Outlook
Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road; Oct. 16 Public Hearing From Saurabh Talwar <
Date Sun 11/02/2025 11:02 AM
To Natalie Dean <[email protected]>
Cc Christine Chen < Jon Kuo < Mohammad Fasiur Rahman
< Weifeng Chen < Wais Aubi < Thai Nam
Pham <[email protected]>; Derek Farmer <[email protected]>; Tracey Barragan <[email protected]>; <
< <
< <
< Swati Sharma < Sunita Goyal
< < Sooraj Ram
< < Anjana Bai <
2 attachments (369 KB)
Appeal against RF Antenna Installation-3.pdf; signature_page1.pdf; WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.
External sender <
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Hi Natalie,
Here is the scanned copy of the Appeal with all the signatures from all the applicants supporting this appeal for your reference.
Thanks,
Sunny
On Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 10:44 AM Saurabh Talwar < wrote:
Hi Natalie,
We have already paid the fees $1118 for the hearing which is taking place on November 4th.
Could you please update the list of applicants who will be present on the November 4th hearing since the list on the notice does not include some people.
Here is the additional list of people who will be present at the hearing. 11/3/25, 8:24 AM Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles … about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 1/4
Swati Sharma
Edward Bruesard
Marco Hernandez
Dennis Mamaril
Sana L
Susan Quant Jose Quant
Co Ha
Priscilla Tseng
Jingchun Wang
James Brand
Mina Sharma
David Lill
Janet Strickler
Peidong Chen
Geraldine D.
Bonnie Han
Anjana Bai
Minhajur Mohammed
Stiven Shi
Christine Chen
Thitipoon Tang
Sonny Mamari
Mohammad Rahman
Sreenivasa Rao
Kristine Arao
Thanks for your help.
11/3/25, 8:24 AM Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles … about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 2/4
Regards,
Sunny
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:30 AM Natalie Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning,
To finish filing the appeal, bring payment for the $945 appeal fee plus the $173 public noticing fee directly to Finance, along with a copy of the October 19, 2025, appeal letter for reference. Once payment is received, we’ll consider the appeal officially filed under UCMC §18.52.088(C)(2), and the Planning Commission’s approval will remain stayed pending City Council consideration.
Per 18.52.088(C)(2), the appeal shall be filed within 10 calendar days of the Planning Commission decision. If the last day for appeal is not a City Hall working day, the appeal period shall extend to the next City Hall working day. Appeals filed beyond the appeal period shall not be accepted.
October 26 is the 10th calendar day after the appeal; therefore, Monday would be the last day to appeal. It is recommended the appeal and fee are filed today by 5 pm. Pay with check payable to the City of Union City, or credit card.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
‑ Natalie Dean
From: Natalie Dean
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 9:33 AM
To: 'Saurabh Talwar & Sunita Goyal' < 'Christine Chen' < 'Jon Kuo' < 'Mohammad Fasiur Rahman' < 'Weifeng Chen'
< 'Wais Aubi' <
Cc: Derek Farmer <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road; Oct. 16 Public Hearing
Hello,
11/3/25, 8:24 AM Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles … about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 3/4
This is a friendly reminder that the City of Union City requires a fee for the appeal of the subject project. A hearing has been noticed for November 4, 2025.
The fee is $945 plus $173 for noticing. You may pay with a credit card or with a check made payable to The City of Union City.
Please contact me at the phone number below to discuss as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Natalie Dean
Associate Planner, City of Union City
Office: 510-675.5382
34009 Alvarado‑Niles Rd
Union City • CA • 94587
www.unioncity.org
11/3/25, 8:24 AM Re: FW: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles … about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 4/4
To:
The Honorable Eric Swalwell, U.S. House of Representatives Union City Planning Commission
Chairwoman McLelland, Union City Planning Commission
Carmela Campbell, Union City Development Services
Date: October 31st 2025
Dear Congressman Swalwell, Chairwoman McLelland, Ms. Campbell, and Members of the Union City Planning Commission,
On behalf of the residents of Condor Drive in Union City between Hop Ranch and Dowe, we are writing to formally appeal the City’s approval of AT&T’s proposed wireless telecommunications facility located behind our homes, on the grounds of the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church (SACBC). We respectfully request your support in ensuring a fair, transparent, and evidence-based re-evaluation of this project.
We believe the City’s current approval process has overlooked critical environmental, safety, and equity considerations. Below are the key issues we urge you to review and help escalate:
Since not all residents received my earlier questions before the hearing, I am restating them here and respectfully request that they be entered into the public record and reviewed during the appeal process.
1. Lack of Timely and Transparent Notification
AT&T notified residents only once — on October 24th (we received the postcard mailer around Oct. 4?) — near the very end of the 150-day City review window (150 days for action as per FCC guidelines).
The City notified residents of a Public Hearing to take place only 11 days before the FCC deadline to act, with approval or denial.
This deprived our neighborhood of any meaningful opportunity to evaluate or respond before key decisions were made. It also deprived AT&T from earnestly responding to any written and verbal questions and requests for more information on the project. It should be noted that submitted and accepted questions for the Public Hearing were not shared with AT&T in advance, and subsequent responses from AT&T have been incomplete.
Such conduct appears disingenuous and inconsistent with the spirit of public engagement that underpins due process. A single, last-minute notice to dozens of affected families cannot be considered genuine community consultation and belies the purpose of a Public Hearing.
Instead, the October 16 session resembled more of a Public Notice.
We request that the City establish mandatory multi-stage public notification requirements for future wireless projects — including an initial outreach phase well before hearings are scheduled.
2. Incomplete Site Selection and Lack of Objective Alternatives It remains unclear why the chosen site — directly adjacent to family homes — was deemed the only viable option when Union City’s abundant nearby commercial and industrial corridors offer numerous suitable alternatives.
The Applicant’s Alternative Site Analysis lists only nine rejected sites, and other unnamed sites being dismissed because, “the property owner could not be reached or contacted.” During the hearing, it was evident that many nearby commercial properties were never meaningfully pursued.
If AT&T struggles to contact property owners, could the City’s Development Office (e.g., Ms.
Carmela Campbell’s team) assist in facilitating outreach? From Hop Ranch to Western, and from Alvarado-Niles to Whipple, there are at least a dozen viable commercial parcels that would avoid residential intrusion.
Basing site selection on factors like “churches being easier to work with” or “lower leasing costs” is not a legally valid justification for placing high-emission, high-maintenance equipment in a residential neighborhood, less than 100 ft. from adjacent homes by their stated measure.
We request:
● Documented proof that all commercial/industrial alternatives were evaluated using objective criteria.
● A transparent site comparison study, inclusive of community feedback.
3. Misleading Visual Representations
The Applicant’s elevation renderings are misleading and incomplete.
As presented, the images appear to have been taken from inches off the ground, not the perspective of an average adult human. The “North View” facing Condor Drive is especially deceptive — using a neighboring home to obscure what would otherwise appear as a 60–80 ft–wide, 43+ ft–high structure looming behind residential properties.
Homeowners and Residents deserve accurate visual simulations that reflect the true neighborhood impact. We urge that the City require AT&T to resubmit visual studies taken from standard adult-eye height, clearly showing the view from Condor Drive and neighboring yards.
4. Excessive Environmental and Noise Impact
The site’s unpaved lot will produce significant dust, exhaust, and noise, especially during nighttime maintenance.
Industry standards indicate that once operational, AT&T will likely sublease portions of the 2,320 sq. ft. space to 5–6 other carriers, resulting in multiple and repeated site visits and disturbances, often between 1:00–4:00 a.m.
We ask:
● How will the City enforce noise ordinances and public nuisance laws during late-night maintenance?
● Will the City assume liability for repeated residential disruptions if this permit is granted? ● Will the City consider a binding condition restricting the tower to AT&T-only operations to prevent uncontrolled subleasing?
● Perform basic sound/noise monitoring at property fence lines to establish current noise levels for daylight and night.
If AT&T refuses such a clause, that refusal alone validates residents’ concerns about future multi-carrier expansion.
If the City believes subleasing will not occur, it should include a legally binding condition restricting tower access to AT&T only. Should AT&T object to this clause, that objection will validate residents’ concerns about future multi-tenant expansion.
5. Lack of Complete Health and RF Radiation Risks and Impacts Neither the City nor AT&T has provided an independent, peer-reviewed study demonstrating the long-term safety of RF emissions for a tower that could eventually host dozens of antennas (potentially 45+) less than 100 ft. from numerous homes.
We request:
● An independent RF and environmental safety study (Health Risk Assessment, HRA), conducted by a mutually selected third party and funded by AT&T. ● Full public disclosure of RF emission modeling, cumulative exposure data, and maintenance frequency reports.
6. Severe Negative Economic Impact on Property Values
Multiple reputable sources confirm substantial and measurable economic harm from visible cell towers:
● Recent real-estate research suggests that “proximity to macro-cell towers in residential neighborhoods can contribute to measurable reductions in property values, primarily due to buyer perception, aesthetic impact, and increased maintenance traffic.” National Association of Realtors data indicates a 2–7% valuation reduction for homes adjacent to wireless infrastructure. While some newer California studies show minimal effect for small-cell street pole installations, those findings do not apply to macro-grade antenna facilities located directly next to family homes and overnight maintenance access create a very different burden on residents. ● Environmental Health Sciences Report (2025) — “If the cell tower was deployed near residential property, property values decreased an average of 9.78%. Realtors say cell towers can cut home values by up to 20%, with 94% of buyers saying they would pay less or avoid such properties.”
(Source)
Given that the proposed tower will be within 300–500 feet of multiple rear-facing windows, the nearest being 90 feet, the projected collective devaluation to our neighborhood could total $2.8–$5.6 million.
It is deeply concerning that our City would approve a project imposing millions in home equity loss on its taxpayers when viable commercial sites exist very nearby.
7. Lack of Verified Public-Safety Justification
When asked during the hearing which public safety department requested additional network coverage, the Applicant’s response — “I don’t know” — was both insufficient and alarming.
If this project is justified under the guise of public safety, then residents are entitled to documented requests or technical analysis from Union City or Alameda County emergency response agencies confirming such a need.
Without this evidence, citing “emergency coverage” as a rationale is invalid and misleading.
8. Negative Long-Term Impact and Neighborhood Equity
Our Ivywood neighborhood was developed just 22 years ago, in 2003. A 25-year tower lease that diminishes property values, disrupts peace, and exposes families to uncertain health (Lack of HRA) and environmental risks would be short-sighted and inequitable.
We fully support improved technology and reliable wireless coverage — but not at the expense of public health, safety, and neighborhood equity.
9. Requests for Action
We respectfully urge the City and your offices to:
1. Pause all permit approvals until an independent site, environmental, and RF study is completed. We request an injunction if needed, and will file one if required to effect this pause.
2. Require revised visual-impact renderings taken from realistic human perspectives.
3. Commission an independent RF and environmental impact and safety study jointly overseen by residents and funded by AT&T, with analysis and results made public.
4. Investigate potential procedural violations related to AT&T’s delayed community notification.
5. Direct the Development Office to help AT&T engage with commercial property owners to relocate this project away from homes and into its abundant commercial and industrial areas.
6. Federal procedural compliance be reviewed concerning AT&T’s last-minute notification practices.
7. The City requires accurate elevation renderings showing real neighborhood perspectives.
Conclusion
We believe Union City deserves technological advancement without sacrificing fairness, safety, or transparency. We urge your offices to ensure that public health and community welfare remain paramount over corporate convenience.
Thank you for your time, leadership, and commitment to protecting the integrity of Union City’s residential neighborhoods.