Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01171984 - IO.2 �U Z TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: 1983 Internal Operations Committee Contra Costa DATE: January 17, 1984 County SUBJECT: Proposed Swimming Pool Fencing Ordinance SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Determine what action the Board wishes to take. BACKGROUND On October 25, 1983 the Board held a public hearing on the proposed adoption of an ordinance amending the present ordinance code relating to swimming pool enclosures. At the conclusion of that hearing, all testimony was referred to our Committee for further consideration and a recommendation back to the Board. Our Committee held additional meetings with proponents and opponents of the proposed change on December 5, 1983 and December 19 , 1983. The present ordinance code (Section 718-4) requires a fence around a swim- ming pool, as defined, but allows the wall of a house to serve as the fourth side of such an enclosure. The .proposed wording of the amendment to the ordinance code requires a fence or a wall as the fourth side of such an enclosure and requires that it have self-closing and self-locking doors or gates. It may, however, be expensive or impractical to install self-closing and self-latching locks on doors. A fence may, therefore, be the only practical alternative. Several issues were considered by our Committee, among them the following: 1. Should the ordinance be retroactive or not, and is that clearly spelled out in the ordinance? 2. May the wall of a house be used as the "fourth wall" of a fence around a swimming pool if any door or window on that wall is fitted with a self-closing and self-latching fastener, or is a "fence" to be built between the house and pool regardless of safety measures taken with any door or window? 3. Is it intended that items. other than "swimming pools, " such as spas, hot-tubs, and wading pools be included as "swimming pools" for purposes of requiring a fence? 4. Will safety features, such as pool covers or alarms, be allowed as alternatives to a fence? CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR x RECOMMEND ON OF BO RD COMMITTEE APPR VE OTHER die_ o L. SIGNATURE(S) N. C. Fah en Powers ACTION OF BOARD N danlla r)Z17, 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _)L Receipt of aforesaid report is ACKNOWLEDGED and February 7, 1984 , at 10 : 30 a.m. is FIXED as the time for consideration of same. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV ) 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: Building Inspector ATTESTED January 17 , 1984 County Counsel J.R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK County Administrator AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD 380 M362/7-83 BY , DEPUTY -2- 5. If the ordinance is not to be retroactive, should a committee be formed to organize preventive measures which can be taken with existing pools on a voluntary basis? Our Committee is in agreement that there is no intent to make the ordinance amendment retroactive. It would, therefore, apply only to pools constructed in the future. We are also in agreement that a committee should be formed to organize preventive measures which can be taken by the owners of existing pools on a voluntary basis. Supervisor Powers endorses the recommendation that the ordinance code be amended as noted in the above recommendation. From the testimony provided, it is his belief that a fence can serve as an effective deterrent for small children and that inadquate evidence was presented that any other safety measures will be as effective as a fence in preventing accidental drownings or near-drownings. Supervisor Powers , would also recommend the formation of a second committee to monitor the implementation of the ordinance, review alternatives and report back to the Board on the effect- iveness of the fencing requirement after it has been in place for a year or two. Supervisor Fanden is extremely concerned as to the safety of small children and is sympathetic to the goals of parents and physicians who testified before the Committee and Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Fanden' s concern is that this ordinance would be another example of government intrusion into homes to protect individuals from themselves. She also believes that a fence is no substitute for close supervision of children around pools. Also, she feels that the mere fact of a fence would contribute to a sense of false security on the part of parents, guardians, babysitters, etc. and thereby reduce the supervision provided. In addition, she gave as an example the testimony of Consolidated Fire District Chief W. Maxfield who noted in his experience, self-latching doors and gates are not maintained and are eventually blocked open. Supervisor Fanden believes safety devices to protect .against access to a pool by a child is good practice, but she does not feel the protection should be limited by law to a specified method, i.e. , a fifth barrier, since the present ordinance already provides for a complete pool enclosure. It is her opinion that the safety precautions taken are the responsibility of the homeowner and are determined by the family makeup, pool location on the property, etc. She firmly believes that no one wants to see even one child die in a family pool. After studying the issue thoroughly, the Supervisors should - at least - initiate a widespread education program for pool owners who have your children. She would support an ordinance that required parents of youn sters in the vulnerable under 4 age group to completely fence off their pools from their houses. The ordinance in its present form should not be supported and instead the Board should direct the Building Inspector to survey those individuals who have taken out building permits for swimming pools in the past year to get their reactions to the proposed amendment and report back to the Board before the Board further considers the proposed amendment. 381