From: Sreeni Rao
To: Natalie Dean; Tracey Barragan; Public Comment; Mayor and Council Members Cc: Durga Devarakonda;
Subject: Fwd: Update, Appeal for Wireless Communications Facility permit affecting Ivywood Neighborhood Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:29:19 PM
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.
Warning: Unusual sender <
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Dear Council members and City officials of Union City:
My wife and I are residents of Union CIty, our address is below. I am writing to express my full support for this appeal filed by Eugene and several of my neighbors AGAINST setting up the transmission tower that AT&T is planning in a very residential neighborhood.
Every one of the arguments made below is accurate, reasonable and worthy of deeper deliberation. I feel the permit is being issued without proper consideration to the core values that the city government should abide by: supporting the financial well-being of all residents, first and foremost. Instead, for the City Council to even consider a move like this that impacts homeowners very adversely, is incomprehensible. For AT&T, it is simply a marketing trick to add to their TV ads that their coverage has increased by several % points. Like rightly pointed out below, there are so many other locations that could give them the same benefits.
I ask that you withdraw permission to AT&T to set up this tower.
Best Regards,
Sreenivasa D. Rao
Kanakadurga D. Rao
32217 Condor Dr.
Union City, CA.
From: Eugene Ho <
Date: October 25, 2025 at 5:57:12 AM GMT+8
To:
Cc:
Subject: Update, Appeal for Wireless Communications Facility permit affecting Ivywood Neighborhood Mayor Singh and Councilmember Nishihira:
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.
Significant Homeowner property value impacts, $2.8-5.6M:
- I've outlined in the mail that will be following, the objections provided post-Hearing, around a negative impact estimate to the value of our homes that would be from -10% to -20%. The range as provided by the National Association of Realtors https://www.nar.realtor/cell-phone-towers
go as high as -20% impact.
Another resource: https://ehsciences.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Cell-Towers-Drop-Property-Values.pdf Conservatively estimating only half of the homes on our block being directly affected (16 of the 32 homes), the eastern half of the block that is closer to the Church property, total impact in today's dollars would be $2.8-5.6M. If you include the homes in the western half, the impact only multiplies. More details are in the following mail.
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 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
<1761342614404blob.jpg>