 613
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIFTH

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
CONSOR PMCM, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000, FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $524,000, FOR

INSPECTION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Public Works inspection staff monitors construction of various projects to ensure that they meet City engineering standards and are built to City specifications and there are currently multiple significant construction projects underway, in addition to the encroachment permit work which generates significant revenue for the City; and
WHEREAS, the inspection staff of the Public Works Engineering Division is authorized to have a team of three employees: a Supervising Construction Inspector, a Lead Construction Inspector, and a Public Works Inspector, and the Lead Construction Inspector position is currently vacant; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2023, due to a vacancy in the inspection staff, the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement (C5997) with Park Engineering, Inc., to provide inspection services, in the amount of $74,000; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2023, the City Council passed Resolution No. 6205-23, approving the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement (C5997b) with Park Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $174,000, to address an unforeseen increase in the inspection workload; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6236-23, approving the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement (C5997c) with Park Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $274,000, to address continuing heavy inspection workload; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025- 026, approving the Third Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement (C5997-3A) with Park Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $374,000, for continued support with the heavy inspection workload; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2025, the City and the Original Consultant entered into a Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement (C5997-4A) to document the name change from Park Engineering, Inc., to Consor PMCM, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Public Works inspection staff continues to face personnel shortages and a heavy inspection workload; and
WHEREAS, the Fifth Amendment, in the amount of $150,000, will be funded with $51,000 of Measure BB (2014) funds (Account Number 26433004-54110), $88,000 of Gas Tax funds (Account Number 25033004-54110), and $11,000 of Measure BB Bike & Pedestrian funds (Account Number 26733004-54110).
241 of 613
Resolution No. 2025-XXXX
Approve Fifth Amendment to CSA with Consor PMCM, Inc.

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby approves the Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consor PMCM, Inc., in the amount of $150,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $524,000, for inspection services.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consor PMCM, Inc.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of December 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
242 of 613
City Council Staff Report Page 1 of 2 December 9, 2025
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.12
DATE: December 9, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joan Malloy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Urban37, Inc., for Building Division Support, in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, to Increase the Agreement Amount by $425,500, for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $500,000, and to Extend the Agreement Term to June 30, 2028

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the first amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with Urban37, Inc. (“Urban37”) (Agreement No. C26ECD1161) for Building Division support and staff augmentation in a form approved by the City Attorney. The proposed amendment increases the Agreement amount by $425,500, for a total not to exceed amount of $500,000, and extends the Agreement term to June 30, 2028.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Although this agenda item does not have alignment with a specific Strategic Plan goal, approval of the agenda item ensures the Building Division will continue to provide essential services to the community.

BACKGROUND
Third-party consultants are utilized by the Building Division to support their operations including staff augmentation needed to cover temporary staffing shortages such as when a position is vacant, when a staff member is on leave, or if there is a temporary uptick in activity. The City also utilizes consultants to provide access to external professional resources needed to provide technical expertise and conduct complex plan review and inspection services while adhering to the service timelines of the Building Division.

On September 2, 2025, the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Urban37, Inc. (C26ECD1161), in the amount of $74,500, to provide Building Division support including plan checking services.

DISCUSSION
243 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.12
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 2 December 9, 2025
Staff is requesting to increase the amou nt of the existing Agreement by $425,500, which would bring the not to exceed amount of the Agreement to $500,000, and to extend the Agreement term to June 30, 2028. The current agreement expires December 31, 2027.

This will allow Urban37 staff to continue supporting the Building Division without any disruptions in service.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this agreement was included for in the FY 2025-2026 and FY 2026-2027 Adopted Biennial Budget in Account Number 11041002-54110 (General Fund – ECD/Building and Safety - Professional/Consulting). Additionally, the plan check fees collected by the Building Division, which are deposited into the General Fund, will cover the cost of the plan checking services.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the first amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Urban37, Inc. (C26ECD1161), for Building Division support, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to increase the Agreement amount by $425,500, for a total not to exceed amount of $500,000, and to extend the Agreement term to June 30, 2028.

Prepared by: Valerie Avendano, Building/Code Compliance Coordinator Submitted by: Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director Attachments

1. Draft Resolution
244 of 613
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIRST

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
URBAN37, INC. FOR BUILDING DIVISION SUPPORT, IN A FORM

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO INCREASE THE
AGREEMENT AMOUNT BY $425,500 FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT OF $500,000, AND TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT TERM TO JUNE 30, 2028
WHEREAS, third-party consultants are utilized by the Building Division to support its operations, including staff augmentation to cover temporary staffing shortages, such as when a position is vacant, a staff member is on leave, or there is a temporary uptick in activity. The City also utilizes consultants to provide access to external professional resources needed to provide technical expertise and conduct complex plan review and inspection services while adhering to the service timelines of the Building Division; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2025, the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with Urban37, Inc. (C26ECD1161) to provide Building Division support, including plan checking services; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting to increase the amount of the existing Agreement by $425,500, which would bring the not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement to $500,000, and to extend the Agreement term to June 30, 2028; and
WHEREAS, approval of the updated agreement amount and term will allow Urban37 staff to continue supporting the Building Division without service disruptions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Union City that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the first amendment to the Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Urban37, Inc., to increase the amount of the existing Agreement by $425,500, which would bring the not to exceed amount of the Agreement to $500,000 for Building Division support, and to extend the Agreement term to June 30, 2028.
245 of 613
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
First Amendment – Urban 37 Agreement

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on this 9th day of December 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
246 of 613
City Council Staff Report Page 1 of 4 December 9, 2025
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.13
DATE: December 9, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joan Malloy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Certifying Completion of the Baseline Construction for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, to Meet the Project Funding Deadline and Receive Full Funding Reimbursement as Required in Amendment No. 4 to the Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 with Alameda County Transportation Commission

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying completion of the baseline construction for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, to meet the project funding deadline and receive full reimbursement as required in Amendment No. 4 to the Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 with Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC).

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item is aligned with the following:

Goal D, Strategy 1: Environmental Sustainability and Infrastructure – Continue the build-out of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian network, with an emphasis on closing gaps, addressing safety concerns, and increasing connectivity to the Station District.

Goal D, Strategy 2: Environmental Sustainability and Infrastructure – Implement the City’s capital improvement plan.

BACKGROUND
Alameda CTC administers funding programs and projects that benefit the Alameda County Transportation system, consisting of 2000 Measure B, 2010 Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF), 2014 Measure BB, Congestion Management Agency-Transportation Improvement Plan (CMA-TIP), and Transportation Fund for Clean Air Programs (TFCA).

Such funding is collectively defined as, and shall be referenced herein as, the “Alameda CTC Administered Funds”.

On October 9, 2017, Union City received the executed Alameda CTC Project Funding 247 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.13
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 4 December 9, 2025 3 0 Agreement No. A17-0125 with grant funding in the amount of $7,800,000 of 2014 Measure BB, CMA-TIP, TFCA and the required local match of $1,000,000 (Gas Tax funds) for Final Design, Right of Way and Construction Phases, totaling $8,800,000 for Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29.

The executed Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125, totaling $8,800,000 for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, included the project funding deadline of December 31, 2019. The executed Amendment No. 1 of Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, extended the project funding deadline date to December 31, 2020; the executed Amendment No. 2 of Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, extended the project funding deadline date to December 31, 2021; and subsequently, the executed Amendment No. 3 of Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, extended the project funding deadline date to December 31, 2023.

On June 27, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6152-23, accepting $1,800,000 from the 2024 Comprehensive Investment Program (CIP) Grant Funds from the Alameda CTC for Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, increasing the revenue projections in the Capital Project Fund by $1,800,000, appropriating the $1,800,000 to Project No. 17-29, earmarking $450,000 of previously approved SB-1 Funds to meet the local match requirement and authorizing the City Manager to sign the required grant funding agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

In early 2024, Union City received the executed Amendment No. 4 of Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, totaling $9,600,000, and extending the project funding deadline date to December 31, 2025, which represents the final extension under the agreement. The project also includes a combination of Gas Tax fund, SB1 Road Maintenance & Rehab funds, Measure B Streets & Roads funds, Measure B Bike & Pedestrian funds, Measure F funds, Measure BB Streets & Roads funds, Measure BB Bike & Pedestrian funds and Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 funds.

The proposed bike lane and roadway improvement project will complete over two- (2) miles of the bike lane gap with generous buffered Class II bike lanes along Union City Boulevard (UCB) from Alameda County Flood Control Channel (Fremont) to Smith Street and will serve as the San Francisco Bay Trail in Union City (see Exhibit A for Project Title Sheet). The project improvements also include the rehabilitation of the pavement within the project limits, “Complete Street” improvements at all intersections, traffic signal modifications, a new shared-use pathway along UCB adjacent to Delaine Eastin Elementary School, providing direct access for students who bike or walk to school, a new southbound Union City Boulevard right-turning lane into the school, modification to northbound UCB and the Dyer Street intersection by eliminating the free-right turn lane, streetlight modifications, roadway drainage improvements, and landscape improvements at various locations.

On February 27, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6261-24, awarding a construction contract to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc., in the amount of $17,049,000, 248 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.13
City Council Staff Report Page 3 of 4 December 9, 2025 3 0 plus construction and project contingencies in the amount of $2,173,750 to address any unforeseen conditions and work encountered by the contractor for the duration of the project, for a total construction budget of $19,222,750, and approving a construction management services budget, in the amount of $2,000,000, for a total project budget amount of $21,222,750, for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29.

DISCUSSION
To meet the project funding deadline of December 31, 2025, and to receive the full funding reimbursement of $9,600,000, as required in Amendment No. 4 to the Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, Alameda CTC staff has requested that the City Council adopt a resolution to certify the completion of the baseline construction.

The baseline construction includes the reconstruction of the roadway median to accommodate the new generous buffered Class II bike lanes along Union City Boulevard for over two (2) miles in each direction, major roadway rehabilitation, a new southbound Union City Boulevard right-turn lane to Delaine Eastin Elementary School at Rocklin Drive, construction of a shared-use pathway along Union City Boulevard to improve bike and pedestrian access to and from Delaine Eastin Elementary School, modifications of the traffic signals, installation of new streetlights, installation of enhanced pavement striping, reflective street signs, reduced speed limit signs, speed feedback signs and major storm drain improvements.

The construction began in early July 2024, with the contractor completing the majority of the baseline construction before September 26, 2025, in time for the Union City Bike Lanes Ribbon Cutting Celebration (see Exhibit B for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Presentation on September 16, 2025, discussing the details of the ribbon cutting event and the project construction status).

The baseline construction has been completed by the contractor and inspected by the construction management consultant in late November 2025 in accordance with the project plans and specifications. See Exhibit C for the Baseline Construction Certification Form with the baseline construction improvements now open and available for public use.

The current construction cost is approximately $17,902,122 (over a 5% increase of the bid), which includes increased costs for additional contract-item quantities, a crude oil index adjustment, additional traffic enforcement within the construction zone by the Union City Police Department, and the construction change orders that consist of additional tree removals, landscape and irrigation modifications, installation of trash capture devices, storm drain repair, new landscaping and irrigation areas and other minor unforeseen construction items.

The remaining construction budget is about $1,320,628 and will be expended to complete the remaining contract work and the construction change orders with the majority of the construction completed by Spring 2026, with project closeout by end of 2026, which includes the plant establishment period. Below is the Project Funding Summary Table.

249 of 613
Agenda Item No. 3.13
City Council Staff Report Page 4 of 4 December 9, 2025 3 0 Approved Construction Budget with Contingency $19,222,750.00 Original Construction Contract $17,049,000.00
Increase Resulting from Change-in-Contract-Item Quantities $273,522.56 Construction Contract Change Orders to date $569,599.53 Traffic Enforcement $10,000.00
Total Construction Cost to Date $17,902,122.09
Total Remaining Construction Budget to Date $1,320,627.91

FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the approved project budget to complete the remaining work.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution certifying the completion of the baseline construction for Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, to meet project funding deadline and receive full funding reimbursement as required in Amendment No.4 to the Project Funding Agreement No.

A17-0125 with Alameda CTC
Prepared by: Tommy Cho, Principal Civil Engineer
Submitted by: Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
Attachments

1. Attachment 1 – Amendment No 4 to PFA with Alameda CTC

2. Draft Resolution

3. Exhibit A - Project Title Sheet

4. Exhibit B - BPAC Presentation of Union City Blvd Bike Lanes Project (Sept. 16, 2025)

5. Exhibit C - Baseline Construction Completion Certification 250 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014

Page 1 of 4 ends

2021 PFA Version
AMENDMENT NO. 4
to

PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT
between

ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
and the

CITY OF UNION CITY
for the
UNION CITY BOULEVARD CLASS 2 BIKE LANES PHASE 2,
AND
COMPLETE STREETS PHASE 3 IMPROVEMENTS
This AMENDMENT NO. 4, made and entered into by and between ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a joint powers agency (“ALAMEDA CTC”), and the CITY OF UNION CITY, a public agency (“PROJECT SPONSOR”), is dated for reference purposes only as of May 25, 2023.

A. ALAMEDA CTC and PROJECT SPONSOR entered into a Funding Agreement dated April 27, 2017 (“AGREEMENT”) to implement an eligible project (“PROJECT”) consisting of bicycle improvements on Union City Boulevard, as such PROJECT is further described in the AGREEMENT.

B. On March 29, 2019, the parties entered into an AMENDMENT NO. 1, pursuant to the PROJECT SPONSOR’s request to revise the project milestone schedule and task deliverable due dates. The overall budget and the agreement expiration date did not change.

C. On July 24, 2019, the parties entered into an AMENDMENT NO. 2, pursuant to the PROJECT SPONSOR’s request to extend the AGREEMENT’s expiration date from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2021. The AGREEMENT’s budget was not changed.

D. On March 15, 2021, the parties entered into an Amended and Restated Project Funding Agreement (“AMENDMENT NO. 3”) so as to incorporate updated agreement requirements required by ALAMEDA CTC into the AGREEMENT, and to extend the AGREEMENT’s expiration date from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2023. The AGREEMENT’s budget was not changed.

E. The parties wish to further amend the AGREEMENT pursuant to this AMENDMENT NO. 4 pursuant to action taken on May 25, 2023 by ALAMEDA CTC. AMENDMENT NO. 4 will expand the project scope and add a total of $1,800,000, with an increase of $1,751,000 in Measure BB funds for the construction phase of Union City Boulevard, Complete Streets Phase 3 Improvements as such improvements are further described in this AMENDMENT NO. 4. Additionally, AMENDMENT NO. 4 will change the fund source from Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) County Program Manager (CPM) Fiscal Year (FY) 2017/18 funds to TFCA CPM FY 2023/24 funds for a total amount of $185,000, with an increase of $49,000 in TFCA funds added to the original amount of $136,000, to support an augmented project scope. Lastly, AMENDMENT NO. 4 will extend the AGREEMENT’s expiration date from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2025 to provide additional time for the PROJECT SPONSOR to implement the PROJECT.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as follows:

Page 2 of 4 ends

2021 PFA Version

AMENDMENT

1. The expiration date set forth in the AGREEMENT is hereby extended by twenty-four (24) months from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2025, to provide additional time for PROJECT SPONSOR to implement the PROJECT.

2. The ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT is hereby changed by replacing the TFCA CPM FY 2017/18 funds with TFCA CPM FY 2023/24 funds, including additional funding of $49,000 to support an augmented project scope, for a total TFCA funding amount of $185,000.

3. The ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT is hereby changed to incorporate an additional $1,751,000 in Measure BB funds to support new scope added into the AGREEMENT for the construction phase of Complete Streets Phase 3 improvements on Union City Boulevard.

4. The PROJECT title is hereby changed for this AGREEMENT to “Union City Boulevard Class 2 Bike Lanes Phase 2, and Complete Streets Phase 3 Improvements” to reflect the amendments to the project scope.

5. Appendix A (Project Control Information) is replaced with the Revised Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

6. Appendix B (Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement) is replaced with the Revised Appendix B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

7. Appendix C (Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements) is unchanged, and is attached hereto and incorporated herein for reference purposes only.

8. Appendix D (Local Business Contract Equity Program Requirements) is unchanged, and is attached hereto and incorporated herein for reference purposes only.

9. Appendix E (Deliverables and Due Dates) is replaced with the Revised Appendix E attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

10. Appendix F (Project Performance Measures) is unchanged, and is attached hereto and incorporated herein for reference purposes only.

11. Appendix G (Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies) is replaced with the Revised Appendix G attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

12. Except as amended hereby, the terms and provisions of the AGREEMENT remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed. [Signatures on the next page]
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 252 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014

Page 3 of 4 ends

2021 PFA Version

CITY OF UNION CITY
(PROJECT SPONSOR)

ALAMEDA COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
(ALAMEDA CTC)
By: By:

Joan Malloy Date
City Manager
Tess Lengyel Date
Executive Director
Recommended
By:

Gary Huisingh Date
Deputy Executive Director of
Capital Projects
Reviewed as to Budget/Financial Controls:

By:

Patricia Reavey Date
Deputy Executive Director of
Finance and Administration
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Legal Form:

By: By:

Kristopher Kokotaylo Date
Legal Counsel to City of Union City
Fennemore Wendel Date
Legal Counsel to ALAMEDA CTC
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 2/26/2024
DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 3/28/2024
3/29/2024
4/3/2024
253 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014

Page 4 of 4 ends

2021 PFA Version

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PROJECT CONTROL INFORMATION
Appendix A-1 Project Description
Appendix A-2 Project Scope Detail by Phase
Appendix A-3 Project Milestone Schedule
Appendix A-4 Project Cost Estimate Summary by Phase and Fund Source Appendix A-5 Project Funding Summary by Phase and Reimbursement Ratio Appendix A-6 Project Phase Cost Detail
APPENDIX B: ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT APPENDIX C: ALAMEDA CTC REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX D: LOCAL BUSINESS CONTRACT EQUITY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX E: DELIVERABLES AND DUE DATES
APPENDIX F: PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
APPENDIX G: TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS Appendix G-1 TFCA Project Number and “Years of Effectiveness” Appendix G-2 BAAQMD-approved TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies Appendix G-3 Minimum required insurance for TFCA-funded projects Appendix G-4 Reporting Forms to BAAQMD for TFCA-funded projects Note: Appendix G is only included and attached to this AGREEMENT if TFCA funds are obligated and applicable to AGREEMENT.

REVISED APPENDIX A

PROJECT CONTROL INFORMATION
Appendix Index
Appendix A-1 Project Description
Appendix A-2 Project Scope Detail by Phase
Appendix A-3 Project Milestone Schedule
Appendix A-4 Project Cost Estimate Summary by Phase and Fund Source Appendix A-5 Project Funding Summary by Phase and Reimbursement Ratio Appendix A-6 Project Phase Cost Detail
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 255 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix A – Page 2
APPENDIX A-1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Description:

The ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds obligated by this AGREEMENT will be used to construct over 2.4 miles of new bike lanes in each direction on Union City Boulevard, from the southern City limits to Smith Street.

There are three specific construction related elements, as further described below, included as part of this PROJECT.

Construction Task 1 - Rehab Roadway and Drainage Improvements This construction task includes roadway rehabilitation, drainage and corridor lighting, and fiber optic installation throughout the Union City Blvd corridor identified for this PROJECT.

These Task 1 improvements are not eligible for reimbursement with the ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds obligated by this AGREEMENT.

Construction Task 2 - Union City Blvd Bike Lanes Phase 2 This construction task includes reconstruction/widening of the median island for the new bike facilities, slurry pavement, striped road for buffer Class II bike lanes, modification of traffic signals, and bikefocused improvements from the southern City limits to 600 feet south of Alvarado Boulevard.

The project will also provide improved access to Delaine Eastin Elementary School on Rocklin Drive by constructing a dedicated right-turn lane on southbound Union City Boulevard to the school and a new Class I bikeway within the sidewalk area allowing students and families to walk or bike to school.

Project improvements also include reconstructing the existing landscape median to accommodate the new bike lanes, modifying the intersections at various locations, signage and restriping of the pavement and construction staging.

ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds obligated by this AGREEMENT for Task 2 will include Measure BB, CMA TIP funds, and TFCA funds.

Construction Task 3 - Complete Streets, Phase 3
This Task 3 includes extending the project north to Smith St. on Union City Boulevard. This will create connectivity to a future Bay Trail access point off Horner St. Additionally, the Project includes adding intersection complete streets & ADA improvements, and enhanced traffic signals and enhanced streetlighting on the Union City Blvd corridor. Improvements will be constructed in the following areas:
• Enhanced street light systems from the southern City limits to Smith St. • Complete Streets & Traffic Signal improvements at intersections of: Lowry Rd., Rocklin Dr., Delores Dr., Dyer St., Jean St., Regents Blvd., Alvarado Blvd., Horner St., and Smith St.

ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds obligated by this AGREEMENT for Task 3 will include $1.751 million in Measure BB funds.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 256 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix A – Page 3
Project Limits and Map
• This project is located west of I-880 in Union City between Smith Street and the southern City limits at Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel.

PROJECT SCOPE DETAIL BY PHASE
The ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are to support the project phase(s) identified and described below:

PE/ENVIRONMENTAL
• Perform Preliminary Engineering and Environmental certifications as required.

FINAL DESIGN (PS&E)
• Begin and complete detailed design.

CONSTRUCTION
• Construct over 2.4-miles of new bike lanes in each direction on Union City Boulevard, from the southern City limits to Smith Street., and other transportation improvements as described in Appendix A-1.

PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE
Phase/Milestone
Previously
Approved
Begin
(Mo/Yr)
Previously
Approved
End
(Mo/Yr)
Revised
Begin
(Mo/Yr)
Revised
End
(Mo/Yr)
Preliminary Engineering/Environmental
Sd
04/18 01/19 No Change. No Change.

CEQA Approval 10/19 11/19 No Change. No Change.

Final Design (Plans, Specifications and
Estimate (PS&E)) 05/18 11/21 No Change. No Change.

Construction
Release Request for Proposal / Bid 12/21 01/22 11/23 01/24 Contract Award 02/22 02/22 02/24 03/24
Construction Activities 03/22 09/23 04/24 09/25
Project Closeout 10/23 12/23 10/25 12/25
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 259 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix A – Page 6
APPENDIX A-4

PROJECT COST SUMMARY BY PHASE AND FUND SOURCE
This Project Cost Summary provides a project funding plan for all Project phases, regardless if funded through ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT.

PROJECT COST SUMMARY BY PHASE AND FUND SOURCE
PHASE
Alameda CTC
Administered Funds
Sponsor
Funds
Total
Funding 2014
Measure BB
TEP-44
2014
Measure BB
TEP-42

CMA TIP
TFCA
FY 2023/24
County
Program
Manager
(CPM)
Various
Local
Preliminary Engineering /
Enviro. Studies $5,000 $ - $ - $ - $1,000 $6,000
Final Design (PS&E) $780,000 $ - $ - $ - $100,000 $880,000 Subtotal Pre-Construction $785,000 $ - $ - $ - $101,000 $886,000 Construction Task 1
Rehab Roadway Imprvts.

Rehab Roadway, Drainage & Corridor
Lighting, Fiber optic
$ - $ - $ - $ - $6,216,620 $6,216,620
Construction Task 2
Union City Blvd Bike
Lanes Phase 2
Reconstruct-widen median island,
slurry pavement, striped road for bike
lanes, modify traffic signals, bike
focused
$5,779,000 $ - $1,100,000 $185,000 $589,108 $7,653,108
Construction Task 3
Complete Streets, Phase 3
Extend Project north to Smith St.,
connect future Bay Trail access at
Horner St., added Intersection
Complete Streets & ADA, Enhanced
Traffic Signals and Enhanced
Streetlighting.
$ - $1,751,000 $ - $ - $835,162 $2,586,162
Subtotal Construction $5,779,000 $1,751,000 $1,100,000 $185,000 $7,640,890 $16,455,890 Total Project Cost $6,564,000 $1,751,000 $1,100,000 $185,000 $7,741,890 $17,341,890 DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 260 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix A – Page 7
APPENDIX A-5

PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY BY PHASE AND REIMBURSEMENT RATIO (Only Phases Funded with Alameda CTC Administered Funds) The ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are to support the project phase(s) identified and described below:

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY BY PHASE AND REIMBURSEMENT RATIO PHASE
Alameda CTC Administered Funds
Matching
Funds
Total
Funding
Reimbursement Ratio
Percentage
2014
Measure BB
TEP-44

CMA TIP
TFCA
FY 2017/18
CPM
Preliminary
Engineering/
Environmental Studies
$5,000 $ - $ - $1,000 $6,000 83.33%
Final Design (PS&E) $780,000 $ - $ - $100,000 $880,000 88.64% Construction (CON) $5,779,000 $1,100,000 $136,000 $899,000 $7,914,000 88.64% Total Funding $6,564,000 $1,100,000 $136,000 $1,000,000 $8,800,000 DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 261 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix A – Page 8

REVISED

PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY BY PHASE AND REIMBURSEMENT RATIO PHASE
Alameda CTC Administered Funds
Matching
Funds
Total
Funding
Reimbursement
Ratio
Percentage
2014
Measure BB
TEP-44
2014
Measure BB
TEP-42

CMA TIP
TFCA
FY 2023/24
CPM
Preliminary
Engineering/
Environmental Studies
$5,000
$ -
$ - $ - $1,000 $6,000 83.33%
Final Design (PS&E) $780,000 $ - $ - $ - $100,000 $880,000 88.64% Subtotal PreConstruction $785,000 $ - $ - $ - $101,000 $886,000 88.60% Construction Task 1
Rehab Roadway
Imprvts.

Rehab Roadway, Drainage &
Corridor Lighting, Fiber optic
$ - $ - $ - $ - $6,216,620 $6,216,620 0.00%
Construction Task 2
Union City Blvd Bike
Lanes Phase 2
Reconstruct-widen median
island, slurry pavement, striped
road for bike lanes, modify
traffic signals, bike focused
$5,779,000 $ - $1,100,000 $185,000 $589,108 $7,653,108 92.30% Construction Task 3
Complete Streets,
Phase 3
Extend Project north to Smith
St, conect future Bay Trail
access at Horner St., added
Intersection Complete Streets &
ADA, Enhance Traffic Signals
and Enhanced Streetlighting.
$ - $1,751,000 $ - $ - $835,162 $2,586,162 67.71%
Subtotal
Construction $5,779,000 $1,751,000 $1,100,000 $185,000 $7,640,890 $16,455,890 53.57% Total Funding $6,564,000 $1,751,000 $1,100,000 $185,000 $7,741,890 $17,341,890 Notes:
• PROJECT SPONSOR shall be reimbursed eligible costs in the percentage of Total ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS to Total Funding per the Reimbursement Ratio Percentage for each phase. Each Alameda CTC Administered Fund amount identified is a not-to-exceed amount. The Reimbursement Ratio is defined as ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS divided by the Total Funding.
• Total ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS identified in the Project Funding Summary by Phase and Reimbursement Ratio table is constrained to the specific phase and tasks identified i.e. PE/Env, Design, Construction Tasks 1, 2 and 3. The budget is not interchangeable between these phases. Pre-construction and construction phases subtotals and ratio percentages are for reference purposes.
• PROJECT SPONSOR shall identify and document costs per phases per the Project Funding Summary by Phase and Reimbursement Ratio table, and include this expenditure data in requests for reimbursements to ALAMEDA CTC.

PROJECT PHASE COST DETAIL
This Project Phase Cost Detail summarizes the total cost for each phase with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated in this AGREEMENT.

PHASE COST DETAIL
PE/ENVIROMENTAL 2014 Measure BB
TEP-44
Matching
Funds Total Cost
Sponsor Staff/Labor Cost $ - $ - $ -
Contract(s)/Other Direct Cost $5,000 $1,000 $6,000
Total Phase Cost
(Staff + Contract Costs) $5,000 $1,000 $6,000

PHASE COST DETAIL
FINAL DESIGN (PS&E) 2014 Measure BB
TEP-44
Matching
Funds Total Cost
Sponsor Staff/Labor Cost $ - $ - $ -
Contract(s)/Other Direct Cost $780,000 $100,000 $880,000 Total Phase Cost
(Staff + Contract Costs) $780,000 $100,000 $880,000
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 263 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix A – Page 10

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

PHASE COST DETAIL

CONSTRUCTION
2014
Measure BB
TEP-44

CMA TIP
TFCA
FY 2017/18
CPM
Matching
Funds
Total
Cost
Sponsor Staff/Labor Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contract(s)/Other Direct Cost $5,779,000 $1,100,000 $136,000 $899,000 $7,914,000 Total Phase Cost
(Staff + Contract Costs) $5,779,000 $1,100,000 $136,000 $899,000 $7,914,000

REVISED

PHASE COST DETAIL

CONSTRUCTION
2014
Measure BB
TEP-44
2014
Measure BB
TEP-42

CMA TIP
TFCA
FY 2023/24
CPM
Matching
Funds
Total
Funding
Sponsor Staff/
Labor Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction Task 1
Contract
Rehab Roadway
Imprvts.

$ - $ - $ - $ - $6,216,620 $6,216,620
Construction Task 2
Contract
Union City Blvd Bike
Lanes Phase 2
$5,779,000 $ - $1,100,000 $185,000 $589,108 $7,653,108
Construction Task 3
Contract
Complete Streets,
Phase 3
$ - $1,751,000 $ - $ - $835,162 $2,586,162
Subtotal
Construction $5,779,000 $1,751,000 $1,100,000 $185,000 $7,640,890 $16,455,890 Total Phase Cost
(Staff + Contract Costs) $5,779,000 $1,751,000 $1,100,000 $185,000 $7,640,890 $16,455,890 Notes:
• Contracts funded with any combination of Measure B, Measure BB, Vehicle Registration Fee and local funds that do not contain State or federal funds are subject to Alameda CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity Program (refer to Appendix D).
• PROJECT SPONSOR intends to implement the Construction phase for all three identified Construction Tasks (1, 2, 3) under one construction contract.

REVISED APPENDIX B

ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT The following Table B-1 identifies the ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT and establishes a unique allowable start date for each obligated fund source.

TABLE B-1

FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT

AND ALLOWABLE START AND EXPENDITURE DEADLINE DATES
Fund
Source
Fund
Subset Phase
Commission
Approval
Date
Allowable
Start Date
Expenditure
Deadline
Date
Obligated
Amount
2014 MBB TEP-44 PE/ENV 4/27/2017 7/1/2017
12/31/25
$5,000
2014 MBB TEP-44 Final Design
(PS&E) 4/27/2017 7/1/2017 $780,000
2014 MBB TEP-44 Construction 4/27/2017 7/1/2017 $5,779,000 CMA-TIP CMA-TIP Construction 4/27/2017 7/1/2017 $1,100,000 TFCA 23/24 CPM Construction 5/25/2023 7/1/2023 12/12/25 $185,000 2014 MBB TEP-42 Construction 5/25/2023 7/1/2023 12/31/25 $1,751,000 Total Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by AGREEMENT: $9,600,000 Previously Approved
Agreement Expiration Date: December 31, 2023
Revised Agreement
Expiration Date: December 31, 2025
Notes:

1. ALAMEDA CTC reimbursement amounts by fund source for PROJECT shall not exceed the total amount obligated by this AGREEMENT, by fund source.

2. The Commission Approval Date is the date of the meeting at which the Commission approved the allocation.

3. The Allowable Start Date identified for each fund source is the earliest date at which costs eligible for reimbursement by the fund source indicated may be incurred. Any costs incurred on the PROJECT before this date will not be eligible for reimbursement under this AGREEMENT.

4. The Expenditure Deadline Date is the last date by which eligible reimbursable costs may be incurred. Any costs incurred on the PROJECT after this date will not be eligible for reimbursement under this AGREEMENT.

5. The Agreement Expiration Date shall mean and refer to the expiration date of this AGREEMENT.

6. For TFCA funds obligated by this agreement, the Expenditure Deadline Date in the above table is two (2) years from the date when ALAMEDA CTC first received funds from BAAQMD, unless an extended deadline is approved at the time of programming or an extension has been approved by the ALAMEDA CTC. An estimated deadline date is noted in the above table if at the time of this agreement the Alameda CTC has yet to receive funds from BAAQMD. Extended deadlines will be reflected in an amended Table B-1, once approved.

7. For TFCA funds obligated by this agreement, ALAMEDA CTC may approve up to two one-year extensions to the Expenditure Deadline Date. Any additional extensions require approval from both ALAMEDA CTC and BAAQMD.

TABLE B-2

ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS

REIMBURSEMENT - DRAWDOWN LIMITATION SCHEDULE
No. Fiscal Year Quarter Fund Source Drawdown
Limitation Amount
Cumulative
Drawdown
Limitation Amount
1 FY 18/19 Any 2014 MBB $785,000 $785,000
2 FY 19/20 Any 2014 MBB $0 $00
3 FY 20/21 Any 2014 MBB $0 $0
4 FY 21/22 Any 2014 MBB $0 $0
5 FY 22/23 Any 2014 MBB $0 $0
6 FY 23/24 Any 2014 MBB $2,510,000 $3,295,000
7 FY 24/25 Any 2014 MBB $2,510,000 $5,805,000
8 FY 25/26 Any 2014 MBB $2,510,000 $8,315,000
2014 MBB Subtotal $8,315,000
9 FY 23/24 Any TFCA $185,000 $185,000
TFCA Subtotal $185,000
10 FY 23/24 Any CMATIP $1,100,000 $1,100,000
CMA TIP Subtotal $1,100,000
Total $9,600,000
Notes:

1. Fiscal Year (FY) begins July 1 and ends June 30.

2. Quarter 1 begins July 1 and ends September 30; Quarter 2 begins October 1 and ends December 31; Quarter 3 begins January 1 and ends March 31; and Quarter 4 begins April 1 and ends June 30.

3. ALAMEDA CTC shall endeavor to transmit payments to PROJECT SPONSOR following the receipt and approval of a complete Request for Reimbursement(s) submitted by the PROJECT SPONSOR.

4. Actual reimbursements from ALAMEDA CTC to the PROJECT SPONSOR shall not exceed the Cumulative Drawdown Limitation Amount without Alameda CTC’s written approval. Any portion of a reimbursement request, which exceeds the applicable Cumulative Drawdown Limitation without such prior approval by ALAMEDA CTC shall be deferred until the following quarter or until sufficient capacity in the cumulative drawdown limitation amount is achieved.

APPENDIX C

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The below table establishes the required minimum frequency for Requests for Reimbursement and Progress Reports.

Requests for Reimbursements and Progress Reports are required either monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually, as indicated below with an “X”.

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND PROGRESS REPORTING

FREQUENCY AND DUE DATES
Frequency
Required
(as checked)
Minimum Frequency Period Covered Due Dates
☐ Monthly
(once every month)
One month By 30 days following the end
of billed activity
☐
Quarterly
(once every 3 months)
Quarter 1: 7/1– 9/30
Quarter 2: 10/1 – 12/31
Quarter 3: 1/1– 3/31
Quarter 4: 4/1– 6/30
By October 31st
By January 31st
By April 30th
By July 31st
☒
Semi-annually
(once every 6 months)
Quarters 1 & 2: 7/1 – 12/31
Quarters 3 & 4: 1/1 – 6/30
By January 31st
By July 31st
☒
Annually
(TFCA Annual Report)
Fiscal Year: 7/1 – 6/30 By July 31st
☒
Final Request for
Reimbursement
Any work period eligible
under Appendix B.

Must be submitted prior to the
Agreement Expiration Date
Notes:

1. For all projects, the maximum frequency for Requests for Reimbursement is one (1) per month.

2. If no costs were incurred during the reporting period, a progress report for the corresponding period is still required.

3. TFCA funding requires annual reporting to BAAQMD in addition to the minimum required frequency for Alameda CTC progress reports and invoices.

4. Requests for Reimbursement must be submitted prior to the Agreement Expiration Date in order to be eligible for reimbursement.

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING FORMS
Any PROJECT SPONSOR awarded ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds shall use the following forms included in the link below for progress reporting, final reporting, request for reimbursements, and requests for amendments to this funding agreement. Note that the format and required content of these forms is subject to change.

List of Downloadable Forms: https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/

1. Request for Reimbursement (RFR) Form

2. Alameda CTC Progress Report Form

3. Alameda CTC Final Report Form

4. Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Reporting Forms (Interim and Final Report)

5. Amendment Request Form
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 267 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix D – Page 1

APPENDIX D

LOCAL BUSINESS CONTRACT EQUITY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
As noted in Section I.14, PROJECT SPONSOR is obligated to comply with all applicable provisions of the Alameda CTC Local Business Contract Equity (LBCE) Program, incorporated herein by reference as if attached hereto.

LBCE Program Substitution: The LBCE Program allows substitution of Alameda CTC’s program if a sponsor agency’s local preference program has been approved in writing by the Alameda CTC’s LBCE Liaison Officer. This approval letter from Alameda CTC shall be attached as part of Appendix D.

The following resources are available to guide Project Sponsors through the LBCE Program requirements for procurement and contracting processes:
• Sample template language for professional and construction services is available from ALAMEDA CTC’s website: https://www.alamedactc.org/get-involved/contract-equity • Prime and Subconsultant/Subcontractor Local Business Enterprise, Small Local Business Enterprise and Very Small Local Business Enterprise Utilization Form: https://www.alamedactc.org/getinvolved/contracting-forms/ • The LBCE Program Guidelines, available at the above link, includes a Project Sponsor Responsibility Checklist. Appendix B of the LBCE Program Guidelines identifies the Responsibilities of Sponsor Agencies.
• Direct inquiries about the LBCE Program to ALAMEDA CTC’s LBCE Liaison Officer:

Seung Cho
Director of Procurement and Information Technology
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 208-7472
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 268 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix E - Page 1

REVISED APPENDIX E

DELIVERABLES AND DUE DATES
Project Deliverables and Due Dates: The Deliverables and Due Dates table below shows deliverables and due dates, if any, for the phases listed in Appendix A-2 Project Phase Descriptions that contain ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.

Deliverables and Due Dates
No. Description
Previously
Approved
Due Date to
Alameda CTC
Revised
Due Date to
Alameda CTC
1 Progress Report No. 1 (July-December, 2017) January 31, 2018 No Change. 2 Progress Report No. 2 (January-June, 2018) July 31, 2018 No Change. 3 Copy of final plans and specifications February 15, 2020 No Change. 4 Electronic before construction photos February 15, 2020 No Change. 5 FY 2017-18 TFCA Annual (Interim) Report to
BAAQMD
September 30, 2018 No Change.
6 Progress Report No. 3 (July- December, 2018) January 31, 2019 No Change. 7 Progress Report No. 4 (January-June, 2019) July 31, 2019 No Change. 8 FY 2018-19 TFCA Annual (Interim) Report to
BAAQMD
September 30, 2019 No Change.
9 Progress Report No. 5 (July- December, 2019) January 31, 2020 No Change. 10 Progress Report No. 6 (January-June, 2020) July 31, 2020 No Change. 11 FY 2019-20 TFCA Annual (Interim) Report to
BAAQMD
September 30, 2020 No Change.
12 Progress Report No. 7 (July-December, 2020) January 31, 2021 No Change. 13 Progress Report No. 8 (January-June, 2021) July 31, 2021 No Change. 14 FY 2020-21 TFCA Annual (Interim) Report to
BAAQMD
September 30, 2021 No Change.
15 Progress Report No. 9 (July-December, 2021) January 31, 2022 No Change. 16 Progress Report No. 10 (January-June, 2022) July 31, 2022 No Change. 17 FY 2021-22 TFCA Annual (Interim) Report to
BAAQMD
July 31, 2022 No Change.
18 Progress Report No. 11 (July-December, 2022) January 31, 2023 No Change. 19 Progress Report No. 12 (January-June, 2023) July 31, 2023 No Change. 20 FY 2022-23 TFCA Annual (Interim) Report to
BAAQMD
July 31, 2023 No Change.
21 Copy Request for Proposal/Advertisement for
Construction contract(s)
N/A January 31, 2024
22 Copy of council resolution to award construction contract May 1, 2020 March 31, 2024 23 Progress Report No. 13 (July-December, 2023) N/A January 31, 2024 24 Progress Report No. 14 (January-June, 2024) N/A July 31, 2024 DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 269 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix E - Page 2
Deliverables and Due Dates
No. Description
Previously
Approved
Due Date to
Alameda CTC
Revised
Due Date to
Alameda CTC
25 FY 2023-24 TFCA Annual (Interim) Report to
BAAQMD
N/A July 31, 2024
26 Progress Report No. 15 (July-December, 2024) N/A January 31, 2025 27 Progress Report No. 16 (January-June, 2025) N/A July 31, 2025 28 FY 2024-25 TFCA Annual (Interim) Report to
BAAQMD
N/A July 31, 2025
29 Copy of council resolution to certify construction
completion
November 30, 2023 November 30, 2025
30 Electronic after construction photos November 30, 2023 November 30, 2025 31 Final Invoice By the Agreement
Expiration Date
No Change.
32 TFCA Final Report to BAAQMD Within 90 days of
project completion, but
no later than the
Agreement Expiration
Date
No Change.
33 Final Report to Alameda CTC By the Agreement
Expiration Date
No Change.

Note:
• Per Section III.19 of AGREEMENT, Alameda CTC may withhold payment of reimbursement requests until past due deliverables are received and approved.

APPENDIX F

PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Project Performance Measures: The Project Performance Measures and Targets describes what outcomebased performance measure(s) the PROJECT SPONSOR plans to evaluate to ensure that the project/program is meeting its objectives.

Appendix F is Not Applicable.

APPENDIX G

TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS The contents of Appendix G are only included and attached to this AGREEMENT if TFCA funds are obligated and applicable to AGREEMENT.

Appendix Index
Appendix G-1 TFCA Project Number and “Years of Effectiveness” Appendix G-2 BAAQMD-approved TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies Appendix G-3 Minimum required insurance for TFCA-funded projects Appendix G-4 Reporting Forms to BAAQMD for TFCA-funded projects DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 272 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix G – Page 2
APPENDIX G-1
TFCA PROJECT NUMBER AND “YEARS OF EFFECTIVENESS”
The PROJECT’s established TFCA Project Number is to be included on all PROJECT reports and invoices.

The PROJECT’s established period for TFCA “Years of Effectiveness” is used by Alameda CTC and BAAQMD to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the PROJECT and represents the minimum period of time PROJECT SPONSOR is to maintain and/or operate the PROJECT, per BAAQMD requirements. It is not intended to reflect the number of years a capital project is expected to last.

TFCA Project Number:
• 24ALA04
TFCA “Years of Effectiveness”:
• Class 2 lanes: 7 years; Class 1 lane: 10 years
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 273 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix G – Page 3
APPENDIX G-2

BAAQMD-APPROVED TFCA COUNTY PROGRAM MANAGER FUND POLICIES

Projects awarded TFCA County Program Manager funding by Alameda CTC are to be consistent with the BAAQMD’s Board-Adopted TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies.

The following policies apply to the BAAQMD TFCA County Program Manager funding awarded to PROJECT:
• BAAQMD Board-Adopted TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies for FYE 2024 • These Policies are available for view and download from the Alameda CTC’s website:
https://www.alamedactc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/06/FYE24_TFCA_CPM_Policies_clean_MSC_20221027.pdf Note: The above link provides a copy of Appendix D: Board-Adopted TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies for FYE 2024 from BAAQMD’s TFCA County Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance, Fiscal Year Ending 2024. As incorporated into this AGREEMENT, (i) the term “Air District” in the policies shall be deemed to mean and refer to BAAQMD, (ii) “Program Manager” shall be deemed to mean and refer to ALAMEDA CTC, and (iii) “GRANTEE” shall be deemed to mean and refer to SPONSOR.

TFCA INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
[See Below and Attached]
Note: The below Alameda CTC insurance requirements for TFCA projects are followed by a copy of BAAQMD’s Insurance Guidelines, Appendix F of BAAQMD’s TFCA County Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance, Fiscal Year Ending (FYE) 2024. As incorporated into this Agreement, (i) the term “Air District” in the attached shall be deemed to mean and refer to BAAQMD, (ii) “County Program Manager” shall be deemed to mean and refer to ALAMEDA CTC, and (iii) “Grantee” shall be deemed to mean and refer to SPONSOR.

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Verification of Coverage
SPONSOR is required to provide certificates and/or other evidence of the required insurance coverage prior to the execution of a fund-transfer agreement and annually thereafter throughout and until project completion.

Certificates, policies and other evidence provided shall specify that the ALAMEDA CTC and BAAQMD shall receive 30 days advanced notice of cancellation from the insurers.

Additionally, SPONSOR is to require all professional services consultants, contractors and subcontractors involved with the PROJECT to name ALAMEDA CTC, its officers, employees and consultants as additional insured on all insurance required by SPONSOR for PROJECT.

Minimum Scope of Insurance
Throughout the Term of the AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect the Liability Insurance and Property Insurance as set forth below:

1. Liability Insurance: with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall be of the type usual and customary to the business of SPONSOR, and to the operation of the vehicles, vessels, engines or equipment operated by Sponsor.

2. Property Insurance: in an amount of not less than the insurable value of SPONSOR’s vehicles, vessels, engines or equipment funded under the Agreement, and covering all risks of loss, damage or destruction of such vehicles, vessels, engines or equipment.

3. Workers Compensation Insurance: As required by California law and employers’ insurance with a limit not less than $1 million.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII. The ALAMEDA CTC may, at its sole discretion, waive or alter this requirement or accept self-insurance in lieu of any required policy of insurance.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 275 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix G – Page 5
County Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance FYE 2024 Appendix F: Insurance Guidelines
This appendix provides guidance on the insurance coverage and documentation typically required for TFCA County Program Manager Fund projects. Note that the Air District reserves the right to specify different types or levels of insurance in the Funding Agreement.

The typical Funding Agreement requires that each Project Sponsor provide documentation showing that they meet the following requirements for each of their projects. The County Program Manager is not required to meet these requirements itself, unless it is acting as a Project Sponsor.

1. Liability Insurance:

Corporations and Public Entities ‐ a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall be of the type usual and customary to the business of the Project Sponsor, and to the operation of the vehicles, engines or equipment operated by the Project Sponsor.

Single Vehicle Owners ‐ a limit of not less than $750,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall be of the type usual and customary to the business of the Project Sponsor, and to the operation of the vehicles, engines or equipment operated by the Project Sponsor.

2. Property Insurance:

New Equipment Purchases ‐ an amount of not less than the insurable value of Project Sponsor’s vehicles, engines or equipment funded under this Agreement, and covering all risks of loss, damage or destruction of such vehicles, engines or equipment.

Retrofit Projects ‐ 2003 model year vehicles or engines or newer in an amount of not less than the insurable value of Project Sponsor’s vehicles, engines or equipment funded under this Agreement, and covering all risks of loss, damage or destruction of such vehicles, engines or equipment.

3. Workers Compensation Insurance:

Construction projects – including but not limited to bike/pedestrian paths, bike lanes, smart growth and vehicle infrastructure, as required by California law and employers’ insurance with a limit not less than $1 million.

4. Acceptability of Insurers:

Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII.

The Air District may, at its sole discretion, waive or alter this requirement or accept self‐ insurance in lieu of any required policy of insurance.

The following table lists the type of insurance coverage generally required for each project type.

The requirements may differ in specific cases. County Program Managers should contact the Air District liaison with questions, especially about unusual projects. __________________________________________________________________________________ BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air – County Program Manager Page 28 DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 276 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix G – Page 6
County Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance FYE 2024 __________________________________________________________________________________ BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air – County Program Manager Page 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 277 of 613
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A17-0125
Amendment No. 4
Project No. 1480014
Appendix G – Page 7
APPENDIX G-4

REPORTING FORMS FOR TFCA-FUNDED PROJECTS
TFCA Interim Report Form:

The latest electronic version of the BAAQMD TFCA Interim Report form is available from the Alameda CTC’s website at: https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/reimbursement-andreporting-forms/ TFCA Final Report Form:

The latest electronic version of the BAAQMD TFCA Final Report forms are available from the Alameda CTC’s website at: https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/reimbursement-andreporting-forms/ Note: There are four TFCA report form templates. Use the appropriate form, as follows:
• Form 1 - Trip Reduction Projects, for shuttles/feeder bus operations, ridesharing and transportation demand management (TDM) programs, and Smart Growth projects • Form 2 - Alternative Fuel Vehicles, for all vehicle projects • Form 3 - Bicycle Projects, for bicycle lanes, bike sharing, lockers and racks • Form 4 - Arterial Management, for signal timing coordination and upgrades and transit signal priority (TSP)
DocuSign Envelope ID: EF45C89C-05B0-4A1A-963F-C15215460FE4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F40AC818-AF26-425E-9FB3-F6007FC75113 DocuSign Envelope ID: E0CD421B-6561-4503-9BE7-E1C0F6C85862 278 of 613
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

CERTIFYING COMPLETION OF THE BASELINE CONSTRUCTION FOR

THE UNION CITY BOULEVARD BIKE LANES PROJECT, CITY
PROJECT NO. 17-29, TO MEET THE PROJECT FUNDING DEADLINE

AND RECEIVE FULL FUNDING REIMBURSEMENT AS REQUIRED IN
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT NO.

A17-0125 WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) administers funding programs and projects that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 2000 Measure B, 2010 Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF), 2014 Measure BB, Congestion Management Agency-Transportation Improvement Plan (CMA-TIP), and Transportation Fund for Clean Air Programs (TFCA). Such funding is collectively defined as, and shall be referenced herein as, the “Alameda CTC Administered Funds”; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2017, Union City received the executed Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 with grant funding in the amount of $7,800,000 of 2014 Measure BB, CMA-TIP, TFCA and the required local match of $1,000,000 (Gas Tax) for Final Design, Right of Way and Construction Phases, totaling $8,800,000 for Union City Boulevard Bikes Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29; and WHEREAS, the executed Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17- 0125, totaling $8,800,000, for the Union City Boulevard Bikes Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, included the project funding deadline of December 31, 2019; and WHEREAS, the executed Amendment No. 1 to Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bikes Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, extended the project funding deadline date to December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, the executed Amendment No. 2 to Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bikes Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, extended the project funding deadline date to December 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, the executed Amendment No. 3 to Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bikes Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, extended the project funding deadline date to December 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6152-23, accepting $1,800,000 from the 2024 Comprehensive Investment Program (CIP) Grant Funds from the Alameda CTC for Union City Boulevard Bikes Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, increasing the revenue projections in the Capital Project Fund by $1,800,000, appropriating the $1,800,000 to Project No. 17-29, earmarking $450,000 of previously approved SB-1 Funds to meet the local match requirement, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the required grant funding agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, in early 2024, Union City received the executed Amendment No. 4 to 279 of 613
Resolution 2025-XXX
Certify Completion of Baseline Construction of UCB Bike Lanes, City Project No. 17-29

Page 2 of 4 ends

Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bikes Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, totaling $9,600,000, and extended the project funding deadline date to December 31, 2025, which represents the final extension under the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the project is also funded with a combination of Gas Tax fund, SB1 Road Maintenance & Rehab funds, Measure B Streets & Roads funds, Measure B Bike & Pedestrian funds, Measure F funds, Measure BB Streets & Roads funds, Measure BB Bike & Pedestrian funds and Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 funds; and WHEREAS, the proposed bike lane and roadway improvement project will complete over two- (2) miles of the bike lane gap with generous buffered Class II bikes lanes along Union City Boulevard (UCB) from Alameda County Flood Control Channel (Fremont) to Smith Street and will serve as the San Francisco Bay Trail in Union City (see Exhibit A for Project Title Sheet); and
WHEREAS, the project improvements also include the rehabilitation of the pavement within the project limits, “Complete Street” improvements at all intersections, traffic signal modifications, a new shared-use pathway along UCB adjacent to Delaine Eastin Elementary School, providing direct access for students who bike or walk to school, a new southbound Union City Boulevard right-turning lane into the school, streetlight modifications, roadway drainage improvements and landscape improvements at various locations; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6261- 24, awarding a construction contract to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc., in the amount of $17,049,000 plus construction and project contingencies (about 12.75%), in the amount of $2,173,750, to address any unforeseen conditions and work encountered by the contractor for the duration of the project, for a total construction budget, in the amount of $19,222,750, and approving a construction management services budget, in the amount of $2,000,000, for a total project budget, in the amount of $21,222,750, for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29; and WHEREAS, to meet the project funding deadline of December 31, 2025, and to receive the full funding reimbursement of $9,600,000 as required in Amendment No. 4 to the Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125 for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, Alameda CTC staff has requested that the City Council adopt a resolution to certify the completion of the baseline construction; and WHEREAS, the baseline construction includes the reconstruction of the roadway median to accommodate the new generous buffered Class II bike lanes along Union City Boulevard for over two (2) miles in each direction, major roadway rehabilitation, a new southbound Union City Boulevard right-turn lane to Delaine Eastin Elementary School at Rocklin Drive, construction of a shared-use pathway along Union City Boulevard to improve bike and pedestrian access to and from Delaine Eastin Elementary School, modifications of the traffic signals, installation of new streetlights, installation of enhanced pavement striping, reflective street signs, reduced speed limit signs, speed feedback signs and major storm drain improvements; and
WHEREAS, the construction began in early July 2024, with the contractor completing the majority of the baseline construction before September 26, 2025, in time 280 of 613
Resolution 2025-XXX
Certify Completion of Baseline Construction of UCB Bike Lanes, City Project No. 17-29

Page 4 of 4 ends

for the Union City Bike Lanes Ribbon Cutting Celebration (see Exhibit B for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Presentation on September 16, 2025 discussing the details of the ribbon cutting event and the project construction status); and WHEREAS, the baseline construction has been completed by the contractor and inspected by the construction management consultant in late November 2025, in accordance with the project plans and specifications (see Exhibit C for the Baseline Construction Certification Form with the baseline improvements now available for public use); and
WHEREAS, the current construction cost of the project is approximately $17,902,122 (about a 5% increase of the bid), which includes increased costs for additional contract-item quantities, a crude oil index adjustment, additional traffic enforcement within the construction zone by the Union City Police Department, and the construction change orders that include additional tree removals, landscape and irrigation modifications, installation of trash capture devices, storm drain repair, new landscaping and irrigation areas and other minor unforeseen construction items; and WHEREAS, the remaining construction budget is approximately $1,320,628, and will be expended to complete the remaining contract work and the construction change orders with the majority of the construction completed by Spring 2026, with project closeout by end of 2026, which includes the plant establishment period.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City does hereby certify completion of the Baseline Construction for the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project, City Project No. 17-29, to meet the project funding deadline and receive full funding reimbursement, as required in Amendment No.4 to the Project Funding Agreement No. A17-0125, with Alameda County Transportation Commission.
281 of 613
Resolution 2025-XXX
Certify Completion of Baseline Construction of UCB Bike Lanes, City Project No. 17-29

Page 3 of 4 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of December 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
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A – Project Title Sheet

2. Exhibit B –BPAC Presentation of Union City Blvd Bike Lanes (September 16, 2025)

3. Exhibit C- Baseline Construction Completion Certification 282 of 613
® Know what's below.

Call before you dig.

CITY OF UNION CITY

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

UNION CITY BLVD BIKE LANES PROJECT
307
p
p
p
o p
p
o
o
p
p
p
p
p
o
1 Exhibit A
283 of 613
Union City Blvd Bike Lanes and Rehab
Project, City Project No. 17-29
Ribbon Cutting Celebration
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meeting
Item 6.b.

Marilou R. Ayupan, Public Works Director
284 of 613
2 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Saturday, September 27th at Delaine Eastin School
285 of 613
3 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Draft Schedule and Program
10:00 -10:30 am Program (before Ribbon Cutting)
Welcome and Introductions
Expected Speakers
- Mayor
- City Manager Office
- Public Works
- BPAC
- Others
286 of 613
4 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Highlights, Street and Parking Impacts
287 of 613
5 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Site Map
288 of 613
6 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
What is a Traffic Garden?
Fionnuala Quinn at trafficgardens.com
289 of 613
7 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Traffic Garden – “Bike-park” for children
290 of 613
8 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Traffic Garden – “Bike-park” for children
291 of 613
9 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Pop-Up Traffic Garden at Delaine Eastin Playground
292 of 613
10 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Pop Up Traffic Garden Concept
293 of 613
11 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
294 of 613
12 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
Pop Up Traffic Garden
Public Works Community & Recreation Services
295 of 613
13 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
2017 Alameda CTC Grant (UCB Class 2 Bikes Lanes)
296 of 613
14 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
2017 Alameda CTC Grant (UCB Class 2 Bikes Lanes)
297 of 613
15 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
2017 Alameda CTC Grant (UCB Class 2 Bikes Lanes)
298 of 613
16 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Major Improvements
Northbound UCB at Eastin-Lowry Intersection
299 of 613
17 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Major Improvements
Northbound UCB at Dyer Street
Exist. Free Right-Turn Lane
Revised Intersection with 90-degree corner
300 of 613
18 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Major Improvements
Southbound UCB at Rocklin (Delaine Eastin School)
Buffered Class II Bike Lane with transition to Class I Bike/Ped Trail 301 of 613
19 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Major Improvements
Southbound UCB at Rocklin (Delaine Eastin School)
Dedicated Right-Turn Lane to School (for Queuing)
302 of 613
20 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Major Improvements
Southbound UCB at Rocklin (Delaine Eastin School)
Dedicated Class I Bike/Ped Trail to and from School
303 of 613
21 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Major Improvements
Roadway Safety Street Lighting for All Modes*
304 of 613
22 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Major Improvements
Roadway Safety Street Lighting for All Modes*
305 of 613
23 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
2017 Alameda CTC Grant (UCB Class 2 Bikes Lanes)
Access Improvements to Delaine Eastin School
Dedicated SB UCB Right-Turn Lane on Rocklin (school traffic) New Class I trail along UCB (to and from school)
Complete Streets (at Lowry & Rocklin Intersections)
Corridor Wide Safety Improvements
New 11-foot Buffered Class II Bike Lanes with enhanced striping Enhanced Reflective Striping with reduced lane widths
Reduced Speed Limit to 40 mph (from 45 mph)
New reflective roadway signs and speed “feed back” signs Complete Streets Improvements at the Intersections
Enhanced Street Lighting for all modes of transportation 306 of 613
24 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
2017 Alameda CTC Grant (UCB Class 2 Bikes Lanes)
Other Major Corridor Wide Improvements
Reconstructed medians for new roadway section
Eliminated free-right turn lane from NB UCB to Dyer St.

Pavement Rehabilitation with reconstructed cross slope areas Repaired major pavement problem areas
Major storm drain improvements at known flooding areas
Added stormwater treatment areas (bioswales)
New landscaping and irrigation in reconstructed median
New trees and scrubs at key intersections
New MVP (Maintenance Vehicle Pullout) areas in medians
307 of 613
25 UCB Blvd Bike Lanes Project- Ribbon Cutting
The City wants to thank all those who have
contributed to the planning, design and construction
of the project:
• Funding Partners
• Consultant Team
• Construction Team, and
BPAC Members
(Tim, Glenn, Jo Ann, Steve and Vanessa)
Let’s all celebrate this major accomplishment
308 of 613
309 of 613
City Council Staff Report Page 1 of 5 December 9, 2025
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 4.1
DATE: December 9, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joan Malloy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Continue Public Hearing from December 9, 2025 to a Date Uncertain to Consider an Appeal or 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; or (4) Return the Matter Back to the Planning Commission. 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 recommends 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) from December 9, 2025 to provide the applicant, Wireless Epic on behalf of AT&T, and the City, time to process an update to the applications to accommodate a modified project design and required zoning text amendments to Union City Municipal Code (UCMC) Chapter 18.114, Wireless Communications Facilities. It is further recommended that the City Council return the matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council of the modified applications and proposed zoning text amendments.
310 of 613
Agenda Item No. 4.1
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 5 December 9, 2025

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

BACKGROUND
The scope of the approved Use Permit (UP-25-001) includes a new wireless facility on the roof of the multi-purpose building located at the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church (SACBC). The building is one-story and measures approximately 20,374 square feet. The Use Permit also allowed an associated increase in the building's 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 for 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 multipurpose 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 its November 4, 2025 meeting and requested a continuance to November 13, 2025.

At its November 13, 2025 meeting, the City Council voted 5-0 to continue this item to the December 9, 2025 City Council meeting. This was related to a City Council suggestion that the applicant check with the property owner regarding an update to the project scope from the proposed roof-mounted facility to a freestanding monopole.

See Attachments 1-17 for an overview of the Planning Commission and City Council public record, to date.

Under FCC rules adopted 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 hearing by the Planning Commission. The tolling agreement was extended again to November 14, 2025, to accommodate the appeal process. The agreement was further extended to December 12, 2025, to cover the continuation of the December 9, 2025 City Council meeting.

DISCUSSION
As discussed above, at its November 13, 2025 meeting, the City Council voted to continue the appeal to provide some additional time for the applicant to speak with the property owner on the change to the project design from a rooftop-mounted facility to a freestanding monopole and to also do some due diligence on their end regarding the shift in the project scope. The applicant provided feedback that the SACBC Board agreed to update the wireless facility design to reflect a monopole configuration. This additional time also allowed City staff to confirm next steps on the process and timeline to update 311 of 613
Agenda Item No. 4.1
City Council Staff Report Page 3 of 5 December 9, 2025
the project and inform of the extension of the tolling agreement.

City Council Meeting Follow-Up
A modification to Use Permit (UP-25-001) and Site Development Review (SD-25-001) applications is required to address updates to the project design. Following up on the discussion at the City Council meeting, an amendment to Union City Municipal Code Chapter 18.114, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, is also required to allow for monopoles in the Private Institutional (PI) Zoning District, where they are currently not allowed. Monopoles are presently permitted in the Civic Facility (CF), Light Industrial (ML), and General Industrial (MG) Zoning Districts. See Attachment 18 for a map showing the Zoning Districts where monopoles are currently allowed, as well as the location of the City’s PI zoned properties.

The following are additional proposed updates to Chapter 18.114:
• Required monopole setbacks are currently 300 feet from any residential uses, major thoroughfares, including Alvarado-Niles Road, and parks/trails. The setbacks are meant to protect the visual quality of these areas as monopoles, with an average height of over 50 feet, can be visually intrusive.

The SACBC site measures approximately 380 feet from its frontage along AlvaradoNiles Road to the rear property line it shares with adjacent residences on Condor Drive. To consider a monopole design on this site would require reducing or eliminating the required setback from major thoroughfares, including Alvarado-Niles Road, Dyer Street, Decoto Road, Whipple Road, Union City Boulevard, Mission Boulevard, Alvarado Boulevard, Lowry Road, and 11th Street. Staff is also assessing the required setbacks from all property lines included in Chapter 18.114, which is currently 20 percent of the monopole height.
• Staff is proposing to strengthen the design criteria for installation of new monopoles and related equipment enclosures, including a requirement for a fully stealth design if visible from the public way to mitigate the removal/reduction of the required setback from major thoroughfares.

There are several options for a monopole stealth design, including disguising the monopole as a clock tower, water tank, or other structure. See Figure 1 below for some examples. As a potential option to minimize visual impacts, staff inquired about installing a slim design, such as a flagpole. The applicant provided feedback that these types of facilities are no longer feasible due to concerns over adequate heat dissipation. The applicant is also preparing visual simulations of potential design options, which will be shared at the City Council meeting. • Additional minor updates to Chapter 18.114 are required to ensure consistency with the text amendments described above.

Tolling Agreement Extension
Staff is working with the applicant on an additional amendment to the tolling agreement 312 of 613
Agenda Item No. 4.1
City Council Staff Report Page 4 of 5 December 9, 2025
to extend the agreement term to May 15, 2026, which is approximately 150 days from the expiration date of the prior tolling agreement.

Figure 1.

This term was chosen to coincide with the initial 150 days that local jurisdictions have to consider new wireless installations. This most recent extension of the tolling agreement is needed to provide the City Council flexibility should they move forward with the staff’s recommendation. The applicant team will utilize a portion of this time to prepare drawings, visual simulations, and an updated RF study, which will need to be peer-reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant.

Public Comment
Staff will send an email to individuals who previously submitted public comments and provided email addresses, or who have been asked to be added to the City’s email outreach list for this project, informing them of the upcoming meeting. All written public comment received on this item is attached to this staff report. The last public comment received was dated November 11, 2025.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends 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) from December 9, 2025 to a date uncertain to provide the applicant, Wireless Epic on behalf of AT&T, and the City, time to process an update to the applications to accommodate a modified project design and required zoning text amendments to Union City Municipal Code (UCMC) Chapter 18.114, Wireless Communications Facilities. Future meetings will be duly noticed. It is further recommended that the City Council return the matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council of the modified applications and proposed zoning 313 of 613
Agenda Item No. 4.1
City Council Staff Report Page 5 of 5 December 9, 2025
text amendments.

Prepared by: Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director Submitted by: Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director Attachments
• 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
• Attachment 2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 10/16/2025 • Attachment 3: Draft Planning Commission Resolution dated 10/16/2025 • Attachment 4: Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/16/2025 • Attachment 5: Desk Item dated 10/16/2025
• Attachment 6: Appeal Letter dated 10/19/2025
• Attachment 7: Noise Analysis
• Attachment 8: Alternative Sites Analysis
• Attachment 9: Public Comment dated October 24, 2025
• Attachment 10: Public Comment dated October 30, 2025
• Attachment 11: City Council Staff Report dated November 4, 2025 • Attachment 12: Public Comment dated November 4, 2025
• Attachment 13: Public Comment dated November 5, 2025
• Attachment 14: Public Comment dated November 11, 2025 • Attachment 15: City Council Meeting Minutes Dated November 4, 2025 • Attachment 16: City Council Staff Report Dated November 13, 2025 • Attachment 17: City Council Meeting Minutes Dated November 13, 2025 • Attachment 18: Zoning Map Showing Existing/Proposed Districts Where Monopoles Allowed
314 of 613
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, ONESTORY, 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, ROOFMOUNTED ENCLOSURE AND 359 SQUARE-FOOT GROUNDMOUNTED 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 squarefoot 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; 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 (SD-25-001) 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 deciding on the project; and
315 of 613
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)

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.

Under UCMC Section 18.114.100, wireless telecommunication facilities must comply with the standards and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and any agency with authority to regulate the radio-frequency emissions of wireless telecommunication facilities. The Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report for AT&T Mobility, dated September 5, 2025, attests that 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 on the roof of an existing building, outside any required setbacks for structures at the site.

Page 3 of 7 ends

with the subject property's General Plan designation of Private Institutional (PI).

The PI designation is for private institutional uses, including but 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 AT&T coverage and service for customers in the vicinity. The project complies with Title 18 by providing a use that promotes and protects 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 project's height will not adversely affect 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 on light.

Wireless Telecommunication Facilities (UCMC Sec. 18.114.130)

6. The project has been designed per the requirements of UCMC Chapter 18.114.

The project's location has been designed to meet or exceed the FCC and PUC's current 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 by a rooftop structure designed to match the building's architecture. 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 in accordance with all setback requirements and designed to minimize visual and related aesthetic impacts on 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 317 of 613
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Appeal - UP-25-001/ SD-25-001

Page 4 of 7 ends

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 AT&T coverage and enhance service to customers in the vicinity, and support 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 that 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. It will be painted and screened to blend in with the existing structures and surrounding site amenities, and to be compatible with the existing religious facility. The presence of the new antennas will improve AT&T coverage and enhance service to customers in the vicinity, and support 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 outlined 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 to the approved plans is subject to review and approval by the Economic and Community Development Department.

2. This application shall expire one year from the date of Planning Commission 318 of 613
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Appeal - UP-25-001/ SD-25-001

Page 5 of 7 ends

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.

4. The applicant and/or property owner shall apply for and take out all required building and fire permits before 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 shall be placed on any part of the wireless facility, equipment, or the equipment 319 of 613
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Appeal - UP-25-001/ SD-25-001

Page 6 of 7 ends

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 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 a Certificate of Occupancy, each owner or operator of the wireless telecommunication facility shall obtain and maintain at all times a current 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 the 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 320 of 613
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Appeal - UP-25-001/ SD-25-001

Page 7 of 7 ends

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.

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 to both the construction phase and 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
321 of 613
SITE NAME: ALVARADO-NILES ROAD

EXHIBIT A
322 of 613
323 of 613
324 of 613
325 of 613
326 of 613
327 of 613
328 of 613
329 of 613
330 of 613
331 of 613
332 of 613
333 of 613
334 of 613
335 of 613
336 of 613
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
337 of 613

339 of 613
340 of 613
341 of 613
342 of 613
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
343 of 613
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
344 of 613
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. 345 of 613
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.
346 of 613
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 347 of 613
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 348 of 613
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
349 of 613
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 350 of 613
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 351 of 613
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
352 of 613
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
353 of 613
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
354 of 613
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.

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.

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)

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) 355 of 613
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.
356 of 613
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.

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.

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.

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 357 of 613
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.

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.

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 358 of 613
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.
359 of 613
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.
360 of 613
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
361 of 613
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
362 of 613
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.
363 of 613
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 364 of 613
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 365 of 613
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 366 of 613
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. 367 of 613
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 368 of 613
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 369 of 613
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.
370 of 613
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.
371 of 613
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. 372 of 613
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. 373 of 613
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 374 of 613
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 375 of 613
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.
376 of 613
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
377 of 613
378 of 613
379 of 613
380 of 613
381 of 613
382 of 613
383 of 613
384 of 613
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
385 of 613
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.

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.

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.
386 of 613

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]
387 of 613
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
388 of 613
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
389 of 613
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
390 of 613
Alternative Sites Analysis
AT&T Mobility
Rooftop Wireless Telecommunications Facility
At
32975 Alvarado-Niles Rd, Union City, CA 94587
Site ID: CBL00155
ATTACHMENT 8
391 of 613
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 392 of 613
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
393 of 613
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. 394 of 613
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.
.
395 of 613
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. 396 of 613
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.
397 of 613
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.
398 of 613
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. 399 of 613
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. 400 of 613
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. 401 of 613
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. 402 of 613
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.
403 of 613
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.

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.

ATTACHMENT 9
404 of 613
405 of 613
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 35 406 of 613
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
407 of 613
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 10 408 of 613
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. 409 of 613
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).
410 of 613
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).
411 of 613
City Council, Union City
October 30, 2025

Page 5 ends

Union City City CouncilDecember 9, 2025

Union City City Council
December 9, 2025