HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-25 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN:
FROM:
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 25, 2000 CMR:331:00
TECHNICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH ESTABLISHING
AN ERUV
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Palo Alto Community Eruv, Inc. (PACE) has requested that the City of Palo Alto
approve its proposal to establish an eruv within the City, thereby allowing members of
the Jewish community to perform certain activities not normally allowed during weekly
holy times. The original eruv proposal was to use new poles and existing utility poles to
create the symbolic archways, which will represent a private domain in the eyes of
Jewish authority. The use of utility poles is governed by the California Public Utility
Commission (CPUC) which prohibits foreign attachments. The placement of private
poles on public land is controlled by the City of Palo Alto.
As a result of various meetings between with staff and PACE, an alternative approach to
establishing an eruv has been proposed by adopting specific criteria, which will mitigate
City and CPUC safety concerns and reduce City involvement. This report requests that
City Council approve the criteria as conditions which must be met by PACE in its request
to construct an eruv within Palo Alto.
CMR:331:00 Page 1 of 6
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee:
1)Approve the following criteria as conditions that must be met by the Palo Alto
Community Eruv, Inc. (PACE) in its proposal to construct an eruv in Palo Alto:
1.1 The eruv can utilize existing utility poles, lines, vertical attachments, cable
television contacts or Pacific Bell phone lines if no additions or changes are
required. A painted line may be acceptable in place of a new vertical
attachment if it is placed and maintained in a manner that is approved by all
joint pole owners.
1.2 No foreign attachments to street light poles will be allowed.
Any new poles supporting the eruv shall be placed on private property with
the owner’s written permission.
2)Direct staff to request PACE to submit a proposal for constructing an eruv in Palo
Alto that complies with the above criteria.
3)If PACE submits a proposal in compliance with the above proposal, recommend to
Council that it accepts the proposal and takes the necessary action to approve the
eruvo
BACKGROUND
On February 8 and March 14, 2000, the Policy and Services Committee heard public
comment on and discussed a proposal from PACE to construct an eruv within Palo Alto
(Attachment A: CMR:454:99). Public Works and Utility staff identified a number of
technical concerns including the implication of allowing new private poles or attachments
to existing utility poles to be placed within the public right-of-way, and, in particular,
within an underground utility district. Specific technical issues that were raised by staff
included logistical construction issues, tree maintenance issues, pole location impacts,
vertical and horizontal line-clearance requirements, and concerns about the strength of
the twine.
Staff also identified safety issues relating to the use of twine and the placement of vertical
and horizontal attachments to existing utility and street light poles. This subject is further
described in the Discussion Section of this report.
The City Attorney presented an analysis of the legal issues associated with establishing
an eruv. He advised that City involvement with the eruv would be likely to face a legal_
CMR:331:00 Page 2 of 6
challenge. Although California’s "no preference" clause creates a more stringent
standard for separation of church and state than the federal constitution, the City Attorney
believes the eruv might be created lawfully if adequate, content-neutral policies for
access to public facilities are created. The City Attorney believes that the criteria set
forth in this report greatly reduce the risk that an unlawful preference would be found.
In response to the issues raised by staff, at the March meeting, the Committee directed
staff to:
Request the Eruv Corporation to: a) respond to the technical concerns outlined in
CMR:454:99; b) provide more detailed design specifications for the construction
of the eruv; c) describe the Eruv Corporation’s plan for satisfying the requirements
of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding the placement of
permanent foreign objects on utility poles and/or provide a proposal for the use of
alternative poles in place of utility poles.
Provide a description of the potential City role in the establishment and ongoing
maintenance of the eruv, including an estimate of required staff time and other
resources, and a proposal for reimbursement of City costs from the Eruv
Corporation.
Develop a neutral access policy that specifies criteria for assessing requests for
private use of specified public facilities.
DISCUSSION
On April 18, 2000, staff sent a letter to PACE requesting detailed engineering plans
including alternate twine material, its physical properties, and the exact placement and
attachment method. Also requested was property ownership information at each location
and an alternate proposal that would eliminate the use of private easements and utility
poles.
Staff held several meetings and conversations with PACE representatives to discuss the
City’s request and to seek clarification regarding the eruv proposal. On June 2, staff
received material from PACE that addressed some, but not all of the questions raised in
the request for information. The City and PACE continued to work together through an
interative process of gathering and sharing additional information. In the course of
discussions, PACE further explained its original proposal and suggested new possibilities
for the construction of an eruv in Palo Alto that would address some of staff’s concerns
and still meet the requirements of Jewish law. Consequently, staff’s understanding of
what was being proposed evolved. Likewise, staff more fully explored the rules and
regulations governing the use of the City’s utility poles and sought to clarify and
communicate the City’s concerns to PACE.
CMR:331:00 Page 3 of 6
Through various discussions, some earlier technical concems were mitigated. PACE
clarified that it might be possible to establish an eruv using existing overhead lines on
utility poles provided that a vertical attachment (such as a molding) was established
going up the length of the pole to a termination point under the existing cable. PACE
determined that under this scenario, it would be necessary to erect a limited number of
new poles and link them to existing utility poles if the desired boundary of the eruv was
to be maintained. In addition, PACF agreed not to place any new poles on any City
structure (such as bridges), obtain o~vner permission in writing when placing poles on
private property, and keep the ’number of utility poles to be used to a minimum.
While the above approach reduced utility pole attachments compared to the original
proposal, staff continued to have concerns regarding safety and liability associated with
any foreign attachments to the poles, including the horizontal lines proposed to be
attached to a limited number of utility poles to maintain the proposed eruv boundary and
the vertical attachments or molding up the length of the poles. Any attachment of an eruv
material to a utility pole will be considered non-standard and will not readily be
recognized by workers as part of the normal landscape of a typical utility pole.
Pole safety is governed by the CPUC. According to the CPUC, joint pole owners, such
as the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Bell, must apply for a variance to General Order 95
(GO95), the order which prohibits foreign attachments to utility poles. PACE cannot
approach the CPUC on its own because they do not have standing in the eyes of the
CPUC. Only a utility company may apply for a CPUC variance. PACE representatives
informed staff that they contacted the CPUC and were told that the CPUC would consider
a variance if submitted by a joint pole owner. Staff and PACE representatives have
differing perspectives as to how receptive the CPUC would be to such a request. The
variance process as communicated to City staff by CPUC representatives requires not
only Pacific Bell and the City to apply for the variance, it also requires letters from the
owners’ unions stating support or opposition to the proposal. Prior to drafting a suitable
resolution on the matter, CPUC would seek comments from all investor owned utilities in
California since the resolution, if approved, would be precedent setting.
Utilities Department staff considered the issue thoroughly and concluded that it should
not apply for or support a variance to enable PACE’s proposal to affix twine or another
type of horizontal or vertical attachment to City utility poles. The Utilities Department
has a duty to protect the safety of the public and workers on the poles, including City
utility, cable television and telephone workers from exposure to a foreign attachment
which may lead to serious injury. Visiting personnel from other utilities would be
unaware of the presence of these foreign attachments, potentially resulting in accidents
and injury. Since the CPUC would require the City rather than PACE to apply for
CMR:331:00 Page 4 of 6
variance to G095 safety rules, staff is concerned that the City may become liable for any
problems or accidents associated with the variance.
In addition to the safety concerns, raised above, there are two legal issues to be
considered. The City Attorney has advised that the use of public property by a religious
organization must be authorized through a neutral policy that does not allow preferential
treatment of religious enterprise. In addition, there is a concern that the City’s right of
way and utility easements might not permit other uses, like the eruv. Therefore, staff
prefers that eruv structures not be placed within the City rights-of-way.
In order to mitigate staff’s safety concerns the following criteria regarding the eruv
construction must be met before staff can support the eruv proposal. If these criteria are
established, staff would recommend, from a teclinical standpoint, that the eruv decision
be forwarded to the City Council for approval.
The eruv can utilize existing utility poles, lines, vertical attachments, cable
television contacts or Pacific Bell phone lines if no additions or changes are
required. A painted line may be acceptable in place of a vertical attachment if it is
¯ placed and maintained in a manner that is approved by all joint pole owners.
2.No foreign attachments to street light poles will be allowed.
o Any new poles supporting the eruv shall be placed on private property with the
owner’s written permission.
These points have been communicated to PACE. Staff is aware that following the above
criteria will require PACE to adjust the eruv boundary and may result in a smaller area
included in the eruv. PACE indicated it would be willing to work with a smaller area, but
the vertical elements of the eruv must meet the interpretation of Jewish law. This means
the eruv must have a symbolic unbroken connection that links the painted vertical
portion of the pole with the overhead telephone or electric wires that make up the virtual
twine. According to PACE, an approximately one-foot long device would need to be
attached to the pole, immediately below the identified utility line. This device would be
considered a foreign attachment requiring a variance from the CPUC as previously
discussed and is therefore not supported by staff.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff has expended several hundred hours performing field surveys, conducting research,
attending meetings and preparing this, and earlier reports. Since this item is not an
established Council or staff priority, work to-date has required that staff resources be
redirected from other work duties or Council assignments.
CMR:331:00 Page 5 of 6
If Council decides to approve the establishment of an eruv, staff will return to Council
with recommendations regarding the reprioritization of staff assignments and/or a request
for additional resources as necessary to support whatever City involvement is required.
In the original submittal, the use of twine posed a potemial maintenance and safety
concern to staff and the general public. Under a new proposal following the above stated
criteria, there would be no new "twine" to interfere with normal City maintenance
projects. In addition, PACE has agreed to do all construction and maintenance of the
eruv with no involvement or cost to the City.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
As discussed, the CPUC has an exemption and modification process available to allow
foreign attachments such as the eruv lines and connectors. The original eruv proposal did
not address the need for CPUC exemption. The City Attorney advises that pursuing such
an exemption is likely to be viewed as unlawful preferential treatment. In general,
special or unusual government actions in support of religious activities, even if done for a
secular purpose, are more likely to violate constitutional principles.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines.
ATTACHMENT A: CMR:454:99
PREPARED BY: James Harrington, Senior Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Director
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
firector of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
CMR:331:00 Page 6 of 6
TO:
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN:POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
UTILITIES
DATE:DECEMBER 13, 1999 CMR:454:99
SUBJECT: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
methods 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 W¢.rks 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 altemates). 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.
o
o
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.
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 conc6m, 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.
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.
o 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.
o The applicant will need to 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 General Order No. 95 [Rule 34 Foreign Attachments] Safety Rule, the
applicant must also obtain a waiver from the CPUC.
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 or priorities to
accommodate the permitting and construction requirements of this project.
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
Prepared By: James Harrington, Senior Engineer
Larry Starr, Assistant Director of Utilities
Engineering and Operations
Legal Review: Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
DEPARTMENT HEAD(S):
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Wo~s
/ /Director of Utilities
Assistant City Manager
CMR:454:99 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
October 15, 1999
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS OF PROSOSED ERUV
Eruv Proposal
P~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 proposal were 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 findings 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
Concerns
= 52%
= 48%
= 38%
= 17%
= 79%
= 69%
= 55%
= 38%
= 34%
As a result of the field survey, various public safety concerns were raised. The following
is a list of these concerns:
o
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.
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.
Maintenance of the Eruv 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.
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 RULES for
Overhead Electric Line Construction is the goveming 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, ’~/henever
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".
o .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 4 jurisdictional 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 loc~-;:ion
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
AISprox, 1’ from 101 soundwall
San Francisquito creek bank
N/A
CPA
SCVWD
CPA (possibly CalTrans also)
CPA (possibly CalTrans also)
SCVWD
No
No
No
Possible tree trimming (private oak)
No
CPUC & CAI’-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes
1,2, & 3.
Twine 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
Type of structures involved
Location of structures
Ownership of structures
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
PWE Comments
Newell and San Francisquito Cr.
Proposed pole
Proposed pole
Corner of concrete bddge railing
Corner of concrete bridge railing
SCVWD
SCVVMD
SCVWD
SCVWD
No
No
Possible tree trimming
Yes
None
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.
Corner of concrete bridge railing.
In midspan of steel bridge railing.
SCVVVD
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVVVD
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 b[idge railing.
SCVVVD
SCVWD
SCVVVD
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
Type of structures involved
Location of structures
Ownership of structures
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
PWE Comments
Middlefield and San Frarcisquito Cr.
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
Parallel to Middlefield, -10’ off road
Parallel to Middlefield, -2’ off road
E side of Middlefield in planter strip
Next to creek bank
SCVWD
CPA (?)
CPA
SCVWD
SCVWD
CPA (?)/PG&E
CPA
SCVWD
No
Tree trimming.
Yes
CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes
1&3.
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 Francisquit0
Type of structures involved Proposed pole
Existing light pole
Proposed 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
Type of structures involved
Location of structures
Ownership of structures
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
PWE Comments
Junipero Serra and Page Mill Rd.
Existing tele pole
Proposed pole over existing fence post
S side of Page M., 100 m W of Serra
N side of Page M., 100 m W of Serra
CPA
Stanford (?)
CPA, CalTrans, Stanford
No
Possibly Stanford
None
No
CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes
1,2, & 3.
Should use guy pole due to 12,000 volt lines on shown tele
~ole. Twine will have to go very high to avoid PacBell
3ortion.
LOCATION #9 - 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 across from Xerox
Proposed pole over existing fence post
Proposed pole. over existing fence post
Both sides of Page Mill, ~500m S of Foothill/Page Mill
intersection.
¯ CalTranslStanford? (fence)
CalTrans/Stanford? (fence)
CalTrans/Stanford
CalTranslStanford
Possibly Stanford
Possible tree trimming.
Yes
None
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 CalTrans/Stanford? (fence)
Jurisdiction CalTrans/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 - Altemative # 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
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.)
CalTrans
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
CalTrans
CalTrans
CalTrans
CalTrans
CalTrans
CalTrans
Possibly Xerox
Possible tree trimming at Xerox fence.
Yes
None
Requires 1 new pole.
LOCATION # 11 - Altemafive # 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 "corner" 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
C P A ? lPrivate ?
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 - Altemative #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
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 structures
Ownership of structures
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
PWE Comments
Manuela and Congregation Kol Emeth
’UIE !Proposed pole _
Pro~ed 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
CPNPdvate?
CPAiPrivate?
Private
Private
Private
CPA/Private?
CPA/Private?
Private
Private
Private
Possibly on Private Prop.
Possibly on Private Prop.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tree trimming required along Manuela
Yes
None
The proposed poles along Manuela may be in CPA easement
or on private property.
LOCATION #13
Street location Kol Emeth Wall to Miranda
Type of structures involved Existing private pole
Proposed pole over existing fence post
Location of structures Lamp post in Kol Emeth parking lot near Foothill Expy w.all.
Fence along Foothill Expy, across from Kol Emeth.
Ownership of structures Private
CalTrans (Stanford?)
Jurisdiction Private
CalTrans
Private easement No
Maintenance impact None
Existing underground district?No
Utilities - Electric CommentsNone
PWE Comments 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 El Camino Real and Adobe Creek
Type of structures involved Proposed pole
Proposed pole
Location of structures W side El Camino Real, attached to concrete wall
E side El Camino Real, attached to concrete wall
Ownership of structures SCVWD
SCVWD
Jurisdiction SCVWD
SCVWD
Private easement No
Maintenance impact None
_, Existing underground district?Yes/combination
Utilities - Electric Comments CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes
1,2, &3.
PWE Con’Lments Possible to mount poles next to concrete walls w/o
attachment to concrete.
LOCATION # 14.- Altemative #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
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 trimming required
Yes/combination
None
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
Type of structures involved
Location of structures
Ownership of structures
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
PWE Comments
Pedestrian crossing of Adobe and Wilke
Existing tele pole
Existing tele pole
S side of Adobe Creek
N side of Adobe Creek
CPA (joint pole)
CPA (joint pole)
SCVWD
CPA
No
Possible tree trimming
No
CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes
1,2,&3.
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 0f VV~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
Type of structures involved
Location of structures
Ownership of structures
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
PWE Comments
W. Charleston and Adobe Creek
Existing tele pole
Proposed pole
N side of Charleston
N side of Charleston, next to concrete bridge wall
CPA (joint pole)
SCVWD
CPA ,
SCVWD
Possible (adjacent property)
Tree trimming
No
CPUC & CAL-OSHA Regulations, General Safety, see notes
1,2, &3.
None
LOCATION # 18
Street location Middlefield and Adobe Creek
Type of structures involved Proposed pole
Proposed pole
Location of structures W side of Middlefield, against concrete wall
E side of Middlefield, against concrete wall
Ownership of structures SCVWD (bridge)
SCVWD (b?idge)
Jurisdiction SCVWD
SCVWD
Private easement No
Maintenance impact None
Existing underground district?No
Utilities - Electric Comments None
PWE Comments 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. bddge wall
E side of Loius Rd, at conc. bridge wall
SCVWD
CPNPacBell (joint pole)
SCVWD
SCVWD
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
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
Existing tele poles
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
SCVWD
CPA/PacBell (joint pole)
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
Possible - adjacent residence
Unclear - possible tree trimming
No
None
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
Type of structures involved
Location of structures
Ownership of structures
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
PWE Comments
E. Meadow and Adobe Creek
Proposed pole
Proposed pole
W side of E. Meadow, next to concrete bridge wall
E side of E. Meadow, next to concrete bridge wall
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
No
None
No
None
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
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
PWE Comments
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
CalTrans (State, 101)
No
Tree trimming required.
Both
CPUC & CAL-OSHA Re’gulations, General Safety, see notes
1,2, &3.
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
Type of structures involved
Location of structures
Ownership of structures
Jurisdiction
Private easement
Maintenance impact
Existing underground district?
Utilities - Electric Comments
. PWE Comments
Oregon Expressway and Hwy 101
Existing light pole
Existing light pole
Existing fence
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
CalTrans
CalTrans
CalTrans
CalTrans
CalTrans
CalTrans
No
Possible tree trimming
Yes
None
Need to cladfy how twine will go from N light pole to fence.
a longer pole is used for the fence, then the fence pole
foundation needs strengthening.
If
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
CalTrans
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
-Climbing space
-Clearances
-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
Eruv - Technical Evaluation Eruv Locations
I Dwg No:
AB1 5600b
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Attachment,BI
page I of 5
RULES
FOR
Overhead Electric Line Construction
Prescribed by the
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GENERAL ORDER No. 95
1998
Price $20,00 (Including G.O. 128 and 165)
For copies, write to: Documents, Calit’ornia Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102. Telephone: (415) 703-I 713
Attachment 1~
page 2 of 5
Rule 34-Ala
Where more than two sets of lightning an, esters on supply circuits of the same voltage
classification are installed on a pole or structure, and their ground terminals ~e
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
attesters will be con.~idered as one of these two effective ground connections.
Note:Revised March 29, 1966 by Decision No, 70489, August 9, 1966 by Decision No. "/1094 and October 9, 1996 by
Resolution SU-40.
34 Foreign Attachments
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 consirued 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,
111-13 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 sh.allbe 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~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 asupport for ba.aaers 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 n~inimum 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 insialled outside of climbing space.
EXCEPTION: When temporary pole bands or ropes are used to support
attachments, thebands or ropes shall be limited to 6 inches in width with no more
than one band or width of rope allowed in an)’ 2-. inch section of climbing space.
Note: Revised October 9, 1996 by Resolution SU-40.
C Clearances
(1) blessengers and Span Wires:
(a) Messengers: Messengers supporting energized apparatus, insulated wires
or cables, etc. shall meet the clearance requirements of Rule 57.
January 1997 1II-14
Attachment
page 4 of 5
Rule
(b) Span Wires: Span wires supporting non-energized equipment (baronets,
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
quired for
0 - 750 volt service drops (Table 2, Column D, and Rule 54.8).
(3) Non.Energlzed 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
l.ight and its supporting fixtures.
(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 Requiremen~ above Thoroughfares, Ground, etc.
Vertical clearance requirements as in.Rule 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 energtz.ed 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 63992 by Resolution No. SU.15.
1II-15 January 1997
o
¯§ 2946.BARCI,AYS CALIFORNIA CODE OFREGUI,ATIONS Title 8
(3) Pcrmnnent i~r I’x*rtable ladders, stairways, or other sultahle mean~
shall t~ ~ovided Io giv~ su~ ae~ ~ ~ working spac~ around d~i-
col equipment ~stallcd on platforms, balconies, ntez~Me floors, or in
O) I~levalion of Expired. I~ervi~d Paris.
Expsedenergiz~dpartsabove* -kspa~eand above’ "-~s wh~re ~r-
son~ normally walk or s~md sh~maintained al el~.ons nnl I~ss
¯ an ~ml r~qulr~d by ~e follnwin~,~
VOI.TA Uf;I’;IJ"A’A 770,V
Phase I,* Phase601 ?5~X:8 11.6 in.
7501 35.~9 IL O in.Over 3~k.9 Ii. + 0.4 ~:kvah,v~ 35k~
re) Passageway and Open Space~. Suilahle harrier~ or nlher mean~
shall bc provided I~ ~,lsurc thai the ~orkspacc I~r cleclrieal cquipmcnl
w~ll n~,l bc u~d a~ a passa~cwa) durin~ wriod~ when nornlalty
parts of energized ol~i~ul ~quipnl~nl ar~
(I) lnslallali~m o~ EIcclrical Equipmcnl In An ()aide,or Enclosure.
~re duclrical equipm~nl with cx~scd en~r~i~d paris is ins~ll~d in
an oul&mr unclosu~, the ~nck~surc shall me¢l Ihc Following require-
nlcnls:
(l) ~ hei~l of d~ enclosure shall be a minimum of 8 I~l. unluss
totally ~ndos~d.
Ex(~ll(l~: ’1~ h~ighl of ~c endosur~ sh~ll be nol less ~n IO
where az~ ex~*scd energized purl is more Ihan g feet above ~¢ ground,cncrgizc~parl is Ioca~d more ~an 5 feet horiz~m~tly ~om ~¢ enclosure.
(2) ~e enclosu~ shall ~ ~ onsidered ~a( it ~not
clim~d.
(3) ~e size ~d I~alion oFo~n~gs ~ fences or similar enclosures
shall be such ~at ~nons ar~ not liable 1o come ~1o acciden~l con~cl
wiO~ energized ~rLs or to ~g onducing objects ~o contact with
(4) Metal gates or d~rs shall ~ grounded or bonded to a grounded
me=l enclosure. Metal f~nccs shall ~ grounded as r~uffed by ~icle
6.
5) Build~gs which fern1 pa~ of ~ enclosure shall have no un~arded
d~rs or w~dows which ~rmil unintcntinnal access to ~e enclosure.
~rc ~ cnclo~re is adjacent to ~d below s~i~’a ys.
conies, or w~dows, sui~blc ~ards shall be ~s~lled Io prcvcnl ~rsons
from nlak~ accidental conlacl with cx~scd energized pars.
(g) Work Space. Suiu~hlc ~ork space shall bc provided a~ut ex~scd
energized electrical equipment to ~rnliI ~ safe o~ration
ten,co o~ such c~ipmcnl.
NOTI.: Au~,~ril3 cited: S¢clbn 142.3. I.a~r C,~dc. Rcl~rcncc: Scclion 142.3. I.a-
her
! hxTor ~I, Edilori~l eo~ecfion of~ub~edinn (1’1(41 filed I’1 2-8) (Regi~ler
~¢ndmcnl filed 12-10-87: owraliv¢ I-9 ~g ~cBisler 8~, NO, I),
Appendix A
NOTE: Authority tied: Seclion 142.3. Labor Code. Reference: Seclion 142.3. La-
bor Code.
HtSTO~V
1.Ediwrial correction of items (7) and (1 I) flied I I-2-83 (Register 83. No. 45~.
2.Amendmenl filed 6-2-87: operative 7-2-87 (RegJsPr 87, No. 24 I.
3.Repealer filed 12-7-92: operative 1-6-93 (Regis~r 92, No.
Ap~ndix B
LIVE LLN’E TOOLS
Insulated ~rt~ ol’Li’,’e Line T~ls shall have mann facturers’ ce~ifica.
lion to withstand the followi~g mEat.mum tests:
(1) 100,tZ~0 voks p~r foot of len~.h for five minutes when the t~ol is
made of fiberglass: or
(2) 75.IX)0 volts per foot of length for three minutes when the tool is
made of wood: or
(3) other tests equivalent ~o (1)or (2) above as appropriate,
Page
NmL. Autht~ril.’, cited: Seclh~n 142.3, I,ab~r Code. Rel’cren¢,.’: Seeth~n 142.3. I.a.b,~r Code.
]ils’lor~
Amend.,--.-.1 filed 1.2 It} P,7; t’~peruli\e I 9 ~,.~ (Rcglsler ~, Nu. I).
Append!x C
PROTEC’rlVI! I’~QUIP MF.NT
Rubber insulating equipment shall meet the provisions of Ihe Ameri.
can Society I’orTesting and Materials (ASTM;. whicl~ is hereby incorD>-
ruled by reference, us fiflh~ws:
rl’l~MRubber Insulating Gl.,cs ..............................D 1211 95Rubb,:r Insulatine Marline .............................D 178 93Rubber Insu ’latin~ Hlank&s .............................D 1048 93Rubber Insulating Ihu’.ds ..............................D IO49 93
Rubber Insulatin.~ lane IIo.~, ...........................D 10511" Ruhb¢! In.,,tdallng Sle¢’,¢s .............................D IO51 94
Nml’ Auth,~rit.’, cited: .";ecti,m 142.3, la~bor UMc. Re ft.’rent,.’: S¢cfiun 142.3, I.;t.
bur
I. ^mend~n~.,nl fih.,d 12 I(} XT; {~perali’t.’e I I) ~ (Register 88,
2. ~odmenl filed I I 25 97: o~rative 12 25 97 (Regisler 97, No, 481.
Article :37. Provisions for Preventing
Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead
Lines
(l:om~erly Article 86)
§ 2946. Provisions for Preventing Acoldents Due to
Proximity to Overhead Lines.
(a) General. No person, firm. or corporation, or agent or same. shall
require or permit any employee to perform any function in proximity to
energized hi~ -voltage lines; to enter upon any land. building, or other
premises and thorn engage in any excavation, demolition, construction.
repah’, or other operation; or to erect, install, operate, or stor~ in or upon
such premises an.’,’ tools, machinery, equil’~nent, materials, or slruetures
(including scaffolding, house moving, well drilling, pile driving, orholst-
ing equipment)unless and until danger from aeciden -tal contact wilh said
hi~ -volta,~e lines has been effectively guarded against.
(b) Clearance~ or Safeguards Required. Except where overhead elec-
trical distribution and transmission lines have been de energized and vis.
ibl.~ .m’ounded. l~e following provisions shall be met:
( t ) O~, er l.ize s. Toe operation, erection, or handling of tools, machin-
ery. apparatus, supphes, or materials, or a~y part thereof, over energized
¯ ox erhead hi~ voltage lines shall be prohibited.
E\t’u, nos. I. Aitcrah o~ er energized overhead hi~ s,’~ltage lilies operalb~g kl¢onfi~rmance ~ it.h:
(A) Apphcable re~alations administered b.,, ~e Federal A’, iation Admlnislra-
lion. and ~r
(BI Hebcop~r O!~erations. Article 35. Construction Safety Orders. C,,llfornia
Adrnlnis~’ative Code, Title 8.
Ex~lmo,,. 2: To~er crazes (Hammerhead~ i~staUed not closer Ihan I~e mini.mum clearances s~t for",~ in Table 2. whereon l.he Irolley or boom ~avel is con.uolled b.~ limit s’.~ itches which will prevent ~.’-r ying a load over energized over.
bead hi~-volta.~e h~:s or wi~in a horizontal distance closer ~han lhe mirtirnumclearances set for’.5 m Table 2.
(2) The opera:ier,, erection, h~dli~g, or transportation of tools, ran-
thiner.’,, mateda!s, s:,"uct~res, scaffolds, or the moving of any house or
o’,b.er bu itd’.’,..¢., e." a.-..v ot.~er activity where a.’~y parts of the above or an)’
Fa.-z. of a.: em?!e.,,e~.’s b~dy will come closer than the minimum clear-
a.’.:es from e~er~ted o; erhead lines as set forth in Table 1 shall be pro-
hiV~ted
O~ra:ie,~ cg" b~.~,.~-t.’,pe equipment sEaI1 coot’otto to the mialrnum
clearazces so: for~’~ i.~ Table 2. except iz transit where the boom is low-
ered and there is t~o load attached, in which case the distances specified
iz Table 1 s~£1 a;~l.’,.
39S Attachment ~ ~ .t,~-.s,.~. iI-.~-r
page 1 of 2
¯TRIo 8 FJectrical Safety Orders § 2951
TABLE 1
General Clearances Req-ired from Energized Overhead High-Voltage Condue.
tots
Nominal Voltage Minimum Required
...... tPhase to Plmse }’Clearance (Feet)
over 50,(X~O ....345,000 10
over 345,000 ....750.0~0 16
over 750,0(X) ,.. 1.000,0<30 20
(3) Boom-type lifting or hoisting .equipment. The erection, operation
or dismantling of any boom-type lifting or hoisting equipment, or any,
part thereol’, 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, equlpment,supplies, ma.
terials, or apparatus under, by, or near energized overhead high-voltage
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 rainimum 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.
tures, 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 wod¢ site.
TABLE 2
Boom-type liftin$ or hoisting equipment clearances requ~d from
energized overhead hlgh-voltage lines.
Nomlnal vohage MiMmum Required
(Phase to Phase~Clearance600 .....50.0(30 I0over 50.000 .....75,0~0 11over qS,0(X) ....125,000 13over 125,0(X) ....175,0(X)15over 175,000 ....250,(X~0 17over 2~0,(XX) ....370.000 21over 370.0~0 ....550,000 27over 550.000 ... !,000.0(30 42
No’rv.: Authority cited: Section 142.3. Labor Code. Reference: Section 142.3, La.
bet Code.
HISTORY
1.Amendment of subsections (b). (o).repealer o f subsections (d). (e) and new sub.
section (d) filed 8-9-79: effective thirtieth day ther~af~,r (Register 79,No. 32),*,2.Editorial correction renumbering former Article 86 to Article 37 filed 1 I-2-~3
(Register 83, No. 457, "
3.Amendment filed 12-10-87: operative I-9-88 (Register 88. No. I ),
~ 2947. Warning Signs Required.
The owner, agent, or employer responsible for the operations ofequip-
ment shall post and maintain in plain view of the operator and driver on
each crane, derrick, power shovel, drilling rig. hay loader, hay stacker.
pile driver, or similar apparatus, a durable wa.ming sixth legible at 12 feet
reading: "UnlawfulTo OperateThis Equipment Within lOFeet Of High-
Voltage Lir, es of 50.000 Volts Or Less."
h addition to the above wording, the following statement in small let.
tering shall be provided on the warning si~: "For Minimum Clearances
of High-Voltage Line~ In Excess of 50,000 Volts, See California Code
of ge~latlons, Title 8, Article 37. High-Voltage Electrical Safety Or.
den."
Nor~. A’a0~ont.v cited: Section 142.3. Labor Code, Reference: Section 142.3.La.
her Cede,
HISTORY
1. Ar,:endmenl filed $-9.--q9: effective thirtieth d:*y thereafter (Register 79. Ne
2 EJ;:.r~a’~ correction filed I 1-2-83 (Register 83. No. 45).
3. Amendment filed 12-10-87; operative 1-9-88 (Register 88, No. 1
§ 2948. Notification to the Operators of High-Voltage
Lines end Responsibility for Safeguards.
9,’hen an)’ operations are to be performed, tools or materials handled.
or equil:n:nent is to be moved or operated within the specified clearances
of an)’ energized high-voltage lines, the person orpersons responsible for
the work to be done shall promptly notify the operatorof the hlgh-voltage
line el’the work to be performed and shall be r~spensible for the omple.
tion of the sal’ety measures as requ~d by Section 2946 (b) before pro-
ceeding with any work which would impair the aforesaid clearance..
NOT~: Authority cited: Section 142.3, Labor Code. Reference: Section 142.3, La.
bet Code.
HisTom
1. Editorial correction adding NOTE filed 11-2-83 (Register 83, No. 45).
2. Amendment filed 12-10-87; operative 1-9-88 (Register 88. No.
§ 2949. Sl:~clal Exemption.
The provisions of the foregoing Sections 2946 through 2948 shall no~
hpply to the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or operation of
any ene~ized overhead high-voltage lines or their supporting structures
or appurtenances by qualified electrical workers, authorized by the own-
er of such lines, notre 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.
Hem Authority cited: Section 142.3, Labor Code. Reference: Section 142.3,
bor Code.
Hw/’ogY
1.Repealer and new section filed 8-9-79; effective thirlieth day thereafter(Reg-ister 79. No. 32). 2. Amendment filed 12-10-87; operative I-9~8 (Register
88.No. I).
Article 38. Line Clearance Tree Trimming
Operations
(Formerly Krticle 87)
§2950. Application.
This article shall apply to all line clearance ~e trimming o~rations
performed in the vicinity of exposed energized overhead conductors and
equipment wher~ any pan of the employee’s body. tools oiequipment be.
in.g used. or pa,’cs of trees being worked upon, is likely to come within the
distances specified in Section 2946(b)(2).
No’r~ Addilion.fl reqa L,~ments forT~e Work. Maintenance or Removal, ate con.rained in Article 12 of the General Industry Sat’sty Orders. Title 8, Califomh Ad-
miais~ative Code.
Nor~: Authont.’, ei~d: Section i’42.3. Labor Code. Reference: $~¢tion 142.3,bet Code.
HIsTogy.
1.New Article S" ( §§ 2950-2959, nol consecutive) filed 10-14-75 as an erect-
gone.,,: effeeuve upon f~ng (Register 75. No. 42).
2.Cenhfieat¢ of ¢omph,,nce as to Article 8’7. except (or Sections
29.~,1~fi, and 2955(,q(5RA) filed I-9-76 (Register "16, No. 21.
3.Amendment ol subsection (c)(2)(A] filed 1-9--76 (Register 76, No,2),
4.Repealer of.-L’~i¢le 87 (Sections 29.~0--2959, not consecutive] and new Article
8" (S~¢tions 29.~0--2951 ) filed 8-9-79~ effective thinieth day’,hereafter (Regis-
t~r ’;9, No,
5.Amendment filed .g..16-80 as procedural and organizational: effective upon fib
ing {Register .tO, No.
6.F_~ter~a! orrection renumbcring forri~er A~cle 87 to Acti¢le 38 fiJed I I-2-83
(R.-’, ~s~’r 87, .Xo. 45).
7.A..~ ndment fi!ed 12-10-87:. operative I-9-88 (Register 88. No. I).
§ 2951. Line Clearance O~ratlons.
(-,; Ff, ort," :onmtencing line clearance tree trim.ruing operations, the
staple;, er sSaf! ensure that an ins~ction of the work locations is made i~
order to idea’-;.") p~tentia] hazards ~.’~d a tail gate bile,ring is conducted to
discuss the ~,~.~.~ procedures to be followed.
(’," ~ Or.l? q’~.,’.ified line clea,"a.’:ce tree trimmers, or trainees under the
disc: s=..,x,r, :,:,,r. and instruction, of qualified l~,e clearance tree trin:.
r.’,e,"s, s?.£! be ~’.m, ",itted to perfo.,’:~., line clearance t.,’ee trimming opera.
uor.s as desc::’.’,e~ in Section 2950. Under no ch’cu,,’mstances shall the
Attachment B
page 2 of 2