HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12061983 - IO.4 TO: ' ;• BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Internal Operations Committee
Contra
Costa
DATE: December 5, 1983 County
SUBJECT: Proposed Swimming Pool Ordinance
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct the County Counsel to provide the Internal Operations Committee with a legal
briefing which describes the liability the County faces with either the existing
swimming pool ordinance or with changes as proposed by the Building Inspection
Department.
BACKGROUND:
Our Committee met with the Building Inspector and proponents and opponents of the
proposed changes to the swimming pool ordinance on December 5, 1983. We reviewed the
issues which had been raised that the Board of Supervisors heard on this matter
on October 25, 1983. According to the Building Inspector, the proposed changes to
the ordinance simply require that in any instance in which the back wall of a house
is used to complete the enclosure around a swimming pool , that the doors and windows
on that wall contain self-closing and self-latching devices. The proposed ordinance
does not require a fence to form the fourth side of the enclosure around the pool
unless the doors and windows leading into the pool area cannot be or are not fitted
with self-closing and self-latching devices.
We heard testimony from Danville City Councilman Doug Offenhartz indicating that the
City Council would support the most effective possible barrier and that, therefore,
it would be their preference that the ordinance require a fence with not to exceed
three-inch spaces between boards or bars. The City Council does not believe that
there are adequate standards of effectiveness or safety for pool alarms or covers,
and that there should be no exemptions to the requirement for a fence.
Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District Chief Bill Maxfield noted his experience that
self-latching doors or gates are not maintained and that eventually such a door or
gate is blocked open. He also expressed concern that there appears to be no ongoing
enforcement or inspection included in the proposed program, a fact which was confirmed
by the Building Inspector. Chief Maxfield indicated that it is his belief that pools
should be fully fenced on all sides.
Our Committee also heard from two physicians who urged complete fencing as a preferred
alternative to alarms, pool covers, or self-closing and latching doors.
Due to lack of time, our Committee was unable to hear from the Swimming Pool Industry
representatives. We have, therefore, scheduled this matter for hearing again on
December 19, 1983, at 9:30 a.m. , at which time we would like the industry representa-
tives to discuss the effectiveness of self-latching and self-closing doors and windows,
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) Nancy C. Fanden �ers
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 6 , '1 983 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTEDA_4Z-?ZL1_b11 y /�✓
County Counsel J.R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK
B i-lding Inspector AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BIA�Q
0. Committee J JJ
i
M392/7-e5 BY DEPUTY
-2-
and to provide our Committee with safety data relating to pool covers and data
regarding the sensitivity of pool alarms to small toddlers who may slip into the
pool without creating enough surface disturbance to set off the alarm.
We also believe it is important for County Counsel to advise our Committee on the
extent to which the County incurs greater or lessor liability exposure, depending on
the type of ordinance which is put in place.
136