Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-08 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: ¯ ~HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTN:POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES DATE: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 8, 2000 CMR:454:99 STATUS REPORT ON TECHNICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH ESTABLISHING AN ERUV This is an information report and no Council action is required. This report is a companion report to one prepared by the City Attorney report, also in this packet. BACKGROUND In May 1999, Council directed staff to consider the feasibility and lawfulness of establishing an eruv in Palo Alto and referred the item to the Policy and Services Committee discussion. Rabbi Yitzchok Feldman, representing Congregation Emek Beracha, originally proposed the construction of an eruv. His proposal consists of the identification of 23 sites within the city that require "linking" and a proposal for each site. At six of these sites, Rabbi Feldman has provided two possible locations for the installation of the eruv. The linking mefhods at each location include using existing utility poles, modifying existing poles, and installing new poles. The linking mechanism consists of twine strung on either new or existing poles. The purpose of an eruv is to integrate a number of private and public properties into one larger private domain. Among the restrictions accepted by Orthodox Jews are the prohibitions of carrying objects from public domains to private domains and vice versa, and the carrying within a public domain. Public domains are non-residential areas including streets, thoroughfares, and plazas ("open areas"). Private domains are residential areas such as homes and apartments, i.e. enclosed areas and areas surrounded by a "wall" that can be deemed as "closed off’ from the surrounding public domains. An eruv permits individuals within the eruv district to move objects in a larger private domain. This would allow Orthodox Jews who are traditionally limited to the home to perform more activities on the Sabbath. CMR:454:99 Page 1 of 5 DISCUSSION In early September, representatives from Public Works Engineering and the Utilities Department performed a detailed field survey of each of the 23 locations described in the eruv proposal, assessing among other factors the following: Location of each site Type of structures involved Jurisdiction in which each structure resides Ownership of the structures Potential structural impact of the proposal may pose Existing or. required private easements Maintenance requirements Whether the structure is within an underground district During the data collection process, a reasonable attempt was made to determine the ownership, jurisdiction, and easement status of each structure; however, a detailed review of property ownership records was not performed. There may be private property ownership issues in 11 locations. If the proposal were pursued further, it would be necessary to perform more extensive research to determine property ownership and jurisdiction. Should the proposal move forward, staff recommends that the church be responsible for identifying property ownership at each location and securing the permission of each owner. A summary of the findings follows. In order to summarize the data collected, all possible locations have been counted together resulting in 29 total locations (23 sites, 6 of which have 2 alternates). More detailed information can be found in Attachment A. Of the 29 locations: 15 have CalTrans involvement (ownership and/or jurisdiction) 14 have Santa Clara Valley Water District involvement (ownership and/or jurisdiction) 11 have City of Palo Alto involvement (including 15 utility poles) 5 may have Stanford involvement (ownership and/or jurisdiction) 23 may have some structural concern 20 have maintenance concerns (primarily tree trimming) 16 are within an underground district 11 may have private easement issues 10 involve attachment to bridges = 52% = 48% = 38% = 17% = 79% = 69% =55% = 38% = 34% As a result of the field survey, the following public safety concerns were raised: CMR:454:99 Page 2 of 5 There are various traffic problems that the eruv and its construction would pose. These problems include traffic impact from the installation of the eruv on bridges and other narrow two lanes roads, possible pole failure if a vehicle snagged the broken twine, and the potential for accidents from vehicles trying to avoid the broken twine. °Maintenance of the eruv will be a continuous project since approximately 69 percent of the proposed locations for the eruv will require some form of tree trimming on an ongoing basis. In addition, outside contractors may not understand the purpose of the twine when performing trimming duties leading to more breakage. More importantly, any poles set next to San Francisquito Creek may pose an impediment for emergency creek cleaning during storm/flood situations. o Depending on the conductive nature of the twine used, there is a possibility that if one end of the twine was wet and was blown into high voltage lines and the other end made contact with a person on the ground, it could cause electric shock or bums. Because of this very serious concern, it would be necessary for the applicant to provide more detailed information regarding the nature of the proposed twine as well as what sort of qualifications the contractor performing the installation and. maintenance would have. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has set strict guidelines concerning the qualifications of any person working on utility poles or near high voltage lines. The CPUC Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction (Rule 34 - Foreign Attachments) is the governing document for utility poles and lines and is included as Attachment B. There are clearance issues that need to be resolved on each proposed utility pole connection. Each pole accommodates between one and three separate utilities, each of which has their own area of ownership on the pole and minimum clearances. Aside from obtaining permission from each owner, the contractor performing the installation must maintain these clearances. In some cases, this may pose a problem due to minimum vertical clearance for vehicular traffic. o There are various CAL-OSHA regulations as well as a City ordinance regarding the placement of poles and overhead lines within a designated underground utility district. As the proposal stands, there are several situations where new poles supporting the eruv are to be installed in an existing underground district. PAMC section 12.16 030 generally prohibits overhead lines within underground utility districts. While there may be an applicable exception (See section 12.16.050), installing poles and hanging wires within underground utility districts seems clearly inconsistent with City policy. CMR:454:99 Page 3 of 5 Considerations that need to be made, should the City Council eventually direct staff to process with construction of the eruv include: The eruv should not encroach into the Utilities Department’s space or climbing space on any telephone pole. The Utilities Department’s space on each pole is reserved for electric and telecommunication facilities only, and the climbing space must be kept free from obstacles to protect worker safety. Because of these concerns, a detailed set of plans and specifications for each location will be required of the applicant. The Palo Alto Municipal Code for Underground Utility Districts may need to be modified to allow the eruv or the route for the eruv must be adjusted so that it does not pass through existing underground utility districts. The applicant will need to obtain permission from al! joint owners of the affected utility poles. Since the placement of the twine on a utility pole is a violation of the CPUC General Order No. 95 [Rule 34 Foreign Attachments] Safety Rule, the applicant must also obtain a waiver from the CPUC. 4.Finally, if approved, the burden of determining ownership and jurisdiction as well as the permitting process should be assigned to the applicant and/or its contractor. RESOURCE IMPACT Workload impact Staff resources will have to be diverted from other work duties accommodate the permitting and construction requirements of this project. or priorities Maintenance Requirements The City will have to take extra time and care in the regular maintenance Of its facilities, particularly utility poles and public trees, in order to minimize potential damage to the eruv. For example, pole line clearing around trees is an annual routine maintenance project that will be impacted by the presence of the eruv. The tree- trimming workers will have to take extra care in tree trimming to avoid breaking the twine, as will the electrical workers when working on pole maintenance. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The construction of an eruv within Palo Alto presents two significant policy implications: that is, the allowance of a private attachment on a public facility/utility pole and the construction of poles with overhead lines within an underground utility district, both of which would require an amendment to the City’s ordinance and a waiver from the CPUC. CMR:454:99 Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: ERUV Analysis Attachment B: CPUC Rules P~epared By: James Harrington, Senior Engine6r Larry Starr, Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering and Operations Legal Review: Ariel Calonne, City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD(S): /~/~. ~ GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works ,/ /t.’)irector of Utilities CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~. ~ ~ I- SON Assistant City Manager CMR:454:99 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A October 15, 1999 PHYSICAL ANALYSIS OF PROSOSED ERUV Eruv Proposal R~bbi Yitzchok Feldman, representing Congregation Emek Beracha, has proposed the construction of an Eruv for the City of Palo Alto. This proposal consists of the identification of 23 sites within the City that require "linking" and a proposal for each site. At 6 of these locations, Mr. Feldman has provided 2 possible locations. The linking methods at each location vary from using existing poles to modifying existing poles to installing new poles. Analysis of Proposal In early September, representatives from Public Works Engineering and Utilities Electric performed a detailed field survey of each of the 23 locations described in the Eruv proposal. The survey consisted of a site visit from which the following information was recorded: ¯Location of the site ¯Type of structures involved ¯Jurisdiction in which each structure resides ¯Ownership of the structures ¯Potential structural impact that the proposal may pose ¯Existing or required private easements ¯Maintenance requirements ¯Whether the structure is within an underground district ¯Additional comments about the location which may impact the proposal During the data collection process, a reasonable attempt was made to determine the ownership, jurisdiction, and easement status of each structure, however, a detailed review of property ownership records was not performed. In several locations it will be necessary to perform more extensive research to exactly determine property ownership and jurisdiction so that permits can be obtained from the correct agencies. A total of 11 locations had private property ownership issues. If the proposalwere pursued further, staff would recommend the church be responsible for identifying property ownership at each location and for securing the permission of each owner. Results of Analysis The results of the field survey can be seen on the report titled ERUV ANALYSIS (Attachment A). In order to summarize the data collected, all of the locations have been counted together creating 29 total locations.(23 locations, 6 of which have 2 alternates). A summary of the fmdings follows: 29 Total Locations 15 locations have CalTrans involvement (ownership and/or jurisdiction) 14 locations have SCVWD involvement (ownership and/or jurisdiction) 11 locations have CPA involvement (ownership and/or jurisdiction) 5 locations may have Stanford involvement (ownership and/or jurisdiction) 23 locations may have some structural concern 20 locations have maintenance concerns (primarily tree trimming) 16 locations are within an underground district 11 locations may have private easement issues 10 locations involve attachment to bridges = 52% = 48% = 38% = 17% = 79% = 69% = 55% = 38% = 34% Concerns As a result of the field survey, various public safety concerns were raised. The following is a list of these concerns: Poles set next to San Francisquito. Creek may pose an impediment for emergency creek cleaning during storm/flood situations. If the Eruv broke, it is possible that the twine could cause a traffic accident from vehicles trying to avoid it. o Is it possible that if a vehicle snagged a broken portion of the Eruv, could it pull down the other attached pole? °There may be serious traffic impacts from the installation and maintenance of the poles and Eruv. Since many of the proposed poles are next to or proposed to be attached to bridges, most of which are two lanes, emergency vehicles and normal traffic will be impacted. o Maintenance of the Emv will be a continuous project. Approximately 69% of the proposed locations for the Eruv will require some form of tree trimming on an ongoing basis. If tree trimming is not performed on a regular basis, the trees will eventually cause the Eruv to break. In addition, outside contractors may not understand the purpose of the twine when performing trimming duties leading to more breakage. o If the twine is of such a conductive nature, especially if it got wet, that if one end was blown into high voltage lines and the other end made contact with a person on the ground could it cause electric shock or bums? Because of this very serious concern, it is required that the applicant provide more detailed information regarding the nature of the proposed twine. What sort of qualifications will the contractor performing the installation and maintenance have? There are very strict guidelines set by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) concerning the qualifications of any person working on utility poles or near high voltage lines. The CPUC PULES for Overhead Electric Line Construction is the governing document and can be found in Attachment B. There are clearance issues that need to be resolved on each proposed utility pole connection. Each pole accommodates between 1 and 3 separate utilities, each of which has their own area of ownership on the pole and minimum clearances. Aside from obtaining permission from each owner, the contractor performing the installation must maintain these clearances. In some cases, this may pose a problem due to minimum clearance for vehicular traffic. 9~There are various CAL-OSHA regulations as well as City ordinance regarding the placement of overhead lines within a designated underground utility district. As the proposal stands, there are several situations where new poles supporting the Eruv are to be installed in an existing underground district. Conclusion The use of bridges and other public structures for this private project may be precedent setting. If attachments are made to public structures, there is a risk of damage to those structures. This damage, however minor, must be repaired and monitored by the City. Therefore, the following is recommended: The City disallow the private use of these public facilities; instead, if approved, the Eruv should be installed using new poles set next to the public structures. If approved, the Eruv shall not encroach into the Utility Department’s space or climbing space on any telephone pole. The Utility Department’s space on each pole is reserved for telecommunication facilities only, and the climbing space must be kept free from obstacles to protect worker safety. Because of these concerns, a detailed set of plans and specifications for each location must be submitted. °If approved, the Muni Code for Underground Utility Districts will need to be modified to allow the Eruv or the route for it adjusted so that Eruv does not pass through existing Underground Utility Districts. The Muni Code states, ’~Nhenever any area of the city is declared to be an underground utility district, it is unlawful for any person or utility to maintain any pole, overhead line or associated overhead structure within the district after the date of when the utilities are required to be removed". If approved, the applicant must obtain permission from all joint owners of the affected utility poles. Since the placement of the twine on a utility pole is a violation of the CPUC GO 95 Safety Rule, the applicant must also obtain an exception to the GO95 Safety Rule. o Finally, if approved, the burden of further ownership and jurisdictional determination as well as the permitting process be assigned to Congregation Emek Beracha and/or their contractor. The Eruv proposal will involve at least 4jurisdictional organizations and is quite complex. There are many issues to be resolved and will take a significant amount of planning and logistics. If approved, extensive communication, careful planning, and attention to detail must be utilized to successfully complete this project. Attachment A: ERUV ANALYSIS Attachment B: CPUC RULES for Overhead Electric Line Construction ATTACHMENT A LOCATION # 1 Street location - Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Woodland Ave./Wall along 101and San Francisquito Cr. Proposed pole Telephone pole Proposed pole attached to existing fence pole Next to 101 soundwall Albprox. 1’ from 101 soundwall San. Francisquito cr~gk bank N/A CPA SCVWD CPA (possibly CalTrans also) CPA (possibly CalTrans also) SCVWD No No No Possible tree trimming (private oak) No CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, ’see notes 1,2, & 3. Twin~ will go through private Oak tree from telephone pole along 101 to proposed new pole along creek bank. Tree will have to be trimmed. LOCATION #2 Street location Newell and San Francisquito Cr. Type of structures involved Proposed pole Proposed pole Location of structures Corner of concrete bridge railing Corner of concrete bridge railing Ownership of structures SCVWD SCVWD Jurisdiction SCVWD ........ SCVWD Private easement No No Maintenance impact Possible tree trimming ....... Existing underground district?Yes " Utilities - Electric Comments None PWE Comments Poles foundation will be in sacked concrete at side of concrete bridge railing about 6’ below grade. Could hamper creek cleaning (emergency or routine). Could Eucalyptus trees be used? LOCATION #3 Street location ~ Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures .... Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments University and San Francisquito Cr.. Proposed pole attached to concrete bridge railing. Proposed pole attached to steel bridge railing. Comer of concrete bridge railing. In midspan Of steel bridge railing. SCVVVD SCVWD SCVVVD SCVWD No No Private tree trimming on N side. Yes None S side: 2 conduits- 1, 2" just below bridge deck; 1, 10" ~3’ below grade. N side: grade is ~4’ below deck, private tree needs to be trimmed, concrete railing has spalling, cracking, and reinforment showing. LOCATION #4 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Chaucer and San Francisquito Cr. Proposed pole Proposed pole Next to concrete bridge railing. Next to concrete bridge railing. SCVVVD SCVWD SCVWD SCVVVD No No Tree trimming required on both sides. No None Concrete bridge railing is continuous and slopes back toward creek - may make attachment difficult. Many trees to deal with on E. side, pole will have to be mounted in sacked concrete, bridge found, may be an issue. LOCATION #5 Street location Middlefield and San Francisquito Cr. - Type of structures involved Proposed pole over existing fence post on E side. Existing tele pole on E side of Middlefield Existing light pole Proposed pole on W side of Middlefield Location of structures Parallel to Middlefield, ~10’ off road Parallel to Middlefleld, ~2’ off road E side of Middlefield in planter strip Next to creek bank Ownership of structures SCVWD CPA (?) CPA SCVWD Jurisdiction SCVWD CPA (?)/PG&E CPA SCVWD Private easement No Maintenance impact Tree trimming. Existing underground district?Yes Utilities - Electric Comments CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1&3. PWE Comments Designated truck route, possible conflict with pine tree from tele to light, significant problem at creek bank for new pole. Poison oak at fence post and tele pole. LOCATION #6 Street location El Camino Real and San Francisquito Type of structures involved Proposed pole Existing light pole Prop£sed pole Location of structures E side of ECR, next to bridge railing. In middle of ECR W side of ECR, next to bridge railing. Ownership of structures SCVWD CalTrans SCVWD Jurisdiction SCVWD CalTrans SCVWD Private easement No Maintenance impact None Existing underground district?Yes Utilities - Electric Comments None PWE Comments Want to strap the 2 new pole to the bridge railings. LOCATION #7 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Sand Hill Rd and San Francisquito Cr. Proposed pole Existing tele pole N side of bridge, next to railing. S side of Sand Hill. SCVWD SCVWD (?) SCVWD SCVWD (?) No Possible tree trimming. No None Pole on N side must be very long and need big foundation to be installed in creek bank; cannot tell where new pole could be placed. LOCATION #8 Street location Junipero Serra and Page Mill Rd. Type of structures involved Existing tele pole Proposed pole over existing fence post Location of structures S side of Page M., 100 m W of Serra N side of Page M., 100 m W of Serra Ownership of structures CPA Stanford (7) Jurisdiction CPA, CalTrans, Stanford Private easement No Possibly Stanford Maintenance impact None Existing underground district?No Utilities - Electric Comments CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1,2, &3. PWE Comments Should use guy pole due to 12,000 volt lines on shown tele pole. Twine will have to go very high to avoid PacBell portion. LOCATION #9- Alternative # 1 Street location Foothill Expressway across from Xerox Type of structures involved Proposed pole over existing fence post Proposed pole over existing fence post Location of structures Both sides of Page Mill, ~500m S of Foothill/Page Mill intersection. Ownership of structures CalTrans/Stanford? (fence) CalTrans/Stanford? (fence) Jurisdiction CalTrans/Stanford CalTrans/Stanford Private easement Possibly Stanford Maintenance impact Possible tree trimming. Existing underground district?Yes Utilities - Electric Comments None PWE Comments No preference between AIt. #1 or #2. LOCATION #9- Alternative #2 Street location Foothill Expressway by fence to Xerox Type of structures involved Proposed "archway" Location of structures W side of Foothill, "archway" from existing fence on FH to Xerox’s fence. Ownership of structures CaITrans/Stanford? (fence) Jurisdiction CaITrans/Stanford/Xerox Private easement Possibly Stanford / Xerox Maintenance impact Possible tree trimming, Ioc. Is unclear Existing underground district?Yes Utilities - Electric Comments None PWE Comments No preference between AIt. #1 or #2. LOCATION #10 - Alternative #1 Street location .......... Type of structures inv’~lved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Hillview and Foothil Expressway Proposed pole over existing fence post Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing light pole E side of Foothill (close to Miranda) E side of Hillview (corner, N side Hill.) E side of Foothill (corner, S side Hill.) E side of Foothill (corner, S side Hill.) CaITrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans No No Yes None Requires 1 new pole. LOCATION # 10 - Alternative #2 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Hillview and Foothill Expressway Proposed pole over existing Xerox (?) fence. Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing light pole W side Foothill W side Foothill (corner, N side Hill.) W side Foothill (corner, S side Hill.) E side Foothill (corner, S side Hill,) E side Foothill CaITrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans Possibly Xerox Possible tree trimming at Xerox fence. Yes None Requires I new pole. LOCATION # 11 - Alternative # 1 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact .......Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Proposed pole over existing fence post. Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing light pole Proposed pole Fence on W side Miranda (along Foothill) E side of Foothill (Miranda side) W side of Foothill In island at intersection of Oakhill & Arastradero S "comer" of intersection of Oakhill & Manuela Next to beige wall at S corner Oakhill & Manuela CPA (Stanford?) CalTrans CalTrans CPA CPA CPA (?) CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CPA CPA?/Private? Possibly on Private Prop. Possible tree trimming Yes CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1&3. Unclear about area around "peach-colored" wall, may be private easement. LOCATION # 11 - Alternative #2 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Commems Foothill Expressway and Arastradero- Proposed pole over existing fence post Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing light pole Proposed pole End of fence along W side of Miranda near Arastradero N "Corner" of Miranda & Arastradero N "Corner" of Miranda & Arastradero near Foothill W corner of Foothill & Arastradero, in island area. In island at intersection of Oakhill & Arastradero. S "corner" of intersection Oakhill & Manuela Next to beige wall at S corner Oakhill & Manuela CPA CPA CPA/CalTrans? CalTrans CPA CPA CPA (?) CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CPA CPA?/Private? Possibly on Private Prop. Possible tree trimming Yes CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1&3. Unclear about area around "peach-colored" wall, may be priv. easement. LOCATION #12 Street location Type of structures involved Location of smactures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Manuela and Congregation Kol Emeth Proposed pole Proposed pole Existing private light pole Existing private light pole Existing private light pole Next to fence on W side of Manuela In landscaped area in front of Kol Emeth Light pole in Kol Emeth parking lot Light pole in Kol Emeth parking lot Light pole in Kol Emeth parking lot next to Foothill Expy CPA/Pdvate? CPA/Pdvate? Private Private Private CPA/Pdvate? CPA/Pdvate? Private Private Private Possibly on Private Prop. Possibly on Private Prop. Yes Yes Yes Maintenance impact Tree trimming required along Manuela Existing underground district?Yes Utilities - Electric CommentsNone PWE Comments The proposed poles along Manuela may be in CPA easement or on private property. LOCATION # 13 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Kol Emeth Wall to Miranda Existing private pole Proposed pole over existing fence post Lamp post in Kol Emeth parking lot near Foothill Expy wall. Fence along Foothill Expy, across from Kol Emeth. Private CalTrans (Stanford?) Private CalTrans No None No None Light pole in Kol Emeth pkg lot will have to be extended up to get clearance to cross Foothill, it looks too low right now. LOCATION # 14 - Alternative # 1 Street location _ Type of structures involved Location of structures "Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments El Camino Real and Adobe Creek Proposed pole Proposed pole W side El Camino Real, attached to concrete wall E side El Camino Real, attached to concrete wall SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD No None Yes/combination .......... CPU~ & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1, 2, &3. Possible to mount poles next to concrete walls w/o attachment to concrete. LOCATION # 14 - Alternative #2 Street location Type of structures involved "Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments El Carnino Real and Adobe Creek Existing tele pole Existing light pole Existing light pole Proposed pole Next to Adobe Creek E side of ECR W side of ECR E side ECR, attached to concrete wall Joint ownership (CPA, PacB,etc.) CalTrans CalTrans SCVWD SCVWD CalTrans CalTrans SCVWD Possible (adj. business) No No No Tree {rimming required ........ Yes/combination None PWE Comments Possible to mount pole next to concrete wall w/o attachment to concrete. Unclear about "link" to creek bank from existing tele. pole. LOCATION # 15 Street location Pedestrian crossing of Adobe and Wilke - Type of structures involved Existing tele pole Existing tele pole Location of structures s side of Adobe Creek N side of Adobe Creek Ownership of structures CPA (joint pole) CPA (joint pole) Jurisdiction SCV~D CPA Private easement No Maintenance impact Possible tree trimming Existing underground district?No Utilities- Electric Comments ~CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1,2, &3. PW’E Comments Connection between existing tele poles. LOCATION # 16 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Wilke Ave. and W. Charleston Existing tele pole Existing tele pole SE corner of Wilke and W.Charleston NE corner of W~lke and W. Charleston CPA (joint pole) CPA (joint pole) CPA CPA No None No CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1,2, &3. Connection between tele poles, however, molding attached to pole may be a problem. There are no details provided " concerning the molding extending from twine to the ground and there are regulations about what can be attached to poles. LOCATION #17 Street location W. Charleston and Adobe Creek -Type of structures involved Existing tele pole Proposed pole Location of structures N side of Charleston N side of Charleston, next to concrete bridge wall Ownership of structures CPA (joint pole) SCVVVD Jurisdiction CPA SCVWD Private easement Possible (adjacent property) Maintenance impact Tree trimming Existing underground district?No Utilities -Electric Comments CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1,2,&3. PWE Comments None LOCATION # 18 Street location Type of ~tructures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance imp.act Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Middlefield and Adobe Creek Proposed pole Proposed pole W side of Middlefield, against concrete wall E side of Middlefield, against concrete wall SCVWD (bridge) SCVWD (bridge) SCVWD SCVWD No None No None Proposed on E side of Middlefield will probably conflict with cyclone fence gate already mounted next to concrete wall (abutment). LOCATION # 19 - Alternative # 1 Street location - Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Louis Rd. and Adobe Creek Proposed pole Existing tele pole W side of Louis Rd, at conc. bridge wall E side of Loius Rd, at conc. bridge wall SCVWD CPNPacBell (joint pole) SCVWD .... SCVVVD Possible - adjacent residence None No CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1,2,&3. Proposed (new) pole placement appears to be on private property (single family residence) or may be on SCVWD easement. LOCATION # 19 - Alternative #2 Street location Louis Rd. and Adobe Creek Type of structures involved Proposed pole (?) Existing tele pole Existing tele poles Location of structures W side of Louis Rd, at concrete bridge wall E side of Loius Rd, at concrete bridge wall Along Adobe Creek down to E. Bayshore Ownership of structures SCVWD CPA/PacBell (joint pole) SCVVVD Jurisdiction SCVWD SCVVVD SCVWD Private easement Possible - adjacent residence Maintenance impact Unclear - possible tree trimming Existing underground district?No Utilities - Electric Comments None PWE Comments Need clarification on what is meant by usable lines from Louis to E. Bayshore - would this mean that using existing lines would eliminate locations #20 and #21? If so, then CPA would probably prefer to use existing lines to save additional pole installations. Unclear if alternative #2 still requires a new pole at the concreete bridge railing (not stated). LOCATION #20 Street location E. Meadow and Adobe Creek . Type of structures involved Proposed pole Proposed pole Location of structures W side of E. Meadow, next to concrete bridge wall E side of E. Meadow, next to concrete bridge wall Ownership of structures SCVWD SCVWD Jurisdiction SCVWD SCVWD Private easement No Maintenance impact None Existing underground district?No Utilities - Electric Comments None PW-E Comrnents There is room to mount poles next to bridge railing, however, there is a large (18") pipe next to the E side railing which may conflict. LOCATION #21 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures W. Bayshore and Adobe Creek Existing tele pole Existing light pole Existing light pole Proposed pole W side of W Bayshore W side of W Bayshore (towards Loral) W side of W Bayshore (towards Loral) E side ofW Bayshore ~2’ from 101 fence CPA CPA CPA CPA SCVWD (?) CPA CPA CaITrans (State, 101) No Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Tree trimming required. Existing underground district?Both Utilities - Electric Comments CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1, 2, & 3.. PWE Comments Long reach from 1st - 2nd light poles. Proposed small pole next to 101 fence may conflict with light pole foundation - can use existing fence post? LOCATION #22- Alternative #1 Street location Oregon Expressway and Hwy 101 - Type of structures involved Existing light pole Existing light pole Existing fence Location of structures S side of Oregon,-near SB 101 on ramp N side of Oregon Expy, near SB 101 off ramp N side of Oregon Expy, near SB 101 off ramp Ownership of structures CalTrans CalTrans CaITrans Jurisdiction CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans Private easement No Maintenance impact Possible tree trimming Existing underground district?Yes Utilities - Electric Comments None PWE Comments Need to clarify how ~ine will go from N light pole to fence. If a longer pole is used for the fence, then the fence pole foundation needs strengthening. LOCATION #22 - Alternative #2 Street location Oregon Expressway and Hwy 101 Type of structures involved Existing fence post Existing fence post Location of structures S side of Oregon, even w/N side pole N side of Oregon, ~beginning of pedestrian bridge Ownership of structures CalTrans CaITrans Jurisdiction CalTrans CalTrans Private easement No Maintenance impact Possible tree trimming Existing underground district?Yes Utilities - Electric Comments None PWE Comments None LOCATION #23 Street location Type of structures involved Location of structures Ownership of structures Jurisdiction Private easement Maintenance impact Existing underground district? Utilities - Electric Comments PWE Comments Embarcadero Rd. and Hwy 101 Existing tele pole Existing fence post N side Embarcadero,W corner of Woodland & Embarcadero N side Embarcadero, E corner of Woodland & Embarcadero CPA CalTrans CPA CalTrans No Tree trimming required No CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes 1,2, &3. None UTILITY - ELECTRIC COMMENTS 1. CPUC - G.O. 95 Rules for overhead Line Construction Rule 34 Foreign Attachements These issues need to be addressed prior to installation of ERUV - Permission - Approvals - Supports o Climbing space -Clearances o Vertical clearances 2. CaI-OSHA - Title 8. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Article 37, Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity of Overhead Lines These issues need to be addressed concerning the installation and maintenance of ERUV. -Proximity to overhead lines -Clearances required from overhead lines -Notification to Operators of High-Voltage lines -Exemptions - Qualified electrical workers 3. General Safety - Regarding safety to the Public - If the twine breaks and one end is still attached to a street light pole: If the twine gets snared by a moving vehicle, is it so strong that the pole could be pulled down causing a hazardous condition to other vehicle or pedestrian traffic? -Is the twine of such a conductive nature, especially if it gets wet, that: If one end were to be blown into high voltage lines and the other end made contact with a person on the ground, could it cause electric shock or burns? ARASTRADERO AB15600b Eruv - Technical Evaluation Eruv Locations I Dwg No: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Attachment page I of 5 Overhead RULES FOR Electric Line Construction Prescribed by the PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OFTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL ORDER No. 95 1998 PHce $20.00 (Including G:O. 128 m~.d 165) For copies, v’rite to: Documents. California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco. CA 94102. Telephone: (415) 703-1713 Attachment page 2 of 5 Rule 34-Ala Where more than two sets of lightning arresters on supply circuits of the same voltage classification are installed on a pole or structure, and their ground terminals-are interconnected at the top of the ground connections, two complete and effective ground connections will be considered sufficient for the purposes of this rule. Connection to an effectively grounded cable sheath or conduit of a circuit protected by the lightning arresters will be considered as one of these two effective ground connections. Note:Revised March 29, 1966 by Decision No. 70489, August 9. 1966 by Decision No. 71094 and October 9, 1996 by Resolution SU-40. 34 Foreign A.ttachments Nothing in these rules shall be construed as permitting the unauthorized attachment, to supply, street light or communication poles or structures, of antennas, signs, posters, banners, decorations, wires, lighting fixtures, guys, ropes and any other such equipment foreign to the purposes of overhead electric line construction. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring utilities to grant permission for such use of their ¯overhead facilities; or permitting any use of joint poles or facilities for such permanent or temporary construction without the consent of all parties having any ownership whatever in the poles or structures to which attachments may be made; or granting authority for the use of any poles, structures or facilities without the owner’s ¯ or owners’ consent. All permanent attachments must be approved by the Commission (see Rule 15.1) and the owner(s) ihvolved. All temporary attachments shall be restricted to installations where the period is estimated to be one year or less. The utilities, or other governmental entities may require construction standards which are more restrictive than the requirements of this Rule 34. The following rules shall apply to approved temporary foreign attachments installed on climbable poles and Structures and shall be maintained as required by Rule 12.2. A Supports (1) Messengers and Span Wires: Messengers and Span Wires (when used under the definitions of Rules 21.11 and 22.9 respectively) may be used as supports when the following requirements are met: (a) Material and Size Requirements: See Rule 49.7 Messengers and Span Wires, III-13 January 1997 Attachment page 3 of 5 (b) Sectionalizing Requirements: Insulators shall be installed in all messen- gers and span wires, when used within the scope of this rule, and shall be lo- cated at a distance of notless than 6 feet and not more than 9 feet, measured along the messenger or span wire, from the points of attachment to the poles or structures. Sectionalizing insulators shall meet the requirements of Rules 56.8 and 86.8. (c) Attachments: Messengers and span wires shall be attached to poles with through bolts and sha. I1 be protected by the use of guy thimbles or their equiv- alent where attached to the through bolts. Steel pole bands or their equivalent shall be used for steel and concr.e.t.e poles. In no case shall any apparatus (decorations, banner, wire, cable, lights, i~tc.) be supported by the utilities’ or licensees’ conductors, cables, messengers, span wires or guys. (2) Rope: Rope may be used as a support for batmers and decorations for short periods of time (to be determined by the granting authority) when the following conditions are met: (a) Only non-energized banners and decorations shall be supported with rope. (b) The rope must be securely tied to the pole or structure with all excess rope removed and must not contact or obstruct any pole steps. (c) The rope must supply a safe triinimum working load strength of 200 pounds, which is equivalent to 3/8 inch manila rope. (3) Apparatus Supported on Brackets Attached to Poles: All attachments supported on brackets with a supply voltage of 0 - 750 volts shall meet the re- quirements of Rules 58.5-B and 92.1-F5. B Climbing Space All apparatus shall be inst’alled outside of climbing space. EXCEPTION: When temporary pole bands or ropes are used to support attachments, the bands or ropes shall be limited to 6 inches in width with no more than one band or width of rope allowed in any 24 inch section of climbing space. Note: Revised October 9, 1996 by Resolution $U-40. C Clearances (1) Messengers and Span Wires: (a) Messengers: Messengers supporting energized apparatus, insulated wires or cables, etc. shall meet the clearance requirements of Rule 57. January 1997 III-14 Attachment page 4 of 5 Rule 34-G (b) Span Wires: Span w~res supporting non-energized equipment (banners, decorations, etc.) shall meet the clearance requirements of Rule 56. (2) Energized Apparatus: All energized apparatus (decorations, wire, cable, lights, etc.) shall maintain the same clearances from conductors as those re- quired for 0 - 750 volt service drops (’Table 2, Column D, and Rule 54.8). (3) Non.Energized Apparatus, Vertical and Radial Clehrances: (a) A minimum vertical clearance of 6 feet below any energized conductor level shall be maintained to any part of attachments supporting non-ener- gized equipment. (b) A minimum radial clearance of 1 foot shall be maintained from any street light and its supporting fmtures. (c) A minimum radial clearance of 1 foot shall be maintained from all com- munication cables and messengers. (4) Miscellaneous Equipment: A minimum radial clearance of 1 foot shall be maintained from any supply or communication device (power supply cabinets~ communication drop distribution terminals, switch enclosures, operating equip- ment, etc.) where access may be required by workers. To ensure access and op- eration a greater clearance may be required by the utility or licensee involved. D Vertical Clearance Requirements above Thoroughfares, Ground, etc. Vertical clearance requirements as in..Ru!e 37, Table 1, Column B, Cases 1 to 5 inclusive, shall be maintained. E Vertical and Lateral Runs For the requirements of vertical and lateral runs of conductors see Rule 54.6. F Energized Conductor (Wire or Cable) All energized conductor (wire or cable) shall be covered with an insulation suitable for the voltage involved (See Rule 20.8-G). G Guying Where mechanical loads imposed on poles or structures exceed safety factors as specified in Rule 44, or at the request of the granting authority, additional stren~h shall be provided by the use of guys or other suitable construction. When guying is required, refer to Rules 56 and 86 for applicable requirements. Note: Revised November 6,1992 by Resolutior. No. 5U-!5. 1II-15 January 1997 UL. ¯ § 2946.BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGUI,ATIONS Title 8 (3) Pcmlanent ~r portable ladders, stairways, or other sultahle means shall ~ provided to give safe access I~ th~working space around electri- cal equipment installed on platforms, balconies, mezzanine floors, or in attic or roof r:mnts nr spaces. (d) F.levation oi’i:.xl~.~d, iincrgb’ed Parts. Exposed cncrglzed parts above workspace and above areas where por- son.~ normally walk or stand shall hc m:tintaincd at elevations not less than that required by the following table: VOI.TAGF.EIJ’NA TIONPhase t~ Phase6O I 7500 8 Ii. 6 in.75OI 35.~9 li. 0 in.Over 35k~~9 IL + OA ~.’kvabove 35k~ (el Pas’~agev,ay and ()pen SDace’~. Sultahle harrier,~ or other mean’~ shall hc provided Io ensure thal the ~orkspacc l~r electrical cquipmcnl will n~l be used as a passageway during ~riods when m~r0mlly cncl~scd parts of energized ck~icul cquipmcot a~ cx~scd. (0 lnsmlhdinn of Electrical Equipment in An Outdoor Enclosure. ~crc electrical equipment with cx~scd energized parts is ins~llcd in m~ outdoor cnclosu~, thc cnch~surc shall meet the fifllowing ~equirc- (I) ~c height or fl~c enclosure shall hc a minimum of g feel. totally enclosed. Ex~1~nos: ’lhc hci~l of ~c enclosure shall he not less ~an I 0 l~cl (3 cncr~zcd part is lo~d more ~an 5 feel horiz~m~lly ~om ~c enclosure. (2) ~c enclosu~ shall ~ ~ const~ctcd ~at it c~nol ~ readily clim~d. (3) ~c size ~d l~ation ofo~n~gs ~ fences or similar enclosures shall bc such ~at ~ons arc not liable Io come ~to accidental conmc~ wi~ energlzcd ~rLs or to ~g onduct~ objects ~to contact wi~ ~em. (4) Mc~l gates or d~rs shall ~ grounded or bonded to a grounded me~l enclosure. Metal fences shall ~ grounded as r~u~ed by ~icle 6. 5) Build~s which fom~ pare of ~ enclosure shall have no d~rs or w~dows which ~rmit unintentional access to ~c enclosure. ~erc ~e enclo~re is adjacent to ~d below stai~’ays. F~c e~a~s, b~l- conies, or w~dows, salable ~ards shall bc ~smlled to prevent ~rsons from nmk~g accidental contact with cx~scd energized parts. (g) Work Space. Suiu~ble ~ork space shall be provided a~ut energized electrical cquipmcn! to ~rmit ~c ~Fc o~ration ~:or ma~- ten,co of such c~ipmcn~. NOTI: Au~nril) cited: S~cllon 142.3, l.ah~r Code. Re[~rcncc: Section 142.3.1bur ~ndm~n~ fil~d 12-10-S7; o~r~fiv~ I-~ ~ ~r SS. No. I~ Appendix A NOTE: AU ~ority ci~d: Section 142.3. Labour Code. Re ference: Section 1.12.3. La- bur Cod~. H~STo~’~" 1.Editorial correction of items (’71 ~d (11 ) filed 11-2-83 (’Register 83. No. 2.Amendment filed 6-2--87: operative "/-2-87 (Regis~r 87. No. 3,Repealer flied t 1-"/-92: operative l .-6-93 (Regist~-r 92. No. 50). Appendix B LWE LLNE TOOLS Insulated parts of Live Line T~ls shall have m~u lecturers’ cegifica- riga to withst~,d th~ following minimum tes~: (I) I(~3.(X:~ volts per foot of len~.h for five minutes when the t~l is made of fiberglass: or (2) 75.tXX3 volts l~r foot of lensth for three minutes when the tool is made of wood: or (3) other tests equival~t t~ (t) or (2) above as approp6.ate. Page 398 Nerll_. Auth~rit.’, cited: Sccti~n 142.3. I.abor Ct~,le. Rcl~rcnt~..: Sccth~n 142.3. I,,a.hot Code. i hs’t o~ 1. Amendment filed 12 I(t 87; Ol-~n~tivc I 9 8,~ (Rcglster K:4. No. I I. Appendix C PR OT-EC’I’IVI’~ EQUIPMF.NT Rubber insulating equipment shall ntccl d~c provisions ol’thc Amcrl- can S~icty for Testing and Materials (ASTM}. which is hereby ~corl~- rated b) reference, as follows: I’I’I’~M s’rANDARIJRubber Insulating Glo’,cs ..............................D 120 95 Rubber In~’htin.~ Slatting .......~ .....................D I"/8 93Rubber Insubtin.c Bhnkets .............................D 1048 93 Rubber Insulat~e floods ..............................D ]~9 93 Rubber lnsulatin~ l.inc lion" . ..........................D 1050 " Ruhbcl lnsulalin~ Slcescx .............................D ]O51 94 Not1: Aulht~rit.’, cit,:d: Seclinn 142.3, I.ahor Uc, d~-. Rel~.’renct’: Section 142.a.l.a-hot I. Amendment filed 12 IO 87; o~rative I 9 g~ (Register 8x. No. 2. ~odmcnt filed I I 25 97: o~ratlvc 12 25 97 (Register 97. No. Article 37. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead Lines 0Correctly Article 86) § 2946. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead Lines. (a) General. No ~rson. firm. or corporation, or agent of,same, shall require or permit any employee to perform any function ~ proximity to energized hi~ -voltage l~.es: to enter upon any land. building, or other premises and ther~ engage in any excavation, demolition, construction, repair, or other operation: or to erect, install, operate, or store in or upon such premises ~ny tools, machinery, equipment, materials, or structures (including sea ffolding, house moving, well drilling, pitt driving, orhoist- ing equipment)unless and until danger from accidental contact with said hi~ -voltage lines has been effectively guarded against. ~) Clearances or Safeguards Required. Except where overhead elec- trical dis~ibution ~d transmission lines have been do energized and vis- ibly ~ounded. ~c following provisions shall bc met: ( I ) O~ cr l.ines. The operation, erection, or handling of tools, machin- eD. apparatus, supphcs, or materials¯ or any part thereof, over energized ¯ overhead hi~ voltage lines shall bc prohibited. [~\c-l:.l~nox: I: A~’cra~ w, er energized overhead high voltage lines operat~g CO~ [’orrnanc¢ (A~ Applicable reU~la6ons adm~istered b.~ the Federal As iation Administra- tion. and (B~ Hehcop~r Operat~on~. Article 35, Construction Safety Orders. California AdminisTative Code¯ Title 8. Exc~.~"to’.. 2: To~e: cranes (Hammerhead~ ins~atled not closer than 1,~e mi~i-mum clearances s~t f~r’~ i.n Table 2, whereon the trolley or boom ~avel is con-trolled by l~it s’.~ i~-’s which will prevent ~,"ryine a load over energized over.heed hi.z~-volt.a.~e hr.es or within a horizontal dista~c~ closer than l~e mittirnu~clearan~s set fo~,~ it, Table 2. (2) The opera:ier., erection, handling, or transportation of l~ols, ma- chiner.’,, mateda!s, s:,"uct~res, scaffolds, or L~.e moving o{" any house or o’.’Re: build’..~.~, o: ~-..v ot.~er activity where ~.’ay pa~s of the above or Fa,’. of a.~ em?lo.~ee’s ~d.vwill come closer than the minimum clear- a.-.:es from eae,’.~.z.~ o’,erhead lines as set forth in Table ! shallbe !~’o- hi.’r:ted O~ra:ioz of ~’,.’.:,-..-type equipment shah conform to the m.~imum cleara.nces ~e: for:~’~ i_..~ Table 2. except in trmasit where the boom i~ low- ered and there is r,o load attached, in which ease the distazce~ specified iz Table I sh£1 AttachmentZ’ page 1 of 2 Tffle 8 Electrical Safety Orders § 2951 TABLE 1 , General Cl~arances Required from Energized Overhead HiEA’~-Voltage Conduc- Nominal Voltage Minimum Required (Phase to Phase}"C!earance (Feet) over 50,000 ....345.000 I0over 345,000 ....750.000 16over+750.000 ... 1.000,O00 20 (3) Boom-type lifting or hoisting.equipment. The erection, operation or dismantling of any.boom-type lifting or hoisting equipment, or any part thereof, closer than the minimum clearances from energized over- head high-voltage lines set forth in Table 2 shall be prohibited. (4) Storage. The storage of tools, machinery,equipment,supplies,ma- terials, or apparatus under, by, or near energized overhead high-volt%ze lines is hereby expressly prohibited if at any time during such handling or other manipulation it is possible to bring such tools, machinery, equip- ment. supplies, materials, or apparatus, or any part thereof, closer than the minimum clearances from such lines as set forth in Table 1. (c) The specified clearance shall not be reduced by movement due to any strains impressed (by attachments or otherwise) upon the structures supporting the overhead high-voltage line or upon any equipment, fix. lures, or attachments thereon. (d) Any overhead conductor shall be considered robe energized unless and until the person owning or operating such line verifies that the line is not energized, and the line is visibly grounded at the work site. TABLE 2 Boom-type liftin~ or hoisting equipment clearances required from energized overhead high-voltage lines. Nominal voltage Minimum Required(Phase to Phase}Clearance (Feeq600 .....50.0¢0 10 over 50,0(D ....."/5.000 I lover ."/5,000 ....125,000 13 over 125,000 ....175,000 15 over 175,~00 ....250.000 17over 250,000 ....370,000 21 over 370.(XX) ....550,000 27 over 550.000 ... I,(X)O.OCO 42 NoT~ Authority cited: Section 142.3. Labor Code. Reference: Section 142.3, L~- bor Code. HistoRy 1.Amendment of subsections (b), (c).re~-aler o f subsections (d). (e) and new sub.section (d) filed 8-9-79: effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 79, No.2.Editorial correction renumbedng former Article 86 to Article 37 filed I 1-2-83(Register :g3..No. 45).3. Amendment filed 12-10-87;operative 1-9-88 (Register 88, No. I). § 2947. Warning Signs Required. The owner, agent, or employer responsible for the operations of equip- ment shall post and maintain in plain view of the operator and driver each crane, derrick, power shovel, drilling rig. hay loader, hay stacker. pile driver, or similar apparatus, a durable warning si.ma legible at 12 feet reading: "UnlawfulTo OperateThis Equipment Within lOFeet Of Hi~- Voltage Li.nes of 50.000 Volts Or Less." in addition to the above wording, the following statement in small let- tering shall be provided on the warning si.m: "For Minimum Clearances of High-Voltage Lines In Excess of 50.000 Volts. See California Code of Radiations. Tide 8. Article 37. Hi~-Voltage Electrical Safety Or- den." No~: Authoritycited: Section 142.3.Labor COde. Reference: Section 142.3. La- bor Cede. H~sTO~Y 1. Ar.:er, dment fil.-.d $-9-.79: effective thirtieth day thereafter (’Register 79. Ne 2 E&:.rm! correcuon filed 11-2-83 (Register 83. No. 45). 3. Amendment filed 12-10-..87; operative 1-9-88 (Register 88. No. 11. § ~48. Notification to the Operators of High-Voltage Lines and Responalblllty for 8afoguarda. Wen an.’," of~radons are to be performed, tools or materials handled. or equipment is to be moved or operated within the spec~ed clearances of any energized high-voltage lines, the person orpetsons responsible for the work to be done sh all promptly notify the operatorof the high-voltage line of the work to be performed and shall be responsible for the omple. tion of the safety measures as required by Section 2946 ~) before pro. ceeding with any work which would impair the aforesaid clearance.. Now.: Authority cited: Section 142.3, Labor Code. Reference: So.ion 142.3. La.bor Code. HISTORYI. Editorial correction adding NOTE filed 11-2-83 (Register 83. No. 45).2. Amendment filed 12-10-87; operative I-9-88 (Re~ster Rg. No. 11. §2949. S~clal Exempllon. The provisions of the foregoing Sections 2946 through 2948 Shall not ~ppl.’,’ to the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or operation of an)’ anodized overhead highTvoltage lines or their supporting structures or appurtenances by qualified electrical workers, authorized by the own- er of such lines, norto work performed in proximity to energized over- head high-voltage lines by qualified persons us.ing approved equipment ~d work procedures specified in these orders in accordance with Penal Code Section 385D. Nol"~ Authority cited: Section 1423. Labor Code. Reference: Section 1423, La-bor Code. HISTORY I.Repealer and new section filed 8-9-79; effective th~ieth day there~ter (Reg- ister 79. No. 32). 2. Amendment filed 12-I 0-87; operative I-9-88 (Register88.No. I). Article 38. Line Clearance Tree Trimming Operations (Formerly Article 87) § ’2950. Application. Tais a~icleshall apply to all line clearance tree ~g operations performed in the vicinity of exposed energized overhead Fcrnductors and equipment where any par~ of the employee’s body. tools or equipment be- ing used. or pa.’~s of trees being worked upon. is likely to come within the distances specified in Section 2946(b)(21. Nol~ Addition~l requirements forTree Work, Maintenance or Removal. ~re con- talned in Article 12 of the General Indusu’y Safety Orders.Title g. California Ad- mirdstrative Code. No~: AuthoriK, cited: Section 142.3.Labor Code. Reference: S~ction 1,12.3,bet Cede. HtS’IBRY - I+New Article ~+ ( §§ 2950-2959. not c~nsecutive) l’ded 10-14--75 as an emer-genc+~: effective upon fdmg (Rag.bier 75. No. 421. 2.Ce~ffica+ of Compliance a~ to At+iota 87. except for Sections 2950(e)(21(A).295d,+ fl. ~nd 29.¢5(al(5)(A) filed I-9-76 (Register 76, No+ 21. 3+ Amendment of subsection (e)(2)(A> flied I-9--76 (Regi+ter 76. No.+ 4.Re~ater cf +a.’tJ¢le 87 (Section+ 2950--2959. not conmcutive) and new Article8" (~ction+ 29.¢0-2951 ) filed 8-9.-79; effective thirtiet,~ day t~ereafter (Regis+ tar ",9. No.5+Amendment f+!ed 4--16,-$0 as pr~edural and organizational: effective upon ill.in,~ (Regicide- +~0. No, 16).6.E,~+~tenat correction renumbering former Article 87 to Ar,.icle 38 fried 1 I-2+-83 (R,-’~ i+’.er +,33. No+7.,a.m+ ~dment t~,le.zl t2-10--87: opera’dve l-9-Bg (Register +$. No. t ). § ’29.51. Line Clearance Operations. (.~: Frier te :onmtenciag line clearance tree tri,"mmhag operations, the era?l,:,? er s’.-,a!~ e,-,.sure that an inspection of the work locations is made in. orSe: ’,o idea’.:.".~ potential hazards md a tail gate brie f’mg is conducted to discuss the ~. e.;x procedures to be followed. (’el Or.l? q~.,’.ified line clea,-a.’:ce tree trimmem, or trainees under the di.,ec: su..’v:-. :.::n and instructioc of qualified I.ine clearance tree t,"in:- r:;e.’s, s?.£t ~’e .:x,.’mdtted to peffo,,-.., line clear~ce ,’"ee trimming ope,’-a- tioc.s as desc,;..’,e~ in Section 2950. Under no i:ircumst~ces shall the Attachment B page 2 of 2Page 399 ~:+.,,:+-..,,o ,’. u-: -~"