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
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.
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]