Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10021984 - IO.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Internal Operations Committee Costa DATE: October 1 , 1984 County SUBJECT: Report on Swimming Pool Ordinance SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . That no action be taken by the Board in regard to Mr. Burns' letter since the appropriate process provided for in the Ordinance is for an individual homeowner seeking a building permit to appeal to the Board of Supervisors if the building permit is denied, or if the resident believes that unreasonable conditions have been placed on the issuance of the permit. 2. Direct the Building Inspector, in cooperation with the Spa and Pool Industry and the proponents of the original ordinance, to draft language exempting large rural properties from having a fence around three sides of a pool , providing that the fourth side (between the home and pool area) is protected either by a fence or one of the four alternatives outlined in the Ordinance. 3. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: On September 18, 1984, the Board referred to our Committee a letter from Donald Carlton Burns, Executive Director, California Spa and Pool Industry, Energy, Codes and Legislative Council , expressing concern that the Building Inspector has declined to approve as an alternative safety mechanism any alarm which is placed in a pool on the basis that this does not alert the residents prior to a child's falling into the pool . Our Committee met with the Building Inspector, County Counsel , and representatives from the pool industry, as well as Mrs. Nadina Riggsbee, on October 1 , 1984. Mr. Giese summarized his position that the Board's intent in adopting a swimming pool fencing ordinance was that alternatives to a fence only be approved if they prevent someone from getting into the pool . The type of floating alarm being advocated by the-industry only alerts the parents, or other guardian of a child, that the child has fallen into the pool and, therefore, does not qualify as a mechanism preventing access to the pool . The issue here seems to revolve around an interpretation of the language in the ordinance in terms of whether the Board's intent was to detect unauthorized entry into a pool itself, or into the area surrounding the pool . The Building Inspector is interpreting the ordinance as meaning that a device must detect unauthorized entry into the area surrounding the pool . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:_�X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTH 1 516NATURT�JOM Power ( Nancy C. Fanden (V//( ACTION OF BOARD ON October 2. 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III ) 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 County Administrator OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Counsel ATTESTED 6� d+ /9 84/ Building Inspector D. C. Burns PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Mr. D Mrs. C. rngg5bee Supervisors and County Administrator r E' 1 :? M382/7•83 BYDEPUTY I -2- Supervisor Powers agreed that that was the interpretation he intended, but that, ultimately, the Board of Supervisors will have to determine the appropriate interpretation of the ordinance. Supervisor Fanden indicated that it had been her opinion that the ordinance included as an acceptable alternative to a fence an alarm that would go off when someone fell into the pool . The Building Inspector pointed out that there is a clear appeal process provided to the Board of Supervisors in any instance in which an individual is denied a building permit, or where they believe that the Building Inspector has placed unreasonable limitations on the issuance of a building permit. Our Committee agrees that the appropriate mechanism for resolving this dispute should be on a case-by-case basis in which appeals are made to the Board of Supervisors by individuals who are seeking building permits. Our Committee has noted one problem with the ordinance relating to large, rural lots where previously no fence around a pool was required. The existing amend- ment eliminates this exclusion for large, rural properties. We do not believe that this was the Board' s intent and have, therefore, suggested that the Building Inspector work with both the proponents and opponents to the original ordinance in an effort to draft language which would permit an unfenced pool on large, rural properties, providing that one of the four alternatives is utilized to protect the pool area from the home. nrj� �