The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1. PLN-20-00042 - City Wide - Code AmendmentSTAFF REPORT PLANNING DIVISION DATE: JULY 15, 2020 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTED BY: ALDO E. SCHINDLER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEWED BY: CRYSTAL LANDAVAZO, CITY PLANNER PREPARED BY: MADALYN WELCH, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: PLN-20-00042 (MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT) – A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 9520.08 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO GENERAL WALL, FENCE, AND HEDGE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRIFIED SECURITY FENCING IN C-M, M-1, AND M-2 ZONED PROPERTIES LOCATION: CITYWIDE ZONING: C-M, M-1 AND M-2 ZONES REPORT SUMMARY The City of Downey Municipal Code (DMC) prohibits the use of razor or electrified fencing in any zone. California Senate Bill (SB) 582 added Section 835 to Chapter 273 of the Civil Code on September 4, 2015, authorizing electrified security fences that meet specific requirements to be installed by property owners, except where a local ordinance prohibits such installation and operation. As a result, the applicant contends the City should allow such fencing and requested this Municipal Code Amendment to revise DMC Section 9520.08 (c)(1) to allow electrified security fencing within C-M, M-1, and M-2 zoned properties. Staff does not support this request because such fencing is not consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan and is not a positive or advantageous addition to the community; therefore, staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the following titled resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DENYING PLN-20-00042 (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT), A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 9520.08 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO GENERAL WALL, FENCE, AND HEDGE REGULTIONS TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRIFIED SECURITY FENCING IN C-M, M-1 AND M-2 ZONED PROPERTIES PC Agenda Page 1 Municipal Code Amendment (General Wall, Fence, and Hedge Regulations) - PLN-20-00042 July 15, 2020 - Page 2 BACKGROUND The California Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of SB 582, dated April 7, 2015, stated that prior state law was vague regarding electric fencing in non-agricultural zones and the bill was intended to clarify state law and provide clear guidelines for local jurisdictions. The bill provides local government agencies with clear standards for installation and operation of electrified fencing if they choose to allow the use within a municipality. The bill does not remove a local jurisdiction’s ability regulate or prohibit the installation and operation of electrified fencing. The City of Downey conducted its last comprehensive Zoning Code update in 2009 amending various sections of the Zoning Code. While this update was completed earlier than the 2015 Senate Bill, no changes were made to DMC Section 9520.08 regarding fencing as it was not seen as necessary. DISCUSSION The applicant states the Municipal Code Amendment is requested to prevent criminal activity on manufacturing zoned properties. The proposed amendment seeks to allow electrified fencing within all M-1 and M-2 zoned properties as well as the following specific uses within C-M zoned properties: new and used automobile, light truck, recreational vehicle and motorcycle sales, automobile paint and body, automobile repair, mobile homes/manufactured home sales, towing services, vehicle impound and storage yards, auction houses, building/contractor supplies, wireless communication facilities, parcel delivery terminals, self-storage, mini-storage, mini- warehouse, recreational vehicle storage, storage yards, and warehouses. The applicant emphasized that electrified security fencing is a crime prevention tool for commercial and industrial businesses. In this manner, he believes the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan because it can prevent criminal activity for local businesses and enhance public safety for the community and employees of the local businesses. The proposed amendment request to amend subsections within DMC Section 9520.08 GENERAL WALL, FENCE, AND HEDGE REGULATIONS to remove the prohibition of electrified fencing and add the standards set forth in SB 582 for the installation of electrified security fencing so that such fencing would be allowed by through an administrative review, without review by the Planning Commission . Currently, DMC Section 9520.08 (c)(1) states “No barbed wire, razor or electrified fencing, or similar fencing is permitted in any zone, except that barbed wire may be used on a limited basis for security or safety purposes in the M-1 and M-2 Zones if not visible from any public right-of- way, subject to the approval of Site Plan Review.” The DMC already takes crime prevention into account and allows for barbed wire within manufacturing zones as a security measure if needed, with proper screening and approval of a Site Plan Review. This specific code section was last amended in 2009 and within the last 11 years, this opportunity for additional security has not been sought out by such businesses within the City so staff does not see a need for introducing a more aggressive form of security wall. Electric fences produce an electrical current that when in contact creates an electrical shock with the purpose to cause enough harm or discomfort to prevent additional contact. Staff expressed concern with the unappealing image that electrical fencing would portray along the City’s major arterial streets. Nearly all of the light and general manufacturing zones are located along the City’s major and primary arterial streets such as Firestone Boulevard, Woodruff Avenue, Lakewood Boulevard, and Imperial Highway. The installation of an electrified security fence involves the placement of a non-electrified 6 foot tall fence located between 4-12 PC Agenda Page 2 Municipal Code Amendment (General Wall, Fence, and Hedge Regulations) - PLN-20-00042 July 15, 2020 - Page 3 inches in front of a 10 foot tall electrified security fence with significant signage posted to warn people of potential shock. The proposed amendment to allow the installation of these fences would be inconsistent with the General Plan relating to improvements made along the City’s major arterial streets. General Plan Policy 8.3.1, which is in place to promote the enhancement of property views from public streets to exhibit a positive image. The image of electrical fencing would not be consistent with the General Plan policy and programs aimed at portraying a positive image of the community and discouraging fence/wall designs that are unfriendly and uninviting. Some of the potentially affected properties abut more restrictively zoned property such as Neighborhood Commercial or General Commercial, which cause concerns over the proximity of electrified security fencing to areas populated by the general public. Staff presented the request to the Building and Safety, Public Works, Fire and Police Departments for review and comment. The Police Department expressed concern with ensuring that signage would need to be visible to the general public and officers. The Public Works department expressed concern with the electrified security fencing being too close to public right-of-ways. The Fire Department provided comprehensive installation and operation requirements to ensure good maintenance and housekeeping practice to keep safe operation. The Fire Department noted that poor maintenance can be a potential source of fire caused from the accumulation of combustible waste and vegetation. In reviewing and analyzing the proposed amendment, staff found that electrified security fencing would not only be inconsistent with the General Plan goals, but it would also be out of character with the surrounding cities. A survey of ten cities within proximity to Downey found that eight cities prohibit the installation of electrified security fencing. The City of Lakewood requires approval from the Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit and the City Santa Fe Springs permits electrified security fencing, however, their staff works with businesses to seek alternative approaches to security. Electric Fencing Survey Bellflower Prohibited Bell Gardens Prohibited Cerritos Prohibited Lakewood Requires CUP (No applications within the last 25 years) Norwalk Prohibited Paramount Prohibited Pico Rivera Prohibited Santa Fe Springs Highly discouraged by staff due the potential liability. Location & height subject to development standards for traditional fences. South Gate Prohibited Whittier Prohibited The proposed amendment seeks to amend the Downey Municipal Code to introduce provisions that would allow a new security feature for manufacturing zones throughout the City. However, staff contends that the existing Municipal Code provides sufficient options to businesses in need of securing their properties. These zones may utilize existing provisions to install 10 foot tall fencing to screen their properties and apply for a Site Plan Review to seek approval of barbed wire with appropriate screening. This alternative has not been sought by any businesses in the last 11 years. The proposed amendment has not shown to be needed or beneficiary to the community, in contrast it has a high potential to degrade the affected areas by adding an uninviting and negative image. PC Agenda Page 3 Municipal Code Amendment (General Wall, Fence, and Hedge Regulations) - PLN-20-00042 July 15, 2020 - Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The requested Municipal Code Amendment is exempt from review under pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. FINDINGS Pursuant to DMC Section 9832.06, there are two (2) findings that must be adopted prior to approving Municipal Code Amendments. After assessing the proposed code amendment, staff is not able make positive findings to support the proposed amendment as described below: A. The requested amendment is not necessary and desirable for the development of the community and is in the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The applicant seeks to allow electrified security fencing by right, without discretionary review by staff or the Planning Commission, subject to the standards established in California Civil Code Section 835, through adoption of SB 582. Electric fences produce an electrical charge that when in contact with a person or animal creates an electrical shock with the purpose to cause enough harm or discomfort to prevent additional contact. The regulations adopted through SB 582 provided guidelines to regulate the installation of electrified security fences and standardize safe installation of such fences. The regulations do not identify maintenance standards that would alleviate concerns identified by the Fire Department who stated that poor maintenance can lead to a potential source of fire due to the accumulation of combustible waste and vegetation. The applicant has stated the need for security is the reason the proposed code amendment should be approved but, does not acknowledge that the code already provides provisions for additional security measures when needed and properly evaluated by the Planning Commission through a Site Plan Review application. The applicant has not shown how the proposed amendment is necessary for the furtherance of public health, safety, and general welfare. In contrast, the concerns of the Fire Department indicate the proposed amendment can be a potential detriment to public health, safety, and general welfare. B. The proposed amendment is not in general conformance with the General Plan. Goals and policies established in the General Plan provide the guidance that shapes all development within the City. All action taken by the City must be in conformance with these goals and policies. The proposed amendment, however, is contrary to General Plan Policy 8.3.1, which is in place to promote the enhancement of property views from public streets to exhibit a positive image. This Policy is supported by the following programs: Program 8.3.1.4. – Discourage the use of street yard setbacks for uses and activities inconsistent with portraying a positive image of the community. PC Agenda Page 4 Municipal Code Amendment (General Wall, Fence, and Hedge Regulations) - PLN-20-00042 July 15, 2020 - Page 5 Program 8.3.1.5. – Discourage security devices and fence/wall designs that portray an image that the community is unfriendly and uninviting. The proposed amendment to allow for electrified security fencing by right in the M-1, M- 2, and C-M zones is in stark contrast to this General Plan Policy. The current zoning map shows that most M-1, M-2 and C-M zoned properties are located along the city’s major and primary arterial streets. The proposed amendment would allow double barrier fencing with a standard six foot tall fence or wall followed by a ten foot tall electrified security fence and excessive warning signage. This requested amendment has the potential to negatively affect the entry points into the city resulting in an image that the community is unfriendly and uninviting. The proposed amendment to allow electrical security fencing portrays a negative image on the community and sets uninviting tones to visitors that travel into the city along the major arterial streets. CORRESPONDENCE As of the date that this report was printed, staff has not received correspondence regarding this application. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis contained within this report and in the negative findings above, the proposed Code Amendment is contrary to the goals of the General Plan and cannot make the findings required to adopt the proposed Code Amendment. As such, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending denial of the Municipal Code Amendment (PLN-20-00042) to the City Council. EXHIBITS A. Resolution B. Zoning Map highlighting M-1, M-2, and C-M properties along with major and primary arterial streets C. Senate Bill 582 and Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis D. Code Amendment Application PC Agenda Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 20-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLN-20-00042 (MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT), A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 9520.08 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO GENERAL WALL, FENCE, AND HEDGE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRIFIED SECURITY FENCING IN C-M, M-1 AND M-2 ZONED PROPERTIES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. An application was filed by Keith Kaneko and Carol Bausinger (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant” on April 9, 2020, requesting approval of a Municipal Code Amendment (PLN-20-00042) to allow for electrified security fencing within the C-M, M-1 and M-2 zones throughout the city. Due to missing information, the application was deemed incomplete; and, B. On May 11, 2020, the Applicant resubmitted the required information needed to complete the application. Accordingly, Staff deemed the application complete on June 8, 2020; and, C. On June 2, 2020, notice of the pending zone code amendment was published in the Downey Patriot as a 1/8th page ad in accordance with the requirements of the Downey Municipal Code; and, D. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 15, 2020, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that it cannot make the required positive findings to approve the requested Municipal Code Amendment as described below: A. The requested amendment is not necessary and desirable for the development of the community and is in the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The applicant seeks to allow electrified security fencing by right, without discretionary review by staff or the Planning Commission, subject to the standards established in California Civil Code Section 835, through adoption of SB 582. Electric fences produce an electrical charge that when in contact with a person or animal creates an electrical shock with the purpose to cause enough harm or discomfort to prevent additional contact. The regulations adopted through SB 582 PC Agenda Page 6 Resolution No. 20-_______ Downey Planning Commission provided guidelines to regulate the installation of electrified security fences and standardize safe installation of such fences. The regulations do not identify maintenance standards that would alleviate concerns identified by the Fire Department who stated that poor maintenance can lead to a potential source of fire due to the accumulation of combustible waste and vegetation. The applicant has stated the need for security is the reason the proposed code amendment should be approved but, does not acknowledge that the code already provides provisions for additional security measures when needed and properly evaluated by the Planning Commission through a Site Plan Review application. The applicant has not shown how the proposed amendment is necessary for the furtherance of public health, safety, and general welfare. In contrast, the concerns of the Fire Department indicate the proposed amendment can be a potential detriment to public health, safety, and general welfare. B. The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the General Plan. Goals and policies established in the General Plan provide the guidance that shapes all development within the City. All action taken by the City must be in conformance with these goals and policies. The proposed amendment, however, is contrary to General Plan Policy 8.3.1, which is in place to promote the enhancement of property views from public streets to exhibit a positive image. This Policy is supported by the following programs: Program 8.3.1.4. – Discourage the use of street yard setbacks for uses and activities inconsistent with portraying a positive image of the community. Program 8.3.1.5. – Discourage security devices and fence/wall designs that portray an image that the community is unfriendly and uninviting. The proposed amendment to allow for electrified security fencing by right in the M-1, M-2, and C-M zones is in stark contrast to this General Plan Policy. The current zoning map shows that nearly all M-1, M-2 and C-M zones are located along the city’s major and primary arterial streets. The proposed amendment would allow double barrier fencing with a standard six foot tall fence or wall followed by a ten foot tall electrified security fence and excessive warning signage. This requested amendment has the potential to negatively affect the entry points into the city resulting in an image that the community is unfriendly and uninviting. The proposed amendment to allow electrical security fencing portrays a negative image on the community and sets uninviting tones to visitors that travel into the city along the major arterial streets. SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1 through 3 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends that the City Council deny the Municipal Code Amendment (PLN-20-00042). PC Agenda Page 7 Resolution No. 20-_______ Downey Planning Commission SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 2020. Miguel Duarte, Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of July, 2020 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Mary Cavanagh, Secretary City Planning Commission PC Agenda Page 8 Exhibit ‘B’ PC Agenda Page 9 Senate Bill No. 582 CHAPTER 273 An act to add Section 835 to the Civil Code, and to amend Sections 17151 and 17152 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to electriﬁed fences. [Approved by Governor September 4, 2015. Filed with Secretary of State September 4, 2015.] legislative counsel’s digest SB 582, Hall. Electriﬁed fences. Existing law prohibits an electriﬁed fence to be offered for sale, sold, installed, or used in the state, or otherwise connected to a source of electrical current, unless the electrical current is limited and regulated by an electrical controller that meets or exceeds speciﬁed standards or speciﬁcations. Existing law also provides that the owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to everything permanently situated beneath or above it. This bill would amend the list of institutes and associations that may set the standards according to which the lawfulness of an electriﬁed fence is measured and exclude from the deﬁnition of electriﬁed fence used in that provision an electriﬁed security fence, as deﬁned. The bill would authorize an owner of real property to install and operate an electriﬁed security fence on his or her property if the property is not in a residential zone, the fence is identiﬁed by prominently placed warning signs, the height of the fence does not exceed 10 feet, the fence is located behind a perimeter fence that is not less than 6 feet in height, and the fence meets speciﬁed electrotechnical and local requirements. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 835 is added to the Civil Code, to read: 835. (a) As used in this chapter, “electriﬁed security fence” means any fence, other than an electriﬁed fence described in Section 17151 of the Food andAgricultural Code, that meets the following requirements: (1) The fence is powered by an electrical energizer with both of the following output characteristics: (A) The impulse repetition rate does not exceed 1 hertz (hz). (B) The impulse duration does not exceed 10 milliseconds, or 10⁄10000 of a second. (2) The fence is used to protect and secure commercial or industrial property. (b) An owner of real property may install and operate an electriﬁed security fence on his or her property subject to all of the following: 94 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL PC Agenda Page 10 (1) The property is not located in a residential zone. (2) The fence meets the 2006 international standards and speciﬁcations of the International Electrotechnical Commission for electric fence energizers in “International Standard IEC 60335, Part 2-76.” (3) The fence is identiﬁed by prominently placed warning signs that are legible from both sides of the fence. At a minimum, the warning signs shall meet all of the following criteria: (A) The warning signs are placed at each gate and access point, and at intervals along the fence not exceeding 30 feet. (B) The warning signs are adjacent to any other signs relating to chemical, radiological, or biological hazards. (C) The warning signs are marked with a written warning or a commonly recognized symbol for shock, a written warning or a commonly recognized symbol to warn people with pacemakers, and a written warning or commonly recognized symbol about the danger of touching the fence in wet conditions. (4) The height of the fence does not exceed 10 feet and is located behind a perimeter fence that is not less than 6 feet in height. (c) An owner of real property shall not install and operate an electriﬁed security fence where a local ordinance prohibits that installation and operation. If a local ordinance allows the installation and operation of an electriﬁed security fence, the installation and operation of the fence shall meet the requirements of that ordinance and the requirements of subdivision (b). SEC. 2. Section 17151 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 17151. (a) As used in this chapter, “electriﬁed fence” means any fence and appurtenant devices, including, but not limited to, fences and devices used in animal control, and including, but not limited to, a fence consisting of a single strand of wire supported by posts or other ﬁxtures, which has an electrical charge or is connected to a source of electrical current and which is so designed or placed that a person or animal coming into contact with the conductive element of the fence receives an electrical shock. (b) For purposes of this chapter, “electriﬁed fence” does not include an electriﬁed security fence as described in Section 835 of the Civil Code. SEC. 3. Section 17152 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 17152. No electriﬁed fences shall be offered for sale, sold, installed, or used in this state, or otherwise connected to a source of electrical current, unless the electrical current is limited and regulated by an electrical controller which meets or exceeds the standards or speciﬁcations of the National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association, international standards of the International Electrotechnical Commission, or the Underwriters Laboratories for intermittent type electric fence or electriﬁed fence controllers. O 94 —2 —Ch. 273 PC Agenda Page 11 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair 2015-2016 Regular Session SB 582 (Hall) Version: April 7, 2015 Hearing Date: May 12, 2015 Fiscal: No Urgency: No TH:jt SUBJECT Electrified Fences DESCRIPTION This bill would authorize an owner of real property to install and operate an electrified fence on his or her property if the property is not in a residential zone, the fence meets specified requirements, and a local ordinance does not prohibit its installation and operation. BACKGROUND Generally speaking, an electric fence is a fence that has an electrical charge that is designed or placed so that a person or animal coming into contact with the fence receives an electric shock. It operates by sending a high voltage pulse of electricity at regular intervals through conductive materials in the fence. Unlike other physical boundaries like barbed wire or razor wire, commercial electric fences do not physically harm things that come into contact with them. Electric fences do not cause physical harm to animals or people because the length of electric shock delivered by the fence is very brief. According to one scholar: “[e]ven when the voltage is high, when the current flows for only a very short duration we cannot be electrocuted. . . . A large enough current can cause ventricular fibrillation,” during which “the pumping action of the heart ceases and death occurs within minutes unless treated. In the United States, approximately 1000 deaths per year occur in accidents that involve cord-connected appliances in kitchens, bathrooms, and other wet locations . . . shock durations longer than 1 second are the most dangerous . . . [e]lectric security fences have taken advantage of this fact by shortening their shock duration to an even shorter duration of about 0.0003 seconds . . . electric fences are safe and do not lead to ventricular fibrillation due to the short 0.0003 second shock duration. (John Webster, Safety of Electric Security Fences, University of Wisconsin - Madison, <http://intelligentfencing.com/ PC Agenda Page 12 SB 582 (Hall) Page 2 of 4 schematics/Safety/Safety%20of%20electric%20security%20fences.pdf> [as of May 8, 2015].) The sale of electric fences is currently prohibited in California unless the electrical current is limited and regulated by an electrical controller that meets or exceed specified standards. (Food & Agr. Code Sec. 17152.) This bill would further codify that a property owner may install and operate an electrified fence if: (1) the property is not in a residential zone; and (2) the fence meets requirements specified by the International Electrotechnical Commission for electric fence energizers. This bill would specify that an owner would not be allowed to install and operate a fence where a local ordinance prohibits that installation and operation. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law provides that no electrified fences shall be offered for sale, sold, installed, or used in this state, or otherwise connected to a source of electrical current, unless the electrical current is limited and regulated by an electrical controller which meets or exceeds the standards or specifications of the National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association, the New Zealand Standards Institute, the Standards Association of Australia, or the Underwriters Laboratories for intermittent type electric fence or electrified fence controllers. (Food & Agr. Code Sec. 17152.) Existing law provides that existing provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code pertaining to electric fences shall not be construed to preclude regulation of electrified fences by cities and counties, including, but not limited to, requiring the installation or use of electrified fences under permit, except that such regulation shall not permit the installation or use of electrified fences which do not conform to the requirements of this chapter. (Food & Agr. Code Sec. 17153.) This bill would provide that an owner of real property may install and operate an electrified fence on his or her property consistent with all of the following: (1) the property is not located in a residential zone; and (2) the fence meets the requirements specified by the International Electrotechnical Commission for electric fence energizers in “International Standard 60335 -2-76.” This bill would further provide that an owner of real property shall not install and operate an electric fence where a local ordinance prohibits that installation and operation. If a local ordinance allows the installation and operation of an electric fence, the installation and operation of the electric fence shall meet the requirements of the ordinance, as well as the requirements listed above. PC Agenda Page 13 SB 582 (Hall) Page 3 of 4 COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill According to the author: Many California-based companies that are in the cargo transportation, inventory storage and containment shipping business have, at any given time, millions of dollars worth of products and service-related equipment on their premises. Storage is often held overnight for several days or weeks awaiting transport. The primary protection of valuable goods and equipment is a security fence, designed to prevent criminal trespass and theft. The installation of an electric security fence in a jurisdiction is subject to permitting and approval. Current state law on the use and installation of an electric security fence in non-agricultural zones is vague. There is no consensus among local jurisdictions whether or not they can allow the installation of electric security fences. SB 582 provides clear guidelines for the installation of electric security fences, based on international standards [e]nsuring [their] safe and reliable installation in non- residential zones. Existing international standards require the installation of a perimeter fence at least six feet tall separating the public from the electrified fence. Ad ditionally, to [e]nsure the safety of the public, warning signs must be visibly posted in at least two languages (English and Spanish) and access for emergency responders must be available. This bill helps the permitting process in local ordinances by clarifying state law, and regulating the use and installation of an electric security fence in non-residential zones. 2. Ensuring Safety and Local Control Existing law imposes certain safety standards for the installation and use of electric fences by prohibiting their sale or installation unless the fence’s electrical current is limited and regulated by an electrical controller which meets or exceeds the standards or specifications of the National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association, the New Zealand Standards Institute, the Standards Association of Australia, or the Underwriters Laboratories for intermittent type electric fence or electrified fence controllers. (Food & Ag r. Code Sec. 17152.) This bill would clarify that electric fences may be installed and used in non-agricultural settings provided they also conform to the requirements specified by the International Electrotechnical Commission for electric fence energizers in “International Standard 60335 -2-76.” As in existing law, this bill preserves the authority of local agencies to regulate the installation or use of electric fences within their jurisdictions, provided such regulations meet the safety requirements established in state law. This bill would specify that local agencies may regulate or prohibit by ordinance the installation and operation of electric PC Agenda Page 14 SB 582 (Hall) Page 4 of 4 fences within their jurisdictions. However, this bill would prohibit outright the use or operation of electric fences in residential zones. Allowing local agencies to maintain control over the installation and use of electric fences empowers those jurisdictions to weigh such issues as whether or not electric fence use should be permitted in mixed use zones adjacent to residential areas, or whether they should be permitted in areas near to where children play or other areas with high pedestrian traffic. Despite their non-lethality, coming into contact with an electric fence is unpleasant. In order to protect individuals from unintentionally coming into contact with an electric fence, International Standard IEC 60335-2-76 contains provisions specifying the size and placement of warning signs. To ensure that warning signs are appropriately placed on electric fence installations governed by this bill, the author offers the following amendment that would codify part of the IEC’s warning sign standard: Author’s Amendment: On page 2, betwee n lines 7 and 8, insert: “(3) T he fence is identified by prominently placed warning signs that are legible from both sides of the fence. At a minimum, warning signs shall be placed at each gate and access point, at intervals along the fence not exceeding 10 meters, and adjacent to any other signs relating to chemical, radiological, or biological hazards.” Support: ABF Freight System, Inc.; Copart, Inc.; Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.; SA Recycling LLC; SAIA LTL Freight; YRC Worldwide, Inc. Opposition: None Known HISTORY Source: Electric Guard Dog, Inc. Related Pending Legislation: None Known Prior Legislation: None Known ************** PC Agenda Page 15 PC Agenda Page 16 PC Agenda Page 17 PC Agenda Page 18 PC Agenda Page 19 PC Agenda Page 20 PC Agenda Page 21 PC Agenda Page 22 PC Agenda Page 23 PC Agenda Page 24 PC Agenda Page 25 PC Agenda Page 26 PC Agenda Page 27 PC Agenda Page 28 PC Agenda Page 29 PC Agenda Page 30 PC Agenda Page 31 PC Agenda Page 32 PC Agenda Page 33 PC Agenda Page 34 PC Agenda Page 35 PC Agenda Page 36 PC Agenda Page 37 PC Agenda Page 38 PC Agenda Page 39 PC Agenda Page 40 PC Agenda Page 41