Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03061984 - T.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 6, 1984 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden, Schroder, .McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Swimming Pool Fencing Ordinance The Board on February 7, 1984 having directed County Counsel and the Building Inspector to prepare an Ordinance requiring a fence between a house and a swimming pool so as to provide for a fence completely enclosing a swimming pool , and having indicated the Board's intent to introduce the Ordinance on March 6, 1984 and to fix March 13, 1984 for adoption of the Ordinance; and Supervisor Torlakson having indicated that the purpose of having the Ordinance before the Board at this time was to determine whether the Ordinance accomplishes what the Board wanted to accomplish; and Supervisor Powers having asked County Counsel to describe what the Ordinance does; and Victor Westman, Assistant County Counsel , having explained that the Ordinance now before the Board requires a complete fence enclosure with self-closing and self-latching doors for pools constructed pursuant to building permits issued subsequent to the effective date of the Ordinance; and Supervisor Schroder having asked County Counsel for clarification of the Ordinance' s application to spas; and Mr. Westman having responded that the Building Inspector is interpreting the language of the Ordinance, specifically the definition of a swimming pool , as excluding spas; and Supervisor McPeak having noted that even if spas are more than 18 inches deep they have less than 250 square feet of surface area and would, therefore, be excluded; and Supervisor Torlakson having requested that the Ordinance have a specific provision excluding spas regardless of their depth; and Supervisor Fanden having commented that the Ordinance is unenforceable and doesn' t make sense; and Supervisor Torlakson having indicated that each side (for and against the Ordinance) would have ten minutes to present testimony, and having requested that testimony be limited to new information not previously provided to the Board and that such testimony focus narrowly on the language of the Ordinance presently being considered by the Board; and Supervisor Powers having recommended that the matter be put over to a later date if all testimony had not been presented by noon; and Supervisor Schroder having noted that the testimony should focus solely on the Ordinance; and Supervisor McPeak having agreed with Supervisor Schroder and having added that the merits of the proposal are not at issue; that the testimony should only focus on the language of the Ordinance, and having explained why she voted in favor of the Ordinance on February 7; and 000207 -2- Supervisor Fanden having suggested the alternative of having the Ordinance apply only to homes where the family has children under the age of four because the County does not have the staff resources to go around and check on everyone's compliance with the Ordinance; and Stevan Cavalier, M.D. , on behalf of the proponents of the Ordinance, having indicated that the Ordinance does exclude spas and is, in his opinion, enforceable, and that we trust people to follow the law, and having cited studies which show that fences prevent or reduce the number of drownings; and Donald Burns of the California Spa and Pool Industry Council , on behalf of the opponents to the Ordinance, having spoken in favor of the alternatives suggested in the Internal Operations Committee report of January 17, 1984, that a fence is not an appropriate solution to the problem, and that parental supervision is the only real answer; and Mr. Burns, in response to questions from Supervisor Powers, having agreed that the existing requirement for a fence on three sides of a pool prevent intrusions which are unknown to the owner, and that the industry might support the Ordinance if it were limited to families with children under the age of four; and Supervisor Torlakson having read the comments of persons present in the audience who submitted written comments but did not want to address the Board; and James Prosser from the California Spa and Pool Industry Council having noted that the Walnut Creek City Council voted against an Ordinance similar to the one now before the Board; having suggested that the fence requirement apply only to those portions of the wall of the house actually having openings rather than the full length of the wall ; and Supervisor Powers having indicated that he had no problem with limiting the requirement for a fence to the areas of the wall of the house having doors or other openings, and that such language can be incorporated in the Ordinance; and Paula Richardson having spoken against the Ordinance because it does not provide for alternatives, such as pool covers; and Bob Cunningham having spoken against the Ordinance; and Diana Toland having spoken against the Ordinance because it does not provide for alternatives such as an alarm on the door leading to the pool area; and Mike Smith having spoken against the Ordinance as an unwarranted intrusion of government into people's homes; and Tom Duross having submitted a written statement suggesting a variety of alternatives to a fence, some of which might even be made applicable to existing pools; and Supervisor McPeak having suggested that the Ordinance and Mr. Duross's written comments be referred back to the Internal Operations Committee in order to further examine the alternatives suggested by Mr. Duross; and Supervisor Fanden having agreed with the referral ; and Supervisor Powers having suggested that staff meet with a few representa- tives from each side to review the alternatives and make recommendations back to the Internal Operations Committe; and Supervisor Torlakson havi.ng indicated that he is willing to have the Internal Operations Committee review the matter again although he believes there is validity to the Ordinance as it stands, and that he is concerned about the problem of visitors, the problem of the resale of a house, the problem of parents who are less than responsible in supervising their children, and having suggested a field trip to see some of the alternatives actually in place; and 0OQX©5 l -3- Supervisor McPeak having suggested that the use of alternatives would at least be an improvement over what is in place at present and would be closer to the goal of protecting children, and that it will be necessary to evaluate any new Ordinance over time and gather statistics to see whether the use of alternatives has really been successful ; and Supervisor Schroder having indicated that he is extremely pleased that the Board is moving in the direction it is because it has been his concern that the Board was not looking at the possible use of some alternatives; and Supervisor Fanden having noted that the public discussion of the issue has been helpful ; and Supervisor Powers having moved to refer the proposed Ordinance and Mr. Duross's statement to the Building Inspector with directions to Mr. Giese to meet with two or three people on each side of the issue to address the possible alternatives and report back to the Internal Operations Committee, and to adopt a Resolution promoting Pool Safety Month, and to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference summarizing the action taken by the Board to date since the majority of pools are in the incorporated cities; and Supervisor Fanden having seconded the motion; the motion was APPROVED unanimously. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and enterEri on the m:notes of the Board of Supervisors on the date sh,.wn. ATTESTED: 9�2e� f. , lduy J.R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK and ex officlo Clerk of the Board By—Q9=5&w Deputy Orig: County Administrator cc: Building Inspector County Counsel Internal Operations Committee Supervisor Tom Torlakson Dr. S. Cavalier Mr. Donald Burns Mr. Tom Duross 00000