HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-12 - Fire Protection Fee for Certain Developments125
RESOLUTION NO. 89-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FIRE PRO-
TECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES
AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa has adopted Ordinance
89-1 creating and establishing the authority for levying a Fire Protection
System Impact Fee.
2. The "Costa Mesa Fire Protection System Impact Fee Study" (Novem-
ber, 1988) analyzed the impacts of certain new future development on the
City's existing fire protection system, identified the needed new fire sta-
tions and equipment required by the new development, and set forth the
relationship between the new development, the needed facilities and equip-
ment, and the estimated costs of those facilities and equipment. The Costa
Mesa Fire Protection System Impact Fee Study (Exhibit "A") was prepared by
the City, and is dated November, 1988.
3. This study was available for public inspection and review four-
teen (14) days prior to this public hearing.
4. The purpose of this fee is to finance fire protection system
improvements to reduce the adverse impacts on fire protection service levels
caused by new development within North Costa Mesa.
5. The fire protection system development impact fee collected pur-
suant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the public facilities
and equipment identified in Exhibit "A".
6. After considering the above mentioned study and analysis prepared
by the City, and the testimony received at this public hearing, the Council
approves said study, and incorporates it by this reference herein.
7. The aforementioned study and the EIRs referred to therein have
documented that future development in North Costa Mesa will generate addi-
tional demands on the fire protection system and, therefore, will create a
need for the City to construct new fire stations and purchase additional
fire fighting equipment.
8. The anticipated future development must mitigate its impact on
the fire protection system by contributing its fair share towards the cost
of providing the needed facilities and equipment.
9. The facilities and equipment contemplated herein are consistent
with the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa.
10. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reason-
able relationship between the need for the described fire facilities and
equipment and the impacts of the development described in paragraph 1 below,
for which the corresponding fee is charged, and also there is a reasonable
relationship between the fee's use and the development for which the fee is
charged. These reasonable relationships are described in more detail in
the study referred to above.
11. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable for
constructing these facilities and purchasing equipment, and the fees
expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total of
these costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
1. Properties Subject to Fee. A fire protection system development
impact fee shall be levied against the development of the properties shown
in Exhibit "A", Figure "B".
2. Fee. The fire protection system development impact fee shall be
set initially at $0.285 per one (1) square foot of residential/commercial/
industrial development. Parking structures are excluded frcm this formula.
3. Time of Fee Payment. A fire protection system development impact
fee shall be paid by the developer prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Limited Use of Fee. The fee shall be solely used for the follow-
ing purposes: (1) to pay for the described public facilities and basic
fire fighting equipment to be constructed/purchased by the City; (2) to re-
imburse the City for the development's fair share of those capital improve-
ments listed in Exhibit "A", Section VI, which have already been constructed
and/or equipment already purchased by the City; and (3) to reimburse other
developers who have advanced funds for construction of public facilities or
purchase of equipment beyond the other developer's pro rata share.
5. Fee Review. Concurrently with the annual review of the City's
fiscal year budget, the Fire Department shall review the estimated cost of
the described capital improvements and basic fire fighting equipment, the
continued need for those improvements and equipment, and the reasonable
relationship between such need and the impacts of the various types of
development, pending or anticipated, for which this fee is charged. The
fee shall be adjusted whenever a project is approved which changes the
building intensity or number of dwelling units for a project listed in
Exhibit "A", Figure "B". The Chief of the Fire Deparbment shall report
his findings to the City Council at a noticed public hearing and recommend
any adjustment to this fee or other action as may be needed.
6. Effective Date. The fee shall go into effect pursuant to require-
ments of State law.
7. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action
or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul this resolution
shall be brought with 120 days of its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1989.
ATTEST:
ity Clerk of the City of Costa a
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
Mayor of the CitOlCosta Mesa
I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and fore-
going Resolution No. 89-12 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of
January, 1989.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal
of the City of Costa Mesa this 17th day of January, 1989.
6;1
C ty Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of e
City Council of the City of Costa &sa
127
COSTA MESA FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM IMPACT FEE STUDY
Table of Contents
Page
I.
Introduction 1
II.
Recommendations 1
III.
Summary 1
IV.
Background 2
V.
Future Development Potential 3
VI.
Facility and Equipment Cost Analysis 4
VII.
Existing Funding Sources 5
VIII.
Fee Methodology 5
Appendix A - P.T.I. Locator Study
Appendix B - Fee Calculations
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 1 of 48
I.
II.
Introduction
Government Code Sections 65959 and 66000 et. seq. enable
local authorities to impose any fee as a condition of
approval of a development project provided that the fee does
not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the
service or facility, and that there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for the public facility and
the development project.
This study addresses the following:
a) The need for additional fire stations as a result of
certain new development in North Costa Mesa;
b) The cost of constructing and equipping two new fire
stations; and
C) Appropriate fees to require of certain new developments
to fund the necessary fire protection system
improvements.
Recommendation
Accept findings and methodology presented in the Costa Mesa
Fire Protection System Impact Fee Study and adopt enabling
ordinance and corresponding fee schedule resolution for
levying a Fire Protection System Development Impact Fee.
Summary
The need for two fire stations to serve the North Costa Mesa
area as a result of land use intensification was first
identified in the late 1970's with the P.T.I. Station
Locator Study. The P.T.I. Study concluded that six engine
companies and three ladder companies are needed to provide
efficient fire and emergency medical response. The City's
existing stations #2, #3 and #4 were determined to be well
located; however, it was recommended that Station #1 be
relocated to the vicinity of Harbor Boulevard and South
Coast Drive. Two additional stations were also indicated
as being necessary; one at the Civic Center and the other
at Anton Boulevard and the Sakioka Way intersection. The
Civic Center Station is presently under construction.
The existing fee formula used by the City is inadequate to
fund the necessary station construction and new equipment
for North Costa Mesa.
1
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 2 of 48
129
In summary, a $ .285/sq.ft. of new residential/commercial/
industrial development has been calculated. The fee, if
levied against the remaining development in North Costa Mesa
that has been identified as impacting the City's fire
protection system (i.e., Home Ranch, Metro Pointe Phase 4,
Town Center, Transpacific and Sakioka Farms), will fund the
construction of the Sakioka Station, one pumper engine, and
one quint engine (a combination pumper, hose, ladder, aerial
platform and aerial stream truck).
It is important to note that the proposed fee is based upon
development information that is presently known. As
indicated in the council resolution adopting the fee, the
fee shall be subject to annual review to review the
assumptions the fee is based upon. If warranted, the fee
will be adjusted (either lowered or raised) by the Council
as part of the annual review.
IV. Background
The need for two fire stations to serve the North Costa Mesa
area as a result of land use intensification was first
identified in the late 1970's with the P.T.I. Station
Locator Study. The Study, contained in Appendix A,
concluded that six engine companies and three ladder
companies are needed to provide efficient fire and emergency
medical response. The City's existing stations #2, #3 and
#4 were determined to be well located; however, it was
recommended that Station #1 be relocated to the vicinity of
Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive. Two additional
stations were also indicated as being necessary; one at the
Civic Center and the other at Anton Boulevard and the
Sakioka Way intersection. The Civic Center Station is
presently under construction. Figure A depicts the location
of the existing and future fire station sites.
The following Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) also
identified the need for additional fire stations in the
North Costa Mesa area. These EIRs are hereby incorporated
by reference into this study and are available for public
review at City of Costa Mesa, Development Services
Department, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. Each of the proposed
development projects analyzed were determined to contribute
to the need for the additional fire stations.
Final Environmental Impact Report for Sakioka Farms General
Plan Amendment GP -78-3A. 1979. A General Plan Amendment
from 165 acres of Low Density Residential (7.9 du/acre) to
a mixture of General Plan designations including Commercial
Center and High Density Residential.
2
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 3 of 48
m m
.9 x
m to
CO -i
I z
D
0
Z m
c
c
m
M m
CO
LL
Alk
30
� G
n
� I
.> s
,n D �.
d >..
Cm z zz z z z z
m
m 0
1 < o rn o 0
D O z n N nW
z m
n r > x p
,0m m
n A z n A D
�c m r
N O y z to
s a
m m r
o a c 1 ;
z m m c
z 7°
CA m m
v
s
1
O
z
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 4 of 48
131
Final Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment
GP -82-3A (Revised) #1020 (Metro Pointe). 1984. A General
Plan Amendment from Low and Medium Density Residential to
High Density Residential and General Commercial.
Final Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment
GP -86-1D Sakioka Farms EIR #1032. 1986. A General Plan
Amendment for Lot 1 from High Density Residential to Urban
Center Residential and an increase in the permitted
Commercial Center intensity on Lot 2.
Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Home Ranch
Preliminary Development Plan and One South Coast Place Final
Development Plan #1039. June 1988. A Development Plan for
a maximum of 3.1 million square feet of commercial office
development.
Final Environmental Impact Report for Town Center Office
Tower and Hotel #1041. October 1988. A development
proposal for a high-rise office structure and hotel.
V. Future Development Potential
Provided in Table A is a summary of anticipated future
development that contributes to the need of relocating
Station #1, Royal Palm, to north of the I-405 and the
addition of the new Sakioka Station. For those projects
listed which do not have a General Plan approval or
preliminary or final development plan approval which
specifies a precise building square footage, square footage
estimates were derived from the North Costa Mesa Arterial
Study, with the exception of Home Ranch for which a floor
area ratio of 0.35 was assumed.
It should be noted that as a result of the November 1988
election, the two previously approved General Plan
Amendments for the Home Ranch property were overturned by
the voters. Since the development of the Home Ranch
property has been identified in EIR #1039 to contribute to
the need of locating a fire station in the vicinity of
Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive, for the purposes of
this study a development intensity of 0.35 has been assumed
for Home Ranch. This intensity is the lowest level of
intensity for the Commercial Center land use designation in
the draft General Plan. Once a development intensity has
been adopted, the fee could be adjusted accordingly. The
project locations are depicted on Figure B.
3
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 5 of 48
_tiZ FFv.
VI.
Table A
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Project Name
Sakioka - Lot 1
Sakioka - Lot 2
Transpacific
Town Center
Arnel - Metro Pointe
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Home Ranch
Commercial/Office SF D.U.'s
136,000 1,300
1,438,000 -
1,226,198 -
632,743 -
459,800 -
825,256 -
419,944 -
1,494,108* -
6,632,049 1,300
* Assumes a floor area ratio of 0.35.
Facility and Equipment Cost Analysis
The Fire Department has identified the following cost
estimates for constructing the two North Costa Mesa
stations. No land acquisition cost is associated with the
Sakioka Station, since the land was acquired in conjunction
with the approval of GP -78-3A.
SAKIOKA STATION
1. Land Acquisition 0
2. Station Construction $1,750,000
3. One Engine $ 300,000
TOTAL $2,050,000
NORTH HARBOR STATION
1. Land Acquisition $ 600,000
2. Station Construction $1,750,000
3. One Quint $ 480,000
TOTAL $2,830,000
It is anticipated that the site acquisition and facility
construction for the relocation of Station 1 can be funded
by the sale of the Royal Palm site/facility. The balance
of the necessary funding (specifically the $2,050,000 for
the Sakioka Station and $480,000 for the North Harbor
Station's quint engine for a total of $2,530,000), however,
will need to be acquired through developer impact fees.
4
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 6 of 48
LLA
= z
W W
g — N f
a a
O p OJ
W O J w
w W
O N V1 c
i i m
W W Q
UZ Z LL LL LL
W
cc S v a a a W
Y Y
W ¢ Z O O Z
f 3 Y Y Q
S O
W ♦R
f F N N F V_
N l7 O Iff IG LL
Lip
7 F7
r
a v
-�
F
z C7
ZLLJ Z
a U z
O
W N U
>
o H U O
LU
w O a w
ti a U c�
Exh ib i t "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 7 of 48
o' g
VII. Existing Funding Sources
South Coast Metro Trust Fund - In conjunction with approval
of GP -78-3A for the 165 -acre Sakioka property in 1980, the
City was dedicated 30,000 square feet at the corner of Anton
Boulevard and Sakioka Way for the construction of a new fire
station.
In 1983, the City approved a fee formula for determining an
equitable fee for projects that impact the Fire Department's
service capabilities. The City presently charges
$116/dwelling unit and $116/1,863 sq.ft. of commercial
development; this fee was derived by utilizing the Sakioka
land dedication as the equivalent for the fee assessment.
To date, $237,617.00 has been collected in the South Coast
Metro Fire Trust Fund.
Metro Pointe Development Agreement - Phases 2 and 3 - On
October 31, 1988, the City of Costa Mesa approved a
development agreement (DA -88-02) with Arnel Development
Company regarding the development of Phases 2 and 3 of the
Metro Pointe project. As part of the development agreement
the developer is required to pay $114,950 in conjunction
with Phase 2 development and $206,300 in conjunction with
Phase 3 development, for a total of $321,250.
With the $237,617 collected to date in the South Coast Metro
Fire Trust Fund plus the $321,250 secured with the Metro
Pointe Development Agreement, $558,867 is either secured or
committed to the needed fire stations and equipment.
However, a balance of $1,971,133 still needs to be acquired.
Should the existing South Coast Metro Area fee formula be
applied to the additional development indicated in Section
IV. Future Development Potential (with the exception of
Metro Pointe Phases 2 and 3) a deficit in needed funds of
$1,487,400 would result.
It is therefore apparent that the fee methodology derived
in 1983 must be updated so that adequate funding can be
obtained.
VIII. Fee Methodology
The formula presented below provides an equitable method for
calculating the pro rata share of the Home Ranch, Metro
Pointe Phase 4, Transpacific, Sakioka, and Town Center
developments' contribution to the funding of the additional
fire station and equipment.
5
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 8 of 48
The formula, based on square footage, assumes the same fee
for residential, commercial and industrial development.
(Total Station and Equipment S Cost) = S Cost/SF
(Total New Residential/Commerciat/Industrial SF)
The station and equipment cost of $2,530,000 can be reduced
by subtracting the existing funds already collected in the
South Coast Metro Trust Fund and secured by the Metro Pointe
Phases 2 and 3 Development Agreement ($558,867), for a
balance of $1,971,133 (see Attachment B for detail).
The total new square footage to be developed for which
developer impact fees have not yet been obtained is
estimated at 6,906,993 sq.ft. As shown below, when these
estimates are used in the formula, a fee of $ .285/SF of new
residential/commercial/industrial development results.
S 1,971,133 = S .285/SF of Res./Comm./Ind.
6,906,993 SF
(FIREFEE.STD)
CI
Exh ib i t "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 9 of 48
a_r
APPENDIX A
P.T.I. LOCATOR STUDY
l
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
P.T.I.
STATION LOCATOR STUDY
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Fire stations must be located to assure prompt response to all
areas of a city. By optimizing station locations, fire losses can be
reduced and life threatening medical emergencies can be attended to
sooner.
Consideration must be extended beyond the closest fire station.
During 1979, units from the closest station were not available for
136 fires and medical emergencies. It is essential that back-up units
offer a reasonable response time.
Background
Costa Mesa has four fire stations:
Station #1, 2803 Royal Palm Drive, built in 1961
Station #2, 800 Baker Street, built in 1966
Station 113, 1865 Park Avenue, built in 1979
Station N4, 2300 Placentia, built in 1967
All stations house an engine company. Ladder companies operate
out of Stations N2 and 113. In addition to the engine, a squad (ladder
company support unit) and paramedics are located at Station #1. Also,
the department has two reserve engine companies. An aerial ladder
truck, just ordered, will allow for a reserve ladder company.
In 1974, the fire department staff prepared a master plan for
fire station locations. This study was manually conducted using I.S.O.
I(Insurance Services Office) standards for response distance. Other
considerations were not addressed.
The 1974 study indicated a need for six engine companies (one to
j be provided through automatic aid with Santa Ana) and three ladder
companies. It was recommended that a station be added in the Civic
Center area and that Station M1 be relocated northward to the vicinity
of Harbor and Gisler.
Since the previous study, an additional station and company has
been recommended for the Sakioka property. Dedication of 30,000 square
feet of land for fire station purposes was required as a mitigation
measure in the Environmental Impact Report for development of that
property.
The principal purpose for the recommended station was the change
in General Plan designation from Low Density Residential to High Density
Residential and Commercial Center. E.I.R.'s for both the Town Center
and Sakioka development project extreme traffic congestion which will
significantly hinder fire apparatus travel. Additionally, the number
of lives at risk and the value at risk in these areas are considered
extreme.
-1-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 10 of 48
1.3`-
4
The P.T.I. Study
The P.T.I. Station Locator Study is a computerized analysis of
travel routes and travel times. Components of the study are fire problem
identification, standards preparation, distance and travel speed input,
fire station alternative selection, computer analysis and staff evaluation.
Fire Problem Identification:
For purposes of this study, six possible fire problem categories
were established. These included high fire flow requirements (i.e.,
fire potential), high-rise buildings, major fire potential, high -life
:hazard, high economic impact potential, and historically significant
buildings. Sub -categories were established to identify various degrees
of hazard and credit for fire sprinkler system installations.
Buildings of high economic impact were identified by the Finance
Department and reviewed by the Fire Department. Only those buildings
that represent a considerable income to the City were included. Value
of property and number of employees were not considered.
P.T.I. recommends that areas with similar fire problems be assigned
to districts called Fire Demand Zones. They further indicate that each
zone should have a Focal Point, a central location to which response
studies would be made. Representative zones did not apply well to Costa
Mesa. Inspite of this, Focal Points were easily assigned and worked out
well.
Some 119 buildings or complexes were determined to present special
fire problems (Exhibit A). Because of clustering, 69 Focal Points served
all of these buildings. Forty-four additional Focal Points were added to
assure that all areas of the City would be covered. The sum of 113
points throughout the City were used for response study.
Focal Points are listed on Exhibit B.
Standards Preparation:
Costa Mesa has for years had standard response time for the first
due engine. This has been set at 3 minutes of travel time for the first
due engine to any important location. In conjunction with Program Budget
Objectives, the Fire Department established five minutes (including one
minute for dispatch) as a maximum acceptable response time. This allowed
4 minutes for apparatus travel.
During 1979, response times for fires and medical aids exceeded the
maximum standard 591 times. This represented 2 percent of the fire
calls and 14 percent of medical emergencies.
National standards for fire response are limited to those established
by I.S.O. These standards are reflected in travel distance applied only
to fire flow requirements (fire potential). However, they do set travel
distances for each arriving company through multiple alarms.
-2-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 11 of 48
3.
Using the I.S.O. travel distance standards, distance was converted
to time on the basis of the first -due unit. Important buildings were set
at 3 minutes and lesser hazards set at 4 minutes for response time. Sub-
sequent due fire apparatus standards were converted from a distance to
time.
Using the criteria for high fire risks as a guide, other problems
were evaluated. These included high-rise buildings, major fire potential,
high life hazard, high economic impact potential and historically signifi-
cant buildings..:
Costa Mesa has been a leader in requirements for automatic sprinkler
systems to limit fire problems. In general, the response standard was
reduced by one minute where sprinkler systems were installed.
Fire Department staff -approved response time criteria is contained
in Exhibit C. To explain the form each number is a time standard for
the unit due. For example, if under first alarm the numbers.are 4 and 7,
two engines will be assigned on a first alarm. The first due should have
{ a 4 minute travel time and the second should arrive after 7 minutes of
travel time.
Distance and Travel Speed:
Arterial streets and other streets reaching into all areas of the
City were mapped. Each intersection was identified and the link between
each intersection measured.
Fire company members with driving experience reviewed all..
mapped links to determine travel speeds. The final step in this process
was two company members and a staff supervisor considered previous input
and made a travel speed determination.
Our Fire Protection Analysts were asked to assure validity of
travel time on a comparison to computer data for 1979 emergency responses.
{ Correlation did not become apparent until a minute and a half was allowed
' from receipt of alarm until apparatus left the station. Travel time
experience indicated that the actual time was only 74 percent of the
.estimation of fire company members. The data base showed this percentage
.'to have a 99 percent plus validity (see Exhibit D).
Fire Station Alternatives:
Eighteen potential station locations were entered into the computer
to allow ample flexibility in the study. Early computer runs indicated
that a number of these locations would not be viable.
In addition, stations of surrounding fire departments were entered
to evaluate the need and desireability of automatic response pacts.
These departments included Newport Beach, Orange County, Santa Ana,
Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach.
The first analysis of company distribution was based on existing
companies. The deficiencies are reflected in Exhibit E. Ten alternative
studies considering various numbers and locations of Costa Mesa stations
were considered. Then four arrangements of automatic aid response from
-3-
Exhibit
3-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 12 of 48
4.
Engine companies, of course, are needed at each station. The snorkel
equipped engine should be located at the Sakioka station. Ladder companies
should remain at Stations #t2 and 3. The additional ladder company should
operate from the relocated Station M1. Paramedics and the on -duty Battalion
Chief should be moved to the Civic Center (see Exhibit G).
Priorities
The "Economic Assessment and Fiscal Impact Analysis" performed by
Ashley and Associates during 1979 predicts build -out by 1985. This demon-
strates the urgency of increasing fire response capability.
The highest single priority is the acquisition of land for reloca-
tion of Station N1. Land in the vicinity of Harbor and South Coast Drive
is rapidly becoming unavailable. The second priority is construction of the
Civic Center station.
=C
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 13 of 48
surrounding fire departments were studied. Exhibit F reflects the alter-
native study locations of Costa Mesa fire stations.
Computer Analysis:
The computer analysis indicated theoretical travel time of each
fire company in every alternative to all of the 113 focal points. In the
analysis the computer considered travel distances and speeds and selected
the quickest routes.
Staff Evaluation:
As stated earlier, a travel speed conversion factor was established
to convert theoretical speed to response time experience. This factor
was manually studied. Additional manual analysis was made to determine
the extent that each company through a third alarm did not meet established
standards.
The evaluation criteria was not to eliminate but to minimize response
deficiencies. The first due company was considered most significant and
full first alarm assignment considered second. The importance of arrival
time of multiple alarm units is successively less.
Conclusions
Weaknesses in the existing fire defenses are apparent in the north-
west, northeast and east Central areas of the City. Areas north of the
San Diego Freeway are rapidly developing with high intensity land uses.
Values at risk are extreme and the population will be considerable.
The Fire Department staff concluded that six engine companies and
three ladder companies are needed to provide efficient fire and emergency
medical response. Stations 2, 3 and 4 are well located. Station M1
needs to be relocated to the vicinity of Harbor Blvd. and South Coast
Drive. Two additional stations are also needed, one at the Civic Center
and the other at the Anton Blvd, and Sakioka Way intersection.
Engine companies, of course, are needed at each station. The snorkel
equipped engine should be located at the Sakioka station. Ladder companies
should remain at Stations #t2 and 3. The additional ladder company should
operate from the relocated Station M1. Paramedics and the on -duty Battalion
Chief should be moved to the Civic Center (see Exhibit G).
Priorities
The "Economic Assessment and Fiscal Impact Analysis" performed by
Ashley and Associates during 1979 predicts build -out by 1985. This demon-
strates the urgency of increasing fire response capability.
The highest single priority is the acquisition of land for reloca-
tion of Station N1. Land in the vicinity of Harbor and South Coast Drive
is rapidly becoming unavailable. The second priority is construction of the
Civic Center station.
=C
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 13 of 48
k S.
Prioritizing construction of the Harbor Blvd. and the Anton Blvd.
stations should be assessed on construction trends within a few years.
Projections indicate almost a simultaneous need for these stations.
March 10, 1980
-5-
Eich ibi t "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 14 of 48
1'
EXHIBIT A }
FIRE PROBLEM BUILDINGS AND COMPLEXES
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 15 of 48
FIRE RESPONSE STANDARDS
IDENTIFICATION OF BUILDINGS FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
HIGH FIRE RISKS
1503
South Coast Drive (office building)
3151
Harbor Blvd. (motel)
2929
Harbor Blvd. (auto repair garage)
1500
Adams Ave. (office building)
2775
Mesa Verde East (apartments)
1525
Mesa Verde East (shopping center)-sprinklered
530
Wilson Street (apartments)
719
Wilson Street (apartments)
2077
Charlie Street (apartments)
1939
Wallace Ave. (apartments)
1883
Anaheim Ave. (church)
1880
Monrovia Ave. (apartments)
931 a 955
W. 19th St. (apartments)
1819
Monrovia Ave. (apartments)
1760
Monrovia Ave. (industrial bldg.)
1640
Monrovia Ave. (industrial bldg.)
1701
Placentia Ave. (industrial bldg.)
Shalimar b James, vest of Pomona (apartments)
660
Town Center Dr. (parking structure)
3150
Bear Street (office bldg.)
3033
Bristol Street (shopping center)
2881
Bristol Street (apartments)
Baker, Babb to Bear (condominiums)
1031
E1 Camino Dr. (shopping center)
sw corner Fairview b Baker (shopping center)
Village and College (warehouses)
400
Merrimac Dr. (apartments)
2400
Fairview Rd. (condominiums)
311
W. Wilson St. (apartments)
2206
College Ave. (apartments)
291
Avocado St. (apartments)
340
Victoria St. (nursing home)-sprinklered
393
Hamilton St. (apartments)
Ford, east of Parsons (apartments)
125
E. Baker St. (office building)
1312
Bristol St. (apartments)
2250
Newport Blvd. (motel)
2020
Fullerton Ave. (apartments)
Woodland, west of Tustin (apartments)
17th, east of Fullerton (office building)
se corner of 17th and Orange (shopping center)
mw corner of 17th and Santa Ana (shopping center)
VERY HIGH FIRE RISKS
1111 South Coast Drive (condominiums)
3205 Harbor Blvd. (motel)
Pepper Tree Ln. (apartments)
nv corner of Club House b Mesa Verde West (condominiums)
1250 Adams Ave. (apartments)
-7-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 16 of 48
143
VERY HIGH FIRE RISKS (continued)
425
Merrimac Wy. (apartments)
460
Fair Dr. (office building)
2300
Harbor Blvd. (shopping center)
2277
Harbor Blvd. (motel)
377
W. Wilson St. (apartments)
2285
Fairview Rd. (office building)
525
Victoria St. (apartments)
bldg.)
Center, east of Monrovia (apartments)
1001
17th St. (industrial bldg.)
bldgs.) - under construction
Newport (west side), Harbor to 18th (commercial)
1400
Bristol (motel)
177
22nd St. (apartments)
2148
Newport Blvd. (industrial bldg.)
140
E. 17th St. (lumber yard)
329
E. 17th St. (shopping center)
HIGH - RISE BUILDINGS
Svrinklered:
3420
Bristol St.
(office
bldg.)
695
Town Center
Dr. (office bldg.)
666
Anton Blvd.
(hotel)
Bristol (office bldg.)
3200
Bristol St.
(office
bldg.)
655
Anton Blvd.
:(office
bldgs.) - under construction
3131
Bristol St.
(motel)
55
Fair Dr. (boys dormitory)
485
E. 17th St.
(office
bldg.) - proposed
Unsprinklered:
666 W. 19th St. (apartments -senior citizens)
55 Fair Dr. (girls dormitory)
77 Fair Dr. (city hall)
MAJOR FIRE POTENTIAL
600 Victoria (Narmco Materials)
671 W. 17th St. (J.C. Carter)
3191 Redhill (Cannon)
HIGH LIFE HAZARD - PLACES OF ASSEMBLY
Svrinklered:
3150
Bear St. (office bldg.)
3180
Airway (restaurant)
3000
Club House (country club)
3200
Bristol (office bldg.)
3333
Bristol (shopping center)
Unsvrinklered:
1701 Golf Course Dr. (country club)
3410 Bristol (theater)
99 Fair Dr. (police dept.)
2701 Fairview (library b chemistry)
2700 Fairview (gymnasium)
-8-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 17 of 48
HIGH LIFE HAZARD
Schools
1015 Baker (St. John the Baptist)
55 Fair Dr. (Southern California College)
2701 Fairview (Orange Coast College)
695 19th St. (Hardin School)
Hospital, Mental Institutions, etc.
irinklered:
2619
Orange
2570
Newport
301
Victoria
2055
Thurin
350
W. Bay
340
Victoria
722
Baker
661
Center
985
Victoria
Unsprinklered:
2501 Harbor
99 Fair Dr.
Sprinklered:
3333
Bristol
666
Anton
3131
Bristol
695
Town Center
3200
Bristol
3030
Harbor
1275
Bristol
3200
Harbor
1685
Toronto
1375
Sunflower
3420
Bristol
Y89
E. 17th
Unsprinklered:
2300 Harbor
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS
Under 3000 sq. ft:
1900 Adams (Estantia Adobe)
88 Fair Dr. (Legion Museum)
-9-
Exhibit
9-
Echibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 18 of 48
. L-10
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS
Over 3000 sq. ft:
3315 Fairview (Segerstroms)
420 W. 19th (church)
565 W. 18th (Legion Bldg.)
—lo -
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 19 of 48
EXHIBIT B
FOCAL POINTS USED FOR RESPONSE STUDIES
-11-
Exhibit
11-
E xhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 20 of 48
147
-12-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 21 of 48
EXHIBIT C
RESPONSE STANDARDS
-13-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 22 of 48
I 4Q
11.3
PROPOSED FIRE RESPONSE STANDARDS
Fire response standards proposed in this package is presented for staff
comment or concurrence for the Fire Station Locator study. The proposals were
developed by the Fire Marshal.
The standards were established with considerations given to previously
adopted policy, recognized fire protection standards and fire protection
engineering judgements. Recognition has been given to the leadership dem-
onstrated by Costa Mesa by enacting ordinances requiring sprinkler systems
and superior construction.
Recommended are the number of units (engines and Ladder companies) that
should respond on first through third alarms and maximum time criteria for
each responding unit. The following specific considerations were made.
City policy, established in the program budget, indicates that
the Fire Department should respond to all emergencies within five
minutes of receipt of alarm. This time allows for one minute to be
used for dispatch and fire station exit.
Using four minutes of travel time, the least ISO (Insurance
Services Office) travel distance standard was converted to four
minutes. This factor was then used to interpolate all ISO stand-
ards to response times rounding to the nearest minute.
Target hazards for other than fire flow requirement were
identified as follows: high-rise buildings, major fire potential,
high life hazard, high economic impact potential and historically
significant buildings.
Minimum response time for target hazards was set at three
minutes. This time was not reduced for sprinklered buildings
as the need for prompt size -up and and supplimenting the sprinkler
system was considered important.
As a guide for establishing response times for target hazards,
the ISO time equivalent for a fire flow requirement of 5500 gpm
was used for judgements. Times were reduced for major risks. For
sprinklered buildings the time was generally extended by one minute
for other than the first due unit.
Response of the squad is considered as extending subsequent
arriving trucks by one minute in all situations except those where
a heavy reliance on truck companies is needed.
Response criteria is a desireable standard. It is not practable that all
of the standards be met. The importance is to minimize deficiencies to the
lowest possible level. Ohvisouly, each subsequent arrivinq unit has a less
important priority.
-14-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 23 of 48
Proposed Fire Response Standards (continued)
The recommended response standards contemplate the continued fire inspection
activity of the Fire Department. Special consideration must be given to proper
fire sprinkler system coveraqe and maintenance and occupancy of buildings by
legal tenants. Without active code enforcement, the demands for fire protection
will increase.
-15-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 24 of 48
151
PROPOSED
FIRE RESPONSE STANDARDS
(Time in Minutes)
Low to Moderate Fire Risk (Required fire flow 4500 gpm or less)
1st 2nd 3rd
Level 1-A alarm alarm alarm
Engines T'_7 T'_9 11, 11
Trucks* 5 8 11
High Fire Risk (Required fire flow 5000 - 5500 gpm)
* Increase truck response time by 1 minute when squad is due prior.
-16-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 25 of 48
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 1-C
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 5
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks*
4
7
10
Very High Fire Risk
(Required
fire flow greater than
5500 gpm)1
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 3
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 4
8, 8, 8
11, 11
Trucks*
4
7
9
High -Rise Buildings
Sprinklered
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 4-A
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 6, 8
81 11
12, 12
Trucks*
4
8
10
Unsprinklered,
light hazard, welj
compartmented
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 5-A
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 4, 7
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks
4, 7
9
11
* Increase truck response time by 1 minute when squad is due prior.
-16-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 25 of 48
Proposed Fire Response Standards -- continued
—17—
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 26 of 48
Major Fire Potential
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 4-B alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines 3, 5, 7
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks* 4
7
9
High Life Hazard
Places of Assembly 4
Sprinklered
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 1-B
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 6
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks
4
8
10
Unsprinklered
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 1-D
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 4
7, 8
10, 10
Trucks
4
7
9
Schools
Unsprinklered with
interior corridors
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 5-B
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 4, 7**
8, 8
10, 10
Trucks
4, 7**
9
11
Others
Use fire flow
standard.
Hospitals, Mental Institutions,
Homes for Aged,
Jails
Sprinklered
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 1-C
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 5
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks
4
7
10
time by 1 minute when
squad is due prior.
* Increase truck response
** Delete one unit from first
alarm if one story;
advance times to subsequent
due units.
—17—
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 26 of 48
I
I
Proposed Fire Response Standards -- continued
High Life Hazard: Hospitals, Mental Institutions, Homes for Aged, Jails-- cont
Unsprinklered, fire
resistive
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 2
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 4
7, 8
10, 10
Trucks
4, 7**
9
11
High Economic Impact Potential?
Sprinklered
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 4-A
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 6, 8
8, 11
12, 12
Trucks*
4
8
10
Unsprinklered
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 5-A
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 4, 7
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks*
4
7
9
Historically Significant Buildings
Under 3000 square feet
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 1-C
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 5
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks*
4
7
10
Over 3000 square feet
1st
2nd
3rd
Level 4-B
alarm
alarm
alarm
Engines
3, 5, 7
81 8
ill 11
Trucks*
4
7
9
* Increase truck response time by 1 minute when squad is due prior.
** Delete one upit from first alarm if one story; advance times to subsequent
due units.
-18-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 27 of 48
153
i] i„ I
�_! , -
Proposed Fire Response Standards
Notes:
1. Fire flows greater than 5500 gpm were prohibited by ordinance after
May 16, 1978. Twenty occupancies or complexes in this category exist.
2. Buildings with usable floor area more than 55 feet above grade were
considered high rise and such new buildings were required to have
sprinklers after 1971. Only 3 unsprinklered high rise buildings
exist in the city. All are of Type I or II construction, well com-
partmented and light hazard occupancies. There are eight sprinklered
high rise buildings existing and approved.
3. Major fire problems excluded considerations of required fire flow, but
included hazard of explosion, conflagration of major release of toxic
fumes. No consideration was given to sprinkler systems. Only 3 com-
plexes are involved.
4. Ordinance effective after 1971 require all buildings with places of
assembly with an occupant load of more than 100 above the first floor
to be sprinklered. Such buildings include 5 that are sprinklered and
5 unsprinklered. Additionally, the same ordinance requires restaurants
over 4,000 sq. ft. and bowling alleys over 6,000 sq. ft. to be sprink-
lered.
5. There are 4 unsprinklered schools with interior corridors.
6. Only institutional occupancies with an occupant load of more than six
are considered. Occupancies are considered as light hazard. Add para-
medics to response. Nine sprinklered and two unsprinklered complexes
exist.
7. Considered are buildings or groups of buildings determined by the Finance
Department to be significant to the income of the City. Twelve sprinklered
and one unsprinklered complex exist.
8. Only unsprinklered historically significant buildings are considered.
Two small and three large complexes exist.
-1�
Eich ib i t "A'
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 28 of 48
EXHIBIT D
COMPARISON OF TRAVEL TIME
P.T.I. vs. ACTUAL TIME
—20—
Exhibit
20—
Echibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 29 of 48
c e e
o -21_ o
M N \
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 30 of 48
c
E
0
c
E
0
Proposed Fire Response Standards
L
Note: Number refers to equipment dispatch level.
Letter refers to time standard.
-22-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 31 of 48
57
1st
2nd
3rd
Level
alarm
alarm
alarm
1-A
Engines
4, 7
81 9
11, 11
Trucks
5
8
11
1-B
Engines
3, 6
81 8
11, 11
Trucks
4
8
10
1-C
Engines
3, 5
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks
4
7
10
1-D
Engines
3, 4
7, 8
10, 10
Trucks
4
7
9
2
Engines
3, 4
7, 8
10, 10
Trucks
4, 7
9
11
3
Engines
3, 4
8, 8, 8
11, 11
Trucks
4
7
9
4-A
Engines
3, 6, 8
8, 11
12, 12
Trucks
4
8
10
4-B
Engines
3, 5, 7
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks
47
9
5-A
Engines
3, 4, 7
8, 8
11, 11
Trucks
4, 7
9
11
5-B
Engines
3, 4, 7
81 8
10, 10
Trucks
4, 7
9
11
L
Note: Number refers to equipment dispatch level.
Letter refers to time standard.
-22-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 31 of 48
57
J
EXHIBIT E
RESPONSE TIME DEFICIENCIES
.EXISTING STATIONS
j
-23-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 32 of 48
151
-24-
Exhibit "An
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 33 of 48
i
K
i
i
i
i
I
,
."o
d
v
d
d I
"a
w
w
d
d
d
v
H
1.4
z
z
z
K
�
z
41
or
i
i
Ln
-4
-4
z°
z°
z°
z°
0
w
z
A
o
w
w
re
v
D+
o
jj
a
v
ri
ai
e10
i
y
y
U O
O
M
a
E
eh
en
rn
H
H
y O
M
v
C
N
v
e1
pOi
in
o0
Oh
�
pN
P4
N
N
N
Aj
1
CF,
m
%D
e11
f,
cn
O
�-1
N
N
r•1
N
N
n
z
z
z
�
z
to
U
V�
U
N
'y
W
'yU
W
N
W
'j•�t,;
W
-4
U
U
Z
U1
U
H
1-1
W
N
M
P-4
PW
1-4EAA
0-4
E.
O
F
�
W I
F
1-4
O
O
N
WO
O
F
H
a
z
a
x
W
94
W094,
U
N
V
a
H
w
a
a
-24-
Exhibit "An
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 33 of 48
EXHIBIT F
STATION LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
1
1
1
I
I
I
-25-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 34 of 48
161
-26-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 35 of 48
W
"'A
t
e6o'
LD*
A' 7R
ell,
NIP
.0 L
V
1111 r
-27-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 36 of 48
410
7ET-
w
q
-28-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 37 of 48
1.63
i
I
-29-
Exhibit
29-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 38 of 48
165
Exhibit °A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 39 of 48
-31-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 40 of 48
J
0
I
V
Eich ib i t "A'
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 41 of 48
W10
V
Eich ib i t "A'
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 41 of 48
-33-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 42 of 48
0
Go
-34-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 43 of 48
170
-35-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 44 of 48
�1
EXHIBIT G
RESPONSE TIME DEFICIENCIES -PROPOSED STATIONS
-36-
Exhibit 'W'
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 45 of 48
-37-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 46 of 48
11
en
w
I
d
I
d
1
d
d
.N
py
U
a+
Z
4�
Z
L
z
0
o
Do
w
w
o
a
d
N
N00
en
N
en
O
O
I
I
N
K
rl
N
N
%D
Ln
-Srl
a
N
OD
rl
OD
.
4
Ln
,O
ri
ao
n
in
5
In
W
y
-�
r-4
W
A W
WO
W
O
E
O
E
U
U
t„)
z
U
Q
v
F
W
Q
ifG
t;
U
O
V
H
rn
N
Z
W
Q
W
EE,
j
a
w
zZ
W
U
A
N
UUy
W
U
A
N
-37-
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 46 of 48
11
173
ARpendix B
DRAFT NORTH COSTA MESA FIRE SYSTEM FEE ANALYSIS
Estimated Facility Costs
1. Sakioka Station Construction $ 1,750,000
2. One Engine (pumper truck) 300,000
3. One Quint (combination pumper, hose, 480,000
ladder, aerial platform, and aerial
stream truck) $ 2,530,000
Subtract existing South Coast Metro Funds ($ 237,617)
Available
Subtract monies secured through Metro ($ 321,250)
Pointe Development Agreement
$ 1,971,133
Additional North Costa Mesa Development Potential
Proiect Name Residential DU Commercial/Office SF
Sakioka
Lot 1 1300 136,000
Lot 2 ---- 1,438,000
Transpacific ---- 1,226,198
Town Center ---- 632,743
Metro Pointe Phase 4 ---- 419,944
Home Ranch ---- 1,494,1082
1300 DU or 5,346,993 SF
1,560,000 SF
Total Square Footage = 6.906,993
1. Convert D.U.s to S.F. by multiplying by 1200 SF/DU (based on
comparable averages derived from The Lakes and Villa
Martinique projects).
2. Assumes a Floor Area Ratio of 0.35.
' Fee Methodology
(Total Station $ Cost)
------------------------------------------------ = $ Cost/SF
(Total New Residential/Commercial/Industrial SF)
$-1,971,133
-- _ $ .285/SF of Comm./Office/Res.
6,906,993 SF
Exhibit °A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 47 of 48
�! L
Potential Fee Assessment
Sakioka
Lot 1 - 1300 DUs
= $444,600
Lot 1 - 136,000 SF
= $ 38,760
Lot 2 - 1,438,000 SF
= $409,830
Transpacific
1,226,198 SF
= $349,467
Town Center
632,743 SF
= $180,332
Arnel
Phase 4 419,944 SF
= $119,684
Home Ranch
1,494,108 SF
= $425,821
(FIREFEE.TBL)
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 89-12
Page 48 of 48
f]