Dear All,
Please ignore this email if you don't live in Los Angeles County, or better yet, please pass it on to someone you know that does!
I wanted to get this out to you yesterday but was quite sick and still am but slightly better, so forcing myself to do this as deadline is TOMORROW. My illness is DIRECTLY related to the enormous increase in radiation that 5G, the tens of thousands of 5G satellites from the sky, the neighbors inescapable WIFI and smart meters the transmitters in the streets have caused. I am seriously sick for 3 days after a 45 minute exposure in a store, or on a street where there's a now 5G transmitter and my sickness is becoming quicker and more frequent just where I live from the exposure. I can no longer even drive ANYWHERE without getting seriously ill due to the "upgraded" signal going through my shielding. Even if you dont get "sick" from this radiation, it is affecting your DNA and could cause serious illness that most will never know where it came from.
I know it’s a hassle, time consuming, frustrating and everyone hates doing this including me, but that is nothing compared to the devastation a 5G antenna placed near you will cause. Please choose from the below talking points or make your own, email and/or call in today to make your opposition heard.
LA COUNTY WIRELESS ORDINANCE HEARING WED., MARCH 23rd @ 9 AM:
Of course we received no notice on this, but they are attempting to pass 2 ordinances allowing for 5G transmitters on private property and more on streets and highways. Below are LOTs of tedious talking points and links no one wants to read, but are excellent talking points that barely even mention health problems - which I guess is good since they like to toss those aside as "illegal to even mention" which it is not. Anyway, we must speak out for our survival. Please send your opposition comments to:
ordinance@planning.lacounty.gov
eluna@planning.lacounty.gov
info@planning.lacounty.gov
firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov (Supervisor Hilda L. Solis)
HollyJMitchell@bos.lacounty.gov (Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell)
sheila@bos.lacounty.gov (Supervisor Sheila Kuehl)
FourthDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov (Supervisor Janice Hahn)
Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov (Supervisor Kathryn Barger)
I am not functional enough right now to go through and whittle down the below notes from other groups in the area, but am extremely grateful for their efforts, specifically MalibuForSafeTech and 5GFreeCalifornia, both of whom I've worked closely with at one time or another when I was less ill, and am co-founder of one. Because I am not well, I am just going to copy and paste some of the below into an email, send it off and go back to sleep. If you can do nothing else today, please do this and pass it on! Every email and phone call will help. Thank you for taking action and passing it on...
In solidarity for life,
Liz
Wireless Facility Ordinance page:
Be Forewarned! The County Regional Planning actions will dramatically accelerate the densification of small cell facilities in the County. There will be no advance public notification and no public hearings. The long-established, open and public process for issuing conditional use permits for such facilities will be replaced with a non-public "ministerial" process where the County rubber stamps approvals, stripping away your Constitutional property rights, and exposing a large segment of Los Angeles County to Radiofrequency and Electromagnetic Radiation (RF/EMF), and in so doing, violating numerous federal, state, and local laws. 5G Free California has hired a team of expert attorneys to challenge the County's likely approval, and we are preparing for litigation.
An informed and empowered community can stop this outrage. Your support can make an immediate and decisive difference. Please express your concerns by speaking out by ZOOM at the March 23 Office of Regional Planning public hearing for the Wireless Facility Ordinance.
The DRAFT Wireless Facility Ordinance can be found here:
TALKING POINTS and TEMPLATE FOR COMMENTS FOR MARCH March 23 Wireless Hearing:
Re: March 23 Los Angeles County Planning Board Proposed Changes to
County Code Title 22:
TEMPLATES FOR COMMENTS AT MARCH 23rd HEARING:
It is extremely important that we put a PAUSE on the proposed Ordinance, amending Title 22 of the Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code. To schedule a hearing on March 23 of the Planning Commission is simply too fast. Key and critical points have not been addressed.
This Ordinance will effectively codify the present illegal practice of bypassing over 30 years of a well-established and balanced Conditional Use Permit Registration system with an accelerated Ministerial Site Review of small cell and macro cell antennas installed on private property. This de facto practice is currently being challenged in the Los Angeles Superior Court in the case of Angela Sherick-Bright v. County of Los Angeles.
The ostensible justification for this precipitous rush to Ordinance is the FCC’s shot clock deadlines that aim to accelerate densification of small cell and macro towers antennas emitting Radio Frequency/Electromagnetic Field (RF/EMF) radiation in high and dangerous concentrations within residential communities. It seems pretty clear that the intention of the proposed Ministerial Site Review Application process, which will effectively replace Conditional Use Permits on new facilities, is to eliminate due process protections for the Los Angeles County community — namely, timely prior notification and an opportunity to be heard in public hearings, which are guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution.
In addition, by what legal authority and on what constitutional grounds can the BOS bypass and strip away due process protections of prior notification and public hearings?
Nowhere in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is there authority to bypass and to violate the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution guarantees of due process. To apply the doctrine of preemption as the Board of Supervisors is considering would be to establish the FCC as a supra-constitutional agency. It is not. The shot clock is an excuse. The Los Angeles Planning Authority simply doesn’t want to bother to take the time to ensure an opportunity for the public to participate in a meaningful way. The fundamental First Amendment right of the public to be heard was reaffirmed in footnote #6 of the recently decided case of Children’s Health Defense v. FCC.
Another main point: Fire Hazards. Given its record of fire catastrophes, Los Angeles County is justifiably concerned with fire prevention and management. This area is well within the County’s authority, jurisdiction, and control. For example, what special protections does the Ordinance provide for fires resulting from combustion of terpenes in conifers? Scientific studies document that continuous RF/EMF radiation exposure is closely tied with increased terpene production in conifers. Terpenes are a combustible organic compound. The Ordinance utterly ignores this risk which would need to be addressed in any CEQA/NEPA compliant EIS. There is no question that Los Angeles County has an absolute right to take reasonable protections for fire protection and management, which are certainly not preempted by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and addressed in the present Los Angeles Fire Ordinance. Again, from the perspective of the First and Fifth Amendments noted above, is the Board of Supervisors seriously proposing to deny the public its right of timely notification and hearing before approving a program that will impose pervasive and intensifying fire risks?
There is so much more to address here and my hope is that we will have ample time to discuss these points and many more. It is also prudent to add that there are existing Ordinances that are in place and being used in both Malibu and Encinitas that can help us guide this process in a way where best practices are addressed.
We are asking that you put a PAUSE on this proposed ordinance and process.
Sincerely,
Name/affiliation if relevant
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I oppose Title 22 Draft Wireless Ordinance as written and urge you to delay approving the ordinance until these problems can be addressed and our voices can be heard.
The following points need to be addressed urgently before finalizing the Title 22 Draft Ordinance:
• The scheduling of the proposed public hearing on March 23 of the Planning Commission, whose recommendations the Board of Supervisors (BOS) will give heavy weight, is way too hasty. In fact, impulsive action and a failure to set a proper legal, scientific, and environmental foundation for consideration of Title 22 are the hallmark of this ill-conceived Ordinance.
• In a nutshell, the Ordinance will effectively codify the present illegal practice of bypassing over 30 years of a well-established and balanced Conditional Use Permit Registration system with an accelerated Ministerial Site Review of small cell and macro cell antennas installed on private property. This de facto practice is currently being challenged in the Los Angeles Superior Court in the case of Angela Sherick-Bright v. County of Los Angeles. The ostensible justification for this precipitous rush to Ordinance is the FCC’s shot clock deadlines that aim to accelerate densification of small cell and macro towers antennas emitting Radio Frequency/Electromagnetic Field (RF/EMF) radiation in high and dangerous concentrations within residential communities. It seems pretty clear that the intention of the proposed Ministerial Site Review Application process, which will effectively replace Conditional Use Permits on new facilities, is to eliminate due process protections for the Los Angeles County community — namely, timely prior notification and an opportunity to be heard in public hearings, which are guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution.
• It seems the BOS doesn't have legal authority to bypass and strip away due process protections of prior notification and public hearings. Nowhere in the 1996 Telecommunications Act is there authority to bypass and to violate the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution guarantees of due process.
• The 1996 Telecommunications Act contains no provision for local communities to allow telecom purveyors to convert easements to property rights without just compensation to private property owners.
• Has there been any determination, affirmative or negative, relating to the necessity of assessing the environmental impacts of this project through an EIS interagency consultative process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? Has the BOS complied with its obligations under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including coordinating with other concerned federal agencies, recognizing that there is substantial federal involvement in Los Angeles County? (so called NEPA “federal handle.”)
• Given its record of fire catastrophes, Los Angeles County is justifiably concerned with fire prevention and management. This area is well within the County’s authority, jurisdiction, and control. For example, what special protections does the Ordinance provide for fires resulting from combustion of terpenes in conifers? Scientific studies2 document that continuous RF/EMF radiation exposure is closely tied with increased terpene production in conifers. Terpenes are a combustible organic compound. The Ordinance utterly ignores this risk which would need to be addressed in any CEQA/NEPA compliant EIS. There is no question that Los Angeles County has an absolute right to take reasonable protections for fire protection and management, which are certainly not preempted by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and addressed in the present Los Angeles Fire Ordinance. Again, from the perspective of the First and Fifth Amendments noted above, is the Board of Supervisors seriously proposing to deny the public its right of timely notification and hearing before approving a program that will impose pervasive and intensifying fire risks?
• The contention that small cell and macro tower densification is essential for emergency response is bogus. As is well documented by the Resolution of 2 E.g. see “Influence of microwave frequency electromagnetic radiation on terpene emission and content in aromatic plants” 4 the International Association of Fire Fighters, there are far safer well-established alternatives to addressing major fire hazards than by amplifying them.
• What special dangers do the proposed amendments pose for airports in Los Angeles County? How can the BOS reconcile the serious conflicts with current FAA regulations?
• The proposed amendment stipulates that it must comply with existing federal laws, which include: the Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Amendments Act, to name a few. None of these federal statutes are preempted by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. They are entitled to coequal dignity and consideration. The BOS cannot override these federal statutes by some ministerial gimmick, simply because it doesn’t want to take the time to devise a reasonable and balanced solution.
• What provision has been made for insurance for RF/EMF related harms? What consideration has been given to a bonding requirement, recognizing the hazards of RF/EMF radiation? What process is contemplated to coordinate with the Board of Health to report, investigate, and arrange for compensation of the thousands of victims of RF/EMF radiation exposure over the coming years? What provision is being made to deploy best available community wide radiation monitoring devices and methodologies, recognized by the National Spectrum Management Association, so that the Los Angeles County Health Department will even know the levels of RF/EMF radiation to which County communities are being exposed?
• Why does the BOS not take the time to study carefully existing best ordinance practices, such as being implemented in Scarsdale, Malibu, Encinitas, and other local communities which include setbacks in residential areas and other protective features?
• The Planning Department and BOS are advised to take a bold and innovative additional step: that is seriously to consider providing incentives for a far superior broadband option: optical fiber to the premises (OFTP). Optical fiber broadband will accomplish the infrastructural goals of the proposed Ordinance, including bridging the Digital Divide, while optimizing the beneficial uses of wireless and minimizing its hazards. OFTP is faster, safer, private (Accelerating densification of small cell and macro towers raises serious unexamined questions regarding the encroachment on privacy protected under the CA Consumer Privacy Act. Many of these problems may be avoided under an OFTP framework.), more cybersecure, lower latency, energy efficient, and climate change friendly. OFTP must be a serious option for consideration in the BOS’ forthcoming NEPA/CEQA EIS. (See: Timothy Schoechle, Reinventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks)
In conclusion, given that the present law and regulations pertaining to RF/EMF are in a state of flux, it would behoove us to remember that the last thing one should do in times of chaos is to plunge in more deeply. The precipitate haste by which Title 22 is being promoted provides a telltale clue to its overall character. The BOS needs to pause and postpone; to think things through clearly and responsibly, especially given the long-term consequences; where necessary to consult with independent, uncompromised experts; to engage the public; and to prevent and correct an imminent folly. Los Angeles County and its Board of Supervisors will never regret taking the time at this critical juncture to discover the path of reasonable balance.
Thank you,
Your name
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To Whom it May Concern:
Will I wake up one day to a macro cell tower being built 20 feet from my door? Will you??
The Proposed Changes to County Code Title 22 are in direct conflict with the law. They eliminate Due Process and our Democratic tradition of timely prior notification and public hearings (please reference the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution).
Contrary to what some may believe, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not give the FCC the authority to dismiss and violate the US Constitution or the California Constitution. The FCC is still subject to Federal Consitutional Law, and therefore applying a doctrine of preemption is against the law.
In light of this, it is also useful to remember that we do not need to hurry through this process. Indeed, it would serve all of us well to perform our due diligence in assessing all risks of densification of small cell, and macro cell antennas with a proper Environmental Impact Survey. We need the data on safety concerns, fire concerns, and any other possible risk that comes from this sort of densification. There is actually no real reason for the rush, other than perhaps profits for telecommunication companies.
Additionally, there ARE other, safer options to seriously consider: Optical fiber broadband (OFTP) will accomplish the infrastructural goals of the proposed Ordinance, including bridging the Digital Divide. OFTP is faster, safer, more private, more cybersecure, has lower latency, is energy efficient, and climate change friendly. OFTP must be a serious option for consideration in the BOS’ forthcoming NEPA/CEQA EIS.
In short, I strongly OPPOSE the proposed changes to LA County Code Title 22; and I strongly support due diligence, proper notification, and the Democratic tradition of public hearings.
Respectfully,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Imminent Hazard:
The proposed changes will:
· Compromise the reasonable Balance established over decades under the California Conditional Use Permit System for land use.
· Convert limited easements for public rights of way into fee simple property ownership by a few politically influential and financially powerful telecom companies and their multi-millionaire owners.
· Codify a new legal concept, “ministerial authority,” under a “Ministerial Site Plan Review” designed to rush through all permits without any advance public notice, controls or hearings, and thereby to strip away your fundamental due process right to be heard, guaranteed by the U.S. and California Constitutions and reaffirmed in
Children’s Health Defense v. FCC, Feb
ruary 11, 2022.
· Expose our most vulnerable populations—children, disabled persons, pregnant women, fetuses, the elderly, minorities, and economically-disadvantaged populations—to unchecked, unmonitored, continuous, and cumulative Radio Frequency/ElectroMagnetic Field (RF/EMF) Radiation with no compensation or insurance available at all for the victims. The risks are so great no reputable insurance company in the world today will offer RF/EMF radiation damage coverage.
· Eliminate the basic right of self-defense and safeguards under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution of your person, home, property, and security of your family. (The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home.)
· Weaken protections under the National Historic Preservation Act.
· Substantially increase risks of fires in high-risk fire zones, without any due consideration to prevention or mitigation.
· Allow interference with aircraft radar altimeters near airports.
· Further erode privacy by taking your most personal information without your consent, packaging and selling it with the intention of enhancing corporate and government surveillance and manipulation of your behavior for corporate profit.
Your Legal Rights and Remedies.
· The proposed action of codifying the present BOS practice of authorizing ministerial approvals of small cell and macro towers by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors and the Land Use Planning Commission is illegal as a matter of federal law, including the FCC’s own regulations, state law, and the Los Angeles County’s well established, reasonable, and balanced conditional use permit framework. Contrary to the BOS’s guidelines the reckless densification of small cell and macro towers, exposing the general population to RF/EMF radiation is fundamentally an anti-social practice.
· The public’s most powerful legal remedies are to challenge the proposed Title 22 amendment under: a. the U.S. and California Constitutions as an illegal taking (inverse condemnation) of property and a violation due process under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. b. to require BOS compliance with the FCC’s own regulations effecting compliance with NEPA. c. to demand preparation of a Comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement as required by NEPA, FCC practice, and the California Environmental Quality Act. d. to require the BOS to comply fully with the National Historic Sites Preservation Act.
· Properly presented, injured members of the public and specific organizations and associations have standing to seek a Writ of Mandamus in court to halt this fool-hearty and dangerous enterprise.
· Contact other attorneys and encourage them to email Julie Levine at 5GFC and offer their support for Angela Sherick-Bright v. County of Los Angeles (filed February 7, 2022) and future litigation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To: Los Angeles the County Department of Regional Planning &
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Item 5: Project No. 2021-002931-(1-5) / Advance Planning Case No. RPPL2021007939 /
Wireless Facility Ordinance
Dear Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning & Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: In Malibu, a city that has burned twice in the last 15 years because of telecommunications structural and/or electrical engineering failures, we brought in a team comprised of an attorney, an electrical engineer, and a fire safety consultant. Together they discovered something you need to know about for the fire protection of Los Angeles County, of which Malibu and the surrounding cities are a part. The telecommunications industry is exempt from multiple electric and fire safety codes at the federal, state and Los Angeles County level. Therefore, Malibu accepted the responsibility for requiring electrical and structural engineering rigor at the front end (the application stage) for all cell towers, macro and small cells. We are asking our counterparts in LA County to do the same.
With the help of our expert team we came up with what is known as the Electric Fire Safety Protocol and we urge you to utilize the same language that was created for Malibu. That protocol is included in an alternate ordinance that is being offered to Los Angeles County by attorney Julian Gresser.
We further urge you to include this protocol along with the following:
Notice and hearing required for all but eligible facilities and backup generators for towers
Need better and fuller application content requirements, even if wrongly treat as ministerial
Must ensure all safety precautions have been made, including fire and electrical hazards,
before permit is granted.
Ensure all required environmental reviews have been conducted and any necessary other
permits have been obtained before land use authorization is considered or at least granted
Ensure all required historical reviews have been conducted and any necessary other permits have been obtained before land use authorization is considered or at least granted
Need at least 1500-foot setback from all residential areas and schools; allow your residents and schoolchildren time to escape should a cell tower catch fire, requiring the power to be cut before it can be fought
Ensure proper fall zones (at least 1.20 times the height of any tower)
Most cities do not realize that telecom is policing itself when it comes to fire safety. Also, most people don’t realize that cell towers can catch fire and when they do, because they are electrical devices, they cannot be fought through conventional means. The power has to be cut and that takes between 10 and 60 minutes. During that time, imagine if there is a Santa Ana wind. People
need time to escape and that is why we are attempting to further protect our residential areas in Malibu. We urge the Los Angeles County Planning commission and Board of Supervisors to do the same.
NEC, the National Electric Code, is the basis for other electric codes in the state of California.
Every County and City is quick to say that they adhere to all applicable electric and fire safety codes. And this is certainly a noble goal. The problem is when there is an exemption within those codes that most often the cities and counties don’t know about it. For all intents and purposes telecom is policing telecom and there is no state in this country where fire is a bigger risk and a
bigger threat than in California. So please Institute of electrical and structural safety through the Electric Fire Safety protocol so that we can make Los Angeles County a less destructive place to call home.
The argument is being made that the small cell buildout is needed so everyone can call 911. The CPUC’s redundancy program requires mandatory backup for macro towers. That means when the power is cut the macro towers will still operate. Many of the small cells will get waivers because it is extremely difficult and dangerous to put backup generators with fuel in the public right-of-way. Small cells are not a means to secure communication. The CPUC has already taken care of that with the macro towers.
Here’s to a safer Los Angeles County!B. Deference to Local Government
The Commission acknowledges that local citizens and local government are often in a better position than the Commission to measure local impact and to identify alternative sites.
Accordingly, the Commission will generally defer to local governments to regulate the location and design of cell sites and MTSOs including (a) the issuance of land use approvals; (b) Acting
as lead Agency for purposes of satisfying the CEQA and (c) the satisfaction of noticing procedures for both land use approvals and CEQA procedures.
§ 80-3. Scope
Latest version.
The provisions of this Code shall apply to the construction, alteration, moving, repair and use of any electrical wiring on any premises within the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles and to such work or use by the County of Los Angeles within any incorporated city not exercising jurisdiction over such work or use.
The provisions of this Code shall not apply to public utilities; or to electrical wiring for street lighting or traffic signals located primarily in a public way; or to mechanical equipment not specifically regulated in this Code.
Where, in any specific case, different sections of this Code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable.Except as hereinafter changed or modified, the building standards contained in the
National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association, Inc., which are published in the California Building Standards Code, are applicable to all occupancy groups and uses throughout the County of Los Angeles. Amendments to the building standards contained in the National Electrical Code, by state agencies, are applicable only to those occupancies or uses which the state agency making the amendment is authorized to regulate.
(Ord. 2002-0077 § 3, 2002.)
LA county electrical code
Therefore we urge Los Angeles County to adopt what the city of Malibu has already adopted and that is our electric fire safety protocol which applies the same degree of engineering rigor as for an illuminated sign on the corner convenience store.
Malibu requires
(v) Electrical and Structural Safety Information. The following engineering
documents prepared under the responsible charge of and sealed by a California licensed professional engineer must be included in the application:
(A) A short circuit and coordination study (“SCCS”) calculated pursuant
to the IEEE 551-2006: Recommended Practice for Calculating AC
Short-Circuit Currents in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
or the latest version of that standard. The study must demonstrate the
protection devices will ensure the equipment enclosure will not be
breached. The SCCS must include analysis of Voltage Transient
Surges due to contact of conductors of different voltages;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: This study is
required to demonstrate the installation complies with NEC Articles
110.9, 110.10, 110.16 and 240.
WHY THIS STUDY IS IMPORTANT: All electrical equipment will
fail. This study ensures that electrical equipment will not
catastrophically fail. As an example, electrical conductors may rub
together and damage the insulation, allowing excessive current to
flow. This study ensures that the fuse or circuit breaker de-energizes
the circuit fast enough to prevent arcing or fire. This study could
have identified beforehand that meters would catastrophically fail in
Stockton in 2015. This study can ensure that a WCF mounted on
poles with transmission and distribution circuits, does not fail like
5000 electric meters did in Stockton in 2015.
(B) A one-line diagram of the electrical system;REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: This diagram provides a map of the electrical installation and serves as the primary reference for all the other documents.
WHY THIS DIAGRAM IS IMPORTANT: This document allows less experienced electrical workers to quickly trouble shoot electrical malfunctions and failures and to identify a de-energization point.
(C) Voltage Drop & Load Flow Study;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: This Study proves the electrical conductors are large enough to ensure that equipment supplied by the electricity flowing through conductors operate within the design range for that item of equipment.
WHY THIS STUDY IS IMPORTANT: If the voltage is too low or too high, electrical equipment may not operate correctly or be damaged.
(D) Load Calculation;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: The load calculation ensures each item of equipment is sized to safely carry the design load.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: This document lists all
load connected to the electrical system.
(E) Panel Directories;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: Panel Directories
are provided to show workers which switch or breaker de-energizes a
specific circuit or piece of equipment.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: The panel directory is required by Electric Codes so that electrical workers or less experienced individuals can quickly de-energize a circuit in an emergency without a “trial and error” approach.
(F) A plot plan showing the location of the mounting structure including
address, or structure designation, or GPS location;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: This document is
necessary to quickly identify the location for prompt emergency and
non-emergency response.WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: This document shows the exact location of the WCF and the access route. Power poles are commonly assigned addresses that may be located several hundred
feet from the actual location.
(G) A plot plan showing the location of the service disconnecting means;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: This document is
necessary to demonstrate the location of the switch or circuit breaker
that separates the customer electrical system from the utility electrical
system. This is commonly called the “main switch” or the “main
circuit breaker”.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: A WCF has been
proposed on a streetlight pole on Cross Creek Road. The WCF is
powered from one electric service. The streetlight is powered from a
separate electric service. In order to suppress a fire, the power to the
streetlight and the power to the WCF must both be de-energized. This
plan shows both de-energization points. Service disconnects for
streetlights may be several hundred feet away on a different street.
(H) An elevation drawing of the equipment and the service
disconnecting means;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: This drawing
shows how the equipment will look once installed. It is critical to
ensure the workspace has adequate room to operate safely.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: Performing work on
electrical equipment is hazardous. Workers are entitled to sufficient
room to safely work and to escape if an arc develops.
(I) A demonstration there will be signage as required by the California
Electric Code or the Los Angeles County Fire Department Chief or his
or her designee;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: The CEC
requires that electric equipment be labeled.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: This is necessary to
ensure that first responders or electrical workers safely de-
energize the correct equipment.
(J) A demonstration the service disconnecting means shall be
mounted at an elevation determined by the Los Angeles CountyFire Chief or his or her designee in conjunction with the electric
utility;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: The CEC
specifies that the service disconnecting means be readily accessible,
which generally means operatable without a ladder. To prevent
vandalism of communication systems in public right of ways, the
service disconnecting means may be mounted out of reach from the
ground.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: To prevent casual
vandalism, the service disconnect may be mounted at a height not
reachable from ground level.
(K) A demonstration there will be instructions for deenergizing the
equipment by First Responders.
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: Certain electric
equipment must be de-energized in a specific sequence to ensure
safety.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: Certain electrical
equipment can create an additional hazard if de-energized in the
incorrect sequences.
(L) A list of toxic substances that may develop during arcing or fire that
may impede fire suppression efforts;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: The intense heat
of an electrical arc may turn non-hazardous substances into hazardous
substances. Special protective equipment may be required.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: Electric arcs instantly
reach temperatures of thousands of degrees. Normally non-hazardous
material may become hazards. Metals may vaporize and damage
lungs.
(M) A list of hazards that may develop during arcing or fire that may
impede fire suppression efforts;
REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS DOCUMENT: Arcing or fire
may create a pressure wave that can imperil life, health and property.
WHY THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT: Electric arcing can
vaporize copper or aluminum. Copper expands 67,000 times whenconverted from solid to vapor, which can cause an air blast that
throws an individual several feet with fatal force.
(N) Structural Safety Information. The structural/civil engineering
documents as recommended by a California licensed professional civil
or structural engineer. The standard recommended by APCO/ANSI
Public Safety Grade Site Hardening Requirements – APCO ANS 2.
106. 1-2019 It is required by federal law and the County of Los
Angeles.
https://www.apcointl.org/~documents/standard/21061-2019-psg-site-
hardening/?layout=default
(I cannot directly link to FB because I refuse to participate in their new "verification system" to thoroughly identify, track and trace its users.)
The Regional Planning Committee Public Hearing Draft Ordinance can be found on their Project Website.