From: Eugene Ho
To: Saurabh Talwar; Thai Nam Pham
Cc: Christine Chen; Jon Kuo; Mohammad Fasiur Rahman; Weifeng Chen; Wais Aubi; Derek Farmer; Tracey Barragan; Swati Sharma; Sunita Goyal; Sooraj Ram;
Anjana Bai; SATISH KUMAR;
Natalie Dean; City Clerk; Saurabh Talwar
Subject: Re: Public Comment - Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Use Permit (UP-25-001) - AT&T Mobility, 32975 Alvarado-Niles Road; Oct. 16 Public Hearing
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:35:50 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
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.
Hi, Thai:
Please add to the the public record an additional written public comment:
The original hearing proposal for Use Permit (UP-25-001), Site Development Review (SD-25-001) - Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church, that was approved during the October 16 Public Hearing, included:
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
The exemption details are here:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I8CE6FB435B4D11EC976B000D3A7C4BC3? viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData= (sc.Default)&bhcp=1
The relevant sections to the exemption are:
Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to:
(c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.
Note, the proposed new Wireless Carrier Facility includes:
... Construction of a New 2,320 Square-Foot Roof-Mounted Enclosure and a 359 Square-Foot ATTACHMENT 12
Equipment Ground-Mounted Enclosure.
So 2,320 + 359 = 2,679 sq. ft., is beyond and exceeds the 2500 sq. ft. allowed for an exemption. So the exemption would be invalid, and the Approval from October 16 should be revoked. Subsequent actions should include all required studies and reports as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, to ensure, as the California Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation states:
... public agencies to “look before they leap” and consider the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions.
Details of the CEQA are here:
https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/
Thank you.
Eugene Ho and Jean Hsien
--
On Monday, November 3, 2025 at 08:16:03 AM PST, Thai Nam Pham < wrote:
Dear Mr. Talwar,
Thank you for your email and for providing the additional signatures and correspondence. The appeal record has already been finalized in accordance with City procedures, and no further names can be added to the list of formal appellants.
Your email and attachments will, however, be included in the public record for tomorrow’s hearing as written public comment and forwarded to the City Council for review.
You and the residents listed are welcome to attend and speak during the public hearing.
Sincerely,
Thai Nam Pham, MMC, CPMC????
City Clerk, City of Union City
Office:510.675.5448
Email:
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City • CA • 94587
www.unioncity.org
Book time to meet with me
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.
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>