COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00004 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Swimming Pool and Jacuzzi Questionnaire results.        January 28, 1979
C00007 00003	Report from the chairman of the Ad Hoc Pool Committee	    10 Feb. 79
C00012 00004	Arguments for and against having a pool at The Sequoias		10 Feb. 79
C00020 ENDMK
C⊗;
Swimming Pool and Jacuzzi Questionnaire results.        January 28, 1979

Ambiguities were present in many of the returns that make it difficult to learn
the true intent of the responders. For example, 62 people indicated that they
lived near the open area at the south east end of the colonnaide (actually only
17 people should have answered this question).  While there was some possibility
of misinterpretation of this question, 48 people who voted no to it also voted
no to all questions.  Some 14 voted yes.  If all who live in this area voted
then we know that at least 3 of them are opposed but then there may be more or
there may be fewer.

Several people thought that the pool should be free to all residents but they
objected to having The Sequoias pay anything toward its upkeep.

There was a serious omission from the questionnaire itself, in that no questions
were asked as to the reasons for opposing any such facilities.  As a result, we
are somewhat in the dark as to the real reasons why so many people were
vehemently opposed.  Several people felt so strongly that they conducted a
telephone campaign to get all shut-ins to vote no.  I am tabulating on another
sheet some valid reasons that may be back of this vehement reaction.  A few
people did list their objections.

Because of these problems the following tabulation should not be taken too
literally but rather as a first attempt to summerize the results.
        - - - - - - - - - - - -
Like to have pool and jacuzzi  Yes 67, Non-user yes 35, No choice 16, No 86.
(It would seem that most of the non-users were against others having a pool.)

Interested in using     a pool 45,  a jacuzzi 43,  one or both 67
Willing to pay a maximum fee                  0 to $5   $10    $15   $20 
per month for use of the pool and jacuzzi        10      34     7     16

Would use the pool     all year, if in the open 13, if in a building 32
                        only during the summer  15

The prefered location for the pool and jacuzzi
    Between the Croquet Court and the adjacent parking lot       38
    At the right of Hanson Hall (where the flag pole is)          7
    At the left of Hanson Hall (perhaps not enough room)          1
    In the open area at the south east end of the Colonnade      44
        If you live nearby, would you favor this?     Yes 14   No 48

Suggested locations,    Basement of Health Center, Near Corporation Yard,
  Purchased land to the north west, Near Tree Lane, Replacing  croquet court,
  Near water tank.
The pool should be, in the open 13, in a building 19, bubble covered 20
The desired pool size is     20x40 ft. 17,  18x36 ft. 17,   15x30 ft. 8
The maximum depth should be  4 ft. 4,   5 ft. 18,  6 ft. 10,   7 ft. 2
Report from the chairman of the Ad Hoc Pool Committee	    10 Feb. 79

The work of the committee has been directed along two general lines:

1) We have been accumulating information as to the approximate costs of different
types of pools, the problems that are apt to be encountered because of our
location, the problems of dealing with the town of Portola Valley, and the
advantages and disadvantages of different sites.  The chairman has talked with
all of the major pool building firms in this area and he is getting actual
building costs from friends who are building pools in this area or have pools in
operation.  One pool builder, who is currently building two pools in Portola
Valley, viewed the different possible sites and was very helpful.

2) We also distributed a questionnaire to the residents to learn if there was
enough interest in having a pool to continue with the inquiry.

The committee met on two occasions to discuss the general problem.  We all agreed
to having a questionnaire, but unfortunately we could not agree on the exact form
that such a questionnaire should take.  The chairman finally decided to
distribute a compromise questionnaire in the absence of complete agreement.

The committee is also not unanimous in its interpretation of the results.  The
chairman tried to get tabulation help from a non-concurring committee member and
from one of the more vocal Sequoian objectors, in both cases without success, so
the final tabulation as posted was the work of one person who might be considered
to be biased.

A disturbing aspect of the situation, as revealed by the replies, was the
vehemence with which some people opposed the entire idea of having a pool at The
Sequoias.  Some few even went so far as to phone shut-ins in an attempt to rally
the opposition.  Many seem to think that the questionnaire was a vote and that we
should have a pool only if a majority wanted one, rather than that a minority
should be allowed to have a pool if it could be done without adversely affecting
the interests of the non-users.  If the first viewpoint were to prevail we should
abolish bowling, square dancing, bingo, weekly church services, and all
activities and facilities that are used by less than half of our residents.

It was proposed that we publish the questionnaire results in The Sequoian.  This
was discussed with Mr. Dillon who thought that this might not be a good idea.
Action was deferred until it could be discussed by the Council.  In view of the
differences in point of view within the Pool Committee, if results are to be
published, the Chairman recommends that the Council appoint an independent Tally
Committee to verify the summary and perhaps re-do it.

The chairman believes that enough people at The Sequoias want a pool to justify
its construction and he further believes that the operating costs can be financed
entirely by charges levied against the users.  This is not, however, the opinion
of all members of the ad hoc committee.
Arguments for and against having a pool at The Sequoias		10 Feb. 79

Several people have asked for a summary of the arguments for and against having a
pool at The Sequoias.  This summary was prepared by the chairman of the ad hoc
Pool Committee and it has not been approved by the committee.

The principal argument in favor of having a pool is, of course, the health
benefits that come from regular exercise and the value of swimming as an
acceptable form of exercise for people in our age group.

The arguments against having a pool are more varied but they can be grouped into
seven major categories.

1. Financing. The most frequent voiced objection is based on the belief that
interest in the pool will wane and that eventually the cost of maintaining the
pool will fall on non-users as well as users.  Interest may indeed wane and we
would have to take steps to prevent the costs from falling on non-users.

There are several mitigating factors.  The initial interest is certainly high
enough to allow for some attrition, additional residents may become interested
when they see others using the pool and having a pool will attract new residents
with such interests.  As one straw in the wind, forteen letters favoring a pool
to one letter opposed have been received from people on The Sequoias waiting
list.  It should be possible to set the monthly fee high enough to accumulate a
reserve fund and a few residents have even expressed their willingness to
contribute to an endowment fund for maintenance.  Finally, if the time came when
the realizable income would no longer support the pool, we could simply fill it
in and abandon it.

2. Hazards. Several people feel that there would be dangers for people of our age
group, both from falling and from getting into trouble in the water and that the
requirement of more than one resident to be present would not be adequate.

One cannot deny that there is a hazard, but from the reports that we received
from four other homes (with a total population of over one thousand), we are led
to believe that this hazard is not great. We might find it wise to require that
residents supply authorization from their doctor or from Mrs Mckenzie before
allowing them to become pool users.  On the whole, the benefits to all users
should more than compensate for this danger.

3. Liability. Some people apparently believe that the residents might be
personally liable in case of an accident at the pool.  The pool would be owned by
the NCPH and the liability would be the same as it is for any accident on the
property.  Some increase in insurance might be incurred.  This could be included
in the monthly charge.  Users of the pool and jacuzzi could be required to sign a
form relieving The Sequoias and the NCPH of any special liability for pool
accidents.

4. Maintenance. Some people think that the maintenance would have to be done by
our presently over-worked mantenance staff.  This is not intended since there are
regular pool maintenance firms that do this sort of thing.  It will not be
unreasonable to expect the users of the pool to assist by doing simple tasks
between the regular maintenance periods.  The general grounds maintenamce would
actually be reduced because of the fact that some ground area would be occupied
by the pool.

5. Vandalism and the "Attractive Nuisance" aspects.  We would certainly have to
take steps to prevent the unauthorized use of the pool at night and to protect it
from vandals.  One answer would be to have a key operated automatic pool cover
that would be left in place during those hours when the pool is not in use.  We
would also want an adequate fence with a lockable gate (that would not be locked
when the pool was in use, as this might prevent others from going to the aid of
swimmers should this ever be necessary).  This is neither East Palo Alto nor the
Stanford campus area.  Many of the homes along Willow Brook Road have pools, and
the attractive nuisance aspect is correspondingly reduced.

6. Unnecessary water usage.  This is not a major factor since pool water is
normally chlorinated, filtered and recirculated.  The total water usage over the
year would be very small as compared with our present normal requirements.

7. Unsightly use of the Colonnade.  An objection has been voiced to the fact that
residents would parade up and down the Colonnade in bathing suits and robes.
People normally do not object to the traffic to and from the pool in hotels and
on ship board, but if this is a real objection we could require the pool users to
go by way of the peripheral road.