Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff’s office pushes countywide fireworks ban and social‑host liability; committee recommends forwarding ordinance
Summary
The committee recommended the Board consider a proposed ordinance that would prohibit all fireworks in unincorporated Alameda County, create social‑host civil liability and fines (first $750, second $1,500, third or subsequent up to $2,500), and establish an appeals process through the Board of Zoning Adjustments; Sheriff's Office said the ordinance is meant to deter illegal fireworks and reduce wildfire and public‑safety risks.
The Alameda County Sheriff's Office presented a proposed ordinance to ban fireworks across unincorporated Alameda County, establish social‑host liability, and provide enforcement and appeal procedures; the Unincorporated Services Committee recommended the proposal be forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors.
Sergeant Curtis Imperial of the sheriff's property crimes unit told the committee the ordinance would explicitly prohibit possession, manufacture, sale, offer for sale, use or discharge of dangerous fireworks and "safe and sane" fireworks in unincorporated areas and create a social‑host provision holding responsible parties or property owners strictly liable in some circumstances. Sergeant Imperial said the policy was developed with county counsel, code enforcement, and fire agencies and stems from community concern and data: he reported roughly 644 fireworks calls for service in a one‑month period (June 4–July 6) in recent years and said the ordinance provides new civil enforcement tools and an administrative appeals process heard by the Board of Zoning Adjustments.
The proposed enforcement framework includes on‑scene options (verbal warnings, confiscation, criminal citation) and administrative civil citations for social hosts. The draft schedules a first civil violation at $750, a second at $1,500 and a third or subsequent violation up to $2,500, with no grace period for repeated violations; citations must be served and paid within prescribed timelines or referred to collections after notice. Sergeant Imperial said deputies would document activity using photos, video and reports and could identify property owners via the county assessor if responsible parties could not be identified on scene. The ordinance also contemplates an appeals form and administrative hearing process with the BZA, followed by a Board of Supervisors review and judicial review under California Government Code section 53069.4.
Public commenters from multiple neighborhoods urged adoption, citing successful reductions in incidents after comparable bans in nearby jurisdictions (Hayward, Livermore, Santa Clara County) and stressing wildfire risk in high‑severity zones. Supervisors asked about workload, how liability would be assigned for multiunit properties, cultural or ceremonial exceptions (for lion dances or permitted pyrotechnic displays), and whether BZA hearings would be held under oath; staff said they would confirm procedures with county counsel and noted existing permit paths for permitted pyrotechnic professionals.
Supervisor Tam moved and Supervisor Miley seconded forwarding the ordinance to the full Board; the committee voted in favor. Sergeant Imperial said the sheriff's office would pursue notice and public‑education campaigns prior to implementation with the goal of having the ordinance in effect before large summer holiday observances.
