HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS021_HUGHES AIRCRAFT IIIIIIII III III glll �IIIII IIIII pllll IIII III INI
IS027
r------------------i
i :
HUGHES 1 SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION
-----
NUONLf AIRCRAFT COMMNY
600SUPERIOR AVENUE • NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663 • 7 14 76 9-241 1 • TWX:910.696.1374
May 24, 1983
City of Newport Beach
Planning Departmentf' 1,• S
3300 Newport Boulevard ^�
Newport Beach, California 92663 C 44`
f
Attention: Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director ts 'S� ytF-
Subject: Use Permit No. 1994, Condition No. 32 �Q>
Dear Jim:
Attached is a copy of the construction agreement for the Traffic
Signal Improvements, as well as the performance and labor and
material bonds that were sent to the City by R. J. McDonald on
April 11, 1983.
In the meantime, we have asked our Corporate Insurance Office
to reissue all of these documents and they should be ready in
two to three weeks.
Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY
Solid State Products Division
W. K. Weakland
Assistant Division Manager
Encls.
r a
C ) a
` '---4______________-I
: HUGHES : SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION
1 I
111CRA�T
L------- C RAFT
MV6Mtt A COMMMV
6DOSUPERIOR AVENUE • NEWPORT BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92663 • 714-759-2411 • TWX:910.696.1374
April 11, 1983
Ref: 487
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director
Subject: Use Permit No. 1994, Condition No. 32
Dear Jim:
Enclosed you will find the construction agreement for Traffic Signal
Improvements, as well as the performance and labor and material bonds.
All have been approved by Hughes Aircraft Company and are ready for City
approval . This satisfies condition No. 32 of the use permit.
Conditions 15, 18 and 43 remain and will be satisfied upon occupancy of our
Assembly and Test Building. The balance of the conditions have been satis-
fied and your office has notified us of that fact.
I would like to thank you and your staff for all of the help we received
in reaching this position.
J. McDonald
tanager, Plant Engineering
cc: D. Audrestch (TEG)
W. Weakland
d
AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
USE PERMIT NO. 1994
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 4th
day of April 19 63 , by and between
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY. a Delaware corporation qualified to do business
in the State of California
hereinafter referred to as "Permittee", and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a municipal corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of
its Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of California,
hereinafter referred to as "City;"
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, Permittee proposes to develop land within the City
of Newport Beach pursuant to use permit No. 1994; and
WHEREAS, Permittee proposes to construct traffic light
improvements on Superior Avenue at the center drive and all appurtenances
in connection with said use permit as required by the Newport Beach
Municipal Code and as hereinafter provided; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 20.80.060 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code provide for conditional approval of a use permit
application to guarantee installation and completion of required public
improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Permittee agrees to complete all improvement work in
accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Public Works
Director; required by the Planning Commission as a condition of approving
the use permit. The conditions imposed by the Planning Commission are
incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as though
fully set forth. Permittee agrees to complete said improvements by
January 1, 1989, if warrant is met.
2. Said improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer of City, and Permittee shall pay the costs of inspection
of said work in accordance with the established schedule of charges for
1of3
inspection heretofore adopted and on file in the Director of Public Works'
Office.
3. If Permittee shall fail to complete said improvements with-
in the period set out above, City may resort to any security deposited by
Permittee or call upon the surety for Permittee to pay for said improvements
or to supply the money for the completion :of said improvements in "accordance
with this contract. Permittee 'shall al*o. be responsible for said improve-
ments and the cost thereof.
4. It 1s further understood and agreed that upon default of any "
obligation hereunder, and at any time after any such default, the City may
make written demand upon the Permittee or surety or both to immediately
remedy the default or complete the work. If said remedial activities or
completion of work are not commenced within seven (7) days after such demand
is made and are not thereafter diligently prosecuted to completion and fully
completed within thirty (30) days after the making of such demand (or such
other time as may be contained in said demand), the City may then complete
or arrange for completion of all remaining work or conduct such remedial
activity as in the sole judgment of the City may be required, all at the
full expense and obligation of the Permittee and surety and all without the
necessity of givirlg, any further notice to the Permittee or surety before the
City performs or arranges for performance of any remaining work or improve-
ments, and whether or not the Permittee or surety have constructed any of
the required improvements at the time. In the event the City elects to
complete or arrange for completion of remaining work and improvements, the
Public Works Director, upon such election, may require all work by the
Permittee or surety to cease in order to permit adequate coordination by the
City for completing any remaining work and improvements not yet completed.
5. The Permittee shall provide security in the amount of Sixty-
two Thousand five Hundred Dollars ($62,500) to guarantee the performance
of this agreement. In addition, the Permittee shall provide security in the
amount of Sixty-two Thousand five Hundred Dollars ($62,500) to guarantee
payment to any contractors, subcontractors, and persons furnishing labor,
materials and equipment to them for the performance of the work herein
described. Said security shall be in the form of 5051099
corporate surety bonds,
cash deposits, etc.
2of3
i, 10� •
6. The Permittee promises and agrees to maintain al'1 of the
improvements to be constructed under this contract in a state of good repair
until all of the work and improvements are completed and accepted by or on
behalf of the City and until the security for the performance of this agree-
ment is released. Said maintenance shall include repair and maintenance of
improvements. It shall be the Permittee's responsibility to initiate this
work, but if he should fail to do so, he shall -promptly perform such main-
tenance when notified to do so by the Public Wbrks Director of the City.
Upon failure of the Permittee to properly maintain, the City may do all
necessary work required by this paragraph, the cost hereof being chargeable
to the Permittee and his surety under this agreement.
7. Permittee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and
its officers, agents and employees from all demands, claims, losses or
liability on account of injury or damage to persons or property suffered
or claimed to be suffered in, on or around the' development by any person
as a result of any act or omission by Permittee or his agents or employees
between the date Permittee begins work on the development and the date the
improvements are completed and accepted by City.
8. If the Permittee and the surety fail to install all or any
part of the improvements required by this agreement within the time set
forth herein, or fail to comply with any other obligation contained herein,
they shall be jointly and severally liable to the City for any administrative
expenses and attorney's fees incured in obtaining compliance with this
agreement and any such expenses and fees incurred in processing any action
for damages or for any other remedies permitted by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Permittee has executed this agreement and the
City of Newport has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its
Mayor and City Clerk thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BY
Mayor
Approved as to Sufficiency: By
iClerk
CITY
City Manager By W. S. Walker
Approved as to Form:
By Division Mana er Solid State Products
Perm ttee Division
City Attorney
3 of 3
• EXECUTED IN TRIPLICATE
Bond No. 5051099
Premium: $2,250.00 (2 yrs. )
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
USE PERMIT FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That we, HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation
qualified to do business in the State of California ,
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, A Connecticut Corpor
as principal, and qualified to do business in the State of California ,
as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Newport
Beach, California, in the sum of Sixty two Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars ($ 62,500 ) , lawful money of the United States,
for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind
ourselves jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that
whereas said principal entered into or is about to enter into a
use permit agreement with the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to
the Newport Beach Municipal Code and any amendments thereto, in
which said principal agrees to construct improvements in
use permit No. 1994 in said City, as follows; Design and
construction of traffic signal on Superior Avenue at the center
driveway to Hughes Aircraft Company ;
as required by the Municipal Code and as conditions of approving
said use permit and is required by said City to give a bond to
guarantee performance of said contract;
Now, therefore, if the said principal or any contractor
or subcontractor shall well and truly do and perform all the
covenants and obligations of said contract on its part to be
done and performed at the time and in the manner specified therein,
then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise it shall be
and remain in full force and effect and, in addition, surety
agrees to pay reasonable attorneys' fees to the City in the
event that it becomes necessary to bring action to enforce this
bond.
The said surety for value received hereby stipulates
Revised 3/78
and agrees that no amendment, change, extension of time,
r1lvt+tt4vlviw or 140KA'k%ran t �t �A 1 �1 C�th'}t
r
Altrll#k WN le1a q;e or ite>h
, �451i s t,*tJAa��:
iA nT.i•.
ticen.�* tavv �w4 4
on by uhalst ithib bmato Ana iiAid surety does hereby waive notice
of any 'such amendment, change, extension of time, alteration
or addition said contract or agreement and of any feature or
item or items of performance therein or thereunder.
In the event that any principal above named executed
the use permit agreement hereinabove referred to as an individual,
E it is agreed that the death of any such principal shall not
exonerate the. surety from its obligations under this bond.
I
I
WITNESS our hands this2gt.h day of MARCH , 1983
HUGHES AT CRAFT COMPANY
Principal F. C• McNutt
Assistant Treasurer
By
Principal
A3 before me,
oth
On this the� day of
State of - ,
r ss. 0. I.W1ME 41111,1111111111
Catty off the undersigned Notary Public,peANXWrsonally appeared
I� NNUIMI"a j.
*7 personally known to me evidence
❑ proved to me on the basis Of uted thetactory within instrument as
to be�sm4 oration therein
unnnnlw ylmmm�mmmmmmOFFICIALIIS[IAL nnnnnn
or on behalf of the core
€ named,and acknowledged to ma that the corporation executed t.
� ,1 D. Lawrence La IC - hand and o cia188a1.
NC1rF1 rFFICE n e WITNESS enue0nru^ E
• LOI IrA1 f Ff ICE IN E
tres lvno 28 1985=
►,A COmmissto11m1W munwwuuwwmnit���l'^"""°�' Notary's Signature
w,�wnnwilwuw•W If,CA
NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•20012 V.nWn elr0.•y,0o01u1d NIA
CoRPORATEACKNOwLEOG1AENTFORM 1120052
t -2-
EXECUTED IN TRIPLICATE
Bond No. 5051099
Premium Included in Perfommnce Bail
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
USE PERMIT LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That we, HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation qualified
to do business in the State of California ,
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, A Connecticutorporati
as principal, and qualified to do business in the State of California
as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH and to all persons as hereinafter provided in the awn of
Sixty two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($ 62,500 ) ,
lawful money of the United States, for which payment well and truly
to be made, we bind ourselves, jointly and severally, firmly by
these presents.
The condition of the obligation is such that, whereas
said principal has entered into or is about to enter into a use
permit agreement with the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, in which said principal agrees to
construct improvements in use permit No. 1994 in said City,
as follows: Design and construction of traffic signal on Superior Avenue
at the center driveway to Hughes Aircraft Company
i
as required by the Municipal Code and as a condition of the
approval of said use permit the principal is required by the
City to furnish a labor and materials bond as herein provided;
Now, therefore, if said principal or any contractor or
subcontractor fails to pay for any materials; provisions, or
rented equipment used in, upon or for or about the construction
of the public improvements or performance of the work to be done,
or for any work or labor done of any kind, in or on such improve-
ments, or for amounts due under the California Civil Code with
respect to such work or labor, said surety will pay the same in an
amount not exceeding the sum set forth above, and in addition
the surety agrees to pay reasonable attorneys' fees to the City
in the event that it becomes necessary to bring an action to
enforce this bond.
Revised 3/78
s—
This bond shall inure to the benefit of the contractor,
his subcontractors and to persons renting equipment or furnishing
labor or materials to them for the improvements.
The said surety for value received hereby stipulates
and agrees that no amendment, change, extension of timer altera-
tion or addition to said contract or agreement or of any item or
feature or item or items of performance required therein or
thereunder shall in any manner affect is obligations on or under
this bond; and said surety does hereby waive notice of any such
amendment, change, extension of time, alteration or addition to
said contract or agreement and of any feature or item or items
of performance therein or thereunder.
In the event that any principal above named executed
the use permit agreement hereinabove referred to as an individual,
it is agreed that the death of any such principal shall not
exonerate the surety from its obligations under this bond.
WITNESS our hands this 28th day of MARCH , 19 83
HUG S AIRCRAFT ,COMA Y
,
BYTrinc pa F. C . McNutt
Assistant Treasurer
Principal
Principal
HART M ACCIDENT AND BO MM CCIVANY
Surety
>Approved as to sufficiency: /J%�cfi ,f/'^ —.c - ��✓i
BY:
I State of
CAUIMIA On this the1 M day of ttP_._ before me,
fAS ANWAJM SS' D. I.AWNWE I.AN=
Co�nty of !!
• the undersigned Notary Public,personally appeared
fIQOM A• OPP= r
Y] personally known tome
❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to ba tt s whilffuted the within Instrument as
"'^"111151 "'nmmmmlmmOFFICIAL SEAL '1 r •�no ' x'•T or on behalf of the corporation therein
D. Lawrence Langley
;, PuaLlc • s named,and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it.
€s• C At OFFICE
- (ICI81 ae
r Rrlcu•nr oFFlce IN WITNESS myhan
�� •: '.r LOy AN"LLS COUN rY Q
` "" on Expires no 28 1985 �
€M Commissi r
y�.�,uniwnuuim,mwmn unummmw'iinuinni unuwnnu
Notary's Signature
NAl IONAL NOTAflY ASSOGIATIOh•27012 VnnWrA 91Ye.WaooUnO Hillt,C
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM h20052
`»(IZ`=!, • -ii- _.• -.`_i�-i:: .'.S.C: - -�i q„��..1.i=• t� _ _ _I I- E{ t^ )a
77
• 4ARTFORD. ACCIDENT AND,
, INOEMNI.TY COMPANY
i F::i(� .t St_'=�'V�,•_ - - S-. � : t4mara Cpnn. eat _ - _ - - _- - -� - +
•t:= x:��t vI .:.- _ .__ ..: -POWER OF ATTORNEY-::.'_'
^ - •--• - -: � -' ' Know all men by Me" Pnaenta, That'the HARTFORD ACCIDENT'AND INDEMNITY COM-"•--•.•-- •--..
�- '- - - -_ ' PANY,a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut,and having its principal office in the City r,^,1(Z-tt 11
,..of Hartford, County of Hartford. State of Connecticut, does hereby make, constitute and appoirrt •-, - - ^.t�_,
ROBERT A. OPPELT of LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
-
wa:v
Y�^- -its true and lawful Attomey(sptn-Fact,with full power and authority to each of said Attomey(s)•in-Ft in their separate
L. •: - capacity if more than one is named above. to sign,execute and acknowledge any and all bonds and undertakings and Z
other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the company in its business of guarardal the fidelity of
` s _ persons holding places of public or private trust; guaranteeing the performance of contracts other than Insurance Poll. - - - -
ties:guaranteeing the performance of Insurance contracts where surety bonds are accepted by states and municipal- -
_ ides, and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in all actions or proceedings or by - -
i+J taw allowed. -
Imo„ and to bind the HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY thereby as fully and to the same extent as If
-,, such bands and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were signed by an Executive Officer of
the HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and sealed and attested by one other of such Officers, and
hereby ratifies and confirms all that Its said Attomey(s)4n-Fact may do in pursuance hereof,
This power of anorney is granted by and under authority of the following provisions:
(1) By-Laws adopted by the Stockholders of the HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY at a meet-
Ing duly called and held on the 10th day of February. 1943.
ARTICLE IV
''•- SECTION a The P•- dent or any Vice-President acting with any Secretary or Assistant Secretary shall have power and authority to appdM.
-- for pVmoses oral%y of exec.:ng and anaseng bones and uMenakings and other writings obligatory in me nature thereof ane a more Resident
�. vice-Presidents,Resident Aenstant Secretaries and Anomeys-m-Fact and at any ume to remove any such Resident Vice-president.Resident Anse•
• tart Secretary.or AdamaynnFaci.and revoke the power and aum uny given to him.
' SECTION 11. Anorneys•in•Fact shall have power and authority subpct 10 the terms and limitations of the power at attomey issued to them,to '
M? execute and deliver on wall of me Company and to attach the seal of me Company thereto any and ad bonds and uncertain n9s and other wnbngs
L' Cda ry gala in me nature thereof and any such.ristrumem exert by ally s,i:,Ammeyyn•Fact shelf be as pincrg upon me QMripany as d signed
py an Executive Officer aria sealed am anasted oy one other of such Miners
e (2) Excerpt from the Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors of the HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEM-
I:. NITY COMPANY duly called and held on the Itch day of June, 1976:
RESOLVED Robert N H Sew Assistant Vice-Pmsidenl and Thomas F Delaney Assistant%ce-President shad each have M long as he "
holds sum omce the same power as any cute-Premaenl under Sections 6,7 and a of Article IV of the By-Laws of the Company
This power of attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolution
i� adopted by the Directors of the iTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY at a meeting duly called and
F: held on the 61h day of August. 1976.
rw RESOLVED.Trial .vtfereas Advert N H Senor. Assistant Vice-president am Thomas F Delaney.Assistant Vice•Presipeni.acbna with any -
Secretary or Assistant Societal aacn have the power and authority as long as he holds such office,to Somas try a power of dnaney.fir purposes
only of executing and attesting bonds and undenalanga aria other windings obligatory in me nature thereof, one or mac Residem vice-Press
- tlenls Assmtanl Secretaries and Anorney"n-Fad.
3 Now Merelare,the signatures of such OmCeas and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such Power 01 attorney in to any certificate -
•- - relatma thereto byy tapvmile, aria any such power of attomey or certificate bearing such facsimtle sigynatures at facsimile seal shall w valid arch
i binding ueoo the Wmomy and any such power so executed and caroled try facsimile signatures and facsimlo seal shall be vane and trading upon
ti me Company in the future with respell to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached
In Witness Whereof, the HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY has caused these presents to be
signed by its Assistant Vice-President,and its corporate seal to be hereto allixed,duly attested by its Secretary.this 9th
day of August, 1976,
e� Attest: HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY
:., Mary Schad.Secrwary Thomas F.Delaney -
:<.: _ STATE OF CONNECTICUT, i Assistant vine-waaident
ss
COUNTY OF HARTFORD.
�'- •M-• On this 9th day of August A.D. 1976.before me personally came Thomas F. Delaney,to me known,who being by _
me duly sworn. did depose and say: that he resides in the County of Hartford, State of Connecticut; that he is the
Assistant Vice-President of the HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY,the corporation descnbed in and
which executed the above instrument: that he knows the seal of the said corporation; that the seal affixed to the Said -
- instrument is such corporate seal:that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corporation and that
he signed his name thereto by like order. - • ,- -
0
STATE OF CONNECTICUT. ) Gloria a mamas.Ab Puoeo
as My Commsapn Expires March 31. 1e97 _
j _. _ _ •• COUNTY OF HARTFORD. I CERTIFICATE
-- - - I. the undersigned. Assistant Secretary of the HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY.a Connecti-
_cu. Corporation, 00 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached POWER OF By-Laws
remains m full force
„1 t -• •- - Re olution$ of thend has not been rBoard of Directorsnd . set furthermore,
n.Article
n Power of Attorney, are onoweIn forces of the Company.and
and seated at the L1ry of Hartford.- Gated the '1�- � -my of _ MgpCS_ _ -:19� .J ; :i^ i rr�•_,(
• ,;.. ..i -Feat iiaapN rim Ped in USA, _ ere•�i` , i! _,i/1y
M --� —_ .._�• - _ - - i ti• .rl '-1--'' Am E LrMMs _ _.t
_ - �-�_ 't _ ,: •Assma Jaerwwy t I-=f•- i, .,-
rt`AST-. "t,=3I==Fi-.Ti
r------------------i
HUG:HES ; SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION
1
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY
SOO SUP ERIOR AVENUE • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA92663 • 7-14--548-0671 • TWX:910-596-1374
July 16, 1982
Mr. James D. Hewicker.
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd'.,
Newport Beach,, CA 92663
Subject: Hughes Aircraft`Company - Traffic Study and Use
Permit No. 1994 - Newport -Beach Employees
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
' 1
In accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Study and Use
Permit 41994, we are pleased to submit our employee count at our
Newport Beach' site for the period June 30, ,1981., December 31, 1981
and June 30, 1982.
We plan to submit our employee count to you semi-annually, broken
down into the total headcount and the first shift headcount.
Total First Shift
Headcount Headcount
June 30, 1981 1320 1057
December 31, 1981 1-280 * 1021
June 30, 1982 1258 * 1024
* NOTE:
On December 31, 1981 and June 30, 1982, approximately sixty (60)
of our employees are domiciled at �Commerce Park facility, 3303
Harbor Blvd. , Costa Mesa.
r- o>
9 r4,,gD c?
R<< , t Very truly yours,
14i HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY
Solid State Products Division
1' �1.-O�GN• .IL
ti F
cDonald
Manager,
Plant Engineering
cc: W. K. Weakland
L
(�
DATE
TO: M MAYOR i] LIBRARY
0 COUNCIL U MARINE
0 MANAGER IT PARKS & REC,
CI ASST. TO MGR. II PERSONNEL
U ATTORNEY ETPLANNING
CIBUILDING 0 POLICE
17 CITY CLERK LIPUBLIC WORKS
n DATA PROCESS. O PURCHASING
0 FINANCE LI TRAFFIC
CI FIRE n UTILITIES
CI GENERAL SERV,
FOR: ACTION & DISPOSITION
n FILE
CI INFORMATION
CI REVIEW & COMMENT
Il RETURN
REMARKS: dc- 7� 'M ..,.
A�- W6110i ludicu4 40e5c! ye, 74i
7k,ecmbic rot, G ec
FROM: ,
4
tr
� O
C
RICHARD J. McDONALD
MANAGER PLANT ENGINEERING
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY
I SOLID STATE PRODUCTS OI VISION p1gI TS9.2641
500 SUPERIOR AVENUE TELEX 759.2720
r NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663
T •
-------------�
HUGHES ! SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION
XYOXLf AIRCRAFT COM►ANT
500 SUPERIOR AVENUE • NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663 • 714-759.2411 • TWX:910.596-1374
June 8, 1982 c'
Ref: #370
.CC. •.^`6`vt
City of Newport Beach I wRaeE� �l
Planning Departmentaec+{�,v{
3300 Newport Beach
P. 0. Box 1768 4•/ r
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ta
Attention: Mr. James D. Hewicker
Director of Planning
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
As you are aware, we are under construction, on our site at 500 Superior,
Newport Beach, which will ultimately result in a 110,000 square foot
addition to our existing facility. During this construction period we
are providing off-site parking for our employees. However, it has
been brought to our attention that some of our people are using surface
streets in our locale in lieu of our temporary location. Please be
advised that every effort has been made to inform our employees that
this is both illegal and unnecessary and does not promote the favorable
image which we desire to develop with our neighbors and with the City.
I would also like to inform you, at this time, of further efforts on
our part to alliviate some of the strain on our employee parking.
First, we have leased the vacant land. across from our site at 1525
Superior for a period of six (6) months to be used by our contractors,
so that they required wil-1 not be to use our plant site or surface
streets. Since the only peopl-e parking there will be construction
personnel and not Hughes employees, we do not plan on paving or
striping this land only exercising dust and weed control . Second,
we have leased two hundred and fifty (250) parking spaces from the
Newport R. V. Storage facility located at Newport Blvd. and Pacific
Coast Highway. This lease is for the period of mid-June through mid-
December, 1982. This space will be paved, striped and secured and
will supplement our already leased parking at the Orange County Fair
Grounds until our parking structure is complete later this year.
As you can see, we are going to some lengths to provide adequate
personnel parking during our construction period. I trust that all
of this meets with your approval .
loft i
r
The Hughes Aircraft Company has been a resident of Newport Beach
for over twenty six (26) years and has always sought to be on
good terms with the City and it's other residents. Please advise
if there is any additional information that I may provide.
R J. McDonald
anager, Plant Engineering
cc: W. S. Walker
W. K. Weakland
W. W. Woodman (T.E..G. )
2of2
i
---------------
i HUGHES --- -
———————————————1 500 Superior Avenue,Newport Beach.California 92663
HnOHES AIRCRAFT CONVANY J7re •, „
SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION
it 11;
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
P. 0. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Attn: James D. Hewicker
I
rJ----------
I< i 1 HUGHES i SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION
H EOMC• AIRCRAFT COM►ANY
500 SUPERIOR AVENUE • NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92853 • 714-759.2411 • TWX:910-596-1374
June 2, 1983 • _
Ref: # 502 lie N � 2
rn
Mr. James D. Hewicker
- :Planning Director "��
City of Newport Beach Z Fla
U 3
4 =31 \
3300 Newport Blvd, q
Newport Beach, CA. 92663 ® 4
Subject: Hughes Aircraft Company - Traffic Study and Use
Permit No. 1994 - Newport BEach Employees
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
In accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Study and Use
Permit #1994, we are pleased to submit our employee count at our
Newport Beach site as of June 1, 1983.
We plan to submit our employee count to you semi-annually, broken
down into the total headcount and the first shift headcount.
TOTAL FIRST SHIFT
HEADCOUNT HEADCOUNT
JUNE 1, 1983 1312 1020
NOTE
On June 1, 1983 approximately sixty (60) of our employees are
domiciled at Commerce Park facility, 3303 Harbor Blvd. , Costa Mesa.
Very truly yours,
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY
Solid State Products Division
J. McDonald
Manager, Plant Engineering
cc: W. K. Weakland
ROM/bam
---------------
HUGHES L✓_� _ ""per
___-1 500 Superior Avenue,Newport Beach,Caldornla 92663 '�
NnGMES AIRCRAFT COMPANY /.
SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION ; ~SUN jM-3'83
City of Newport.Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Attention: Mr. James D. Hewicker
Planning Director
HUGHES i SOLID'STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION
+ _ I
NYON[f AIRCRAIT COMPANY
BOO SUPERIOR AVENUE - NEWPORT BEACH,CALI FOR NIA92663 • 714.759.2411 • TWX:910.696-.1874
,
G EIVED
February 2 9 S R
FlUanm'�
FEg 3 1982row
City of Newport Beach N� lFf35T n.�A.
Planning Department
3300 Newport. Blvd. ,v s
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Attn: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator \
Re: Use Permit $1994, Condition #95
Dear Mr. Talarico:
I have been asked to clarify previously submitted information regarding off-site parking
during our planned construction at 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach.
We have leased approximately 200 parking Spaces at Orange County Fairgrounds for use by
our employees as it becomes necessary. For parking purposes our construction efforts have
been labeled Phase I and Phase II.
Phase I construction primarily involves our new parking structure. Along with Phase I
construction we must relocate approximately 200 vehicles. To accomplish our Phase I goal
we have implemented voluntary parking at Orange County Fairgrounds with the employees
car pooling or utilizing public transportation to 500 Superior Avenue. We also implemented
a special car pooling program whereby the car pool employees (3 or more in a car) receive
Special reserved parking and free lunches once a week. We have also, implemented a free
O.C.T.D. bus pass program whereby if an employee agrees to ride the public bus system to
work for an entire month we buy their monthly bus pass for them.
To date we have less than 10 cars parking at Orange County Fairgrounds and. 124 car pools
on-site, and 24 bus passes issued. We have met our Phase I goals easily. Planning is
currently underway for Phase II construction parking plans.
Phase II construction primarily involves our two-story building. During Phase II con-
struction we will either contract with O.C.T.D. to mass bus employees to and from the
Fairgrounds or contract a private leasing company to provide service. Either way our
employees will not park on city streets or access ways.
If I may be of any assistance regarding our parking plans, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
HUGS AIRCRAFT COMPANY
Timothy Magness, Administrator
Environmental Health, Safety/Security
(714) 759-2554
(2)
February 21 1982
Mr. Fred Talarico
TM:mr
ATTACHMENT: January 1982 issue Newport Views (Employee Issue)
cc: W. K. Weakland
M. L. Franklin
W. Woodman
TO: Q MAYOR I a IBRARY
Q COUNCIL U MARINE
M MANAGER LT PARKS & REC.
Q ASST. TO MGR. II PERSONNEL
* ATTORNEY APLANNING
*BUILDING M POLICE
Q CITY CLERK n PUBLIC WORKS
n DATA PROCESS, Q PURCHASING
0 FINANCE tI TRAFFIC
Q FIRE Z3 UTILITIES
Q GENERAL SERV.
FOR: 0 ACTION 8 DISPOSITION
C1 FILE
NFORMATION
REVIEW & COMMENT
k] RETURN
REMARKS:
FROM:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
u Public Works Department (714) 640-2281
cqC/FOFiN�P � pJ
November 9, 1981
Richard J. McDonald
Manager, Plant Engineering
Hughes Aircraft Company w ro
500 Superior Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Cost Sharing Agreement for the Construction of Improvements at
Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard
Dear Mr. McDonald:
We have been reviewing cost estimates for roadway improvements required of
Hughes and other potential developments. The intersection improvements cur-
rently required of Hughes at Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue
are estimated to cost approximately $550,000. If General Plan Amendment 81-1
is approved by the City Council , the additional intersection improvements re-
quired would add approximately $160,000. The improvements required at Coast
Highway--Orange and Prospect are estimated to cost $230,000. These estimates
do not include right-of-way acquisition costs. The estimates have been prepared
from very preliminary plans and should not be considered to be actual costs
based on final design plans.
In preparing an agreement which would establish the fair share for Hughes, we
have been having some difficulty in establishing a formula. Some of the pro-
posals have included using cost per acre of development, square footage of
structures and traffic produced by new development. It appears that the most
easily administered method to determine shares would be based on square footage
of structures allowed for development on a parcel .
The next problem to be resolved is the zone of influence or general area that
would be required to contribute to the construction of these improvements.
Along with this goes the minimum size of development which would be required
to contribute. This has not been resolved.
Another issue that needs to be resolved is, over what term is it reasonable to
require new development to contribute to these specific intersection improve-
ments? Four to five years seems to be reasonable.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
rdge c
Richard J. McDonald
November 9, 1981
There are several more items that we are trying to tie down, such as, the
method of collecting monies from new developers and disbursing monies to Hughes
and other contributors; how right-of-way acquisition- is to be handled; at what
point do new developments contribute (City Council approval , building permit
issuance or occupancy) , just to discuss a few.
We will be working to come up with a more firm proposal to submit to you for
comments in the near future.
If you have any suggestions, please give either Bob Burnham, Fred Talarico or
me a call .
ver l yours
ub ,
City Engineer
DW:rb
cc: Bob Burnham
Fred Talarico "'--:�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that t'hd City Council of the City of
Newport Beach will hold a public hearing regarding:
Application of Hughes Aircraft Company on property
located at 500 Superior Aveftue for the following:
Use Permit No. 1994 and -Traffic Study to permit
the construction 'of an office-laboratory addition •
and related parking structure (with automobile
parking on the roof) that exceed the basic height
limit within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation
District. The proposal also includes the con-
sideration of a Traffic Study for the proposed
110, 000 sq. ft. + addition. A modification to
the Zoning Code is also requested, since a portion
of the required offstreet parking spaces are
compact spaces . Notice is hereby further given
that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by
the City of Newport Beach. in connection with the
application noted above .
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the said public hearing will
be held on the 24th day of August , 19 81
at the hour of 7 : 30 P .M. in the Council Chambers of the city
Hall of the City of Newport Beach, California, at which time
and place any and all persons interested may appear and be
heard thereon.
Wanda E. Andersen
_ City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
v
14,
p
r_
aai:oN bu =aH oTTgr i
r S21�iSziOcII�a
099Z6 b0 `HOY3E d.+:0d!}m
TIM=0
EDME ModalN d0 xrm
IO-OSO-ISO
£99Z6 @J 'tpvaH COI
'1M'[H :)"O&VON 00££
i tpveS N 3o d,4?O
Xmw A4TZ)
.• Q' fr'(� zaarann
�� I I
,• qq��11 yes
� N` HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
v 201 Intrepid Street
c a
Newport Beach,California 92663
(714) 631-0460
July 2, 1981
Newport Beach Planning Commission
3300 Netmort Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
?dear Planning Commissioners,
we have carefully perused the Staff Reports for Items 1, 2, and 3, as well
as a and 5 for the upcoming Planning Commission Hearings and would like to
share wi h you some of our concerns.
Regarding the Traffic Study for the proposed 25,000 sq ft office building,
we are extremely concerned about the two conflicting conclusions - that of
J.E.F. Engineering and the later Traffic Study Revision. There are six or
seven different entrances and exits that could be used for the medical office
building located on the northwest corner of Hospital Road and Placentia, while
there will be many fewer for the proposed building, so are the two locations
comparable? The second report doesn't seem to have any substantiation for
the conclusion that the project complies with the traffic Phasing ordinance.
Additionally, if the critical intersections are close to exceeding 0.90 the
cumulative effects of other projects should be carefully considered. we Irish
to alert you that a serious traffic situation is already existing in this
area of Newport Beach.
Pertaining to the statement on page 8 of the Staff Report, "Consequently,
some mitigation will be required." Zfe would like to know what mitigation is
being required?
Staff was unable to answer our questions regarding the number of proposed
offices, the number of personnel that might be required and the possible
patient load for the Medical Office Building. lie think this information might
affect the amount of traffic generated. 47e wonder also about the reliability
of the 2/3rds figure mentioned on page 16, paragraph 2 of the Staff Report.
In view of the present critical situation with some of the sewer systems in
Newport Beach, we are certain you will consider carefully the adequacy of the
sewers and drainage for both of these projects. Should these two projects
bring the sewer system to capacity, who will be responsible for additional
sewer capacity?
U1r' (�jS As for the Hughes expansion, we are very concerned about exceeding the 32'
height limit. :-Is feel it would set a precedent for the Superior Avenue/
County Triangle area. Since this is an area of mixed land use, including
. - 2 _ •
. ` HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
201 Intrepid Street
Newport Beach,California 92663
,(114) 631.0460
�F residential, for all the "quality of life" reasons are attractiveness of
the city, would it be possible to hold to the 32' height? We understand
Hughes is building at .6 to 1. Does that include the existing building and
could they not later come in with additional expansion at 501 or even 42'
►� if that height is granted now? "t�es�cow came- CA Q&0010 6c. auba+cak-m Vkvf
For both the Hughes expansion and the Medical Office Building, we earnestly
request that you require no equipment be placed atop the buildings: We feel
Sc1 this is important for both visual attractiveness and noise control.
15� We hope, too, that both of these projects will be required to contribute
� toward the acquisition of the Right of Way from Caltrans for �he realign-
ment of Superior Avenue. Qpt4' Ilj S vt""" �� %Ar-0 " ao a acf-ea•al-I
Finally, treed like to request the Planning Commission to upgrade the
Screening Ordinances and Codes.
Zile would like to take this opportunity to welcome the two new commissioners
and look forward to your responsiveness.
Cordially,
BOARD OF DIRDCTCRS
Carl A. Cheadle, Vice President
�e
7ouise S. Greeley�etary
NCKc (wa . is
e "IItat' A% 14CAA) eoasrca&crco&) aCN �• aeea. �xew�e�J
S a�ecwC P�tN�At hNd r► G�tr"'�STc�tcTurt a+t.
S�lRtrtGcuct, wec�.t c ce(t LL4AJ P'<aw a A
12cQ� •cc. M1w
Project Traffic Distribution
And Assignment
es
Z2'j:, pa
hJ Newport
16y Boulevard
Orange to
Prospect
`6%
hbspnia
Road Riverside
i0 Mi hwav br Dover
ac"A/c
�0 a 6.
NUfo1AES AO-OzAfT Ste
:7 i
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department
1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach
Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
XX Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
P. 0. Box 687
Santa Ana. CA 927n? manna
NAME OF PROJECT: Expansion of Hughes Aircraft Facility
PROJECT LOCATION: 500 Superior Avenue , City of Newport Beach
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the construction of
a two-story 110 ,000 sq . ft. Laboratory/office building addition to an
existing facility with a related parking structure, Landscaping and
associated facilities .
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to
procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project
and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant 'effect
on the environment.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
See Attached Initial Study
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: "
Fred Talarico ,
Environmental Coordinator
Date: June 1 , 1981
THE 0 0
PLANNING
CENTER
240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 215, NEWPORT BEACH, CA.92660 (714)640-4911
June 30 , 1981
STATEMENT FOR SERVICES - May 30 through June 26 , 1981
CLIENT: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 West Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach , California 92663
Attention : Fred Talarico
PROJECT: Initial Study-Hughes Aircraft
CNB-1
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES :
Completion of Traffic Analysis for Initial
Study.
Subconsultant Services
(Kunzman and Associates ) $2 , 146 . 00
Total Services $2 , 146 . 00
Amount Due June $2 , 146 . 00
Past Due Amount $4 ,345 . 20
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $6 ,49%20
s �
£ JUL 8 1881r. 9
• PLANNING&RESEARCH • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • URBAN DESIGN • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
WHEN DETACHEDMND PAID.THE CHECK BELOW BECOMES HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY
LL TH
i 3 O
A RECEIPT IN FU PAYMENT OF E ABOVE ACCOUNT. NO GENERAL OFFICE-CULVER CITY.CALIFORNIA v M'
OTHER RECEIPT I5 NECESSARY.
I•' ••I • • I •I DISCOUNT AM• I
i1-05588 52281 05-22-81 1980100 1980l 00
i I
I 1
I I
ti 1 1
i I
I I 1
d I 1
I I i
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 I 1
1 I I
I I I
I i 1
I i I
I 1 i
I 9 I
I 1 1
i I
I 1 1
19801.00 1980 100
I I i
i i i
_ 711` r
SEW�Rr
0
m
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Department
c ► 640-2197
RECEIVED RECEIVED
t•tay 19 , 1981 MAY :. 1 '81 MAY 21 '81
Ms . Diane Audretsch PLA' TE%_2. DEPT. PUNT ENQR. DEPT.
RMA Architectural Group , Inc .
1895 Newport Boulevard
Costa Mesa , CA 92627
Subject : Amendment to Scope of Work- Hughes Aircraft Expansion
Ms . Audretsch :
Enclosed please find a copy of the amendment to the approved Scope
of Work for the Hughes Aircraft Expansion project. We have pre-
viously received your verbal authorization to preform this work
and of this writting � it has been accomplished , reviewed and is
under minor revision per our meeting of Monday, May 18 , 1981 ,.
• Please remit the below indicated sum at your earliest convenience .
CONSULTANT FEES : $1 ,800 . 00
CITY FEES : 180 . 00
TOTAL : 1 , 980 . 00
Very truly yours ,
PLANNI14G DEPARTMENT
JAMES D . HEWICKER , Director
By
Fred Talarico ,
Environmental Coordinator
Enclosure
lie�•! ,�i �....�
6�%j 1.715��1�I1' iNtl�i�lVt
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
PLANNING
�j CENTER
240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUR. 215. NEWPORT BEACH, CA.92660 (714)640-4911
LD
May 15 , 1981 S'
n�
RECCIvC
r.... ..,;;•cnt 9 I
E MAY 18 i981
Mr . Fred Talarico Ner. ct Tor
Cityof New ort Beach n-nTS_arH G
3300 West Newport Blvd . 2
Newport Beach , CA 92663
N
Subject : Amendment to the Contract Regarding
Hughes Aircraft Facilities Expansion
Dear Mr . Talarico :
Pursuant to your discussion with Brooks White , this letter
informs you of the charges necessary for the completion of
the' additional .traffic analysis by Kunzman Associates .
t Kunzman ' s work will include the following tasks :
--Perform a manual traffic count at the Hughes facility' s
three access points during the City' s peak two- and- a-
half hour period ( 3 : 30-6 : 00 p .m . ) . The count will meas-
ure traffic volumes in and out of the site as well as
the direction of exiting traffic .
- -With the new data , perform a Phase One analysis for the
seven critical intersections previously studied . If
necessary, perform subsequent Phase Two and Three analy-
ses .
-- Include in traffic report a calculation of the reduction
in peak hour and two- and- a-half hour employee travel
that is necessary for the proposed project not to exceed
the 1% criterion in all of the critical intersections in
1985 .
To perform these services , the existing contract should be
revised to include an additional amount , not to exceed
$ 1800 . Of this amount , $1400 is for Kunzman Associates
and $400 is for our time . (Note: Kunzman' s $1400 also
covers a portion of the cost of his Transportation System
Management ( TSM) program that was not covered by the
existing contract . )
• PLANNING&RESEARCH • ENVIRONMENIALSTUD;ES • URBANDESIGN • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
. 14r . Fred Talarico
X . : City of Newport Beach
,`Y May 15 , 1981
, ) .-..-) Page 2
Unless notified differently, we will proceed with the
assumption that this amendment to the contract is accept-
able to the City and to Hughes Aircraft .
Sincerely,
THE PLANNING CENTER
Keeton K. Kreitzer
KKK : BW : sh
r'
\D1
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC.
ENGINEERrNG AND PLA? NrNG
Transportation. Traffic, Municipal, Transit
4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach,California 92660 V14) 549-9940
May 14, 1981
Ms. Diane Audretsch
RMA Architectural Group, Incorporated
1895 Newport Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Subject: Hughes Aircraft Facility Traffic Volume
Counts
Dear 'Ms. Audretsch:
This letter is supplemental to our May 1, 1981 letter
regarding traffic counts for the Hughes Aircraft
Facility. In accordance with our discussion, we have
prepared Table 3 summarizing the traffic movements to
and from Hughes Aircraft Facility between 3:30 PM and .
6:00 PM and Table 3A summarizing traffic movements in
and out of Hughes during the 5: 00 PM to 6: 00 PM time
period.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC.
Bill E. Darnell, P.E.
BED:hh
Enclosure
rrEC'g,.
Play 151981
n FPS
0
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
TO/FROM ❑UGHES AIRCRAFT FACILITY
STUDY PERIOD 3:30 PM - 6:00 PM
Exiting Traffic Entering Traffic Entering & Exiting Faci.liiy
Driveway Direction Orientation Direction Orientation Direction Ori.enl:alion
Location From Facility To: To Facility From: To/From Facility
North South Total North South Total North South Total
No. of 69 7 76 10 3 13 79 l0 119
North Vehicles
Percent 91 9 100 77 23 100 89 11 1
No. of 139 438
Center Vehicles 252 138 390 47 1 48 299
Percent 65 35 100 98 2 100 68 32 100
No. of 361
South Vehicles 189 121* 310 24 27 51 213 148
Percent 61 39 100 47 53 100 59 41 Inn
No. of
TOTAL Vehicles 510 266 776 81 31 112 591 297
Percent 66 34 100 72 28 100 67 33 100
* Illegal left turns
TABLE 3A
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC MOVEMENTR
TO/PROM II[IG11T:S AITiCRAPT PACILTTY
PEAK HOUR 5:OOPM - 6:00 PM
Exit in TraCEic Enterinr TraICi.0 rnterinq F. r;xitAT1(j_F,1Ci 1 iiy
Driveway Direction Ori.entat.ion Direction Orientation Direction 0rinnlatirm
Location From Facility To: To Facility From- To/Prom Mir iI y
North South Total North South Total North S0111:11 Toi.a1.
No. of 18 1 19 6 1 7 24 2 2G�
North Vehicles
Percent 94 6 100 94 6 100 92 8 100
No. of
Center Vehicles 95 49 144 4 0 4 99 49 148
Percent 66 34 100 100 0 100 67 33 101)
No. of 99 51* 150 2 0 2 101 51 152
South Vehicles
Percent 66 34 100 100 0 100 66 34 100
No. of
TOTAL Vehicles 212 101 313 12 1 13 224 102- 326'0
Percent 68 32 100 92 8 100 69 31 100
* Illegal left turns
C- THE •
PLANNING
� � CENTER
TRANSMITTAL
To, GZrx Ve /�sJ^PT,//-, Date.
330D LcJ . P!. ,8L✓a.
Project No. UY* 9
Attn
Subject: 74-
The following items are transmitted, Herewith ❑ U er separate cover ❑ ❑
�; C.ik,;X 4 g! N
The above items are transmitted, At your request ❑ For your information ❑ For your review ❑
General Remarks,
From:
7j
• PLANNING&RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • URBAN DESIGN • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • 240 NEWPORT CENTER DR,SUITE 215,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660,(714)640-4911
�� uU� �. UutaVt v4ssoc � ates
Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering
May 8, 1981
Mr. Keeton Kreitzer
The Planning Center
240 Newport Center Drive
Suite 215
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr. Kreitzer:
Attached is a discussion of Transportation System Manage-
ment techniques which could be implemented for the Hughes
Aircraft facility in Newport Beach.
Transportation System Management Overview
Transportation System Management (TSM) inlcudes short-range
transportation planning and operational techniques which
have as their objectives increased efficiency of the system,
improved air quality, and energy conversation. These are
primarily low-cost projects that are specifically targeted
to make more efficient use of the transportation system and
reduce auto use. Listed below are severl elements which
should be considered for incorporation into a Transportation
Systems Management Plan.
a. 'Information and Marketing System (to inform the public
of advantages of using alternative transportation modes)
1. Advertising and promotion of active TSM programs
2. Community input and participation in TSM activities
3. Periodic survey of user acceptance and demand
b. Ride Sharing and Van Pools (programs of government and
emp oyer-create opportunities for ride sharing)
1. Park and ride lots
4BB4 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA S2714 * (714) 559-4231
2. Preferential pool parking
3. Limited parking supply and/or stricter parking
regulations
4. Van pooling programs
5. Ride sharing programs for employees and shoppers
C. Bicycle Incentives
1. Bike trails connecting residential, industrial,
and commercial areas
2. Effective bike trail maintenance
3 . Bicycle storage facilities at industrial/commercial
sites and at connection points to other transporta-
tion modes
d. Work 'Schedule Measures (means of adjusting working schedules
to further high occupancy vehicle use and decrease congestion)
1. Flextime programs to provide for adjusting individual
work schedules
2. Staggered shifts to reduce travel demand during peak
periods
3. Four-day work week
e. Transit (programs to facilitate transit operations and
encourage transit use)
1. Support improved bus service and express bus service
2. Preferential treatment for buses and other High
Occupancy Vehicles
3. Signal pre-emption for transit
4 . Coordination of fares,' transfers, and schedules for
transit service
5 . Employer-supported transit passes
6 . Neighborhood design features to facilitate transit
stops and use
f. Pedestrian Amenities
1. Convenient and safe street crossings
2. Pedestrian paths connecting residential, commercial,
employment, and public service areas
3. Shelter for pedestrian and bus passengers
4 . Pedestrian access paths through cul-de-sacs
From the above listed TSM techniques, three possible programs
are being suggested for consideration by Hughes Aircraft in
Newport Beach. The three programs, with estimated costs and
comensurate vehicle trip reductions, include the following:
passes, car pools, and van pools.
Bus Pass Program
Hughes Aircraft can encourage employees to utilize bus trans-
portation by :
1. Posting bus route maps and schedules at locations through-
out the Hughes Aircraft facilities
2. Permit flexible "begin work and end work" times for employ-
ees using OCTD buses so that they can meet convenient bus
schedules
3. Provide or subsidize the cost of monthly bus passes
4 . Monitor and administer the bus program
Expense
The cost to purchase bus passes on OCTD is $21.50 per
month or $258 per year.
The cost to administer such a program is estimated to
be one-quarter van year per year, or approximately
$4, 000 per year.
Daily Trip Reduction
On a countywide basis OCTD ridership is approximately
three percent. It is anticipated that approximately
three to six percent of employees will utilize this type
of program. These are considered valid percentage be-
cause repetitive type transit trips such as to school or
work capture a higher ridership percentage, and subsidi-
zation by employer will increase ridership. If the above
percentages are used, 54 to 107 employees will use tran-
sit or 31 to 61 peak hour vehicle trips per day can be
deleted from the total 1, 017 peak hour trips . Table A
describes the expected number of employees which will
take advantage of the program, and the expected cost to
Hughes Aircraft.
Carpool Program
Hughes Aircraft can encourage employees to participate in
carpools by:
1. Providing an employee carpooling matching service
2. Actively promote carpooling
3. Provide assigned preferential parking spaces for car-
pool vehicles
4. Provide identification for carpool vehicles
5 . Enforce carpool parking restrictions
6. Administer and monitor program
7. Require car pools to have a minimum of three persons
8. Provide incentives such as free cafeterial coupons
Expense
Administrative costs of matching service, promotion,
car and parking space identification, enforcement of
parking restrictions and monitoring program are estima-
ted to require approximately one person full time at
approximately $16, 000 per year. The cost of incentives
such as free cafeteria coupons is estimated to be $10
per month or $120 per year per employee participating in
program.
Daily Trip Reduction
It is expected that eight to sixteen percent of employees
will participate in a car pooling program. This results
in 143 to 286 employees •at three per car for 48 to 95
carpool vehicles with a peak hour trip reduction of 81 to
163 trips per day. Table A describes the expected parti-
cipants and costs.
Van Pool Program
Hughes Aircraft can encourage and contribute to a van pool
program by :
1. Company purchased 11 to 12 passenger vans
2. Permit individual employees who drive the vans to keep ve-
hicle on weekends and use for personal use
3. Match drivers and passengers to form van pools so that all
Persons live in same geographic area.
s
4 . Company to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance for
each van
5 . Charge appropriate fee to van pool users
Expense
The program expense includes personnel to administer
program and maintain equipment, plus equipment and gasoline
costs, less reimbursement from employees who participate.
At approximately 10 riders per van, 18 to 36 vans are esti-
mated to be required as will be discussed later. Eleven
passenger vans fully equiped with delux seats and air con-
ditioning cost approximately $14 , 000 each, last approxi-
mately three years and have a salvage value of approximately
$5, 000 . This translates to $3, 000 per year per van or $300
per year per van pool participant.
If it is assumed that the fee charged van pool participants
equals only gas expense and parts and materials for main-
tenance, then the cost to Hughes Aircraft per employee is
the $300 per year. Administration costs of a van pool pro-
gram is estimated to be two full time persons , one to ad-
minister the program and one to maintain vehicles. The
salary of these two persons is estimated to be $36,000 .
Daily Trip Reduction
If 18 vans were used 102 peak hour trips per day could be
deducted from the total peak hour trips; if 36 vans were,
used 203 peak hour trips per day could be deducted from the
total peak hour trips. Employee `participation is expected
to range from 179 to 357 employees ,as is seen in Table A.
Summary
The percent of employees participating in the three programs
discussed in this letter ranges from three to six percent for
the Bus Pass Program, to 10 to 20 percent for a Van Pool Program.
The annual cost 'to Hughes Aircraft per peak hour trip reduced
is $359 for the car pool program, $451 for the van pool program,
and $548 for the bus pass program. These cost estimates are
based on a series of assumptions regarding employer participa-
tion. Adjustments to these assumptions could be made in such
a way that all three programs would cost equally to reduce one
peak hour trip. If adjustments on assumed employer participa-
tion were to be made such that all three programs were equal,
the general conclusion would be that it costs $400 to $500 per
year to reduce one peak hour trip regardless of which program
or combination of programs is used. The program which should be
selected is a function of the amount of employees desired to
participate. The estimated participation rate is lowest for the
bus pass program and highest for the van pool program.
It has been a pleasure to prepare this analysis for you. If
there are questions , or if we can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
�KU/N11ZMA�N/ ASSOCIATES
William Kunzman, P.E.
Table A
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT COSTS (ANNUAL)
Descriptor Bus Pass Car Pooling Van Pooling
Program Program Program
Proportion of Employees 3 to 6% 8 to 160 10 to 20%
Expected to Participate
Number of 1785 Employees 54 to 107 143 to 286 179 to 357
Expected to articipate
7eak Hour Trips by 1, 017 1, 017 1,017
785 mployee Without
P ram ( .57 trip per
employee)
Savings in Peak Hour 31 to 61 81 to 163 102 to 203
Trips if Program Insti-
tuted
Estimated Cost per Employ- $ 258 $ 120 $ 300
ee Per Year to Hughes Air-
craft
Administrative Costs $4, 000 $16 ,000 $36 ,000
Total Estimated Cost Per $17, 932 to $33, 160 to $ 89 , 700 to
Year to Hughes Aircraft $31, 606 $50 , 320 $143,100
Initial Investment nominal nominal $252 ,000 to
$504, 000
Annual Cost Per Reduced $518 to $309 to 401 to
Peak Hour Trip $578; call $409 ; call 01; call
$548 $359 4 1
W.
IT�S
Sod
20
' 7li
,� --
IA
B BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC.
\D1 ENGINEERNG AND PLAT NFNG
Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit.
4262 Campus Drive,Suit&B-1 Newport Beach, California 92660 14) 549.9940
May 1, 1981 f- °r 4�; °f
Diane Audretsch L, �P
RMA Architectural Group, Incorporated
1895 Newport Boulevard w NO Mesa, CA 92627
Subject: Traffic Counts, £or Hughes Aircraft Facility
on .Superior Avenue, Newport Beach
Dear 14s. Audretsch:
This letter -is in accordance with our discussions on this
subject and constitutes the proposal to perform the services
outlined below.
Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc, (BDI). will make traffic counts at
the Hughes Aircraft facility on superior Avenue in Newport
Beach. Specifically, all traffic entering and exiting the
facility will be counted for a 24 hour period using automatic
traffic counters placed at each of the three driveways serving
the facility. In addition, traffic entering and. exiti.ng each
of the three driveways will be counted manually for a two and
one-half hour period (between 3:00 PM and 5 :30 P14) to obtain
an estimate of traffic approaching the facility and exiting
from the facility by direction of approach or exit.
BDI will submit to you a brief report summarizing the results
of the counts. BDI will not perform any analyses or evalua-
tions based on these counts and stating the percentage of
south-oriented and north-oriented trips during the peak period,
it is our understanding that the information obtained by BDI
in this counting program will be used as supplementary infor-
mation to the City`s own counts at the Hughes Aircraft facility.
We expect that the automatic traffic counters will be placed
at the driveways late on Monday, May 4, 1981, and will count
the ensuing 24 hour period. The manual turning movement
counts will be conducted. on May 5, 1981.
The fee for the services outlined above will be $700. 00.
J
Subject: Traffic Counts for Hughes Aircraft Facility
on Superior Avenue, Newport Beach
May 1, 1981
Page 2
Please contact me if I can answer any questions or provide
further details.
Sincerely,
BASMACI N-DARNELL, INC.
Herman Basmaciyan, P.E.
HB:dp
\I
JU �'
n
May 1, 1981
N
Diane Audretsch
Ronald Martin Associates, Inc.
1895 Newport Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Subject: Traffic Counts for Hughes Aircraft Facility
on Superior Avenue, Newport Beach
Dear Ms. Audretsch:This letter is in accordance with our discussions on this
subject and constitutes the proposal to perform the services
outlined below.
Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc, (BDI) will make traffic counts at
the Hughes Aircraft facility on Superior Avenue in Newport
Beach. Specifically, all traffic entering and exitingthe
facility will be counted for a 24 hour period using automatic
traffic counters placed at each of- the three driveways serving
the facility. In addition, traffic entering and exiting each
of the three driveways will be counted manually for a two and
one-half hour period (between 3:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.) to
obtain an estimate of traffic approaching the facility and
exiting from the facility by direction of approach or exit.
BDI will submit to you a brief report summarizing the results
of the counts. BDI will riot perform any analyses or evaluations
based on these counts and will not have any responsibilities
beyond the submittal of this report. it is our understanding
that the information obtained ty BDI in this counting program
will be used as supplementary information to the City's own
counts at the Hughes Aircraft facility,
We expect that the automatic traffic counters will be placed
at the driveways late on Monday, May 4, 1981, and will count
the, ensuring 24 hour period. -The manual turning movement
counts will be conducted on May 5, '1981.
r1 ..++ter. � •
May 1, 1981
Page 2
The fee for the services: outlined above will be $700. 00.
Please contact me if I can answer 'any questions or provide
further details.
Sincerelyr
BASMACIYAN-DAP=LLr INC.
Herman Basmaciyan, P. E.
HB.dp
bcc: Fred Talarico
City of Newport Beach
it
THE
�Mn PLANNING
00 CENTER
TRANSMITTAL
TO, City of Newport Beach Date, 4/24/81
3300 West Newport Blvd
Newport Beach CA 92663 Project No, CN13-1
Attn: Fred Talarico
subject, Initial Study: Hughes Aircraft Facilities
The following Items are transmitted, Herewith ZI Under separate cover ❑ ❑
Seven (7) copies: Initial Study and Project Report--
Fxnansion of Hughes Aircraft Facilities
The above Items are transmitted, At your request 9 For your information ❑ For your review jFl
General Remarks, Here are seven copies of the Initial Study fdr
SCrPPnchPck You will notp that the site photos on pp. 26 and 27
R.rAv r n' c '+h nnnr resolution We were enable to get offset
eepies 4n time fer Sereencheek. We will have the offset Gep4es
From, , �, , .
PLANNING•LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE• ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES• URBAN DESIGN• 24ONEWPORTCENTER DR.,SUITE 215,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660, (714)640.4911
WHEN DETACHED AND PAID.THE CHECK BELOW BECOMES GENERAL OFFICE
AIRCRAFT COMPANY Z 1 Z
A N[CElfi IN FULL PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE ACCOUNT. NO HUGHE
OTNEA RECEIPT 15 BECESSAM. -CULOER CITY,CALIFORNIA
1-83846 42181 04-21-81 1705'100 1705100
I 1 1
� I 1
� I 1
I � I
I � I
1 I �
1, I• �
i
I I 1
� I �
I I I
I I �
I r i
I � �
I a i
1 d �
1705;'00 i 1705100
� I 1
a T
L---- -- ----- -------------------------------------_------------------- I — -----
. . --� , • ' " • THE �
PLAN,
CENTER
240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVF. SUITF 215. NEWPORT BF ACH. CA.9266') �g 1/1 j);�f�
April 20 , 1981U'�\
r - ,
Mr. Fred Talarico
City of Newport Beach
3300 West Newport Blvd . •:�,
Newport beach , CA 92663 <c•\,.__-`
n: Subject : Amendment to the Contract Regarding Hughes
Aircraft Facility Expansion
Dear Mr. Talarico :
Our traffic engineer , William Kunzman , has completed the
Phase One analysis of the Hughes Aircraft expansion and
has informed us that two intersections exceed the 11, cri -
teria . In order to proceed with the Phase Two and Three
analysis of these intersection ( Superior and Placentia ,
Superior and Pacific Coast Highway) it will be necessary
to revise our contract to reflect an additional not to
exceed amount of $1550 . This would represent $1300 for
Kunzman and $250 for our time .
Kunzman has contacted the City' s traffic engineer Who has
requested , in addition to the City' s procedures , the fol -
lowing to be incluued in this analysis :
- -(litigation necessary to reduce any impacted intersection
below the 1% level .
- -Determirie whether the Hughes facility needs a traffic
signal .
- - If the above is positive, then an analysis of the inter-
nal layout of the parking facility would be necessary.
This wuuld be to funnel traffic to the light .
This review will also involve a modification 'in our sub-
mittal date for the screencheck document from April 22 to
April 24 .
Unless notified differently, we will proceed with the as-
sumption that this amendment is acceptable to the City and
Hughes Aircraft .
Sincerely, - .
THE PLANNING CENTER -
Diana Hoard
;4
ctti: kc
The City of Newport Beach is adding an additional 10% for
Administration Fees-$ 1550 . 00 plus 155 . 00 = $1705 . 00 total
• fSA.^,NINGIb RFSEAI?CH •ErJJfZUt<VENTA!S'UDIES -MANDESIGN -,ANDSCAPE AWCHIIECTURE -UNDUSE EMNOMiC
THE
GPLANNING
�V CENTER
240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 215, NEWPORT BEACH, CA,92660 1
pCgc4,1
pr i 1 20 , 1981 Ao�pARTMN� 0 12
Mr. Fred Talarico cFege� ,�
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport
tJ� Newportslvd Beach , CA 692663 u�
\N Subject : Amendment to the Contract Regarding Hughes
Aircraft Facility Expansion
Dear Mr. Talarico :
Our traffic engineer , William Kunzman , has completed the
Phase One analysis of the Hughes Aircraft expansion and
has informed us that two intersections exceed the 1% cri-
teria . In order to proceed with the Phase Two and Three
analysis of these intersection ( Superior and Placentia,
Superior and Pacific Coast Highway) it will be necessary
to revise our contract to reflect an additional not to
exceed amount of $1550 . This would represent $1300 for
Kunzman and $250 for our time .
Kunzman has contacted the City' s traffic engineer who has
requested , in addition to the City' s procedures , the fol -
lowing to be included in this analysis :
--Mitigation necessary to reduce any impacted intersection
below the 1% level .
--Determine whether the Hughes facility needs a traffic
signal .
--If the above is positive , then an analysis of the inter-
nal layout of the parking facility would be necessary.
This would be to funnel traffic to the light .
This review will also involve a modification in our sub-
mittal date for the screencheck document from April 22 to
April 24 .
Unless notified differently, we will proceed with the as-
sumption that this amendment is acceptable to the City and
Hughes Aircraft .
Sincerely,
THE PLANNING CENTER
�
Diana Hoard
DH : kc
•PLANNING&RESEARCH •ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES •URBAN DESIGN •LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE •LAND USE ECONOMIC
�F,W PUS,
01 71 0 CITY Off' NEWPORT BEACH
n.
Planning Department
qG�ro RNA
April 7 , 1981
Diane 'Pudretseh
R.M.A.
1895 Newport Boulevard
Costa Mesa , CA 92627
SUBJECT: " INITIAL STUDY - HUGHES AIRCRAFT"
Ms . A dretse :
u h
The City of Newport Beach has received and accepted a proposal
attached from the Planning Center to e(attached) n prepare the above subject
9 P P J
report. If you desire to proceed with our project lease deposit
Y P Y P J P p
the below indic
ated amount with us at your earliest convenience .
�r Checks should be made payable to the City of Newport Beach.
CONSULTANT FEE: $ 5,300. 00
CITY FEE : 530 . 00
TOTAL : $ 5 ,830. 00
We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have -any
questions please contact me at ( 714) 640-2197.
Very truly yours ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D . HEWICKER, Director
By C90
Environmental Coordinator
FT: tk
I
Attachment: Letter from Planning Center-4/6/81
CHY Ball • 3300 \ewpor( Boulevard. Newport Beach, California 92663
THE
co PLANNING
CENTER
240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 215, NEWPORT BEACH, CA.92 14)640-4911 .
IiECEIyED '�j
April 6 , 1981 !` PLAN DEAR VENT
Ol - APR 6 1981.*. 4
NEWPCRT OF
Mr. Fred Talarico 6 CgL�BEACH, S
City of Newport Beach
F.
3300 West Newport Blvd . 6,
Newport Beach , CA 92663 �n
Subject : Focused Initial Study Regarding Hughes Aircraft
Facility Expansion
Dear Mr. Talarico :
The Planning Center is pleased, to submit this proposal to
prepare a Focused Initial Study for the proposed expansion
of the Hughes Aircraft facilities located on Superior
Avenue in the City of Newport Beach . The proposal , which
follows is intended to respond to the issues identified in
our discussion on April 2 , 1981 .
Briefly, the proposed Scope of Services encompasses the
work which will be required as established by the Cal -
ifornia Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and the City of
Newport Beach . These work efforts will result in the
preparation of an expanded initial study which will
identify and , if possible , mitigate potential , impacts of
the proposed expansion .
The Planning Center is an organization composed not only
of environmental planners whose primary responsibility is
the pr'eparation of environmental assessments and environ-
mental impact reports , but also talented land planners ,
landscape architects , economists , site planners and pro-
fessionals with backgrounds in architecture and engineer-
ing . By bringing together the skills and experience of
all of our staff , we can provide varied perspectives of
problems and opportunities which are important to a proj-
ect such as that proposed .
Further , we also believe that one of the key ingredients
to the successful completion of an environmental impact
report , particularly as we have proposed , is an effective
•PLANNING&RESEARCH •ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES •URBAN DESIGN •LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE •LAND USE ECONOMICS
Mr . Fre#alarico
City of Newport Beach
I April 6 , 1961
� . Page 2
work relationship with the City officials: and other agen-
cies or parties responsible for various facets of the
project . As your consultant , The Planning Center would
maintain frequent contacts with the City staff .
i
The Planning Center welcomes this opportunity to provide
environmental services to the City of Newport Beach .
Should. The Planning Center be selected for this assign-
ment , you may be assured that we shall bring to the proj-
ect the highest level of responsiveness , creativity and
professionalism.
I, If you have any questions regarding this proposal or our
firm, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time . -
Very truly yours ,
j THE PLANNING CENTER
Cam*' �
J
Richard E . Ramella
Principal
RER: DMH : kc
PROPOSAL FUR SERVICES TO
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PREPARATION OF A FOCUSED INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF THE HUGHES AIRCRAFT FACILITIES - SUPERIOR
AVENUE , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .
I . PHASE ONE - PREPARATION OF FOCUSED INITIAL STUDY
Responsive to both CEQA and the City of Newport Beachs '
environmental requirements , a draft initial study will be
prepared , based on the information gathered , analyzed and
evaluated in relationship to the proposed project . The
issues identified by the City of Newport Beach and the
degree to which they wi11 be addressed , are reflected
below :
1 . Project Description
The project to be analyzed will be discussed in' suf-
ficient detail for reviewing persons to establish the
location , environmental setting , the square footage
and type of project being proposed and the permits
required .
2 .• General Plan/Zoning Conformance
The project will be compared with the various elements
of the City ' s General Plan and applicable zoning re-
quirements to establish consistency and conformance .
Should inconsistency exist , mitigation measures wi1.1
be identified .
3 . Land Use
.The structures ) wi11 be assessed in regard to their
height , applicable City standards and establish height
patterns in the effected area . Should the proposed
structure be inconsistent , appropriate mitigation
measures will be discussed .
4 . Circulation/Transportation
William Kunzman and Associates will analyze traffic to
determine which intersection ' s traffic volumes are
increased by more than 1 percent by the project as
required in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Guidelines .
This analysis will take advantage of a distribution
report on file with the City . Additionally, ingress/
egress and parking arrangements will be reviewed .
QAQ City of owport Beach
COOApril 6 , 1981
Page 2
5 . Water Quality
The proposed project may affect surface water runoff
and water quality . Based on information provided by
the project sponsor ' s engineer, this study will assess
potential increases in runoff and/or alteration of
drainage patterns and how same may affect water qual -
ity in the bay. Mitigation measures will be recom-
mended as needed .
6 . Air Quality
A quantitative evaluation of impacts associated with
the •localized air quality will be made based upon the
proposed project .
7 . Public Services/Utilities
The project will be analyzed relative to its impacts
on the public support systems , including those for
sewer, water , solid waste , police and fire protection .
Additionally, the ability of utility companies to pro-
vide energy resources ( e . g . , natural gas and elec-
tricity) and communication (e .g . , telephone) services
will be discussed .
8 . Aesthetic
The proposed project will be reviewed as same may
alter existing views of the coastline . Additionally,
the proposed landscaping project will be reviewed . as
.same relates to the City ' s Ordinance .
9 . Geology/Soils
The Planning Center will review the geotechnical in-
vestigation provided by the applicant and based upon
considerable experience in this field , will analyze
the geotechnical conditions that would affect/be af-
fected as a' result of the project . It is expected
that the project sponsor ' s geotechnical firm will be
available to discuss their recommendations . Where ap-
propriate , The Planning Center will propose additional
mitigation measures of design alternatives .
I � Cit•y of Newport Beach
April 6, 1981
Page 3
II . PHASE TWO - SCREENCHECK
Based upon the ' information collected and established by
Phase One , seven screencheck initial studies will be sub-
mitted to the City for review. The format for same will
be existing conditions , impact ' and mitigation measures .
III . PHASE THREE - DRAFT INITIAL STUDY
At the 'end of the review period for the screencheck docu-
ment , The Planning Center will review staff comments and
incorporate same into text of the draft initial study.
Subsequently, thirty (30) copies will be delivered to the
City for distribution .
IV . PHASE FOUR = MEETINGS
The Planning Center will be available for four (4) public
hearings and will respond to comments and questions as
needed .
V . STAFFING
Diana Hoard will act as project manager and will be as-
sisted by Brooks White . Additionally, William Kunzman and
Associates will perform the traffic analysis .
VI . SCHEDULE
Provided authorization is received by April 8 , 1981 , the
screencheck document will be filed April 22 , 1981 and the
draft on May 1 , 1981•.
City of TT"ewport Beach
April 6 , 1981
COD Page 4
VII . BUDGET ESTIMATE
Phase Cost
1 Preparation of Initial Study
The Planning Center $2 ,500
William Kunzman 800 i
2 Screencheck •500
3 Draft Submittal 500
4 Meetings 500
Printing, and Copying 500
Total Not To Exceed $5 ,300
VIII . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Planning Center is prepared to begin work on this
project upon receipt of a signed contract . You may be
assured that should we be selected to provide the planning,
services described in this proposal , we will devote ou,r
full resources to the project and approach it with the
highest degree of enthusiasm, objectivity and profession-
alism possible .
We are looking forward to the opportunity of working with
you on this project . We enjoy working as a team, this
brings about a continual sharing of ideas and concepts
which eventually lead to a better product .
Respectfully submitted ,
THE PLANNING CENTER
Richard E . Ramella
Accepted by:
The City of Newport Beach
Approved and consented this day of April , 1981 .
RER: DMH : kc
Y
J ,
"rTHE
N.
� PLANNING
CENTER
240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 215, NEWPORT BEACH, CAA2660 714)640-4911 .
April 6 , 1981 !! RECEI
PLANN III NGD
DEPARTMENT
01 APR 6 1981b- 4
Mr . Fred. Talarico NEWT' )F
City of Newport Beach 6 L :acH' S j
3300 West Newport Blvd .
Newport Beach , CA 92663
Subject : Focused Initial Study Regarding Hughes Aircraft
Facility Expansion
Dear Mr. Talarico :
The Planning Center is pleased to submit this proposal to ^
prepare a Focused Initial Study for the proposed expansion
of the Hughes Aircraft facilities located on Superior
Avenue in the City of Newport Beach . The proposal , which
follows is intended to respond to the issues identified in
our discussion on April 2 , 1981 .
Briefly, the proposed Scope of Services encompasses the
work which will be required as established by the Cal -
ifornia Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and the City of
Newport Beach . These work efforts will result in the
preparation of an expanded initial study which -will
identify and , if possible , mitigate potential impacts of
the proposed expansion .
The Planning Center is an organization composed not only
of environmental planners whose primary responsibility is
the preparation of environmental assessments and environ-
mental impact reports , but also talented land planners ,
landscape architects , economists , site planners and pro-
fessionals with backgrounds in architecture and engineer-
ing . By bringing together the skills and experience of
all of our staff, we can provide varied perspectives of
problems and opportunities which are important to a proj-
ect such as that proposed .
Further , we also believe that - one of the key ingredients
to the successful completion of an environmental impact
report , particularly as we have proposed , is an effective
•PLANNING&RESEARCH •ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES •URBAN DESIGN •LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE •LAND USE ECONOMICS
Mr . Fr* Talarico
City of Newport Beach
April 6 , 1981
Page 2
work relationship with the City officials and other agen-
cies or parties responsible for various facets of the
project . As your consultant , The Planning Center would
maintain frequent contacts with the City staff .
The Planning Center welcomes this opportunity to provide
environmental services to the City of -Newport Beach .
Should The Planning Center be selected for this assign-
ment , you may be assured that we shall bring to the proj-
ect the highest level of responsiveness , creativity and
professionalism.
If you have any- questions 'regarding this proposal or our
firm, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time .
Very truly yours ,
THE PLANNING CENTER
Richard E . Ramel"la
Principal
j RER : DMH : kc
i
t ' "� • PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES TO
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PREPARATION OF A FOCUSED INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF THE HUGHES AIRCRAFT FACILITIES - SUPERI.OR
AVENUE , CITY• OF NEWPORT BEACH .
I . PHASE ONE - PRE'PARATION OF FOCUSED INITIAL STUDY
Responsive to both CEQA and the City of Newport Be'achs '
environmental requirements , a draft initial study will be
prepared , based on the information gathered , analyzed and
evaluated in relationship to the proposed project.. The
issues identified by the City of Newport Beach and the
degree to which they will be addressed , are reflected
below:
1 . Project Description
The project to be analyzed will be discussed in suf-
ficient detail for reviewing persons to establish the '
location , environmental setting , the square footage
and type of project being proposed and the permits
required .
2 . General Plan/Zoning Conformance
'The project will be compared with the various elements
of the City ' s General Plan and applicable zoning re-
quirements to establish consistency and conformance .
Should inconsistency exist , mitigation measures will
be identified .
3 . Land Use
The structure( s ) •will be assessed in regard to their
height , applicable City standards and establish height
patterns in the effected area . Should the proposed
structure be inconsistent , appropriate mitigation
measures will be discussed .
4 . Circulation/Transportation
William Kunzman acid Associates will analyze traffic to
determine which intersection ' s traffic volumes are
increased by more than 1 percent by the project as
required in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Guidelines .
This analysis will take advantage of a distribution
report on file with the City. Additionally, ingress/
egress and parking arrangements will be reviewed .
4
City of•Newport Beach
April 6 , 1981
COO Page 2
5 . Water Quality
• i III
The proposed project may affect surface water runoff j
and water quality.. Based on information provided by !
the project sponsor ' s engineer , this study will assess
potential increases in runoff and/or alteration of
drainage patterns -and how same may affect water qual -
ity in the bay. Mitigation measures will be recom-
mended as needed .
6 . Air Quality
A quantitative evaluation of impacts associated with
the localized air quality will be made based upon the
proposed project . -
7 . Public Services/Utilities
The project will be analyzed relative t.o its impacts
on the public support systems , including those for
sewer, water , solid waste , police and fire protection .
Additionally, the ability of utility companies to pro-
vide energy resources ( e .g . , natural gas. and elec-
tricity) and communication ( e .g . , telephone) services
will be discussed .
8 . Aesthetic
The proposed project will be reviewed as same• may
alter existing views of the coastline . ' Additionally,
the proposed landscaping project will be reviewed as
same relates to the City ' s Ordinance .
9 . Geology/Soils
The Planning Center will review the geotechnical in-
vestigation provided by the applicant and based upon
considerable experience in this field , will analyze
the geotechnical conditions that would affect/be af-
fected as a result of the project . It is expected
that t-he project sponsor ' s geotechnical firm will be
available to discuss their recommendations . Where ap-
propriate , The Planning Center will propose additional
mitigation measures of design alternatives :
•lY
City of Newport Beach
VApril 6, 1981
Page 3
i
II . PHASE TWO - SCREENCHECK
Based upon the . information collected and established by
Phase One , seven screencheck initial studies will be sub-
mitted to the City for review . • The format for same will
be existing conditions , impact and mitigation measures .
i !
III . PHASE THREE - DRAFT INITIAL STUDY
At the end of the review period for the screencheck docu-
ment , The Planning Center will review staff comments and
incorporate same into text of the draft initial study.
Subsequently, thirty ( 30) copies will be delivered to the
City for distribution .
IV . PHASE FOUR - MEETINGS
The Planning Center will be available for four ( 4 ) public
hearings and will respond to comments and questions as
needed .
V . STAFFING
Diana Hoard will act as project manager and will be as-
sisted by Brooks White . Additionally, William Kunzman and
Associates will perform the traffic analysis .
VI . SCHEDULE
Provided authorization is received ' by April 8, 1981 , the
screencheck document will be filed April 22 , 1981 and the
draft on May 1 , 1981 .
Y
Y City o4ewport Beach
April 6 , '1981
Page 4
VII . BUDGET ESTIMATE
Phase Cost
1 Preparation 'of Initial Study
The Planning Center $2 ,500
William Kunzman 800
•2 Screencheck 500
3 Draft Submittal' 500
4 Meetings 500
Printing and Copying 500
Total Not To Exceed $5 ,300
VIII . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Planning Center is prepared to begin work on this
project upon receipt of a signed contract . You may be
assured that should we be selected to provide the planning
services described in this proposal , we will devote .our
full resources to the project and approach it with the
highest degree of enthusiasm, objectivity and profession-
alism possible .
We are looking forward to the opportunity of working with
you on this project . We enjoy working as a team, thi's
brings about a continual sharing of .ideas and concepts
which eventually lead to a better product .
Respectfully submitted ,
THE PLANNING CENTER
Richard E . Ramella
Accepted by:
The City of Newport Beach
Approved and consented this day of April, 1981 .
RER : DMH : kc
; THE ! �
PLANNING
CENTER
240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 215, NEWPORT BEACH, CA,92 714)640-4911
ti
!! R�GFI y
April 6 , 1981 pE NNE, 3
a Ap/�s rMENNr
Mr . Fred Talarico 6 N �cRTgF198j`
City of Newport Beach A<iF�cy
3300 West Newport Blvd . S
Newport Beach , CA 92663 v
Subject : Focused Initial Study Regarding Hughes Aircraft
Facility Expansion
Dear Mr. Talarico :
The Planning Center is pleased to submit this proposal to
prepare a Focused Initial Study for the proposed expansion
of the Hughes Aircraft facilities located on Superior
Avenue in the City of Newport Beach . The proposal , which
follows is intended to respond to the issues identified in
our discussion on April 2 , 1981 .
Briefly, the proposed Scope of Services encompasses the
work which will be required as established by the Cal -
ifornia Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and the ' City of
Newport Beach . These work efforts will result in the
preparation of an expanded initial study which will
identify and , if possible , mitigate potential impacts of
the proposed expansion .
The Planning Center is an organization composed not only
of environmental planners whose primary responsibility is
the preparation of environmental assessments and environ-
mental impact reports , but also talented land planners ,
landscape architects , economists , site planners and pro-
fessionals with backgrounds in architecture and engineer-
ing . By bringing together the skills and experience of
all of our staff, we can provide varied perspectives of
problems and opportunities which are important to a proj-
ect such as that proposed .
Further, we also believe that one of the key ingredients
to the successful completion of an environmental impact
report , particularly as we have proposed , is an effective
•PLANNING&RESEARCH •ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES •URBAN DESIGN •LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE •LAND USE ECONOMICS
Mr . Fred rCity of Newpoewport Beach
Oe
April 6 , 1981
Page 2
work relationship with the City officials and other agen-
cies or parties responsible for various facets of the
project . As your consultant , The Planning Center would
maintain frequent contacts with the City staff .
The Planning Center welcomes this opportunity to provide
environmental services to the City of Newport Beach .
Should The Planning Center be selected for this assign-
ment , you may be assured that we shall bring to the proj-
ect the highest level of responsiveness , creativity and
professionalism.
If you have any questions regarding this proposal or our
firm, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.
Very truly yours ,
THE PLANNING CENTER
C
Richard E . Ramella
Principal
RER: DMH :kc
PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES TO
Am pm THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PREPARATION OF A FOCUSED INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF THE HUGHES AIRCRAFT FACILITIES - SUPERIOR
AVENUE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .
I . PHASE ONE - PREPARATION OF FOCUSED INITIAL STUDY
Responsive to both CEQA and the City of Newport Beachs '
environmental requirements , a draft initial study will be
prepared , based on the information gathered, analyzed and
evaluated in relationship to the proposed project . The
issues identified by the City of Newport Beach and the
degree to which they will be addressed , are reflected
below:
1 . Project Description
The project to be analyzed will be discussed in suf-
ficient detail for reviewing persons to establish the
location , environmental setting, the square footage
and type of project being proposed and the permits
required .
2 . General Plan/Zoning Conformance
The project will be compared with the various elements
of the City' s General Plan and applicable zoning re-
quirements to establish consistency and conformance .
Should inconsistency exist , mitigation measures will
be identified .
3 . Land Use
The structure( s) will be assessed in regard to their
height , applicable City standards and establish height
patterns in the effected area. Should the proposed
structure be inconsistent , appropriate mitigation
measures will be discussed .
4 . Circulation/Transportation
William Kunzman and Associates will analyze traffic to
determine which intersection ' s traffic volumes are
increased by more than 1 percent by the project as
required in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Guidelines .
This analysis will take advantage of a distribution
report on file with the City. Additionally, ingress/
egress and parking arrangements will be reviewed .
City of Newport Beach
April 6, 1981
Page 2
5 . Water Quality
The proposed project may affect surface water runoff
and water quality. Based on information provided by
the project sponsor ' s engineer, this study will assess
potential increases in runoff and/or alteration of
drainage patterns and how same may affect water qual -
ity in the bay. Mitigation measures will be recom-
mended as needed .
6 . Air Quality
A quantitative evaluation of impacts associated with
the localized air quality will be made based upon the
proposed project .
7 . Public Services/Utilities
The project will be analyzed relative to its impacts
on the public support systems , including those for
sewer, water, solid waste, police and fire protection .
Additionally, the ability of utility companies to pro-
vide energy resources ( e .g . , natural gas and elec-
tricity) and communication (e .g . , telephone) services
will be discussed .
8 . Aesthetic
The proposed project will be reviewed as same may
alter existing views of the coastline . Additionally,
the proposed landscaping project will be reviewed as
same relates to the City' s Ordinance .
9 . Geology/Soils
The Planning Center will review the geotechnical in-
vestigation provided by the applicant and based upon
considerable experience in this field , will analyze
the geotechnical conditions that would affect/be af-
fected as a result of the project . It is expected
that the project sponsor ' s geotechnical firm will be
available to discuss their recommendations . Where ap-
propriate, The Planning Center will propose additional
mitigation measures of design alternatives .
City of Newport Beach
` a April 6, 1981
Page 3
II . PHASE TWO - SCREENCHECK
Based upon the information collected and established by
Phase One, seven screencheck initial studies will be sub-
mitted to the City for review. The format for same will
be existing conditions , impact and mitigation measures .
a
III . PHASE THREE - DRAFT INITIAL STUDY
At the end of the review period for the screencheck docu-
ment , The Planning Center will review staff comments and
incorporate same into text of the draft initial study.
Subsequently, thirty (30) copies will be delivered to the
City for distribution .
IV . PHASE FOUR - MEETINGS
The Planning Center will be available for four (4) public
hearings and will respond to comments and questions as
needed .
V . STAFFING
Diana Hoard will act as project manager and will be as-
sisted by Brooks White . Additionally, William Kunzman and
Associates will perform the traffic analysis .
VI . SCHEDULE
Provided authorization is received by April 8, 1981 , the
screencheck document will be filed April 22 , 1981 and the
draft on May 1 , 1981 .
City of Newport Beach
April 6 , 1981
Page 4 OO
VII . BUDGET ESTIMATE
Phase Cost
1 Preparation of Initial Study
The Planning Center $2,500
William Kunzman 800
2 Screencheck 500
3 Draft Submittal 500
4 Meetings 500
Printing and Copying 500
Total Not To Exceed $5 ,300
VIII . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Planning Center is prepared to begin work on this
project upon receipt of a signed contract . You may be
assured that should we be selected to provide the planning
services described in this proposal , we will devote our
full resources to the project and approach it with the
highest degree of enthusiasm, objectivity and profession-
alism possible .
We are looking forward to the opportunity of working with
you on this project . We enjoy working as a team, this
brings about a continual sharing of ideas and concepts
which eventually lead to a better product .
Respectfully submitted ,
THE PLANNING CENTER
;�U -
Richard E . Ramella
Accepted by:
The City of Newport Beach
Approved and consented this day of April , 1981 .
RER: DMH : kc
1
initial study
1
i
1 Expansion of
1 Hughes Aircraft Facilities
1 City of Newport Beach
1
1 THE
�0PLANI�NNG
V CEMER
' 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 215,
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660, (714) 640-4911
IA
1 INITIAL STUDY
FOR
EXPANSION OF
'HUGHES AIRCRAFT FACILITIES
Initial-Study Prepared By
THE PLANNING CENTER
1 240 Newport Center Drive
'Suite 216
:Newport Beach, California 92660
1
1 Project Sponsor
1 Hughes•Aircraft Company
500 Superior Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92663
1
1 Project Planner
RMA Architectural Group, Inc.
1895 Newport Boulevard
1 Costa Mesa, California 92627
1
Lead Agency
1 City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
1 3300 West Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Telephone: (714) 640-2197
1 Contact-Person:_. Frea"T-Waraco-
1
1
' 8
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' Page
I . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
B. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Project Description . . 1
D. Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
II . DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS , THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
N, AND MITIGATION MEnURES
PROPOSED TO REDUCE IMPACTS 10 ACCEPTAF7=ELS
A. Land Use and Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
' B. Circulation . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C. Water Quality. . . 1
D. Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
E . Public 'Services and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
F. Aesthetics . .30
G . Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
III . ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
' IV . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
' APPENDIX
' LIST OF FIGURES
' Figure Title Page
1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2•
' 2 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
3 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
•' 4 Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
5 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
6 Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
' 7-10 Site Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
11 Site Plan ( same as Figure 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
1
I
i
' I . PROJECT DESCRIPTION
' A. Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15080 of the State Guidelines for Implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act . Its purpose is
to enable the City of Newport Beach to determine whether
the proposed expansion of the Hughes Aircraft Facility will
have a significant impact on the environment . It is de-
signed to cover all associated permits for this project .
wB . Location
The project site includes 13 . 7 acres (596 , 772 sq . ft . ) of
improved land located at 500 Superior Avenue in the .City
of Newport Beach . The site is the current location of the
two-story 228,000 square-foot Hughes Aircraft Company' s
' Solid State Products Division . • The site is bounded by the
City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard on the northeast ,
' Superior Avenue on the northwest , Dana Road on the south-
west and Newport Boulevard on the southeast (see Figures 1
and 2) . (The northeast edge of the site includes Explorer
Way, an undedicated street . ) The Orange County Assessor ' s
parcel number for the subject property is 425-181-01 .
C . Project Description
' The project proposes the construction of a two-story
' 110,000 square foot laboratory/office building immediately
adjacent to the existing building ( see Figures 3 and 4 ) .
Activities within the new building will be an extension of
current uses which are split approximately equally between
electronic testing and assembly of hybrid components and
' administrative activities . Total employment on-site will
increase from 1 ,285 employees presently to 1 ,965 by 1985 .
r zl_
_ Not
MAIN
��q�c �K�
1►a"g.:�. �, ,.': '!:•r �r v' < �. �,i*trd
VL11i1111e� 1 •, Y;�'✓ ' '
`w�Mi�wC^r. 4�• [C3LY��s�� '.'4�•.i"�... � _ "\ •. '� �Ifi��_
a.D�/�1 . +aa. �� 6f^ti� 1ii�ie�► Lirial _ —� az _ ���
NEW
Will
i• � �' '�+'� �.®fir���
IfsV''Y.7i1�Yrri�4`�V�� Aw
I��/ � :✓AS`661M�1•¢�".z � '�'1t.iCS�,�i1IfbSAR:I���' 4
� �s'�,ripC�1 .Si1
•a ��,J as f `t') ®_ 1�'�j\� = 1 ,� .• ' �'
w.-�.�.....�.���r.�r� �'i�t�iil�a'li� F�i�T S„�y��'��•.�L�� "� �,lr`�� 1"' ' �i��j!;��
YOM
i_falw+l��!is'rf•t� .rl�c. ¢m�ts'�9 �� 1>a�r
IL,_�i7rNlCli_112111OFY wo,��w�j�pl. �Y �`Ri�c'` ��„��\/` �., �� �' 7 � •_
� � � �w � \(►'�V���� `:`ram "7' `'/� l ' � ,.. '
FAN
•• • r � •Y���'u_ ��'a.`iU3i' 'S�/rA�ii�, .��W �`i� ��+lle..r. •�` .rf _
C
s°n
F
all -..+ ■ .xwa _ r i .,V e�-
— `
-. '. .: , �: ;m' �..:i � •
.Be's'4 - 7,i •� • • c a ly* -.;:,� 9ch
Elf
' �� Sch � a- . '- '.'A ',g ,. Pik .,? •f .'s . „ R 'f ( /�• _•n�^'+�
<''� °' ¢ �' ,• age /� 1 dy', t :' � '• '
' `i Il`"°^ :a �, i :f;�.lIIJ •r ■ L..1 ' _ _ f�' ` .l � . `°' /� � �� /.
",� ... � \` ...�� /os ;;; � •r- es; 1, ., ' :w,_ � - °
° 4 � Park
Sc
I �" r •% • u� ��✓� �. �. � ten '1 r fr' 4 ne
�I - it \ ... -�-_.. •_ '.
1� `\a �1 r+ . ,�,, �• Dry- , P g.-
Lignto� ''L-fight Harbor
a
Parking Are •�-arenas OUght ��-Collins n
NEWPORT_ BEA-C `J?:.+ •'- ';� o� eaY; -
�~� ��.":.�..',,:`�"��9 t •i��rl?dYf ', �4 �`lll `�` ly• g/L �,� r
_ — ..�.:�. fir. ..� `� ti•
Balboa
FIG. 2 LOCATION MAP _ `_.
— BUILDING TABULATION
BUILDING AREA
aiN9�N�� � R.att�,1.M
YY uuuuuu......•••••• RIMLR. TOTR.I
_ , ✓" '�i TOTAL GROSS AREl1 110,000 x:e,0028,00 0 0sa00000
rtul,Rc>c TOTAL NET AREA 99,000 190.000 299,000
10 8 8
PARKING TABULATION i
P I uoo. _ CITY REOUIREMENTS
- 705 euanwG'c• m,i
Ru— i toi.no.n ter rta.ff
(63S OF TOTAL NET AREA) 169,960 9.F.
INOUi r1RR.m.+. IIIDGF)$ ( EA)S 'OF TOTAL GROSS AR 130 ASe CAR9
60 aF
EXISTNG BLDG. TOTAL CITY REOURiEMENT3 1,183 CARS
HUGHES REQUIREMENTS
TMLOYEE PARKING 1,249 CARS
(1.23_11UM9ER OF PENSOWSTAI1]
00 BIALDIING•e• (1.939/lA3 a 1.x49 CARS)
.HANDICAPPED PARRINO(S.2%) 77 CARS
X TOTAL HUGHES REOMEMENTS 1,323 CARS
pI
PARKING PROVIDED
+�S- N j ADDITION, I,icx,re,. PARKING STRUCTURE
GROUND LEVEL140 37 O ne
OUND O E^ ycAik y - - _ , ' jr 3RG LEVEL ISO 34 0 194
laa>aW • (..- 4"LEVEL iSO 44 0 104
4TH LEVEL 160 M 0 /94
'�`•'"'^ - G euLomG•A• mN ROOF 130 44 0 194
o S _ fnOs}O"Nm SUB TOTAL 932 242 0 1.094
GROUND PARKING
'1„wW.. ^ ^ _ `iY"K rt,r,r cor,tt,Rr,C,RTO rorN
.FARKWO_ Sol 137 13 457
-;ie _ •� �� TOTAL 1,150 370 13 1,531
n✓�C �'J +5 1 � 11 � i ..�.1. .. .. "' esr>n / � TOTAL PARKING Pi10Y1Dm 1,55I CARS
(} fa,i anY A.� � 11 eow,n � r Puo>M •x,wle,KK •ar, - __ /,f
��I yyy��I twN4 ' •/ RWNc '�Cfll W>:N
y, ow, 'V' I IT I 'a 1'To 1 id •I G�' /// / � w.w�:'u srwvw 5.: la'.d
1.R.w,RI
I i Y"•«.«.v,.s uuwe w..LwY � _ 1. I. �m�i. c,wrr>T a•-s Is'.d
o- e
-- ..,b KOK11Tr,k Na> . -o,,,, PARKRNI9TALL DETAN ru
> DANA 3T
SITE PLAN
ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY EXPANSION AND PARKING STRUCTURE
*406HES AIRCRAFT COMPANY SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DNVISION
BOO SLIMPRERNR AV!^ NEWPORT BEAN CA 9Q
tf,its TIVf RI,i1�RR WNlltp t'�1R)TpR- ' ���
FIGURE 3
ri���. •Ti.�����iw—i���tt•r � IBIS
lRIAIbi.VlIO —r)P;lslmAAIIr'�I
ELEVATIONWEST
• • . AVE)
eao�mm�a�m�� ••II,•
--' �wrr ww•. wwrrrrw ww wwr rw. �ly w,wr all u. -rw
lirl ��� ����� �.�.I iJ��,���arl�!r�IMi ��r����tii�����t■i�r���C '7�ii�� Y�: ■�
_ :�_.'I��gTi.3�" � '�, R%'nU�� fy5.�'7.Ylr., �'.� ��,w'1����- to�:..rt v`... .:►7v ,I. .— _ .a.:'r"F3Fj:''!2 �k�, .+- ��
mm�msammmmmmmsmo�mm�rmmmmmsmmasews•��
��� 01 �I�m1�Y�ri4��rll��e�����ILIS�IIf�O!!
!I!MAr Alm/7!;I.,'A,A'AI.I'AI Ll
O►mm��=tr•<�Q/Ir r\�}Cle�rf��ll��l��Yel
UNA
I POP W%
SECTION(CUT THROUGH RAMP)
- _ � � N
' First shift employment is presently 1 ,021 employees (79%
of total ) and will increase to 1 ,536 by 1985 (see Appendix
A) . The proposed project also includes the construction
of a five-level parking structure containing 1 ,094 parking
' spaces . Remaining ground parking facilities will be re-
designed to accommodate 457 vehicles and will include more
' extensive landscaping than currently exists . Project
implementation will also require the relocation of the
tank farm which encloses containers of liquid gasses ,
which include nitrogen , oxygen , hydrogen , and argon . The
tank farm currently stands where the proposed parking
structure will be , and it will be relocated immediately
adjacent to the new- parking structure ( Figure 3 ) .
D . Permits Required
The proposed project will require a Use Permit , approved
by the Planning Commission , that allows the proposed
building heights and roof-top parking . The project spon-
sor is proposing a maximum height of 42 feet for the new
laboratory/office. building and 50 feet for the parking
structure . The top of parapet on the new building is 34
feet high and the 5 ,000 square foot mechanical room on the
roof brings the height to 42 feet . The roof of the park-
ing structure is 40 feet high; the parapet and elevator
' bring the height to 50 feet . Regulations for the 32/50
Foot Height Limitation Zone , within which the project site
' lies , require a Use Permit for any proposed structure ex-
ceeding 32 feet in height up to a maximum 50 feet . The
' proposed parking use on the roof of the multi- level park-
ing structure also requires a Use Permit . Modification of
City parking requirements will be necessary to allow 25
percent of the proposed parking to be at compact car
standards .
I ,
6
I
' Grading/demolition and building permits will also be re-
quired from the City. The proposed project must be con-
sistent with Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1777 of Chapter
15 .40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code , as further
discussed in Section II-B , Circulation .
Any additional wastewater flow due to the construction of
the new building will require a wastewater processing per-
mit from the Industrial Waste Division of the County Sani-
tation Districts of Orange County.
I ' 7
II . EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
A. Land Use and Zoning
Existing Conditions
The site is currently the location of the Hughes Aircraft
Company' s Solid State Products Division , which , in addi-
tion to administrative activities , conducts electronic
testing and assembly of hybrid components . The existing
structure covers approximately 3 .6 acres of the 13 .7 acre
site . Additionally, there are several small tank storage
areas surrounding the building and a temporary structure
that serves as a security office . Most of the site' s re-
maining area is paved and devoted to •employee parking with
small landscaped islands scattered throughout .
The land surrounding the site is devoted to a variety of
residential , commercial , and institutional uses . South of
the site acros.s Dana Road are several blocks of multi -
family residential development and a convalescent center .
West of the site across Superior Avenue are a proposed
medical condominium, a mobile home park, and another con-
valescent center . North of the site across Explorer Way
( undedicated ) is the City' s Corporation Yard (See Figure
5 ) .
The project site is designated "General Industry" by the
Newport Beach General Plan , which includes research , de-
velopment and manufacturing firms , professional services ,
warehouses and wholesale sales , and certain retail sales .
The City' s Recreation and Open Space Element designates
Superior Avenue near the site as a bikeway. The existing
zoning is M- I-A, according to Districting Map No . 25
' ( Figure 6) , which provides for " limited manufact,uring"
activities (Municipal Code , Section 20.42 .015 ) . The
site ' s administrative and electronic assembly activities
are explicitly permitted uses in the M-1-A district .
i8
. �A ax D� a : b�+ +.. r F "1_,sc bf 1 pg � .yi,♦
If
.�"T+��T F — �1
�{ � :'br ^�� `' • � it � � !l�..atd. '�
Al
k
♦ k r!f a° r,Slih ♦ J° e fY •r A � T• Y rf °
N, =x1 5 n ✓ 'y' D
IK All
1 1 4M tltb+
'� i5;' t<i 1 x 'y •{+ ��' � • 'r '' D�K.�i
b a, x,41 n
fir
fK _
.IMe ham. .sr e��� �'i�. t� ° �'•i �A
FIG. 5 EXISTING LAND USE Photo Date: 1/31 /81 r,
D
R2
R-
i
\\ euswonr,e.. Yro I 2 �i h
- \ �•: / crr or.a'c••Aa•r r_nof a R-2 R-2 R-1 R-/ a
, R /
PROJECT
SITE
• J
RA
" A P G,` v as
t4".13 yA Q •`A , e° ./" At
R 3
� ' ••. ?v �\�r ,J\\ m � p R-3 �3 - y m � m Y erg C
;; •'I ` � tNA� y A•P s t
!:
`Y /\ Sg A_pIiPI A-P-H
I FIG. 6. ZONING MAP P-c
- Sv MAP Mo.22-A
DISTRICTING MAP
- , NEW PORT BEACH CALIFORNIA «»..r° t• µ tt
t'I. ". ;.,,� :,•��-i•.:-...;•.'•'r C..Te".:�_:r ;m•.�W°-c.r.-t�•• �I�R- 1 AGNAILTUR j� e..,,. .. s1Ma0n"[a[xq'a x�a'a..°.i wK a -'t� m r °
AL RESIDENTAL MriTKE RESIDENTIAL npaamxnv.o
K i
SiNSLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALt01T COMMERCIAL �,iw.a Wim-i
nk
•.
°-[•-•
a SDI
;, __..-_.__..-- • +J•-_--.--- R• DVPLEI( RESIC[NTIA! GERERAI COMMERCIAL ••--•••: •••• f
SR+tlt 'q• x•re1Y - RESeO MOLTIPLE iAMA.-emaefNAL� MANVFACTtIRO1D OND.MIO. SSS r..�
am Men Ie° ���--- 111����1111 cOHIINMS DISTRICTS 111 Uuu 111 NILLATSIFIED MAP NO.
FRONT YARD DEPTH IN PEET SHOWN TNDS.' -10- �"•MlYA "°+ 1x bIt
Potential Impacts
' Implementation of the proposed project will require the
rearrangement and upgrading of ground-level parking
' facilities . Most of the existing trees and shrubs in the
parking area' s landscaped islands will be removed . Con-
struction of the multi-level parking structure will neces-
sitate the relocation of the storage area for liquid
gasses . Current plans (Figure 3) relocate the tank farm
immediately adjacent to the parking structure .
With regard to parking , M-1-A District regulations require
one parking space for each 225 square feet of net floor
area of administrative office use , and three parking
rspaces for each 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area of
manufacturing, research and assembly uses . Assuming 55
percent of the entire facility to be devoted to office use
and the remaining 45 percent devoted to assembly and test ,
' the minimum total number of spaces required for the site
is 1 , 163 ( 707 spaces for office , 456 for industrial ) .
Hughes Aircraft Company projects that by 1985, 1 ,326 park-
ing spaces will be needed for employee parking , assuming
1 .23 employees per stall . As submitted , the project will
' create a totaY of 1 ,552 parking spaces on site , of which
1 ,095 will be in the new parking structure and 457 will be
in the rearranged ground parking facilities . Approxi-
mately 25 percent of the parking (379 spaces ) will be for
compact cars .
The new laboratory/office building will be constructed to
a height of 42 feet and the new multi-level parking struc-
ture to a height of 50 feet . Both structures require ap-
proved Use Permits from the Planning Commission according
to the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone regulations , to
' which the proposed project is subject .
11
Implementation of a more extensive landscaping plan
' ( Figure 3) than currently exists will offset the loss of
any vegetation from the existing parking area. The new
site plan meets City requirements for a minimum 15 foot
front setback, of which no more than 40 percent is taken
up by driveways or walkways . The new landscaping scheme
' will also serve to reduce any adverse visual impact aris-
ing from the construction of structures above the 32 foot
basic height limit (See Section II-F, Aesthetics ) .
A summary of M-1-A zone requirements and ' the proposed
project ' s conditions is presented in the comparison chart
' below:
M-1 -A Project
Minimum Setbacks:
Front 15 ' 15 '
Sede (on Dana Road) 15 ' 100 '
Side (north) 10' 36 '
Gross Floor Area to
Buildable Area Ratio: 3 to 1 (max. ) .6 to 1
Height:Basic Height Limit 32 ' ---
Maximum Height (w/permit )** 50 ' 42 ' (bldg . )
' 50 ' (parking
structure )
Parking: 1 , 163 spaces 1 ,552 spaces
*The "rear" or east side of the site borders the 'Newport
Boulevard right-of-way, thus requiring a 15-foot setback.
**Justification for exceeding the basic height limit is
presented in Section II-F, Aesthetics .
Mitigation Measures
1 . With regard to the relocation of the tank farm, con-
tainers of liquid hydrogen and containers of liquid
oxygen shall be at least 75 feet apart , in accordance
with Section 9 .08 .020 of the Municipal Code .
12
B . Circulation
�. Existing Conditions
Traffic moving to and from the site is served by three
access points on Superior Avenue , which is a four-lane
primary road with a 12-foot median in the vicinity of the
site . The posted speed limit is currently 35 miles-per-
hour .
The existing daily volume on Superior Avenue near the site
is 26 ,000 vehicles , well above the CalTrans daily signal
warrant volume of 14 ,400 vehicles for major roads . l
Whether or not a signal is presently warranted near the
site depends on the existing one-directional flow from the
minor side roads . Based on a recent traffic count at the
1 site , existing activity on the site generates 3 ,945 trips
per day. Assuming that 50 percent of the daily traffic on
site, or 1 ,973 vehicle' trips , uses the central access
point , then the one-direction flow of 986 vehicles does
not yet exceed the signal warrant volume of 1 ,200 vehicles
for a minor road . Hence , according to CalTrans standards ,
a traffic signal is not yet warranted at the site ' s cen-
tral access point .
Lines 43/43A/43B of the Orange County Transit District
come closest to the site at the intersection of Superior
Avenue and Placentia Avenue .
I, Potential Impacts
A detailed traffic analysis , performed in accordance with
the City' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance, is presented in the
7Correspondence with Claudette K'unzman , Kunzman Associ-
ates , April 23 , 19-81 .
13
i
' Appendix . This section summarizes those results . Imple-
mentation of the proposed project will ultimately generate
an additional 2 ,040 daily trips , bringing the site' s total
to 5,895 daily trips . Still assuming that 50 .percent of
' the site' s traffic volume uses the central access point ,
the one-direction traffic flow will reach the 1 ,200
vehicle signal warrant volume by 1984, thus , suggesting
the need for a signal at that intersection .
Approximately 66 percent of the traffic generated by the
project will go northbound from the site on Superior . 27
percent of the traffic volume from the site will head
southbound on Superior all the way to Pacific Coast High-
way. The remaining 7 percent will head south on Superior ,
then onto Placentia southbound to Hospital Road , and ulti-
mately to Newport Boulevard southbound and then southbound
' to Pacific Coast Highway.
I Seven critical intersections were analyzed to determine if
the project will generate one percent or more of the proj-
ected volumes at each leg of the affected intersections
during a 2 .5 hour peak period . Of the seven intersec-
tions , four were found to exceed the one percent criteria,
thus requiring Phase Two analysis of the following inter-
sections :
' 1 . Superior and Placentia
2. Superior and Pacific Coast Highway
3 . Orange and Pacific Coast Highway
4 . Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway
tThe intersection capacity utilization analysis of these
four intersections takes into account existing traffic
flows plus traffic generated by committed projects , ex-
pected regional growth , and the proposed project . Of the
' four intersections examined , total traffic flows i-n num-
bers 2 through 4, listed above , were found to exceed the
' . 90 ICU level .
14
1
Mitigation Measures
' 2 . Three alternative measures are possible that will
mitigate the project ' s traffic impact .
a . The following suggested improvements will reduce
traffic below the .90 level .
--Superior and Pacific Coast Highway_: Add a third
west ound ane to Pacific Coast Highway;
restripe Superior to include two southbound
through lanes , two right turn lanes and one left
turn lane .
--Orange and Pacific Coast Highway: Add a west-
bound through lane to Pacific coast Highway.
--Prospect and Pacific Coast Hi hwa Convert
westbound rig t turn only ane to a combination
' westbound through and right turn lane .
b . An analysis of Transportation System Management
' ( TSM) techniques available to Hughes to reduce
traffic impacts is presented in the traffic con-
sultant ' s report in Appendix B. To relate the
level of Transportation System Management needed
to avoid intersection improvements , Table 1 has
' been prepared ( same as Table B, Appendix B) .
Examination of the Table shows a 35 to 41 percent
reduction in travel is needed on an overall basis .
' However , closer examination shows that if 37 to 43
employee inbound trips from the Huntington Beach/
Long Beach Area are eliminated , then the one per-
cent limit would not be 'exceeded . This could be
accomplished by providing van pools to serve
'• employees living in the Huntington Beach/Long
Beach area and who work the 4 :00 PM to midnight
shift . Each employee generates 0. 6932 inbound
trips , and 62 employees would need to be in the
van pool program to effect the 43 inbound trip
reduction . Thus , approximately six vans are
implied if vanpooling is selected as a mitigation
measure . Similarly to the above calculation show-
ing six vans are needed for the 4 :00 PM to mid-
night shift from the Huntington Beach/Long Beach
' area, additional vans are also needed because of
15
one percent overages at the Superior and Coast
' intersection . For northbound traffic , there are
13 project trips above the one percent limit , and
' for the southbound traffic , there are nine project
trips above the one percent limit . To accommodate
these two overages , two van pools serving the 4 :00
' PM to midnight shift "and originating on the Balboa
peninsula are needed , and two van pools serving
' the 7 : 00 AM to 3 :30 PM or 8 :00 AM to 5 :00 PM
shifts are needed with an orientation towards
Huntington Beach/Long Beach . Thus , a total of 10
van pools are implied .
' c . If Hughes should adjust their first and second
shifts so that they start and end a half-hour
' earlier than at present , then the project traffic
will not exceed the one percent level in any of
the seven critical intersections . As noted in b .
' above , there are 43 inbound trips from the
Huntington Beach/Long Beach area and 13 inbound
t trips from the Balboa peninsula that exceed the
one percent level ; these trips arrive on site by
4 :00 PM. If the second shift begins at 3 :30 PM,
' then those inbound trips will be completed before
the peak period . With the present time schedule ,
' there will be 9 first shift outbound trips to the
Long Beach area that exceed the one percent level .
If the first shift is changed to end by 3 :00 PM,
' then it is reasonable to conclude that at least 9
of the project ' s 32 outbound trips to Long Beach
' will be completed by 3 :30 PM, when the peak period
begins . Changes in the 8 :00 AM to 5 :00 PM shift
are not necessary to mitigate traffic impacts .
' 3 . A traffic signal should. be installed on Superior Ave-
nue at the site ' s central access point by 1984 .
' 4 . Further engineering recommendations regarding on-site
circulation are contained in the traffic engineer ' s
report ( Appendix B) , and should be implemented by the
' proj-ect applicant .
' 16
' TABLE 1
' TRIP REDUCTION NEEDED TO NOT EXCEED
INTERSECTION'S ONE PERCENT LIMIT
' Intersection
Descriptor Superior Ave Coast Highway Coast Hi hwa
Coast Highway Orange Street 'Prospect St.
Critical Approach Eastbound Eastbound Eastbound
' One Percent Limit, Vehicles 33 30 27
Hughes Aircraft Contribution 70 70 70
' in Vehicles With 680 New
Employees
' Excess Vehicles Above One 37 40 43
Percent Limit
Proportion of Hughes Aircraft 47 43 39
t 680 New Employees which can
be added before One Percent
Limit is reached
' Critical Approach Serves Inbound Inbound Inbound
Inbound or Outbound Hughes
Aircraft Traffic
Critical Approach Serves 20% 20% 20%
This Percent of Hughes
' Aircraft Traffic
Total 1985 Hughes Aircraft 105* 105 105
Traffic Using Critical
Approach, Vehicles
Percent Reduction in 1985 35% 38% 41%
Total Hughes Aircraft Employ-
ee Trips Needed to not exceed
One Percent Limit
' * 105=(20% of Inbound) X(727 Arriving Employees X 0.6932 trips/
employee + 1179 Departing Employees X 0 . 0189 trips/employees).
17 '
' C . Water Quality
' Existing Conditions
' In the locations where the new structures are proposed.,
the existing site is fully paved with asphalt concrete
parking lots and driveways with several small landscaped
islands . Storm runoff flows across the pavement from the
northwest side of the site towards the southeast side . At
' the present time, the existing parking lot is swept once
every two weeks .
! Potential Impacts
Because those portions of the site to be resurfaced by the
project are already paved, the volume of storm runoff will
' not change . l
Mitigation Measures
' 5 . At the time of the final plan preparation , a thorough
site, hydrology study and hydraulic analysis should be
performed to address the amount of and manner in which
all flows to and from the site are accommodated .
' 6 . The applicants should provide for weekly vacuum sweep-
ing of all paved parking areas and drives .
7 . The grading plan , if required, should include a com-
plete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facil -
ities to minimize any potential impacts from silt,
debris and other water pollutants .
8 . An erosion and dust control plan, if required, should
' be submitted and be subject to the approval of the
Building Department .
1Correspondence from Kerry Lawler , Civil Engineer, K .W.
Lawler and Associates , April 20, 1981.
' 18
t
' D . Air Quality
' Existing Conditions
' Air quality in the area of the site is determined by the
primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional
' ambient air quality and the specific meteorological fac-
tors which influence the site . Local sources of primary
pollutants include a Southern California Edison fossil
' fuel power plant , located 1 .5 miles northwest of the site
and oil production activities located west of the site.
' Regional ambient air quality is monitored by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District at a series of sta-
tions established throughout the South Coast Air Basin .
.The closest station is located northeast of the site in
' Costa Mesa. Of all the major pollutant categories moni-
tored during 1975-79 at the Costa Mesa station , only sul-
fur dioxide and carbon monoxide levels have 'not exceeded
state and federal standards . )
' Air quality in the vicinity of the* site benefits from the
' area ' s topographic orientation and proximity to the coast-
line . Generally, winds of 5 to 10 miles-per-hour speeds
flow offshore during the night-time hours and are replaced
' by on-shore breezes of the same magnitude by 10 :00 a .m.
Summer months usually include a northwesterly and south-
easterly flow pattern super-imposed upon the daily sea
breeze.
' Potential Impacts
' In the short-term, the vicinity around the site will ex-
perience two types of air contaminants during the early
phases of construction . There will be exhaust emissions
' 1City of Newport Beach Draft EIR for General Plan
Amendment 81-p , March 19A1, p . 102 .
' 19
from grading and construction equipment , and there will be
' noticeable amounts of dust generated by earthwork, despite
adherence to prescribed wetting procedures .
In the long-term, air pollution impacts will be associated
' with the on-going usage of the new facilities and the
incremental increase in vehicle trips generated by the
additional activity within the new facilities . Stationary
' sources include emissions from space and water-heating
devices and emissions at the power plant associated with
' the generation of electricity.
' Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in
the photochemical smog formation process and limitations
on knowledge of other pollutants ' dispersion characteris-
tics , carbon monoxide is uniquely suited for analysis on a
local scale . Through use of the Caline2 model , the
' following projections of maximum carbon monoxide
concentrations are made for 1995 projected traffic volumes
including the proposed •project . The projections fall well
below the state and federal standards for one-hour
averaging.
Maximum Peak Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ( 1995 ADT
with project ) :
' Total Concentrations (ppm)*
Intersection/Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 200 Feet
' Superior at Placentia 5 .69 4. 63 2 . 65
Superior ( at site) 4 .62 3 .76 2 . 16
II , *Concentration of carbon monoxide, at down-wind corner or
' side at receptor distance of 50, 100 and 200 feet from
centerline of the road .
' 20
' Mitigation Measures
' 9 . Encourage and organize ride-sharing amongst employees
to reduce total number of vehicle trips generated .
' Allow for modified work schedule where possible to
shift traffic to non-peak hours (see Section II-B,
' Circulation ) .
' 10. The grading permit shall include a description of haul
routes , access points to the site and a watering and
sweeping program designed to minimize impacts -of haul
' operations .
21
' E . Public Services and Utilities
' 1 . Wastewater
Existing Conditionsl
' Wastewater collection from the site is provided by Orange
County Sanitation District No . 6 . The area of the site
has been master planned for low density residential with a
flow coefficient of 1 ,550 gallons per day per acre . The
District ' s Newport Beach trunk sewer serving the vicinity
' of the site is at approximately three-fourths capacity at
this time. Between July 1979 and June 1980, actual waste-
water flow from the site averaged 7,598 gallons per day
per acre . 2 Approximately 55% of the flow is industrial
waste and 45% is domestic waste .
Potential Impacts
' Expansion of the laboratory/office building will result in
' increased wastewater flow as the 'total employment on site
increases . Chemical wastes currently being discharged in-
to the system will also incrementally increase. Assuming
wastewater flow to increase proportionally with the expan-
sion of square footage , flow from the site will increase
by 5 ,434 gallons per day per acre to a total of 13 ,032
gallons per day per acre . With such an increase the
' existing sewer line will approach but should not exceed
capacity. 3
' 1Personal Communication with Hilary J . Baker, Senior
t Engineering Aide , County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County, April 22 , 1981 .
2The 1 ,550 gallon flow coefficient serves as a planning
tool for the district and is not a legal limit . Hughes '
current flow of 7 ,598 gallons/day/acre is permitted .
Personal communication with Jim Wybenga, CSDOC, April
' 23 , 1981 .
3Hilary Baker , op . cit .
22
1
Mitigation Measures
' 11 . The project applicant shall explore and implement flow
' reduction measures .
12 . Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
site , the applicants shall demonstrate to the satis-
faction of the Public Works Department and the Plan-
ning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be
available for the project . Such demonstration shall
' include verification from Orange County Sanitation
District No . 6 .
' 13 . Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicant
shall provide written verification from Orange County
' Sanitation District No . 6 that adequate sewer capacity
is available to serve the project .
' 2 . Water
Existing Conditions
Water service to the site is provided by the City, of
Newport Beach . Water consumption on site during the last
six months of 1980 averaged 8,649 gallons per day per
acre . During the first two-month billing period of 1981 ,
water consumption averaged a much lower 1 ,957 gallons per
day per acre . l
Approximately 80 percent of the industrial water currently
used by Hughes is reclaimed and reused on site .
' Potential Impacts
Applying the higher of the two averages above, the pro-
posed project will require an additional 4, 173 gallons of
water per day per acre . This assumes water usage will in-
crease proportionally with the building square footage.
' lBased on information from Sheila O' Brien , City of
' Newport Beach Water Department , April 20, 1981 .
' 23
Mitigation Measures
' 14 . Prior to the construction of the project , the City must
verify the availability of water and the capacity of
' existing lines .
' 15 . Final design of the project should provide for the
incorporation of water saving devices for project
lavatories and other water using facilities .
3 . Solid Waste
' Existing Conditions
Refuse collection for the project site is currently per-
formed by Dewey ' s Rubbish Service , a private collector
licensed by the City of Newport Beach . Solid waste is
' trucked to the Class II sanitary landfill located in Coyote
Canyon , east of MacArthur Boulevard . This landfill is near-
ing capacity and, there are plans to open a replacement site
in Bee Canyon , north of El Toro Marine Corps Air Station . 1
Activity in the existing building generates approximately
165 cubic yards of solid waste per month . 2
At the present time, Hughes collects and recycles bond paper
used on site. Additionally, containers of waste solvents
' are picked up and processed by a recycling service .
' 1Correspondence from Mike Miller, Permit Inspector , Gen-
eral Services Agency, County of Orange, April 16, 1981 .
2Based on information from personal communication with
' Richard McDonald , Facilities Manager, Hughes Aircraft Com-
pany, April 22, 1981 .
' z4
' Potential Impacts
' Applying the current rate , the proposed project will gen-
erate approximately 80 cubic yards of additional waste per
' month. Such an increase is within the County' s projected
solid waste growth rate. Orange County will have adequate
land- fill capacity to last beyond the year 2000 . 1
' Mitigation Measures
16. The final des•i-gn of the project should provide for the
sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste.
' 4 . Natural Gas
Existing Conditions
iNatural gas service to the site is provided by the South-
ern California Gas Company. A gas line under Superior
Avenue feeds the site at a point below the middle entrance
serving the site (see Figure 3) . Gas usage on site in
1980 amounted to 1 .64 million cubic feet , or 7 . 2 cubic
feet per square foot of building space.2
Potential Impacts
Applying the existing rate of gas usage, the proposed
project , when completed, will increase yearly gas consUmp-
tion on site by 792,000 cubic feet . Existing mains are
1Mike Miller, op . cit .
2Personal communication with Sid Newsome, Southern Cal-
ifornia Gas Company, April 15 , 1981 .
25
tsufficient to handle such an increase . l It is likely
' that actual gas consumption after project completion will
be lower than projected above. The existing building ' s
gas boilers are greatly underutilized , resulting in in-
efficient gas consumption . Increased usage of the boiler
units due to the additional building will increase the
units ' efficiency so as to minimize the actual amount of
additional gas needed for heating purposes in the ne-w
' building. 2
Mitigation Measures
17 . The project should be designed to confrom to the
' non-residential building energy conservation standards
in the California Administrative Code, Title 24 , Part
' 6 , Article 2 .
5 . Electricity
' Existing Conditions
The project site is supplied electricity by the Southern
California Edison Company ( SCE ) . The existing facilities
' on site use approximately 2 . 1 million kwh of electricty
per month . 3
1Personal communication with Jack Allen , Technical
Supervisor , Southern California Gas Company, April 15 ,
1981 .
2Sid Newsome, op . cit .
3Personal communication with Harold Strahler, Customer
Service Planner , Southern California Edison Company,
April 15 , 1981 .
'i ' 26
' Potential Impacts
' Applying an electrical usage factor of 6 kwh per square
' foot of industrial space , l the proposed project will
require an additional 660,000 kwh per month . The capacity
of the existing system is adequate to handle the increased
' load . 2
1 Mitigation Measures
17 . The project should be designed to conform to the non-
residential building energy conservation standards in
the California Administrative Code, Title 24 , Part 6,
Article 2.
' 6 . Telephone
Existing Conditions
' Telephone service to the project site is provided by
Pacific Telephone Company. Due to the expected increase
in development activity in the vicinity of the site (e.g . ,
Banning-Newport Ranch) , it is unlikely that current feeder
facilities will be adequate to handle the additional phone
service necessitated by the proposed building. 3
' 1Harold Strahler, op . cit .
2Ibid.
3Personal communication with Marshall Andrews , Engineer ,
Pacific Tel-ephone Company, April 15 , 1981 .
27
Potential Impacts
Expansion of the phone network in the area will necessi-
tate additional pairs of telephone lines to be installed
by Pacific Telephone . ) If excavation is involved, con-
struction equipment may create temporary air quality and
traffic nuisances .
Mitigation Measures
None are proposed.
7 . Fire Protection
' Existing Conditions2
Fire protection service for the project site is provided
by the City of Newport Beach . The closest fire station to
the site is Station No. 2 , which is located at 475 32nd
Street . Estimated response time to the site is 2 .5 to 3
minutes . Three entrances to the site provide excellent
access for fire equipment .
Potential Impacts
Adequate manpower and equipment are available to provide
fire protection to the project upon completion .3 The
) Marshall Andrews , op. cit .
2Personal communication with Chief Jim Reed , Newport
Beach Fire Department , April 15 , 1981 .
3Ibid .
' 28
capacity of existing fire lines and hydrants will need to
be verified by fire department officials at time of plan
check.
Mitigation Measures
' 18. Plans for the proposed building and parking structure
shall be reviewed by fire officials to ensure adequate
fire prevention and fire suppressor systems .
B . Police Protection.
Existing Conditions
Police protection for the project site is provided by the
City of Newport Beach Police Department with its force of
136 full-time officers and 63 vehicles . The police sta-
tion at 870 Santa Barbara Drive is approximately 4 miles
from the site. At the present time, the police department
has not had any reported crime problems at the site, other
than occasional off-hour alarms . l Hughes Aircraft
Company also has its own security staff on site 24 hours
per day seven days per week .
' Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project , insofar as it gen-
erates increased traffic (Section II-B) , will likely re-
sult in additional traffic mishaps in the vicinity which
regiure police attention . Construction of the parking
structure increases the likelihood of vehicle burglary,
' but adequate lighting and patrol of the parking structure
by Hughes ' Security Services department will reduce or
remove the possibility of vehicle burglaries .
Mitigation Measures
None are proposed.
1Personal comm n cati n with Officer Howard Eisenberg ,
Newport Beach uPo�lice department , April 15 , 1981 .
' 29
F . Aesthetics
Existing Conditions
At present , approximately 3 .6 acres of the 13 .7 acre site
are covered with buildings and the remaining acreage with
asphalt pavement and landscaped islands (see Figures 7 and
8 ) . A narrow planted strip with ice plant follows the
northwest edge of the site bordering Superior Avenue. The
perimeter of the site along Dana Road and Newport
Boulevard is planted with trees in addition to ground
cover .
The vicinity of the site has well -developed residential ,
commercial , and institutional uses, and features a street-
scape with most of the major public improvements instal-
led, including streets , curbs , sidewalks , streetlights ,
and telephone lines .
The site has a two to three percent downgrade from Super-
ior Avenue toward the existing building. As a result, the
floor elevation of the Existing building is approximately
ten feet below the high point of Superior Avenue, thus re-
ducing the visual impact of the two-story building ( see
Figures 9 and 10) . Trees scattered about the parking lot
and perimeter only partially shield the building from the
view of mobile home residents on Superior and apartment
residents on Dana. From Newport Boulevard , view of the
existing building is well shielded due to the 20 to 25
foot bluff upon which the building rests and the mature
trees which line the southeast edge .
Residents and commercial users in the area do not current-
ly enjoy any view of the ocean .
The existing sign at the southwest corner of the site is 3
feet , 8 inches high and 15 feet long.
30
r�
-
-
t
vT � F ry
i � rFr.LSr� lro t
t Y
r
1
n
` :fl
v 1
� t
3
� 3■
r
Yk \
r
Potential Impacts
rThe proposed laboratory/office building will be the same
height as the existing building, both of which include a
four foot parapet . The new building will also have a
5 ,000 square foot mechanical room which rises 8 feet above
the parapet height. Total height of the new building from
floor to the top of the mechanical room will be 42 feet .
' Assuming the new building is recessed into the existing
grade, it should not significantly alter the existing vis-
ual impact (Figure 9 ) . According to the proposed site
rplan (Figure 11) , the planting, of additional trees
throughout the site and construction of a five-foot high,
rfifteen-foot wide landscaped berm along •the front edge
will screen most of the parking lot from view along
Superior Avenue.
The proposed parking structure will be 50 feet in height
and will be set back 15 feet , as required by the zoning
ordinance, from. the front property line . The parking
structure, as with the new building, will be recessed into
the grade, resulting in a height of 43 feet from ground to
top where the structure borders Superior Avenue. All of
the parking area shown in Figure 7 will be covered by the
proposed structure. A four foot parapet is proposed to
shield view of roof-top parking. Although residents of
the mobile home park and convalescent center on Superior
rAvenue are not currently afforded am ocean view, the con-
struction of the 50 foot parking structure across the
street will result in a visual impact that can be only
partially mitigated with trees and landscaping.
Construction of the additional office/laboratory building
r above the basic height limit of 32 feet affords a building
design and scale that is more consistent , hence more
33
r
CA
BUILDING TABULATION
{' no*r°n.ha w° s• . _ F ..,r+.,ll".....� `..''«"y.,..,wr BUILDING AREA
.Nawe CA. rmutee>ra
-TOTAL GLOSS AREA /10,000 220.000 338,000
•• •• d o- t l I „r�1RC1L TOTAL NET AREA 99,0o0 t90.000 2a9.o00
8 .4 8 84
PARKING TABULATION
T ' aLDa
Jos aueoINGro. � CRY REQUIREMENTS
101x'rO"0 m"wrun OFFICE PARKING(/STALL/223".) TOJ CARS
�wec.n - _ _ ' vex (53%OF TOTAL NET AREA) 151,900 S.F.
b 4 4 I ONDUSTMALPARKMO(3STAW/1,000S.F.) 459CARS
1 NEW PARKING STRUCTURE(ROOF)$ _ (48%OF TOTAL GROSS AREA) 130,050".
�- ------- TOTAL CITY REQUIREMENTS 1,163CARS
EXISTING 13LDM
4n,• ",.� ��r w°"° sly} a . ` HUGHES REQUIREMENTS
I r NFIT Yam' t T]WLOYEE PARKING 1.240 CARS
v I u=A. (1.23.11UMBER OF PERSON/STALL)
- 7770 BUILDING*a, (1.536/1.23:/,249 CARS)
i _ Iola nnn.
eN.
)UNDtcAPPEo vARKINo(e.2f) TT cans
'^ TOTAL HUGHES REQUIREMENTS 1,326 CARS
_� anwAwx,. PARKING PROVIDED
NEW ADDITION mewAwxu
PARKING STRUCTURE
Mtt>r.ilAp C° A IaYpleArlU "I.."r�1 : (2 STORY)-A
123 35 0 ISO
R' _ _ GROUND LEVEL 139 37 0 179
-IOU KING VEL E T w 2M LE 140 39 0 ITS.
w,a �I � li•- 3m LEVEL ISO 44 O 104
e¢Aeon -
4 LEVEL ISO LE ISO 44 0 194
a-✓.." E ROOF ISO 44 0 194
BUILDING-A' uN.a
A aUa TOTAL 952 242 O 11094
e X _ - J GROUND PARKING
_ $ - Tua.� mweuP cawett,uwoceme >erAA
+ 1 V TOTAL /,159 379 /3 1,531
t �) ( ICI I I•N• T .. ..G7n„'6 ,+ ia..1 � �''.'�iw TOTAL PARKING PROYIDm 1.551 CARS
•mm JIM
R�`.,r 1 ,=}, n•".�'rA�NA"° 1 ' I ,f�� RN=kToA1 H H�II.NIL
•'s$•" Ali{ I . °wricrl 1' �:'r ' ! LL
,..r." � d.w° ",;......." ,r,i� �_�•- {i7}IILI{tI � M°P
�( •° I I I I � .S •,•""�". ns-<a or.Lwrt
r,x-
~pOANA bT 11p•nn ewa eeea �"f PARKING aTALL OETAE Bra -
(.v S(rE PLAN
ELECTRDNIC ASSEMBLY EXPANSION AND PARKING STRUCTURE ■
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY.SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION �..�
BOO SUPERIOR AV� NEWPO T B A6H.CA M2B133
MVO."° T R.... ........ 11l • • 1, 1ALeeI.�.11M1"A
Y rraeeerR�l
FIG.' 11
' compatible, with the existing building . With the con-
struction 'of the 50-foot parking structure , approximately
two-thirds of the site ' s parking needs can be accommodated
within the .structure . This permits a more• efficient and
' visually appealing landscaping treatment for the remaining
ground parking facilities which cover nearly half of the
site .
No additional signing will occur with the project .
,• Mitigation Measures
' 19 . A landscape and irrigation plan for the project
should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect .
The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the in-
stallation of landscaping with the proposed construc-
tion schedule . (Prior to occupancy, a licensed land-
scape architect shall certify to the Planning
Department that the landscaping has been installed in
accordance with the prepared plan . )
' 20 . The landscape plan should be subject to the review of
the Parks , Beaches and Recreation Department and ap-
proval of the Planning Department .
21 . The landscape plan should include a maintenance pro-
gram which controls the use of fertilizers and pesti -
cides .
22 . The landscape plan should place heavy emphasis on the
use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be ir-
rigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff
' and over-watering.
23 . The site ' s existing landscape plan should be reviewed
by a licensed landscape architect . The existing
landscape program shall be modified to include the
35
1
1 concerns of conditions 19, 21 and 22 above to the
maximum extent practicable . Any change(s ) in said
1 existing program as a result of this review shall be
phased and incorporated as a portion of existing
1 landscape maintenance.
1 24 . Development of the site should be subject to a grading
permit to be approved by the Building and Planning
Departments .
1 25 . The project should be so designed to eliminate tight
1 and glare spillage on adjacent uses . All parking lot
lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Plan-
ning Department .
1
r
1
f
1
1
i'
1
r
1
36
1
' G . Geology
' Existing Conditions
' The northwestern half of the site, on which the proposed
construction will occur, consists of an engineered fill
' gradually sloping downward from the northwest property
boundary toward the southeast boundary at a two to three
percent grade. The site is located about three-quarters
' of a mile northeast of the active Newport-Inglewood fault
zone.
' Potential Impactsl
' The vicinity of the site is subject to the activity of the
Newport-Inglewood Fault as well as other active faults in
' the Southern California region . The earthquake activity
of this area has been roughly " average" during the period
of recorded seismological data. Thus , when compared to
Southern California as a whole, seismicity does not pose
any significant hazard to the development of the site .
Expansion , shrink-swell , ground water and other soil char-
' acteristics of the site do not pose. any serious constraint
to the project as proposed .
' Mitigation Measures
26 . Should any resources be uncovered during construction ,
' a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist should
evaluate the site prior to completion of construction
activities , and in accordance with City Policies K-6
' and K-7 .
' ID .A . Evans , Inc . , ( 1979 ) . See References .
37
' III . ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
' City of Newport Beach
Planning: Fred Talarico
Pat Temple
Chris Gustin
' Public Works: Rich Edmonston
Don Webb
Engineering: Joe Devlin
' Police Department : Howard Eisenberg
' Fire Department: Jim Reed
Water Department : Sheila O ' Brien
RMA Architectural Group
Project Manager Diane Audretsch
Kunzman Associates
Traffic Consultant Bill Kunzman
Claudette Kunzman
' K.W . Lawler and Associates
' Hydrology Consultant Kerry W. Lawler
' Hughes Aircraft Company
Facilities Manager Richard McDonald
' Security Services Tim Magnus
Others
' County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County Hilary J. Baker
' Jim Wybenga
Tom Dawes
County of Orange, General
' Services Agency Mike Miller
' 38
' Southern California
Gas Company Jack Allen
Sid Newsome
Southern California
Edison Company Harold Strahler
Pacific Telephone Company Marshall Andrews
' Preparers of Initial Study
' The Planning Center Diana Hoard
Brooks White
Keeton Kreitzer
1
1
1
' 39
i
' IV . REFERENCES
tCalifornia Department of Transportation . ( 1978) . CALINE2
City of Newport Beach . City of Newport Beach General Plan
' ( Land Use Element ) .
City of Newport Beach . ( 1981 ) . Draft EIR., General Plan
' Amendment 81 -1 .
' Evans , D.A. Inc . , ( 1979 ) . Report of Geotechnical Inves-
ti ation for Pro osed Industria Building , Newport Beach
aci ity or ughes Aircra t Company.
South Coast Air Quality Management District . ( 1980) . Air
Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports .
'I ' 40
APPENDICES :
' A. Hughes Aircraft Company, Five-Year Forecast of Manpower
and Space Requirements
' B. Full Text of Traffic Impact Analysis
1
FIVE YEAR FORECAST ('
MANPOWER & SPACE REQUIREMENTS ;---
SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION ; H UG H ES i
MANPOWER ,
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
FCD 144 153 147 147 258 273
HYBRI-DS 481 512 535 588 680 751
SCP 277 309 330 363 381 407
a
LSI/NBRC 93 109 119 129 139 149 13
OTHER 264 276 295 313 362 385 CL
x
TOTAL 1259 1359 1426 1540 1820 1965 a
1 ST SHIFT 995 1047 1122 1255 1430 1536
ADDITIONAL SPACE
REQUIREMENTS
(GROS5 SQ.FT) 11,000 15,000 27,000 35,000 22,000
CUM 11,000 26,000 53,000 88,000 110,000
„ ,;,}��•,�,,�r,.f; kr�frnr��/t.- Y.. , r%” r' 'fr�''� rf ;�'; 1�` Y,l.:'�$
S 'i r ± r.�`'r {f'lP '�'rT+` f •�� Xf � Lt4�'�f"Jr�y Y�'f i y �F...�'. J
f. �f 4{Jr{{",y�`ri/"��rrY(��; "'•rJ �('S�I1�• �fr� .yr'Jlf,r�ll�s{n l:�r) t�f I�(r'�. �/^.' �,
•+'�-��tJ,i�7+"Lu (f t!'S •'fr!1... Trt j( ' ! t ,''�'j\ 't7t)�r'}'• ! 4(
{ J
eft:� ��f� , t:`'�t.`ril� '�r�rj; . � t�l fi•%��y f;�q }% y;'L°t
1 taw ') y�;�S' ,�".. ) �;i `'f t��f'r��,�1'• fti E 1...+�'l},.,i'
��{'j�=Y; rj�tl r�'t,w� (�'�ir`'irr•xSi��( %`I�(i r�ty'r� 't'f• 1���f%�� tf``�,•'r�•
' Jr+�r 1�C�t � Ilr �s''•r'lr t/���,i L'rf •'�r"� I (��f�': 4�1 }? '�� t'n�`�)� r
(f'��Sr�,!'�l•�;.����lr�r�_fi� Y , �',: ""tnl}if�.�����, r•'�• �r� �i1✓� f�/�Cl,[r
1 f1 it•i��fSrtS'!�'r it��/`/l�I rl��r�'( ^tt(/l t.j£ i11 r t �, �'i riylTi� fr
A yr,> r .rF �! �r•+S, !. ar'�i ,% 1 ?. r `,�((i.;J,,�• .L• ��1 S
�JJ)�x' { •�'ft y �.c�1,.71 �1� I fi hl; ^f}J,y} / , J.,�f., ,
.1'`�';�` S'� l�il fIY.C��UI,`,��%rfT i'`�r'S .r��I(!'!/���'.��l�i' `L•, f(j� /, �tr��_
y/l
Hughes Aircraft
1 Expansion Ft
1 Traffic Study 1(,
1,.
Appendix B
r
1 r,iC: /� 1 }. l7
�'S( it � �rf � l hA{i �,r
f•1 jl'�//�,!r.fti '},��,r,',+r S -.r� •f•?' � r
Jt
/Y1•i;�'t•�f�+/'r�l4fl',}� �X � �7,�rj� !': .l••f
1 r! 1y.11' •r)(' �J1 �, �y� �7'�jI-I. Tay,(' � �1 i fl ,J rr =,- � '((, �✓, t?jr l:
ir'}'[•'r� %%l] F�, 1)•fr�J•r� r, J 3 /� rY:J'r• (t'.,1• �� 1. r :'�� :. �
'tii.'�Jf-'•>t[/' ��• ���•"•1}}r�����j•'ri„ .Y� rrr�;�1`r� �,K�,,l\�;��1 tr r/r�.{��jr �' .°�-r ��f�!/�f(
.n�Y�!/ ��( ri+(�7•r� !�• :,ltr•j�'��7��•�!•y`�'/If'J ;/.+r+!'''� � }!`` r� r, L''.;/
.,• �/frl�r��•�''•((Jf�';,4��`YriY�"' r% ��`N}'y.
�'i ,rr'� f+�Ir •f ' t��r�,S'F ' J:r',��'t"�f r',1 )! � •�,. t`1,
1 � � lnlaln associates
,
Y
Transportation Planning.Traffic Engineering
:{ r ltf J' r'�5•f •��, .r, /�� r r'�l�',f,C y?r•�'•'J r�i('r'S 1 •i r•� #•• �1 ' ;�. q' ���7j7(��f�r,+l
•^ ' ' ;a� f YY Jr•(!• .•'r+ •,� �f •i f.n .at• . �� K(f,�. r.f. f ! S,
1 f/� 1 1J�� •�d�+xf �.Fn,r�l rl�y'(�' rr / )"1'l tr tcL Yii}! y .
}/•��/�.�j�lr r`+�/r'r)%`li���"1/f{�,��>•�J�1f''.rfi,�•!•_,,(s�f�t�J ,'',T�•S"� .lt'•,�r
j:l% ��1��Y,J��rlt�,ti+' �1•�1.�^;Y,�il rr+�ij"{f�}rI�/f}?•J("r('•;rrr('�ll` ''�,'j'1�j
fj!'' � ��,>'r I(•r J1,' ++r .r.,J.(y l,�r rr, y t /.t q�.y�'• JJ ' J !�
•! fir/.( ,+',Jh±'� i•'K�J' t f 41 L,r�r � . �r.r'� I ��n�, . 4
1
�5 -
1
�Cuu� � tn� au� v4ssoccates ',
Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering 1
i
May 19, 1981 1
Ms . Diana Hoard
The Planning Center
240 Newport Center Drive 1
Suite 215
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Ms. Hoard:
We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis of
the Hughes Aircraft Facility Expansion. The analysis is 1
in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This report contains the
(1) One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis, (2) ICU Analysis, '
and (3) ICU Analysis With Project Related Improvements .
We trust that the findings will be of immediate as well as
continuing value to you and the City of Newport Beach. 1
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, ,
K/UN�ZMAN ASSOCIATES 1
/vl/ c�
William Kunzman, P.E. 1
1
1
1
46B4 Barranca Parkway + Irvine, CA S2714 * L714) 555-4231
1
1 Table of Contents
1
1 Section Page No.
1 1-Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2-Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1 3-Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 •
4-Critical Intersections Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 _
1 5-Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1 6-Project Related Improvements : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ' : •1.3
7-Other Traffic Considerations .15
1 - Internal Circulation
- Signal Warrants
8-Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1 Appendix A - One -Percent Traffic Volume
1 Analysis Work Sheets
Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Work Sheets
1 Appendix C - Project Related Improvement
ICU Work Sheets
i
1
1
1
i
� 1
41
List of Figures '
Following '
Figure No. Title Page No.
1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 Project Traffic Distribution '
and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... :. 7
List of Tables
Table No. Title Page No.
' 1 Hughes Aircraft Employees 1981-1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Calculating Traffic Generation Rates
(From Existing Conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Traffic Generation by Project (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
' 4 Hughes Aircraft•Traffic•Count
May 14, 1981 • . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
5 One Percent Analysis.Summary• : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : • 9
6 Committed Projects • 10
7 Intersection Capacity Utilization
for Critical Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8 Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o , 14
4q
Hughes Aircraft
Expansion
Traffic Study i
I
1 , Project'Description ,
This traffic analysis discusses the traffic impact of a 110,000
square foot addition plus parking structure to the existing '
Hughes Aircraft facility in the City of. Newport Beach.
There are currently 1,285 employees at the project site. The ,
building expansion will increase the existing employee population
by 680 employees.
This traffic analysis examines the traffic impact of adding 680
employees in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic
Phasing Ordinance as well as reviews on-site circulation and
traffic volumes in order to evaluate the need for a traffic sig-
nal. Figures 1 and 2 provide a project location map and site plan.
li
. 1 '
'I
' Figure 1
VICINITY MAP
••z amif
.41
I � —N f�/1 �• ��i
• p
''+3� °'" +IP„f`,1,: � t�s;�f'�y^'l' �i�,•'-Y t t 'lt,�ii,
/Ei,` ',.�fa. ff —• 1 .'t � !j yve,: '•r - _ �. '.•/ S1'4C
*Project Site
t cry E 5
v�.ut��lmQN �SSOCiCtf6S -
51
Figure 2 '
Site Plan
`E
Parking Ramp
{ice{Sll' l�l:Stitii��1•�tltt
::: Parking lot New Building Existing Building ,
y
•4 f:
} }
Doha Street
r
�Cun�FnaE� v4ssociates '
1
gZ
2 Project Traffic Generation
' Traffic Generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appro-
priate trip generation rate by the quantity and type of land use.
Trips are expressed in terms of trip ends per employee, per 1,000
square feet of gross floor area or per acre. For this traffic ana-
lysis, actual traffic counts at the Hughes Aircraft facility were
made.
Table 1 depicts the number of existing and future employees by each
shift. it can be .noted that the bulk of the 680 new employees will
' be added to the 4 :00 PM to midnight shift. Based upon conversations
with a Hughes Aircraft representative, it was indicated that sixty
percent of all Hughes employees would-be on the first and adminis-
trative support shifts and the remaining forty percent would be on
the second and maintenance shifts.
Table 2 details .traffic generation rates for :the Hughes Aircraft
Facility based upon actual traffic counts made at the facility. The
traffic counts are contained in Table 4 .
The estimated traffic generation for the addition of 680 new employ-
ees is presented in Table 3. Using the distribution of employees by.
shift per Table 1, 659 employees and their respective trips will af-
fect the peak 2. 5 hours of traffic but only 158 employees and their
respective trips will affect the. 5:00 PM to 6 :00 PM peak hour traffic.
Table 4 provides a tabulation of the Hughes Aircraft facility in-
bound and outbound traffic. The peak 2. 5 hours is from 3:00 to 5: 30
PM.
2
W
Table 1
HUGHES AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES
1981-1985
1981 New Em to ees 1985
Employees Percent Distribution Percentage Employees percent
Shift Time May 1981 in each of 680 new for 680 in 1985 in each
Shut Employees Employees Shift
1st Shift 7:00 AM to 581 45 0 0 581 30
3:30 PM
Administrative 8:00 AM to 440 34 158 23 598 30
Support Shift 5:00 PM
2nd Shift 4:-00 PM to 226 18 501 74 727 38
Midnight
Maintenance Midnight 38 3 21 3 59 3
Shift to 7:00 AM
W Totals 1,285 100 680 100 1,965 100
5�
' Table 2
CALCULATING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES
' (FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS)
' Descriptor Peak 2.5 Hours Peak Hour
Time Frame 3:00 to 5:30 PM 5:00 to &:00 PM
Employees Arriving and
Departing in Time Frame
' Arriving 226 0
Departing 1021 440
Total 1247 440
Traffic Volumes
Inbound 176 9
Outbound 712 205
Total 888 214
Traffic Generated per Total
Employees Arriving and De-
parting in Time Frame
tInbound 0 .1411 0 .0205
Outbound 0 .5710 0 .4659
Total 0 .7121 0.4.864
Traffic Generated per
Arriving Employee
Inbound 0. 6932 0
Outbound 0 .0189 0
Total 0 .7121 0
Traffic Generated per
' Departing Employee
Inbound 0 .0189 0 .0205
Outbound 0 .6932 0 .4659
Total 0. 7121 0 .4864
' 4
i
55
1
Table 3 '
TRAFFIC GENERATION '
by PROJECT (1985)
Descriptor Peak 2.5 Hours Peak Hour
Time Frame 3:00 to 5:30 PM 5:00 to 6:00 PM
New Employees Arriving '
and Departing in Time Frame
Arriving 501 0 '
Departing 158 158
Total 659 158
Traffic Generated per I '
Arriving Employee
Inbound 0 .6932 0 '
Outbound 0.0189 0
Total 0 .7121 0
Traffic Generated by '
Arriving Employee
Inbound 347 0 '
Outbound 10 0
Total - 357 0
Traffic Generated per '
Departing Employee
Inbound 0 .0189 0.0205 '
Outbound 0. 6932 0.4659
Total 0 .7121 0.4864
Traffic Generated by
Departing Employee
Inbound 3 3
Outbound 110 74
Total 113 77 '
Traffic Generated by
Arriving and Departing
Employees '
Inbound 350 3
Outbound 120 74 '
Total 470 77
5
Table 4
HUGHES AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC COUNT
May 14, 1981
IN OUT 15 Min.
Time From South From North To South To North Increment
North Mid r6th,
Total North Mid South Total North Mid South Total North Mid South Total Totals
3:00-3:15 0 0 3 3 15 4 22 1 3 2 6 1 7 9 17 48
3:15-3:30 1 1 17 1 23 10 34 1 10 10 21 1 21 8 30 102
3:30-3:45 0 1 12 2 17 15_ 34 2, 47 22 71 29 51 23 103 220
3:45-4:00 1 0 7 A 8 11 19 0 6 6 12 2 12 3 17 55
4:00-4:15 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 3 0 16 10 26 5 43 15 63 94
4:15-4:30 0 0 1 1 0 1 '1 2 0 6 4 10 2 16 3 21 34
4:30-4:45 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 3 0 11 12 23 5 28 11 44 72
4:45-5:00 0 0 4 4 1 1 3 5 0 20 16 36 5 40 19 64 109
5:00-5:15 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 28 12 40 8 33 22 63 106
Gl -
5:15-5:30 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 9 1 10 1 13 21 35 48
5:30-5:45 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 1 7 1 9 13 23 32
5:45-6:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 6 2 11 8 21 28
Total Move- 4 5 44 53 7 70 49 126 4 164 100 268 62 284 155 501 948
ment
57 '
. 1
3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment 1
Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional ori-
entation of traffic based upon residential, business, recreational,
and employment opportunities. Traffic assignment is the determina-
tion of which specific route project traffic will use once a gen- 1
eraiized distribution is determined.
The traffic distribution and assignment are based upon actual traf-
fic counts made at the Hughes Aircraft facility. St was found that
66 percent of the project's traffic will go north on Superior Avenue.
Figure 3 displays this traffic distribution and assignment. ,
1
• i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
Figure 3
Project Traffic Distribution
And Assignment
34%
c� 66%
' yo Boulevar Newport
d
20% to
Orange
Prospect
27% r%
R ada
Riverside
A Hi hwa 7% Dover
ace'%
C)d' 7
' �f�.U{1�411Q{1 C7tSSOCIQfCS
5( '
4. Critical Intersections Analyzed '
Seven critical intersections were analyzed as identified by City
staff. Table 5 lists the seven intersections, and provides a
summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis. Appendix A ,
contains the calculation sheets. Four intersections have the one
percent volume criteria exceeded:
Superior and Placentia ,
Superior and Pacific Coast Highway
Orange and Pacific Coast Highway '
Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway ,
The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to
establish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than
one percent of a critical intersections ' approach volume. If
less than one percent is added to all approaches of a critical
intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified '
in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
As part of the one percent analysis, regional growth and committed ,
projects are included. Volume projections are made to a point in
time one year after the project completion. This project's comple-
tion date is 1982, and traffic volumes are projected to 1985. Al-
though construction will be completed ,in 1982, the maximum number
of employees is anticipated by 1985. Regional traffic has been
forecasted in accordance with City procedures, and committed pro- ,
ject traffic includes those projects listed in Table 6 .
1
8' '
' Table 5
' ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Intersections 1% of Projected Project' s 2.5 Over
Analyzed 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Hour Peak Vol. 1%
Superior and Placentia
Northbound 8 95
Southbound 7 41 yes
Eastbound 12 0
Westbound 8 25
Superior and Pacific Coast
Highway
Northbound 12 25
Southbound 23 32 30 yes
Eastbound 33
Westbound 43 0
Orange and Pacific Coast
Highway
Northbound 3 0
Southbound 1 0
Eastbound 30 70 yes
Westbound 53 24
Prospect and Pacific Coast
Highway
Northbound
Southbound 3 0
Eastbound 27 24 yes
Westbound 53
Newport and Hospital
Northbound 41 25
Southbound 38 0 no
Eastbound 18 8
Westbound 15 0
rRiverside and Pacific Coast
Highway
Northbound
Southbound 12 8 no
Eastbound 50
Westbound 52 25
Dover and Pacific Coast
Highway
' Northbound 3 0
Southbound 25 0
Eastbound 47 25 no
' Westbound 63
9
1
Table 6
COMMITTED PROJECTS 1
PROJECT NAME
Aeronutronic Ford
Backbay Office 1
Bank of Newport
Bayside Square
Baywood Apartments
3701 Birch Office
MacArthur Plaza
Civic Plaza
Corporate Plaza
,Roll Center Newport
National Education Office
North Ford '
Orchard Office
Pacific Mutual Plaza
Sea Island 1
Seaview Lutheran Plaza
Cal Canadian Bank
Boyal Engineering
Shokrian Office 1
Harbor Point
Rogers Gardens
Pacesetter Homes
Ruddy Barns
Far West Savings
Quail Business Center
441 Newport Avenue
Hoag Hospital
Hughes Expansion (13,000 sq.ft.)
1
i
10 1
Ia2
1
' 5 intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
Of the four intersections exceeding the one percent criteria, three
exceed the 96 percent intersection capacity utilization as shown
' in Table 7.
Three intersections are projected to operate above 90 .percent
of their estimated capacities once the committed and growth traf-
fic is added to the existing traffic. With or without this pro-
ject these intersections will be in need of modification that will
increase their capacity. Even though, this project does not cause
these three intersections to exceed 90 percent of capacity, the
Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that necessary
improvements be addressed to reduce the 90 percent capacity because
the project traffic exceeds the "one percent" intersection analysis
criteria. Appendix B contains the ICU Work Sheets.
11
b3 '
Table 7 ,
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION '
FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization '
1983 Exist 1983 Exist ,
Critical Existing + Committ- + Committ- Need for
Intersections ed + ed + Growth Improve-
Growth + Project ment
Superior and Placentia .5553 .5616 .5651 no '
Superior and Pacific .8102 .9660 .9682 yes
Coast Highway
Orange and Pacific .7654 .9223 .9270 yes
Coast Highway '
Prospect and Pacific ,7600 .9162 .9210 yes
Coast Highway
12 '
t6 Project Related Improvements
In that the intersections impacted by this project are also im-
pacted by other development projects and regional traffic, the
responsibility -for the improvements recommended should be appor-
tioned in an equitable manner.
Table 8 provides a listing of each intersection along with im-
provements that will cause each to operate below the 90 percent
intersection capacity utilization. Appendix C contains the ICU
Work Sheets with improvements.
' Hughes Aircraft provides a car pool matching service for its em-
ployees. Employee participation in a car pooling program will
reduce the traffic impacts described in this report, thus reducing
' the impact on the seven intersections analyzed.
1
t
13
lsry '
Table 8 '
PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection Intersection
Improvements '
Superior and Pacific Add a third westbound through
Coast Highway lane to pacific Coast Highway;
restrip Superior to include ,
two southbound through lanes,
two right turn lanes and one
left turn lane. Recommended '
by a previous project. 'The
City is to reconstruct this
intersection.
Orange and Pacific Add a westbound through lane '
Coast Highway to Pacific Coast Highway.
Propsect and Pacific Convert westbound right turn '
Coast Highway only lane to a combination
westbound through and right
turn lane. Recommended by a '
previous project.
14 '
7. Other Traffic Considerations
In discussions with City of Newport Beach staff, it was requested
' that internal site circulation and signal warrants be addressed.
Internal Circulation
There are three points of ingress and egress to the site. In
evaluating the parking layout and internal circulation, the follow-
ing guidelines were used.
1. The first parking stall which is perpendicular to a driveway,
' or first aisle juncture, should be at least 40 feet back from
the curb. The reason for this recommendation is to provide a
queueing area off street so that if a vehicle is parking or
' unparking in the stall nearest the street, there is room for
at least one vehicle to queue while waiting for the other ve-
hicle to park. Without this provision, vehicles will queue
into the st'ree.
2. Circulation within the parking area should allow relatively
free flow of vehicular traffic with no constrictions.
' 3. The aisles should be placed in such a way that it is easy to
reach any destination within the project after entering any
driveway.
4. All curb return radii should be 35 feet. .
' 5. Access roads and/or driveways for a development should be lo-
cated at least 200 feet apart and at least 200 feet from the
nearest intersection.
6. Driveways should be at least 28 feet wide, and preferably 30
to 35 feet wide, so that an entering vehicle does not inter-
fere with an exiting vehicle. Narrower driveways lead to
' conflict between entering and exiting vehicles, causing one
to stop and wait for the other.
The project appears to meet the criteria listed above. Possible
exceptions are discussed below.
With perpendicular parking, two-way aisle widths should be a min-
imum of 24 feet. This appearsto be the aisle width used through-
out the project site.
' Points of egress and ingress to the parking structure should be
treated as driveways or as two-way aisles and should therefore
' 15
L'I
have a minimum width of 24 to 28 feet. This does not appear to
be the case for the first parking structure entries off of the
two northern most Superior Avenue access points. ,
Signal Warrants
Traffic signal warrants have been adopted by CalTrans and the
Federal Highway Administration. These warrants are based on the
volume in the eight highest hours of a day. It is generally as- ,
sumed that the per hour volume in each of the eight highest hours
is equal to -sixty percent of the volume in the evening peak hour,
and the evening peak hour is ten percent of the daily traffic.
Thus, the signal warrants can also be expressed in terms of peak t
hour and daily traffic volumes. The daily warrant volume used in
this analysis are based upon CalTrans criteria of 14,400 daily
volume on a major street and 1,200 daily volume on a minor street.
The project the addition of 680 employees generates 21040 daily
trips. When the existing daily traffic from 1,285 employees is '
added to the project traffic, the total daily trips equal 5,895
trips.
on a daily basis this means 21948 trips enter the site and 2,948
trips exit the site. Assuming that the central access point will
generate 50 percent of the project traffic, approximately 1,474
inbound and 11474 outbound trips will use this access point. '
Superior Avenue has an average daily traffic volume of 26,000
vehicles and a posted speed limit of 35 m.p,.h. The daily signal
warrant approach volume on a major street to provide for inter- '
ruption of continous flow is i4,400 . The, existing daily volume
clearly exceeds the warrant. Assuming the central access will
handle 50 percent of the daily project traffic, the warrant volume '
for interruption of continous flow of 1,200 ADT is exceeded.
Since the project traffic daily volumes are predicated on full
employment and signal warrants are not met with the existing num-
ber of employees, bonding for the signal should be required.
This would permit the City of Newport Beach the opportunity to
determine when a signal needs to be installed. A signal should ,
not be installed until warranted.
16 t
tog
B. Conclusion
Of the seven intersections analyzed, four exceeded the one per-
cent traffic volume criteria.
' When evaluating the four intersections which exceeded the one per-
cent criteria, three had "existing plus committed plus growth"
intersection- capacity utilization percentages above the 90 percent
level. Thus, with or without the project, three intersections
exceed 90 percent of capacity.
In accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, intersections
having ICU' s over 90 percent must be analyzed as to necessary
improvements needed to reduce the ICU below 90 percent. Due to
traffic growth, traffic from committed projects, and this project's
' traffic, additional lanes to the various intersections will reduce
the ICU's to acceptable levels . Table 8 lists the improvements.
Since this project has not created the "over 90 percent ICU•'s" at
the critical intersections, intersection improvement responsibi-
lity should be proportional to a project' s impact upon these in-
tersections.
t
' 17
Appendices '
Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume '
Analysis Work Sheets
Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization '
Analysis Work ,Sheets
Appendix C - Project Related Improvement ICU
Work Sheets
t
7b '
r
r '
r
r .
r
r
r .
r
r
r
r �
r
rAPPENDIX A
ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME
rANALYSIS WORK SHEETS
r
r
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection superior Ave/Placentia Ave
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring 1980)
Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project ,
Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2)% Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume • Vol at Volune
Volume Volume
Northbound 7.32 34 766 8 95
Southbound 678 10 688 7 41
Eastbound 1202 6 1208 12 0
estbound 798 0 798 8 25 . '
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
® Project Traffic is estimated to 'be greater than 1% of Projected '
Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(T.C.U.) Analysis is required.
Huahes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May laai
PROJECT: FORM I '
' -q2
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Balboa Ave/Superior Ave. @ Coast Hwy.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
T
Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Apved Projected 1% of Protected Protect
Direction Peak 2)y Hour Regional Protproects Peak 2rs Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour
Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
Northbound
1221 8 1229 12 25
_
•' southbound 2271 16 2287 23 32
Eastbound 2857 25 410 3292 33 70
estbound 3335 29 962 4326 43 0
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May, 19,81
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
a Intersection Coast Hwy./And Orange .St.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter7Spring 19 BO)
• Approach Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 2% of Projected Project
�Gfrection j Peak 2h Nour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2'j Hour Peak 2ss Hours
I ; volume Growth Peak 24LHour Volume voluxe Voluk
volume Volt e
Northbound 25 0 „0 2 252 3 0 1 s
outhbound j 132 0 1 133 1 0 1
,Eastbound 1 2605 1 23 410 1 3030 30 70 '
:wound 4304 962 5303
37 53 24 j '
C Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected '
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume '
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ,
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May igal
PROJECT: rnRM 1
14
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Coast Hwy:/Propect Street
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980)
;t
Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
T, Direction Peak 211 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 24
Hour Peak 2h Hourl
i volume Growth Peak 2§ Hour volume volume volume
volume Volume
lHorthbound '
utnbouna 275 0 2 277 3 0
astbound 2270 19 410 1 2699 1 27 70
stbound 1 4266 1 37 962 5265 53 24 I
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
�x Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
1
' Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 19si
PROJECT: FORM T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road
(Existing Traffic No umes based on Average Winter Spring 1990)
• Apprach Existing Peak 2S Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project
�Direetion Pak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak Yy Hour folk 21% Hourl ,
I Volume Growth Peak 2N Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
iNorthbound 4055 30 4115 41 25- i
1 uthbound j *3719 34 3753 38 0 1 '
Eastbound 16 n 1785 is 8 I '
stbound
Q Project, Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected '
Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume '
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of .Projected
Peak 2h ,Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required. '
1
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May Taal '
PROJECT: FORM 7
1
74
1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection C
(Existing Traffic Volumes" based on Average Winter/spring 1980)
• Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 2% of Protected Project
Direction Peak 2k Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hours
I Volume Growth Peak 21J Hour Volume Volute Voluue
Volume Voluae
Northbound
uthbound 1 1106 76 1182 12 0
astbound 4401 38 ' 512 4951 50 8
stbound 4082 36 1094 5212 52 25 I
' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected .
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated' to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 •Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
' Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE:. May 1981
PROJECT: FORM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection verage_ on ,
(Existing Traffic Volumes based Winter/Spring 1980)
Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected 2% of Protected Project
Direction ( Peak 211 Nour Regional Projects Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Houri ,
I Volume Growth Peak A Hour Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
1Horthbound 277 4 281 3 0
uthbound ( 2487 44 2531 25 0 '
stbound 4172 36 442 4650 1 47 8 .1we '
stbound 1 5251 1 46 1008 6305 63 25 i '
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than .1% of Projected '
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected '
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ,
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981
PROJECT: '
FORM i
APPENDIX B
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
WORK SHEETS
1.
INTERSECTION -CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS '
Intersection Her
Ave and Placen
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter PR.
ng (30
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COWITTED PROJECTED PROJECT MQIECT '
Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK HA Y/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Yolw Y/C Ratio
Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project
Vol.
NL 15
NT 3200 216 613 17 .1666*' I 1669*
NR 285 1 J '
SL 1600 29 181* .0181* 5 .021 *
ST 1600 277 1731 .1763 `d0 .1856
SR 1600 33 0206 5 .0206 .0206 �-
EL 1600 90 0250 .0250 .0250
ET 3200 556 -753,1 .1763* .1763*
ER 5 1 i 3
WL 1600 161 006* .1006* .1006* '
WT 3200 226 p744 .0744 .0822
WR 12 25 '
000 .1000* .1000*
YELLOWTINE
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILITATION 5553
EXISTING PLUS CO PUTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH
EXISTING PLUS COMUTTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .5651
® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal ,
to 0.90
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than MO
[] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements ,
will be less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'
Description of system improvement:
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981
PROJECT: FORM II ' .
INTERSECTTON .CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Intersection superior and Pacific Coast Highway
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 980
EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT
Ibvement Lanes Cep Lanes Cap PX HR Y/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Volume VC Ratio
Yol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project
Vol.
NL 1 308
N7 f 4800 173 1002 4 .1010*' 1 .1013*
NR NS 64
SL 133
ST 3200 300 353* 8 .1378* 5 .1394*
SR NS 545 15
EL 3200 218 81 .0681* 1 .0684*
ET 3200 660 063 4 205 .2716 .2716
ER 1600 270 688 .1688 .1688
!WR
1600 69 431 .0431 .0431
3200 1301L519
7 481 .5591* .5591*
' 1600 83 .0519 .0519
.1000* .1000*
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH I.C.0 9660
' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U.
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal
to 0.90
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
�] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements
will be less than or equal to 0.90
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of system improvement:
Hughes Aircraft Expansion __DATE: Clay 1981
PROJECT: FORM II
INTERSECTION .CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Intersection Coast Ii and Oran a Street
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pr ng 9 8
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT '
Lines Cap Lanes Cap PX HR V/C GRONTN PROJECT 'V/C Ratio Volw* V/C Ratio
Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project
Vol.
NL 1600 39 244* .0244* .0244* '
NT 1600 10 319 .0325 .0325
NR 41
SL 26 1 ,
ST 1600 12 431* .0438* .0438* '
SR 31
EL 1600 34 213* .0213* .0213* '
ET 4800 1068 277 10 205 .2725 1 .2727
ER 25
WL 1600 36 225 .0225 .0225
WT 3200 1845 766* 19 481 .7328* 15 ,7375*
WR 1600 39 244 1 .0250 .0250 t
YELLOWrIME 000* .1000* .1000*
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY uTiLTIATION 654 '
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH I.C.0 9223
EXISTING PLUS COMUTTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U.
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal
to 0.90 '
® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements '
will be less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - w - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'
Description of system improvement:
Huclhes Aircraft Expansion DATE: _ MM 1981 '
PROJECT: FORM II
$Z INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Intersection Coast Highway and Prospect Street
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter7spring 19 s
' EXISTING PROPOSED EKIST EXIST REGIONAL COMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT
MovenKnt
Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Voluee VC Ratio
Vol. Rat10 VOL. VOL. w/o Project
Vol.
NL
NT
NR
SL 103
ST 1600 069A .0694* ' .0694*
SR 8
' EL 20 0125 .0125* .0125*
ET 1600 934 1946 10 205 .2393 1 .2396
ER 4800
WL
WT 1 3200 1769 781 19 481 .7343* 15 .7391*
WR 81
• En
.1000*
YELLOGTIHE
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7600
EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH I.C.U.
' EXISTING PLUS C@MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .9210
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal
to 0.90
' ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements
will be less than or equal to 0.90
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of system improvement:
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 19 1
PROJECT: FORM II
APPENDIX C '
PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENT '
ICU WORE SHEETS
' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Intersection Superior and Pacific Coast Highway
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based onAve—rage Winter/spring 19 80
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED, A Ratio
PROJECT
Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V V/C Rat
Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project
Vol. (1)
NL 1 308
NT 4800 173 002* 4 1 .1010* 1 .1013*
NR NS 64
SL 1600 133 1 1 1 .1188* .1188*
' ST 3200 300 353*1 8 1 .0969 5 .0978
SR NS 3200 545 .2433 15 .2500
' EL 3200 218 681* .0681* 1 .0684*
ET 3200 660 2063 4 205 .2716 .2716
' ER 1600 270 ,1688 .1688 .1688
WL 1 1600 69 431 .0431 .0431
WT 3200 4800 1301 066* 7 481 .4147* .4141*
WR 1600 83 519 .0519 .0519
000* .1000* .1000*
YELLM7IME
EXISTING INTERSECrlON CAPACITY UTILIZATICH 102
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 0
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .8626
rl Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less .than or equal
to 0.90
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
0 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements
will be less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• Description of system improvement:
' Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans
Project Related: Add a third westbound through lane to Pacific
Coast Highway. RestripeSuperior - southbound to include two
through lanes , two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane.
(1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity.
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981
' PROJECT: FORM II
$s r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Intersection Coast Highway and Orange
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on AverageWinter/spring 980)
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT '
Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volua! V/C Ratio
Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project
Vol. (1)
NL 1600 39 244* .0244* .0244*
NT t1600 10 319 .0325 .0325
NR 41 r
SL 26 1
ST 1600 12 431* .0438* .0438*
SR 31
EL 1600 34 213* .0213* .0213*
ET 14800 1068 P277 10 205 ,2725 1 .2727
ER J 25
WL 1600 36 225 .0225 .0225 ,
WT 3200 4800 1845 766* 19 481 .5521* 15 ,5556*
WR 1600 J 0 39 244 1 '
YEuatrlM 000* .1000* .1000*
EXISTING INTERSMIDN CAPACITY UTILIZATION 654
EXISTING PLUS CO MITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH N/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJCCT I,C.U. 7451 r
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal
to 0.90
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements r
will be less than or equal to 0.90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,
Description of system improvement:
Add a westbound through lane '
(1) Permitted to use only 70 percent of improvement capacity
1
r
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981 '
PROJECT: FORM II
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Intersection Prospect and Pacific Coast Hi hway
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter Spring 19 80
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT
' Lanes Cep Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio
Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project
Vol. (11
NL
• NT
NR
M
103
0694 :0694* .0694*
8
- 20 0125 .0125* .0125*
934 1946 10 205 .2393 1 .2396
WL
WT 3200 4800 1769 5781 19 481 .5440* 15 .5475*
' WR 81
1000 .1000* .1000*
VELLOWT7ME
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 76 O
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 7259
EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .7294
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal
to 0.90
Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
�X Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvements
will be less than or equal to 0.90
Description of system improvement:
' Convert westbound right turn only lane to a 'combination
through and right turn lane
(1) Permitted to use only 70 percent of improvement capacity
Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981
' PROJECT: FORM II
- �Cuu� �; u� a �n v4ssoe � ates �
Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering
May 19, 1981 ,
Mr. Keeton Kreitzer
The Planning Center
240 Newport Center Drive
Suite 215
Newport Beach, CA 926.60
Dear Mr. Kreitzer: I
Attached is a discussion of Transportation System Manage-
ment techniques which could be implemented for the Hughes ,
Aircraft facility in Newport Beach.
Transportation System Management Overview ;
Transportation System Management (TSM) inlcudes short-range
transportation planning and operational techniques which
have as their objectives increased efficiency of the system,
improved air quality, and energy conversation. These are
primarily low-cost projects that are specifically targeted
to make more efficient use of the transportation system and ,
reduce auto use. Listed below are severl elements which
should be cohsidered for incorporation into a Transportation
Systems Management Plan.
a. Information and Marketing 'System (to inform the public
of advantages of using alternative transportation modes)
1. Advertising and promotion of active TSM programs '
2. Community imput and participation in TSM activities
3. Periodic survey of user acceptance and demand
b. Ride Sharing 'and Van Pools (programs of government and ,
emp oyer_ore
ate opportunities for ride sharing)
1. Park and ride lots '
4664 Sarranca Parkway * Irvine, CA S2714 * [7147 559-4231
2. Preferential pool parking
' 3. Limited parking supply and/or stricter parking
regulations
4. Van pooling programs
5. Ride sharing programs for_ employ.ees.-and shoppers • - =
c. Bicycle Incentives
1. Bike trails connecting residential, industrial,
and commercial areas
2. Effective bike trail maintenance
3 . Bicycle storage facilities at industrial/commercial
sites and at connection points to other transporta-
tion modes
d. Work 'Schedule Measures (means of adjusting working schedules
to further high occupancy vehicle use and decrease congestion)
1. Flextime programs to provide for adjusting individual
work schedules
' 2. Staggered shifts to reduce travel demand during peak
periods
3. Four-day work week
e. Transit (programs to facilitate transit operations and
encourage transit use)
1. Support improved bus service and express bus service
2. Preferential treatment for buses and other High
occupancy Vehicles
3. Signal pre-emption for transit
' 4. Coordination of fares, transfers, and schedules for
transit service
' 5. Employer-supported transit passes
6 . Neighborhood design features to facilitate transit
' stops and use
f. Pedestrian Amenities
' 1. Convenient and safe street crossings
2. Pedestrian paths connecting- residential, commercial, '
employment, and public service areas
3. Shelter for pedestrian and bus passengers '
_ 4. Pedestrian access paths through cul-de-sacs
P 5 .
From the above listed TSM techniques., three possible programs.-
are being suggested for consideration. by Hughes Aircraft in
Newport Beach. The three programs, with estimated costs and
comensurate vehicle trip reductions, include the following: ,
passes, car pools, and van pools.
Bus Pass Program
Hughes Aircraft can encourage employees to utilize bus trans-
portation by:
1. Posting bus route maps and schedules at locations through-
out the Hughes Aircraft facilities
2. Permit flexible "begin work and end work" times for employ-
ees using OCTD buses so that they can meet convenient bus
schedules '
3. Provide or subsidize the cost of monthly bus passes
4. Monitor and administer the bus program '
Expense
The cost to purchase bus passes ,on OCTD is $21.50 per
month or $258 per year.
The cost to administer such a program is estimated to '
be one-quarter man year per year, or approximately
$4, 000 per year.
Daily Trip Reduction
On a countywide basis OCTD ridership is approximately
three percent. It is anticipated that approximately ,
three to six percent of employees will utilize this type
of program. These are considered valid percentage be- '
cause repetitive type transit trips such as to school or
work capture a higher ridership percentage, and subsidi-
zation by employer will increase ridership. If the above
percentages are used, 54 to 107 employees will use tran-
sit or 31 to 61 peak hour vehicle trips per day can be
deleted from the total 1,017 peak hour trips . Table A
describes the expected number of employees which, will '
take advantage of the program, and the expected cost to
Hughes Aircraft.
Carpool Program
Hughes Aircraft can encourage employees to� participate in
Icarpools by:
1. Providing an employee carpooling matching service
2. Actively- promote—carpooling
' 3. Provide assigned preferential parking spaces for car-
pool vehicles
4. Provide identification for carpool vehicles
5. Enforce carpool parking restrictions
' 6. Administer and monitor program
7. Require car pools to have a minimum of three persons
IS. Provide incentives such as free cafeterial coupons
Expense
I Administrative costs of matching service, promotion,
car and parking space identification, enforcement of
parking restrictions and monitoring program are estima-
ted to require approximately one person full time at
approximately $16, 000 per year. The cost of incentives
such as free cafeteria coupons is estimated to be $10
per month or $120 per year per employee participating in
program.
Daily Trip Reduction
it is expected that eight to sixteen percent of employees
will participate in a car pooling program, This results
in 143 to 286 employees at three per car for 48 to 95 •
carpool vehicles with a peak hour trip reduction of 81 to
163 trips per day. Table A describes the expected parti-
cipants and costs.
Van Pool Program
Hughes Aircraft can encourage and contribute to a van pool
program by:
1 1. Company purchased 11 to 12 passenger vans
2. Permit individual, employees who drive the vans to keep ve-
hicle on weekends and use for personal use
3. Match drivers and passengers to form van pools so that all
persons live in same geographic area.
9►
4 . Company to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance for
each van
5 . Charge appropriate fee to van pool users
Expense
The program -expense includes personnel to administer.-- -
program and maintain equipment, plus equipment and gasoline
costs, less reimbursement from employees who participate.
At approximately 10 riders per van, 18 to 36 vans are esti-
mated to be required as will be discussed later. Eleven
passenger vans fully equiped with delux seats and air con-
ditioning cost approximately $14 ,000 each, last approxi-
mately three years and have a salvage value of approximately
$5,000. This translates to $3,000 per year per van or $300
per year per van pool participant. I I
If it is assumed that the fee charged van pool participants
equals only gas expense and parts and materials for main-
tenance, then the cost to Hughes Aircraft per employee is ,
the $300 per year. Administration costs of a van pool pro-
gram is estimated to be two full time persons, one to ad-
minister the program and one to maintain vehicles. The
salary of these two persons is estimated to be $36,000.
Daily Trip Reduction '
If 18 vans were used 102 peak hour trips per day could be
deducted from the total peak hour trips; if 36 vans were
used 203 peak hour trips per day could be deducted from the
total peak hour trips. Employee participation is expected
to range from 179 to 357 employees .as .is seen in Table A.
'Summary
The percent of employees participating in the three programs
discussed in this letter ranges from three to six percent for
the Bus Pass Program, to 10 to 20 percent for a Van Pool Program.
The annual cost to Hughes Aircraft per peak hour trip reduced
is $359 for the car pool program, $451 for the van pool program, '
and $548 for the bus pass program. These cost estimates are
based on a series of assumptions regarding employer participa-
tion. Adjustments to these assumptions could be made in such '
a way that all three programs would cost equally to reduce one
peak hour trip. If adjustments on assumed employer participa-
tion were to be made such that all three programs were equal,
the general conclusion would be that it costs $400 to $500 per
year to reduce one peak hour trip regardless of which program
or combination of programs is used. The program which should be
selected is a function of the amount of employees desired to
participate. The estimated participation rate is lowest for the
bus pass program and highest for the van pool program.
92
To relate the level of Transportation System Management program
needed to avoid intersection improvement's , Table B has been pre-
pared. Examination of the Table shows a 35 to 41 percent reduc-
tion in travel is needed on an overall basis. However, closer
examination shows that if 37 to 43 employee inbound trips from
the Huntington Beach/Long Beach area are eliminated, then the
one percent limit would not be exceeded. This could be accom-
plished by providing van pools to- serve-iemployees:--diving-- in the
Huntington Beach/Long Beach area and who work the 4:00 PM to
midnight shift. Each employee -generates 0.6937 inbound trips,
,r and 62 employees would need to be in. the -van pool- program to
'■ effect the 43 inbound trip reduction. Thus, approximately six
vans are implied if vanpooling is selecte& as a mitigation
measure. Similarly to the above calculation showing six vans
are needed for the 4 :00 PM to midnight shift from the Huntington
Beach/Long Beach area, additional vans are also needed because
of one percent overages at the Superior and Coast intersection.
For northbound traffic, there are 13 project trips above the one
percent limit, and for the southbound traffic, there are nine•
project trips above the one percent limit. To accommodate these
two overages, two van pools serving the 4 :00- PM to midnight shift
and originating on the Balboa peninsula are needed, and two van-
pools serving the 7 : 00 AM to 3: 30 PM or 8 :00 AM to 5 :00 PM shifts
' are needed with an orientation towards Huntington Beach/Long Beach.
Thus, a total of 10 van pools are implied.
It has been a pleasure to prepare this analysis for you. If there
are questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
' Sincerely,
KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES
William Kunzman, P.E.
a3 1
I
Table A
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM '
MANAGEMENT COSTS (ANNUAL)
, Bus Pass Car 'Pooling � Van Pooling
Descriptor Program Program Program
Proportion of Employees 3 to 68 8 to 16% 10 to 20% '
Expected to Participate
Number of 1785 Employees .54 to 107 143 to 286 179 to 357
Expected to Participate
Total Peak Hour Trips by 11017 11017 1,017
1785 Employee Without
Program ( .57 trip per
employee)
Savings in Peak Hour 31 to 61 81 to 163 102 to 203
Trips if Program Insti-
tuted
Estimated Cost,per Employ- $ 258 $ 120 $ 300
ee Per Year to Hughes Air-
craft
Administrative Costs $4,000 $16 ,000 •$36,000
Total Estimated Cost Per $17,932 to $33,160 to $ 89 ,700 to
' Year to Hughes Aircraft $31,606 $501320 $143,1100
Initial Investment nominal nominal $252,000 to
$504,000
Annual Cost Per Reduced $518 to $309 to $401 to
Peak Hour Trip $578; call $409; call $501; call
$548 $359 $451
Table B
TRIP REDUCTION NEEDED TO NOT EXCEED
INTERSECTION' S ONE PERCENT LIMIT
Intersection
Descriptor Superior Ave Coast Highway Coast Highway
Coast Highway Orange Street Prospect St.
Critical Approach Eastbound Eastbound Eastbound
One Percent Limit, Vehicles 33 30 27
Hughes Aircraft Contribution 70 70 70
in Vehicles With 680 New
Employees
_ Excess Vehicles Above One 37 40 43
- Percent Limit
Proportion of Hughes Aircraft 47 43 39
680 New Employees which can
• be added before One Percent
Limit is reached
Critical Approach Serves Inbound Inbound Inbound
Inbound or Outbound Hughes
•� Aircraft Traffic
Critical Approach Serves 20% 20% 20%
This Percent of Hughes
Aircraft Traffic
Total 1985 Hughes Aircraft 105* 105 105
' Traffic Using Critical
Approach, Vehicles
Percent Reduction in 1985 354 38% 41%
Total Hughes Aircraft Employ-
ee Trips Needed to not exceed
One Percent Limit
* 105=(20% of Inbound) X(727 Arriving Employees X 0 . 6932 trips/
employee + 1179 Departing Employees X 0 .0189 trips/employees),