Follow-up·March 15, 2024

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Melchisedeck Augustin made an unannounced Case Management (CM) visit and met with Licensee (LS), Sandra Galileo, for the purpose of taking pictures of the pool areas and to further evaluate the facility's compliance with pool fencing requirements. During a Required 3-Year visit on 01/05/2024, LPA observed an accessible above ground pool and hot tub that contained a cover that was not securely locked on all sides in the backyard, and the pool was not completely fenced. The pool was partially fenced by five feet wooden fence with a wooden gate that was propped opened, and the view of the pool was obscured, the home had an office window and bedroom glass sliding door with functional door locks that led into the pool yard. It is noted that the facility did not have a waiver on file and according LS, the pool was installed in the year 2020. LS did not notify the Department of the installation of the pool and the facility did not meet pool fencing requirements. During today's visit, LPA observed LS took several positive steps to ensure inaccessibility of the pool but due to the sides of the pool measuring four feet in height, the pool did not meet fencing requirements. The hot tub had a secured cover installed and was inaccessible. LS installed a metal gate that did not obscure the view of the pool that swung away from the body of water, and the gate was closed. The sides of the pool had a smooth surface with no ridges to climb and there were no items around the pool for a child(ren) to climb. There were cameras installed in the pool yard, the pool ladder was detached and stored in a corner of the yard. The existing wood and chain linked perimeter fence was at least five feet in height and appeared to be free from defects or conditions that could endanger a child. The door to the off limit bedroom and office had sensors installed and were key locked; and the office window had a window lock installed. The sensors connected to a panel located near the entry door which alerted LS and staff if the windows were to be opened. (Continue to LIC 809-C) LPA had a discussion with LS in regards to the pool fencing, and LS understood the facility did not comply with fencing requirements. LS acknowledged the pool sides were not at least five feet in height and LS agreed to either install a fence across the yard to fence off the pool or install an extension to raise the pool sides to five feet or install a pool cover that would support the weight of an adult. LS agreed install a lock to prevent the glass sliding door from entering more than 3 inches and LS to notify the Department of the methods she intends to use to bring the facility into compliance by 03/18/24, and the facility intends to bring the pool fencing into compliance by 03/27/24. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the Licensee, Sandra Galileo. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. There were no violation(s) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22; Division 12, observed during today\342\200\231s visit.