CC 04-20-2021 Study Session Item No. 1 Small Cell Facilities Permitting Guidelines_Written CommunicationsCC 04-20-21
Study Session #1
Permitting
Guildelines for Small
Cell Facilities within
Public Right-of-Way
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peter Chu <peterchu@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 4:14 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:R Pandit
Subject:Presentation for today's Study Session at 5:30pm
Attachments:Cupertino_ Sensible 5G Deployment Apr 21.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi CityClerk,
My name is Peter Chu and there will be two of us who wish to use these slides at today's meeting.
Since we will each be allotted 3 mins, two of us will speak to the same slides.
Rajul Pandit will be the other speaker. She will cover the first slide on page 2.
I, Peter Chu, will cover the 3rd and 4th slides on page 3 and 4.
Thank you,
Peter Chu
#enough #stopasianhate
Sensible 5G Deployment for
Cupertino- Study Session
Rajul Pandit and Peter Chu
Apr. 20, 2021
Residential Zone installations
must be the last resort
●Pass ordinance for minimum 100’ of distance from residences
○But allow a process for limited permits to accommodate FCC ruling
●To accommodate FCC ruling, City requires carriers to demonstrate their
“need” to invoke right of way to locate cell sites between 60’-100’ or less
than 1500’ from other cell sites of same carrier
○Carrier must formally notify residents before applying for permit
○Must publicly show that all non-residential or more preferred alternatives (Category
1 & 2 sites) have been exhausted
○Update or retrofit the many light poles which are deemed unacceptable alternatives
for reasons such as overhead power lines into the light poles
●Issue provisional permits for upto 3 years for all residential zone sites
○For review as we learn about the regulatory, technology and other impacts
Pass ordinances that are at par with the low end of what other cities are doing
(Los Altos, Mill Valley, Calabasas, Sonoma City, Petaluma, Encinitas)
23 feet from Creekside residence
Guide our City into the Future
with Sensible Leadership
We need maximum density control of cell sites from multiple carriers - because
aesthetically, we would like to avoid the use of every light pole
●Because the number of potential carriers could increase to include TMobile and Sprint
and increase the cell site density by 3X or more.
●Require 1500’ distance for all cell sites from a single carrier - Verizon’s own
statements touts 1500’ range for cell sites.
●Staff has concerns about restricting sites from different carriers to be 500’ apart.
○But there are no legal challenge precedence to other city’s ordinances?
●Consider sharing or co-location of cell site?
●Urge the city to consider underground cell sites as Palo Alto is doing with Crown
Castle (Since Verizon doesn’t have to pay for fiber infrastructure perhaps they can
invest in more advanced and aesthetically pleasing solutions)
Done properly with the support of the residents, many of us welcome 5G to bring new
wireless services to our community
Near Wilson Park
Many CA cities (Los Altos, Mill Valley, Calabasas, Sonoma City, Petaluma, Encinitas) have more stringent 5G
ordinances- why don’t we follow their lead?
Cupertino Residents want
transparency and have input in 5G
rollout
●What would be the residents’ reactions if we informed
everyone that they can expect a 5’ tall cell tower on top
of every light pole in Cupertino?
●Guidelines allow potential sites to be as close as 20’
from residences, which is a huge concern
●Won’t they be concerned about the negative impact on
home values and aesthetics of quality of life?
Petition from 150+ residents want 100’ minimum setback, 500’ distance between
any cell sites, and provisional permits.
Thank you!
Cupertino for Sensible 5G Deployment
Email: Cupertino4Sensible5G@gmail.com
Petition: https://tinyurl.com/3tr8myae