Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0905 CC REG ITEM 11HMOORPARK ITEM 11. H. BERNARDO M. PEREZ oPPK Mayor o P SCOTT MONTGOMERY F Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN O i Councilmember CORPARK, CAUFORNfA o9 CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. City Council Meelfn9 oq Councilmember �" *E ° - - "'' of 199� - PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Councilmember ACTT N: LILLIAN KELLERMAN S City Clerk GZ By M E M O R A N D U M STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development T ac--� DATE: August 20, 1990 (CC meeting of 9/5/90) SUBJECT: Downtown Revitalization -- Temporary Use Permit Background In August 1989, the Council approved the final text of the Downtown Study and directed the Community Development Committee to work with Staff to implement the basic design elements of the study. Since that time there has been a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and several meetings with the Community Development Committee in which various implementation measures were approved towards implementation of design elements in the Downtown area. This included the creation of a sign overlay district. Staff is still working on the overlay district details. Discussion Since the Council's action in March, it has come to Staff's attention that there is an interest to add additional revitalization efforts by the Downtown merchants. Staff has received at least one letter (see attached) regarding a merchants interest to expand their activity and service. The merchants dilemma comes in the form of both the time it takes to process an entitlement application, (such as CUP, CPD or modification to such) plus the cost involved with the application. pjrl6aug90 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 This interest was discussed with the Community Development Committee at a recent meeting, The idea of providing an interim regulatory process was considered by the Committee. Staff is suggesting that the Council consider a six (6) month temporary use permit for various accessory uses in the Downtown area, until a permanent process is put into place. At the end of the six (6) month trial period, staff will analyze the effectiveness of such a program. The types of uses contemplated with a temporary use is as follows: 1. Outside eating 2. Live entertainment 3. Outside produce sales 4. Outside cooking There may be others, but only the above have come to Staff's attention. Such temporary use permits should only be valid for six (6) months. This method would allow the City to accomplish two elements. First, it would provide a more streamlined approach to an approval process with only the cost of a zone clearance ($28.00). Second, it would allow the City to determine if such an activity was in any way a problem as it relates to adjacent uses. Staff may spend more time with these requests than a typical zone clearance. However, if successful, the City will receive increased sales tax dollars and help revitalize the Downtown area. Typically, temporary uses are regulated by conditions. It would be Staff's intent to impose appropriate conditions to reduce or eliminate problems between land uses. Staff Recommendation 1. Direct staff to issue temporary use permits, valid for only six (6) months, to existing uses in the proposed Downtown overlay zone area which provide goods or services that promote the Downtown area. Such temporary uses to be limited to those specified by City Council, such as those identified in this report. 2. Direct staff to report back to the City Council with an analysis of the effectiveness of such a program no later than April 1991. Attachment: August 4, 1990 letter, Rogello and Gonzalo Cisneros pjrl6aug90 August 5, 1990 letter., A.A Barakat August 4 , 1990 Mr. Pat Richards Director of Community Dcvelodment City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Mr. Richards: La Cabanita Restaurant 76 Moorpark Avenue e would like to provide live music and/or singing entertainment for the en •.o"merit of our customers. We would also like to provide live dance music for about two to three hours peer weekend evening. We believe we will enhance Moorriark by providing Mexican musical entertainment while at the same time attracting people to the downtown commercial area, a goal of the Downtown Study. Please pr ovide us with the necessary direction so that we may implement our ideas as quickly as possible. We wish to follow the process askforyour he expediting tf r s r - - � e_ S hut t t•�e ����t r I i r: E';:� {�3 the i..t 2- ...-F _ .1 i- : _. appropriate, any alternative processes. We thank you in advance tor your prompt attention to our request. Rsseect : ui ly submitted , iOef,;;:e /2 Node i i ;eti� Gonza o.e.isnero cc: Mayor Bernardo M. Perez Mr. John' Wozniak, Planning Commission Chairman • r-. / o /4 v�NC' (805) 529-0366 / rE ,523-1 4v 13arakats ' , arket "20 Years Moorparks' Favorite Merchants" General Manager 411 High Street A.A. BARAKAT Moorpark, CA 93021 • ,Lt5 'st 5 1990 III Mr .. Rat Richarads Director of Community .fC'.._.•3 _Ji f�'•-.#- 4' of Moorpark .. c F pa k .�'.'e.,_.0 Moorpark , California 930:7-'1 Dear Richard : Rec oq,n.i='?'d d . L:.•:` 3:;g Code Change Barak•at = Market I -C'r'n,nre Fd that the City provide for outdoor produce sales as one revision to the Zor:i:ic' Code. I know from past experience that my customers would- welcome elcome this change. The outdoor display enhances the visual effect for passersby, thereby attracting Gusto-ter c not only to my store but to the High Street are in generalF re:.ter con,,,-unity benefit . The Ba. a :at - •a,•,-,:lv 'has- operated a, :^a ':ee-:.t fC - many `leers and we �.a2 remain a vital part of downtown Moorpark. This Change, along with our planned improvements, will help us remain ecc'nc'miCali�r viable and is also consistent with certain aspects of the Downtown tow17 Study. Please consider this an initial request for permission to resume e outdoor produce display and sales. I understand, the Council has riven direction to expedite High Street area applications,' or develop alternative processes when appropriate. Thank you for your Prompt attention t. hese matters. Sincerely, ic : Mayor Bernardo M. Perez John Wozniak a Planning Commission Chairman • • --- RECEIVED -- AUG i 7 193O. City of Moorpark F40 -r 1 =y = 4 tit7— " 7 P _ 0 AGAJANIAN ,��ASSOCIATES August 21, 1990 Mr. Steven Kueny City Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 c) the financial feasibility of the proposed project. Task 3: Prepare a brief memorandum documenting our findings and submit to the client as completion of the assignment. These tasks are expected to be completed no latter than September 7, 1990. We shall invoice our work upon submission of the memorandum and charge on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached rate schedule. We will not exceed $4,000.00 in total charges without authorization from the client. Re: Proposal to Assess Financial Feasibility Carlsberg Specific Plan I I q. ,,-,nf Fennnmic Dear Mr. Kueny: Thank you for the opportunity to assist the city in evaluating the feasibility of the Carlsberg Specific Plan. Consistent with the discussion at our August 18, 1990 meeting, I have prepared this proposal to meet your immediate needs. This proposal is intended to advise the city by memorandum of our findings regarding the economic feasibility of the proposed August 13, 1990 version of the Carlsberg Specific Plan. Our proposed activities are described in the following scope of work: Task 1: Review the preliminary financial feasibility study documents provided by the applicant /developer (dated 8- 13 -90). Task 2: Based upon our evaluation, comment on the following points: CenUr Drive a) reasonableness of the financial assumptions based upon -Suitt-475 generally accepted industry standards and guidelines; \ -i-rl %'-rh, CA 92660 (714) 640.0664 VAX(714)G40.06C.8 b) reasonableness of the methods used to estimate project feasibility; c) the financial feasibility of the proposed project. Task 3: Prepare a brief memorandum documenting our findings and submit to the client as completion of the assignment. These tasks are expected to be completed no latter than September 7, 1990. We shall invoice our work upon submission of the memorandum and charge on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached rate schedule. We will not exceed $4,000.00 in total charges without authorization from the client. -FUE TF.N I AN Assoc Ao 1 If the efforts of this scope of work reveals that the proposed specific plan is not economically feasible we would be prepared to continue our assistance. This subsequent analysis would prepare recommendations on changes to the specific plan which could make the project economically feasible. If the scope and conditions of this proposal meet your needs please respond with a letter authorizing us to proceed consistent with the provisions of this proposal. Please contact me directly if you should have any questions, comments or concerns. Principal cc: Pat Richards Director of Community Development AI_IG -2 1 - 194_i TLIE 1 121 = 4 ! Ai ;r=l TF-irA I AN ]� Assoc _ P _ C--I -1� l i RAM AGAJANIAN & Associates is committed to providing efficient and cost - effective professional services. Our charges are on a time and expenses basis, unless otherwise stated. Labor Charges Principal ............ ...................... $110/Hour Software Development Specialist .................. $75/Hour Senior Analyst ........ ....................... $75/Hour Analyst ............. ....................... $55/Hour Secretary ..... .......... ..................... $35/Hour Expense Charges All direct project related expenses will be charged. Direct expenses cover travel, phone calls, postage, duplication, materials, subconsultants, and related costs, as needed. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 Continued from 8/15 Install Low -Water Consumption Fixture (Public Hearing) Consider Zoning Ordinance Update (Public Hearing) Revise RPD Permits (Public Hearing) Tabled Motion on CPO Day Care in Industrial Zones mprovements to Community Center Park �//9 - ) Carlsberg Financial Feasibility o� Qty Study (new) 3�76 r�al 9 From nd P1 nin ndars �! 0 Admin. Svcs. County Days Planning Report (Consent) cf/I- Authorize Purchase of Portfolio Management System (Consent)' //9 Adoption of City Classification Plan (Consent) Community Development •Citation Ability for Code Enforcement Officer (Action) Meandering Sidewalk Agreements (Consent) d•OPlanning Commissions Request RE: Jordan Ranch (Action) •PD 980 Minor Mod. 5 - Moorpark Town Center (Consent) djk..,i•D wntown morar U s •City Engineer ues "'for'R� t�fisn fees dkILA Avenue East TR-4,06-9 -- ~(Consent) c ( ) - Status (Consent) Bond Reduction - TR 3049 - A &R (Consent) Assistant to the City Manager /,I,Request for $1230 in Special Leg4l Svcs. for D I Litigation Community Services ands on) ar mpro ents Star- a Report (Consen or Fo hil said these items f the agenda. ? ?? Sheriff's Department #'National Dare Day Proclamation -Crime Stoppers Report (Consent) Public Works ) Shamf -a TaI l-- Q TA *Y (Action) �// a Graffiti Program Status Report (Consent) Delete Parking Restrictions on Portion of University Dr. (Consent) Groundwater Conservation (Public Hearing) Accept Parkway Improvements - Pardee TR 2865 (Consent) City Clerk Misc. Fee Resolution (Consent) Denial of Claim - argaret Sigurdsson (Consent) 1 AX" GV s t e a Attendance at CA League Conference l,(� Others p� Crossing Guard Report �� %(,� �� hJ O e AOC . y ,JAt A Scholarship Program to be implemented after Star Club Program ,(e��rlit 118/23 Freeway Interconnect Seismic Analysis Agreement with Urban Futures to Review Proposed Affordable Housing Project by Bibo. S/R - Approve Agreement & Authorize Mayor to Sign CceP G+Js r�a�u, Al i f L. PI -912 000 /J& August 22, 1990 Patrick Richards Director of Community Development 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Subject: Amendment to Scope of Work and Contract between the City of Moorpark and PBR for Carlsberg Specific Plan and EIR Dear Mr. Richards: As a result of the City Council action of August 15, 1990 on the Carlsberg Specific Plan and EIR, additional work on the part of PBR and our subconsultants is necessary. In order to provide the revisions necessary in order to accommodate the changes to the plan made by the Council we have attached annotated tables of contents and lists of exhibits herein (Exhibits A and B). Those items marked with an asterisk are items which will need revisions. In addition, we will need supplemental information from the traffic and biological subconsultants. The traffic consultant has provided us with a scope of work (see Exhibit C). Although we do not have a proposal from the biologist at this time, it is likely that an addendum to his study would cost between $500 - $1,000.. As you can see, the extent of the necessary revisions to both text and graphics is extensive. The following is an estimated breakdown w the costs we envision to accomplish the revisions: PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ENVI'ZCNMENTA � _U:�' V ',1;�f?� i !NANCIAL ,NALYSIS • ENTITLEMENT, ?8012 SKY RARK CIR • RVINF NE SAN CIEG(: �:AN FRANCISCC Patrick Richards August 22, 1990 Page 2 Organization Tasks Amount PBR Environmental Impact Report $17,000 Revisions Austin -Foust Assoc. Richard Burgess Specific Plan Revisions Traffic Revisions Biology Revisions Public Hearings and Preliminary Staff Reports (2 each maximum) Total Estimated document printing costs: Specific Plan (40 copies) EIR Addendum (25 copies) Total $21,500 $ 5,000 $ 500 - $1,000 8,520 $52,520 - $53,020 $ 1,400 625 $ 2,025 Your signature below will signify your conCLITrence with the above approach and allow work to proceed in a timely manner. Sincerely, MI Michael Doty Executive Vice President MD:cw Encl. APPROVED Patrick Richards Director of Community Development CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Number EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Purpose and Intent 1 B. Location 1 C. Planning Objectives 1 D. Existing Conditions 2 1. Existing Land Use 2 2. Existing Circulation 2 3. Topography 3 4. Hydrology 3 5. Geology and Soils 3 6. Biological Resources 4 7. Cultural Resources 4 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 A. Land Use Concept 5 B. Residential 5 1. Introduction 5 2. SFD - 1 acre 6 �k 3. SFD - 9866 - ZO, 000 6 4-. 6F o - qP00 W. 45. SFD - to 000 6 4(/6. a�_,.: r�_:,.. 5Fp —7, oo0 6 i C. Commercial Uses 7 ( 1. Introduction 7 2. Business Park 7 3. Subregional Retail/ Commercial 7 �Q 4. Neighborhood Retail /Commercial 7 .)e D. Dedicated City Use 7 -* E. Open Space /Recreation g -4C F. Circulation Plan g 1. Regional Access g 2. Local Access g 3. Internal Access 9 G. Grading Plan 9 1. Conceptual Plan 9 2. Grading Criteria 9 H. Utilities and Services Plans 10 1. Introduction 10 �C 2. Drainage Facilities 10 3. Water Facilities 11 4. Wastewater Facilities 11 �C 5. Other Utilities 11 �C I. Phasing Plan 12 III. COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN 13 A. Introduction 13 B. Landscape Architecture Design Guidelines 13 C. Architecture Design Guidelines 27 i IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS V. VI A. Purpose and Intent B. General Provisions C. General Standards D. SFD - 1 Acre �F. D� ZDl 000 � —9gaeoa�- SFD - 6@86 $g 000 3t Opp — 7000 J. Multi- Family yl' J. SRC Sub Regional Retail /Commercial I. K. Neighborhood Retail/Commercial X L, Business Park Park Open Space IMPLEMENTATION A. General Provisions B. Review Procedures C. Specific Plan Amendments CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN ii 49 49 49 50 53 56 58 60 63 66 68 71 73 74 74 75 76 77 CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit Number Title Following Page Number 1. Regional Location 1 2. Vicinity Map 1 3. Topography & Kev Elevations 3 4. Slope Analysis 3 5. Geology & Soils 3 6. Biological Resources 4 7. Land Use Plan 5 8. Open Space & Recreation Plan g 9. 4C Circulation Plan g 10. Grading Plan 9 11. Cut and Fill Plan 9 12. Drainage Facilitie, 10 13. + Water Facilities 11 14. Wastewater Facilities 11 15. * Phasing Plan 12 16. * Conceptual Landscape Plan 13 17. City Gateway Elevation 14 18. City Gateway Plan View 14 19. Gateway Section 14 20. Primary Entry 14 21. ;c Primary Entry 14 i\ 22• Primary Entry Light Column 14 23• Secondary Entry 14 24. Neighborhood Entry 14 25. Cross Section Kev Map 19 26• �y Street Sections: 20 a. Moorpark Freeway Buffer b. Tierra Rejada Buffer 27. Street Sections: 21 C. Spring Road d. New Los Angeles Avenue 28. Street Sections: 21 e. Science Drive f. Peach Hill Extension 29• 40 Street Sections: 21 g. Neighborhood Street (through street) h. Neighborhood Street (cul -de -sac) 30. 4( Street Sections: 22 i. Community Park j. Fuel Modificatior 31. Oak Tree Guidelirnes 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Section No. -* LAND USE Title Page No. 1.0 27 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 1.1 3.4t INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 4t AREAS OF CONTROVERSY 2 1.3 4( SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 3 2.0 3.8 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 13 2.1 LANDFORM MODIFICATION /AESTHETICS LOCATION AND SETTING 13 2.2 88 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 13 2.3 Jt PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 14 2.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR 16 2.5 RELEVANT PLANS 19 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 23 3.1 -* LAND USE 23 3.2 it HYDROLOGY 27 3.3 4( GEOLOGY /SOILS 30 3.4t BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 38 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 49 3.6 4( TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION 50 3.7 AIR QUALITY 61 3.8 * ACOUSTICS 78 3.9( LANDFORM MODIFICATION /AESTHETICS 84 3.10 J( SOCIOECONOMICS 88 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 95 3.12 OPEN SPACE /PARKS 112 /°TT�'`q"ivr 01 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Section No. Title Page No. 4.0 *UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 117 5.0 *INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 120 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROTECT 125 7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT -TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 130 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROTECT BE IMPLEMENTED 131 9.0 GROWTH- INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROTECT 133 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 141 11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY_ 143 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Section No. Title Page No. 12.0 AT A. �t B. C. D. E. 'PENDICES Initial Study /Notice of Preparation Traffic Study Biological Study Correspondence Other Data ii LIST OF EXHIBITS V Follows Exhibit No. Title Page No. I Regional Location 2 2 Site Vicinity 2 3 Surrounding Land Use 23 4 jij. Land Use Plan 24 5 Drainage Facilities 27 6 Soil Boring Locations 30 7 Geology and Soii 30 8 *- Biological Resources 38 9 Existing Circulation System 50 10 1996 Background .kDT Volumes 50 11 2f Project Trip Distribution 58 12 General Plan Amendments 60 13 V. Air Quality Modeling Locations 75 14 -# Noise Modelling 1_,ocations 79 15 Site Photo Index 84 16 Site Photos 84 17 Site Photos 84 18 Conceptual Landscape Plan - 86 19 *Grading Concept 86 20 *Alternative 1 126 21 -' Alternative 2 128 V LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page No. 1t Statistical Summary 15 2 Cumulative 50 -Year Runoff CFS 28 to the Arroyo Simi Channel 3 1990 Existing and 1996 Background 51 ICU Summary 4 Ji Project Land Use and Trip Generation 53 Summary 5 Trip Rate Summary 53 6 1996 Project ICU Summary 55 7 Recommended Intersection Improvements 57 8 1996 Project ICU Summary with 58 Intersection Improvements 9 Ambient Air Quality Standards 63 10 Average County Summer Day Weekday 65 Emissions -1983 11 Project- Generated Total Emissions 74 12 Maximum One -Hour Carbon Monoxide 75 Concentrations (PPM) with Ambient Concentrations 13 CNEL Considered Acceptable For Various 79 Land Use Categories 14 Roadway Noise Contours gl 15 Simi - Thousand Oaks Subregional Area 88 16 Jobs /Housing Balance Analysis - 93 Simi - Thousand Oaks Subregion 17 City of Moorpark Share of Regional 94 Housing Need 18 J. Project Alternatives 127 19 Proposed General Plan Amendments 137 RECEIVED A! li 2 ? lwL w.AIIST /N -fOUST ASSOC/.4TfS, /NC. TRAFF IC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTAT /ON FLANN /NG 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 667 -0496 FAX (714) 667 -7952 August 20, 1990 Ms. Joanne Sullivan PBR 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 PROPOSAL: CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY Dear Joanne: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) is pleased to propose a scope of services to prepare a revised traffic study in support of the overall EIR revision being prepared for the Carlsberg Specific Plan proposed development in the City of Moorpark. The primary objective of the proposed traffic study revision is to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the latest Carlsberg land use and circulation plan. The individual tasks comprising our suggested scope of services shall include: 1. Conduct a trip generation, distribution, and intersection impact analysis associated with the recently revised Carlsberg land use and circulation plan. 2. Identify and evaluate suitable mitigation for any project traffic impact greater than one percent of the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) value at any intersection where the city's standard level of service is not provided and /or maintained. 3. Prepare a revised traffic study report in a format suitable for incorporation into the EIR with findings and recommendations for traffic improvements required to fully mitigate the project's traffic impacts. The work is proposed to be completed on a time and materials basis for a fee not to exceed $5,000 based on the f01110-ving estirna��u personnel allocation: ESTIMATED PERSONNEL ALLOCATION Classification Hours Rate Cost Principal Traffic Engineer 1 1 $90 $1,080 Project Manager 2 i 70 1,400 Asst. Transportation Engineer 26 45 1,170 Senior Technical 20 35 700 Traffic Technician 1, 30 480 Subtotal $4,830 Direct expenses; travel, reproduction, etc. 170 TOTAL $5,000 ATT^CANe/�F 0 Ms. Joanne Sullivan August 20, 1990 Page 2 We shall begin immediately upon notice to proceed with a draft report completed within three weeks. Thank you for the opportunity to propose on this important planning effort. Please contact myself or Kendall Elmer of our office with any questions regarding this proposal. Very trul yo rs, Terence W. Austin PART 2 Panelists' favori Showering staffers highest votes to sho ers from two hand -h heads. Shown is Teledyne's Water Pi Shower Massage, $ ew pleasures in life compare with a long hot shower, as anyone with teen -agers in the house can attest. But showers con- sume more than one -fifth of all the water used indoors, and more hot water than any other fixture or appli- ance. Installing a low -flow shower head is a simple and inexpensive way to cut down on that water use. For $10 or so per shower installation, the average family can save 5000 to 10,000 gallons of water each year, plus the energy it took to heat half that water, perhaps $20 to $50. (As the saying goes, your mileage may vary. Savings depend, among other things, on how long and how often Your family members shower, which kind of shower heads you currently own, and how much you pay for heating water.) Before 1980, shower heads could leliver five to eight gallons of water )er minute. Over the last decade, tationwide water shortages have prompted public officials, consumers, and manufac- te turers to want to reduce gave that figure. w During past drought eld emergencies many home- owners installed flow k restrictors, washer -like 43, disks that fit into a show- ,r er's inlet end. But oftentimes the flow restrictors cut the quality of the shower along with 3. the flow, and consumers simply removed them. Meanwhile, manufac- turers have gradually scaled back the flow rates of new shower heads while trying to maintain the quality of the shower. (leads designed for low flow usually have a narrower spray area so less water misses the showerer; they may also entrain air with the water, to create a turbulent flow. Most of the new shower heads available are low -flow heads that deliver 3 gallons per minute or less. Legisla- tion is pending in several states and in Congress than would set standards requiring all nc w shower heads to use no more 'liar 2.5 gallons per minute. W'e bought and tested 34 low -flow shower heads (if two major types. Twenty-four (re fixed- position heads, the familiar swiveling kind that screws directly onto the shower pipe 'fen are hand -held "micro- Phone" heads, which are tethered to the shower pipe with a flexible hose. Those have a clip or fixture that can position them like a fixed shower. Priovs vary widely: for the fixed type from $3 to $75; for the hand - heids, from $11 I„ Designs and styles vary widely, toy I7le simples, are fixed- position heads that deliver only one type of spra}. such as , steady rain or a mitt- Otht rs have adjustment knobs (Jr livers that 41vc two or more sera) patterns, sornetimes including it ,,else (r "massage" spray. The mo-M complex. two hand -held Poilrrrex models, tave four distinct sprs,± Iratlerns, a three - position adjusitmen, for each pattern, and a "re:odator' knob marked for 15 set - lilip - of ilc w rat( Some like it hot 'llit key question with a low -flow head) is not so much the quantity of wilt;; as the quality of the shower, so .M+ turned to a panel of staffers. 11' ii , 1 heavih, instrumented show, r facility we built in one of our labr,, 6 soggy souls took roughly 350 .Dowers over the course of sev- eral rraonths. Sint a good shower mcan!, different things to different peoplt , we nstructed the staffers to adju,t the heads and the faucets to get it,(, best shower they could by their rwn lights. Atter each shower, we <,- -•k('d the staffers how well they like( hr bower nt= a five -point seal( W, an Trials aor each shower heae .0 both low and high water -line pre, ;,,ii es 0 anC 80 pounds per squa' inch) to bracket the range one i, l kely to encounter in the real world 'or the inw t part, our panel- ists 1'ik�-d the saint heads at both tow i I high pre <,ures. The Rat- 119, (ores are 1);,sed on prefer - ence� t so psi, b(,; we also note ,;how head; that %ere particularly liked r disliked) .( 20 psi. "'n , sty judged I of the fixed - positi� ;bowers W r }good. But the higi ( ot, w,'nt the band -held Sears 20173 and Water Pik Shower Massage 5 SM -3U. Price was no guide to the quality of the shower heads: Six of the high- est- rated fixed- position heads cost $10 or less. And two expensive mod- els —the Moen, $45, and the Water Pik SM -5, $44, were at the bottom of their groups in the Ratings. Pouring it on We measured the shower heads' maximum flow rates with the taps fully open, at water -line pressures of 20 and 80 psi. At low pressure, they ranged from 1.0 to 2.4 gallons per minute. At high, they ranged from 1.8 to 5.4 gpm. At that pressure, almost half the heads produced 2.5 gpm or less, meaning they'd pass muster if the pending water- fixture legislation becomes law. Go with the flow? The shower heads offer three ways to adjust the flow pattern. Panelists strongly disliked a knob in the center of the stream R , like that on the low - ratPrl Alcnne TL-_.. ___ Suspecting that most people don't shower with both hot and cold taps going full blast, we also measured the actual flow rates our panelists elected when they showered. They always used less than the maximum possible —in some cases as much as a gallon per minute less. At low pressure, they used an average of 1.4 gpm; at high pressure, 2.5 gpm, on average. Interestingly, our panelists did not automatically favor higher flow rates over lower ones. They gave top marks to one fairly high- flowing head, the 3.1- gallon Sears 20173, but didn't much like the 3.2- gallon Alsons Somerset. And while they found more heads to their liking when the water was at high pres- sure, they especially liked the two Zin -Plas heads at low pressure. Low pressure proved too great a hurdle for the NY -Del: Its perfor- mance at 20 psi was so puny we couldn't rate it there at all. If your own water pressure is on the low side, avoid the NY -Del. Several other models that performed poorly at low pressure, though better than the NY -Del, are noted in the Ratings. Three Water Pik models would have suffered the same fate, but their flow restrictors could be reversed or removed to increase the flow. As the Ratings note, we made those adjustments in our low -pres- sure trials, in an effort to obtain decent showers. Turning the restrictor around or removing it didn't make them high -flow heads: At low pressure, they still delivered less than 2.5 gpm. Still, we aren't impressed with heads whose design lets you --even encourages you —to remove the flow restrictor. Featured performance We gathered opinions and com- ments from our panelists (after, not during their showers) in an effort to pin down just what it was they liked or didn't like about each head. We found, alas, no general agreement on what made a good shower. For the most part, panelists were unimpressed with the multiplicity of features some heads offered. Nearly all the staffers strongly disliked cen- ter- adjustment knobs, the kind that require you to reach into the stream to adjust the flow pattern. Panelists who used one type of flow for lather- ing up and another for rinsing, say. markedly preferred an adjustment on the side or periphery of the head. Thev had only one other strongly held opinion —that the P'iilenx CONSUMER REPORTS JULY iggo DM150 and DM109 � erg roisv at high pressure. Recommendations Our showering starters gave high marks to 11 fuzed - position hower, and five hand -held on��. Several of the fix, , heads our panelists liked best ire especially good buys. Among th(�,e, the Sears 20170 and the Therm,) Saver CF01 cost only $6 or so; he Resources Conservation cost ti" while the $8 Zin -Plas 14- 9601 -F and $107in -Plas 14 -9550 were nearly as 'inexpensive and had the added virruc cf being liked even at low pressure. If you like a hand -held shower, go for the Sears 2077' >23, or the Water Pik SM -3U, �4: Of the two, the Water Pik used almost , gallon less per minute, at rast at high pressure, so wed rec+nnmend it on ecological if �iot r economic grounds. If you hav� notably low water pressure in v., i- bathroom, you might have to rE r],>ve tie flov restrictor from the Rats Piv ro gei a decent shower. A t , , d c- ndidat, at low pressure v,mid r< th, Pollenex Dial Massag, 1 rM 209, S24 The panelists felt it t :� -turn o bei ter at 20 psi than at Installing a new sh , k er [wad is .r simple task. Follow r direction that come with the head. That usu ally means removing 1,, old ;howeK head with large plir,r r in adjust Pick of the fixed Eleven fixed ,ads gaue vr,ry good showers, said welists In that group, they liked r $6 Sears '10170 (above) every bit t - much as the $39 Chatham. I, wrench. II it doesn't want to Mme oft easily, ,1eadv the inlet pipe h a pipe %,r.nch 'Then simply -cw the nc%t head into place, -trig the appropriate tool. riless the instructions specify ,rherwise, it's usually a good idea !, wind the pipe threads with a few !urns of pipe -joint tape, available at hardware stor(,;. And put a rag b,,tween the plier jaws so as not to -agar the frxtur ', finish. ■ SHOWERING WITH A LOW FLOW IS THERE A SCALD HAZARD? A few manufactun,r, of low -flow heads, notably the Delta l:orporation, have cau- tioned that low -flow shower heads have the potential of scalding the user unless the plumbing is fitted with special antiscald devices. The theor�, is that if someone flushes a toilet commented to the same Cold- water line as the sh,)wer, a low -flow shower head will exacerbate the effects of any resulting pressure drop With a low -flow head in place, flushing it toilet can cause a significant pressor change. Hot water forces the showers ,,Id water back up into its supply pipe, leap r�; ord- hot water com- ing out of the show We tested all our ­I wwcr heads using half - inch supply lines am i quick-opening valve that simulated a toi., s Gushing. f'nder the specific conditions err aced, here was indeed a scald haza The problem ti-i lohl" (cui in bath- rooms that were properly plumbed to begin with. Good plumbing practice specifies that three- quarter -inch supply pipes should serve bathrooms, and that would tend to minimize the problem. Further, major na- tional plumbing codes call for the installa- tion of thermostatic mixing valves, pressure - balancing valves, or antiscald valves in showers, any of which should also obviate the problem. It would be wise to make sure your bath- room is properly plumbed. Try running your shower (on your hand) and have some- one flush the toilet. If there is a significant temperature rise in your shower with your present shower head when the toflet is flushed, chances are you'd risk a scald using a low -flush head. Either have an antiscald valve installed (a job for a plumber), set your water heater lower (to 120° or so), or make sure the door is locked when you shower. 471 RATINGS O e 0 o • eeffer E i. Worse L'_Low-flow shower heads Listed by type in order of preference as determined by a panel of users. Within type, bracketed models were about equally pre- ferred, and are listed in order of increasing price. 0 Price. What Cu paid, rounded to the nearest dollar. © Panelists' preference. hese scores are derived from the experience of a panel of staffers. Panelists were instructed to ad- just each shower as desired, -ind afterward asked to judge flow well they liked it. The judgments are (::rased on tests conducted at 80 psi pressure; the heads generally scored a little lower at 20 psi (See Comments col- umn for the rnc)dels the panelists particu- larly liken, or f, ­1 ec a Shower heads that were liked most con- sistently earned the highest scores; those that were most disliked got the lowest. Those with middling scores, and those that were liked by some and disliked by others, were ranked in between. ®Panelists' flow -rate. Here we list the average flow rate, in gallons per minute, our panelists actually used at the settings they chose. 0 Panelists' flow -rata, gpn Maximum flew -rate, gpm Spay an ®pulse Nati grand s A ee cep ete t` !� t` ©eC ~O e0 �0 O� �e model p� ��� �►�` tti�`e �,o�� ed�ti Fixed - position shower heads - - - -- -- Sears Energy- Saving Shower Head 20170 $ 6 5 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.9 Thermo Saver DynaJet CFO - - 6 -- 1 1 2.3 1.3 2.8 - ✓ - - Resources Conservation The Incredible Head ES -181 1 0 1.9 1.0 2.0 ✓ _ Zin -Plas Brass Showerhead 14- 9601 -F 8 � -- - t5 2.9 1.9 3.6 ✓ - Zm -Plus Water Pincher 14 -9550 10 d 1.2 2.4 1.4 2.7 - ✓ ✓ _ _ Whedon Saver Shower SS2C 0 e 1.1 2.1 1.3 2.5 - ✓ Great Vibrations Water Saver Massage 628400 11 ✓ ✓ American Standard Shower Head Chrome 10509.0020A 15 e 9 2.5 1.3 _ Teledyne Water Pik Shower - Massage 5 SM 2U g 24 _ 190 2.4 2.4(] 2.9 2.7 - ✓ ✓ -... - Chatham Solid Brass Shower Head 44 -35 - -:39 - - - � - -- 18 27 2.0 2.8 - ✓ - 2 Teledyne Water Pik Shower Massage 8 SM -4 9 40 _ 1 1 2.3 1.3 - ✓ ✓ Melard Water- saving Adjustable 3610 - 2.5 - ✓ ,i 4 _ _ Pollenex Dial Massage DM 150 J a 1 2 19 2.4 1.4 2.8 - ✓ ✓ - Nova B6402 -- -- 20 2.3 2.2 ✓ ✓ _ 2 Speakman Anystream 52253 AF '= 1 1 -- 2.0 1.2 2.5 - ✓ Kohler City Club K -7351 -- % 9 - 1 6 - - - I8 2.3 2.0 - 2.5 - ✓ ✓ NY-Del 550-11 Q - 26 2.2 2.8 ✓ ✓ _ Ondine Water Saver 28446 - - - _- 17 1.1 1,8 - ✓ ✓ _ Kohler Trend 11740 � Q - 1 7 13 2.4 2.3 2.7 - ✓ ,i Alsons Somerset 673 -- - 1' - -- G1i - - 2.4 2.1 27 - ✓ ✓ - _ Speakman Cosmopolitan S2270 -AF - 1 - -- 1 8 -_- 3.2 -- 1.8 4.7 - ✓ ,i - Pollenex Dial Massage DM 109 Alsons Alspray Massage Action 690C 33 Q -1.2 _ _ _ Moen Pulsation 3935 2.4 1.8 3.1 - ✓ - 1 Hand -held shower heads - - - - Sears Personal Hand Shower 20173 2.1 2,?_ _ - 1.5 3.1 Teledyne Water Pik Shower Massage 5 SM -3U 43, __0 O 2 O 2.3 1.6 1.21 3.4 ✓ _ 1 Alsons Hand Shower 462PB 2 .6 ✓ _ 2 Alsons Massage Action Pulsating 45C 2.5 13 2.6 - ✓ - - - Moen Pulsation 3981 - 9- _ � 5 a- 2.5 1 6 -1 - 2.7 - ✓ - 1 Teledyne Water Pik Super Saver SS -3 - - 2.2 - 3 -- - 2.a - ✓ - 1 _ Pollenex Dial Massage 1, - - 22 - 1 2 - -- -- 2.5 - ✓ ✓ - - Po lenex Dial Massage /Steamy Mist DM230 2: 8 - 2.5 - 22 -- - - -- 54 - ✓ ✓ 2 _ Pryde Splash 2461 2`^ ) 5 3.1 23 a9 ✓ ✓ 2 Teledyne Water Pik Shower Massa e 8 SM -5 g 3_`' 1 t - 26 -- 17 - 28 - ✓ _- 1 - - - - - -- _ _ _ _ L Tested at 20 psi without restocior (sea story, 4= 6 ] 2 1 1 9 (] 2.5 ✓ ✓ 4 TJ Tested at 20 psi with restnctorre°versed(set story) 472 CONSUMER REPORTS JULY 1990 gad ttin,s i 91Mazimum flow -rate. How many gal- lons per minute each shower head could produce with the supply taps fully open at low and high water -line pressures. 3 Spray and pulse settings. The major spray settings (mist, fine, coarse) and the number of different pulse settings, if any, each shower head could produce. Some models, noted in the Comments, had nu- merous other settings as well. We also note the type of adjustment device each head provides— center (C), ring (R), or knob (K). Panelists least liked center adjustments, which force you to reach into the spray. Q Materials /finish. The construction ma- terial and finish layer for each head: plastic (P), metal (M) or chrome - finished plastic (C). We noted no performance differences be- tween a plastic and a metal head 8 Warranty. Coverage of parts R�•oti ® to Specif citions and features All. Attach to standard , 2 -inch diameter threaded — M/C — — shower pipe. All hand -held models come with a 5 -foot flexible — - M 36 G hose, and, except as noted a clio to hang them — M 12 B,G from shower inlet pipe J K M — A,H — M — A Key to Comments - — M 36 G A- Consistently liked at 20 psi B- Consistently disliked at 20 psi. _ C P — C,G C- Center -knob adjustment, judged less eesir - able than other types. C M/C — C D- Judged noisier than most at 80 psi. - E- Judged too feeble to use at 20 psi R M/C 12 1 F -Head attaches to wall mount (included). K M — J G -Has shut -off valve. H- Side - mounted adjustment sewer R - M/C 12 K _ -Can mix spray with pulse J- Side - mounted adjustment knob K C — g,G,J K -Can mix fine and coarse spray - R P 3 DI L -Force continuously adjustable on each get ting. - — _ M _ G M -Comes with extension pq K M/C — K M 12 B,J C - -- C P M/C — — C,E C — C M/C 12 C — ,�� C - - - -- M/P 12 C } • C M/P - C j - -- R P 3 B,D,L / K C 1 B,J K M/P 24 J,M — 4 , R M/C — R M/P 12 - - -- — P — G — R M/P 12 — Overdesignedi Several shower heads. like — K M/P 24 F_ this Pollenex Dial Massage DM209, provide — R M/P 12 — more choices than you might want to make first R M/P 3 A L thing in the morning . This $24 model can give — R M/P 3 L you a mist, a fine spray, a coarse spray, and R P/C 12 B several pulse settings. Our panelists were not _ R P/C 12 K impressed with the variety of features— indeed, — - -- made little use of them. This {1lodel was well down in the Ratings of rland held I earls CONSUMER REPORTS JULY 1990 r�►e�r on j ti CO RePorts AR i . 5a�Zaa r �.q0o Find.-- out fast how .much that used car I 4s ;really worth! Hear the current market value for any 1982 -89 vehicle, including minivans and pickups, with a call from a Touch -Tone phone.- --- You'll hear: • Current market price — whether you're buying a. used car pri- vately or from a dealer, selling it {{I yourself, or trading in your old t i model. The price you'll hear itakes into account mileage; major options, and your region of the U.S.' • Trouble Index — compiled from Consumer deports Frequency- of- Repair records. The service costs you $1.50 per I! minute (about $7.50 for a typical call). You'll be charged on your lo- cal phone bill. Call 7 days a week j between 7;00 am and 2:00 am EST. (Sorry, no service available for Alaska and Hawaii.) In certain areas of the country, 900 service is not available. Check with your local phone l company to be sure it can 4t complete the call for you. Have these facts ready before you call: Model Year Model Name Mileage Major Options Number of Cylinders Condition 1- 900 - 258 -2886 473 COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES it • I of Cpl �a�� ITEM NO- FILE NO_ - i i 1 MOVED SECO - ;2�;� •AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT BROWN -_ - RARPER _- l.� MOVED SECO - ;2�;� COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO- FILE NO. - i! .iii i MOVED SECONDED -AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT BROWN HARPER l[: k2� S01i� .iii i MOVED SECONDED COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO- FILE NO. MOVED J SECONDED r -AYES NOES ABSTAIK ABSENT BROWN MRPER !v k2i`}S.0Aj � i MOVED J SECONDED r 4 - S ITEM No_ �� I • r ' COUNCIL MINUTE NOTE FILE NO_ - i a MOVED SECONDED k -AYES NOES ABSTAIK ABSENT BROWN —_ BARPER Aq w1ZHr,oAj MOVED SECONDED k COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO_ FILE NO_ - -AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT BROWN HARPER lCi k2 i�} -<X) N 1 4 p� COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO.-r FILE N0. U MOVED SECONDED -AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT BROWN HARPER w �2-li �,oxj MOVED SECONDED COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO- FILE NO. - VdAI(d L . i MOVED SECONDED 112--- -AYES NOES ABSTAIt1 ABSENT_ BROWN HARPER Aq w kZlq SCE Aj -- - MCiz MOVED SECONDED 112--- 11 COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM i FILE NO. - MOVED__2�9SECONDED C -AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT BROWN HARP ER .I,q W Qlq SCE Al MOVED__2�9SECONDED C w COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO. r , i FILE NO. - i i MOVED__HSECONDED s /i2- -AYES NOES ABSTAIN- ABSENT BROWN HARPER ITEM NO. r , i FILE NO. - i i MOVED__HSECONDED s /i2- 1 COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM N0. i FILE NO. - i i l BROWN tl' S ti _ '`�'• Cam_ -%C- L MOVED SECONDED I COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES 0,4h, C % ITEM NO_ FILE NO_ it ..... . ....... . j.. li 1 1 1'1 -AYES NOES ABST BROWN HARPER k�tw kZ1g 51111 i li 1 1 1'1 9 COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES 1 ITEM NO- FILE NO. J MOVED SECONDED -AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT BROWN HARPER J MOVED SECONDED COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO. r FILE NO. MOVED SECONDED -AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT BROWN HARPER -k q w , 2-li S.C) m ITEM NO. r FILE NO. MOVED SECONDED COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO. FILE NO_ - i MOVED SECONDED -AYES • • NOES ABSTAIN' ABSENT BROWN HARPER _ W t2ii ITEM NO. FILE NO_ - i MOVED SECONDED COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO- r i FILE NO_ - MOVED SECONDED •AYES NOES ABSTAIK ABSENT BROWN HARPER l I I s MOVED SECONDED