The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO010 • Planning Commission Meeting ptember 8, 1983 Agenda Item No. 13 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Revised) Request to approve a revised Traffic Study for a 110,000± sq.ft. office-laboratory addition to the Hughes Aircraft facility presently under construction. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 500 Superior Avenue between Dana Road and industrial Way, adjacent to the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Hughes Aircraft Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications The Hughes Aircraft Company has requested an amendment to an approved Traffic Study which permits the construction of a ±110,000 sq.ft. office-laboratory addition to the Hughes Aircraft facility. The addition is presently under construction and the application, if approved, would modify the previous Conditions of Approval. Traffic Studies are prepared pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) (Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and City Council Policy P-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the TPO") . Conformance with the General Plan The subject property is designated as "General Industrial" by the Newport, Beach General Plan. The proposed and existing uses are permitted in such designation. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses 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 bounded by the City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard on the northeast, Superior Avenue on the northwest, Dana Road on the southwest and Newport Boulevard on the southeast. TO: Planning Wission -2. . c The site is currently the location of the Hughes Aircraft Company's Solid State Products 'Division, which, in addition to administrative activities, conducts electronic testing and assembly of hybrid components. The existing structure covers approximately 3.6 acres of the 13.9 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 remaining 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 across Dana Road are Aeveral •blocks of multi-family residential developments and a convalescent center. West of the site, across Superior Avenue, are a proposed medical condominium, a mobile home park, and another convalescent center. North of the site, is the City's Corporation Yard. Background At its meeting of July 9, 1981 the Planning Commission approved (6 ayes, 1 no) Use Permit No. 1994 ,and relate& Traffic Study which was a request from Hughes Aircraft Company to construct a 110,000 sq.ft.t office addition and a parking structure that exceeded the basic height limit within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also included a request to allow roof-top parking and the use of compact car spaces. Said action was subject to three findings and two conditions for the Traffic Study and twelve findings and forty-six conditions for Use Permit No. 1994 (see attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated July 9, 1981) . At its meeting of August 24, 1981 the City Council reviewed and sustained the action of the Planning Commission relative to the subject applications. Subsequent to the City Council and Planning Commission approval the applicant prepared and submitted to the Planning and Building Departments structural plans for the proposed development. At that time it was determined that the actual gross and net floor area of the office addition exceeded the allowable figures as stated in the Traffic Study and Use Permit application (allowable floor area: J10,000 sq.ft. gross; 99,000 sq.ft. net) . Prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the project, the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department determined that inasmuch as the Traffic Study and use permit analysis was based upon the applicant's five year forecast . of man-power and space requirements, the project information critical to the City was the 110,000 sq.ft. limitation on gross floor area and the 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on' first shift) . The City issued Building Permits for the subject addition on the basis of a 1 R •T0: Planning C*ssion -3. • reduced gross floor area of 109,893i sq.ft. and the applicant's agreement to provide manpower reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. On September 9, 1982 the Planning Commission Conditionally approved an Amendment to Use Permit No. 1994 (all ayes) . Use Permit 1994 (Amended) allowed the construction of additional floor area within the approved building footprint, the construction of a new security guard station and the acceptance of an environmental document. The conditions of approval require that any new construction in the area between the proposed addition and Superior Avenue in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. will require the approval of the Planning Commission. On June 21, 1983 the City Council approved an agreement (attached) with the Hughes Aircraft Company fixing the "Fair-Share" contribution of the costs to be incurred by the City in improving the intersections at PCH/Superior, PCH/Prospect and PCH/Orange. Approved Traffic Study The conditionally approved Traffic Study for the project was prepared by Kunzman & Associates. The two (2) conditions of approval were as noted below: CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation Systems Improvements described in the Initial Study - Appendix B, Page 14, Table 8 and these improvements shall have been completed (unless subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto) . The improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. 2. That if the applicant wishes to occupy, the proposed addition prior to the completion of the improvements described in Condition No. 1 above, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and Public Works Department that they have implemented the trip generation reduction measures indicated in the Traffic Study or measures equally effective approved by the City Traffic Engineer. These measures shall remain in effect until the improvements described in Condition No. 1 above have been completed. TO: Plannioommission -4. . 4 Appendix B, Page 14, Table 8 states: 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 land Coast Highway to Pacific Coast Highway. Prospect and Pacific Convert westbound right turn Coast Highway only lane to a combination westbound through and right turn lane. Recommended by a previous project. Revised Traffic Study The applicants have requested the Planning Commission's approval of a Revised Traffic Study for the purpose of issuance of building and grading permits in conjunction with the construction of the project. The Traffic Study for the proposed development has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . A copy of the Traffic Study prepared for the City by Kunzman and Associates is included in the attached Initial Study as Appendix B. The following table provides a 1% analysis for those intersections that the City Traffic Engineer has determined will be affected by the proposed project based upon its size and location: •T0: Plannin(ommission -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 11 25 Southbound' 15 67 yes Eastbound 15 0 Westbound 15 7 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 15 7 Southbound 27 53 Eastbound 39 18 yes Westbound 48 0 Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 2 0 Southbound 1 0 Eastbound 34 18 no Westbound 61 39 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 1 0 Southbound 2 0 Eastbound 35 18 no Westbound b6 39 Newport and Hospital Northbound 36 7 Southbound 38 0 Eastbound 20 14 no Westbound 11 0 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound - - Southbound 12 0 Eastbound 50 14 no Westbound 52 7 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 2 0 Southbound 27 0 Eastbound 49 14 no Westbound 75 7 it TO: Plannioommission -6. . 9 In accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S-1 an I.C.U. analysis was made. The I.C.U. analysis indicates. that the existing plus regional plus committed plus project traffic volumes will be greater than 0,.90 and that further analysis would be required. The following chart indicates the I.C.U.'s for critical intersections: Intersection Capacity Utilization 1983 Exist 1983 Exist 1983 Existing + Critical xisting + Committed + Committ- Committed+Growth Intersections + Growth 'ed + Growth + Project + + Project improvements Superior and Placentia .7591 .7942 .8063 n/a Superior and Pacific 1.1279 .9660 .9682 .8906 Coast Highway 1.3104 1.3191 .8026 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Add a third westbound through lane to Coast Highway -Coast Highway;, restripe '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. City Policy S-1 provides that an analysis be done to determine if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the project will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volume for each leg of each impacted intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. The policy also provides that when one year after completion of the project, the project may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volume on one or more legs of an impacted intersection, then an I.C.U. analysis will be performed in accordance with S-1. Analysis The approval of the Revised Traffic Study will not effect the amount ($300,000) or other terms of the agreement between the Hughes Aircraft Company and the City related to "Fair-Share." If, the City approves the Revised Traffic Study the applicant will be allowed to occupy the project upon completion of the improvements to the PCH/Balboa/Superior intersection now under construction. • TO: Planning Wission -7. • Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of. the Revised Traffic Study with the Findings and Subject to the Condition indicated in Exhibit "A". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director C By — FRED TALARZCO Environmental Coordinator FT/jg Attachments 1. Exhibit "A" Revised Traffic Study. 2. Planning Commission Minutes of September 9, 1982. 3. Agreement - "Fair Share." t To: Planninommission -8. • f EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS & CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVISED HUGHES AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY September 8, 1983 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Studies suggest a circulation system improvement which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified" or "primary" street. Condition: 1.. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the Circulation System Improvement described in the Revised Traffic Study shall have been completed (unless subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto) . The improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. t ^(,/ ��•;�ri .lr !. /'r} ' ) tint j�.f i�j' •- .�'' % .� J .f{�, y �"rY'If ''rj'J• 1 '4rr,!,Y��'' �•' er ft ':`�' r .•,ttrfr ��<C�'��i•'r�'`J +��C!' 1.•' lr�/• � `',�! 'itV }=•,1r� �f +•tr ,J //.,,•yJ,�fiY[c f�!Jy�(' rJ y�f 1 r!7r��r�j��'N��E rill {`•+ Gt'� � (/JI�: �;i/ <,1�L��AZj� `L7�f�vSrr�J' 'C�•'}'I l��•!�t7•!J f�%/��Jj'ytl.,),r:�ll f t,�'rS l�yl�r. , i Z•'.+twe fe1Jf?f�.�'(;J •'>I' l�r yJf/�.'/ �/,, �71,.r{rr�1;4 {�4 ) �i /r ¢'•�f%rp.+Sx'' rJ jj �)rf AS/ lQ r Ue 4;1��/ <Y � .r"� lr•r t�r. .r� � .� r r J.,�''y Y F r r t . ,• ,. N'1r{ �r x fz Kf ONE, ' r J•••'✓r) 'S+` (r�r. • �I.J �, , � rr•7 r ,11 a �., 7 l.• /�. ��t�'y,(:y ,.. �',e r,' f EGA ' }fr''��`:�'��I)� rfJ':?,`ti�•i��f;V'if�t �.t j •; l ( ,. ��t l�/. rt l�E�/��f'�`.'K. K�• Sr%; Y Ufa/' %. fSf:f �J w�,::f%r✓3 r}ft; a ,r �, y � ,} 1^71��,•''•{!r•/.+ r,J '•J r�^y r } (J �( ff }., / ,/r.;�17�/[j/,( i n 5�1.1. rr.'/�,C I,� ��J,.f I.' `• .'-J/'{'�'(( r7��' ! . r`�t r�,•t'1 "' f,±)�ri(y�{ '(i:(//r�''Jji i(! ,{;�7'f �Y�•�i.d// ) ..�JIfrri��r rr�r;1')/(J!el P : ., ' f r• / ,l"�(rA7 ' i�.f'Arl� t•/' �r(f�t/•1 ,/, ;,r,�f/••; �� ,�f ".r�';'j•'r'� �f Sri)�/rfd�,,1�4f��i) Y!fr';rl'�1 f�,��r;s,��:) ,•4�' jf f, �tir f/ ,rr i v; Hughes Aircraft b Expansion Traffic Study r� i �r LJrYA, trC Irr` {'�:t�. Y\ •,f /�Ir r+'�:�4�`��'�J/{:•`' 'it•.e�'�{�`F ',frr '•'4'�,f(� f�%F1r,},��,�;"j ,,.Sr, �t1t''��0. ��„i��i' ��rY �,; ;i �,�i��i:t: .,,�}y;.%i �l i�1 '��••�� rr•.�{�1,: �.�;:�Jl%%J•�';�' "'tip r"" " /,.,�?�. �,rN, �!1'��%S��•,/�''ily�!• F'':rr��y'� ��J~:V''�''r<<��y��'�rj , • ' � y' t- �t :��,r'r : ' +F�'��' +%(r L,r;•rCr''! J "'S�!, `�'��N�' ' '1 C, '' j✓ �','r•� , / f� f �i' � u N i�1ai� r,A P,oct ate s f J �,,� f Transportation Planning •Traffic Engineering r , .!{' .('�j,�/If�� /J/.��'s7lY^f� r�i(�,t'rr ��• "� r� fir. , �'J,•'r, ��/(t7,�r��5 , /� ti. •.�dr rr t +� •.�,'1I i r., � r i i Tj r'1)(�. � � ) J:y}'f,��,� � �� 'fr� �� W�� /ij>1��f (fn�f:�.• .y:;jri% rr �t )� • l�F�'�yr�'t'fhaLr"�l�,�a,�l:'I�r�l�•%s��K�;��'f_j t�'�'�;t,��i•%�'�;,vl•�'• 3�•`�,''/'ofa�r � uN u� aN v4ssoc � ates . Transportation Planning i Traffic Engineering June 8, 1983 Mr. Richard J. McDonald Hughes Aircraft Company 500 Superior" Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. McDonald.: We are pleased to present this revised traffic impact . analysis for the Hughes Aircraft Facility Expansion. The analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance and incorporates the latest Hughes Aircraft manpower loading projections and City of Newport Beach traffic volumes. This report contains (1) One Percent Traffic Volumes 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. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, KUN ZM�A�N -AS-S^OCIATES ^ 'W' A)AA VY'' William Kunzman, P.E. 4664 Barrance Parkway + Irvine, CA 92714 r (714) 559-4231 • �,✓, 1) (!'f�i ; �r JA r/'A a.• �. � (%r! i. :� fJn w •I'•� /�' r �1�(i• J t Irffff. Jj•!4. r/ 'J+:( . <rlyl• ��, '.. r! ,/ c•��Jr(� �,.: [�,I�rt r��l' ' �r'�� )�I l•Ir.��rLf('rV �� 1;' ,. A �;�;r•i/ram � GYCr>>�'(�r r1��'(�'/ � /l.'`ff i �: r,) tir.�l,�`,•^1`�r'!�il� `4{t '7P✓ti/S,/ry�f y1 ;C': r�I.S;r�T. /')'J�;/�l'jrr/f1• ��:n } flyi►��%�I f �ff (�Y. / t l,. {� rr�r,L�{�(�, f�t r��•vff�J�• �'� '"•' r)�+; ��'r?II'�: ';f,� Sy!/f��??��Ir<1' ��i�Vi�i;S},�r:��/•r, 4.{/' IPfi�n'.1 ',yJr !r rry'r !l7',�'"yGff.,�Yrr�t i;t'��•j{f}'ir` `Gj�r .(J�,�� /IN r�Y r arrf% ,<<')� lf,..•Y�•, J . i.� r?;,)fi�•J ,•, f�l�•{.I�?�J r I`}i� 'a'�;;1� 't�f�v; L,r �cI a f(( !s r?< t 'J � 1,.r�, ��•`�flf� '1f. ( f•.{✓,�J�1.,t �{(! �: iI�r, •\r' �� •; r�l Y'% 'St.:r" r i' �� '.S''fry'' �{• �; ' E e�j��, r�vi •�� ir' '�•., r� {.�f�f. r '4• •� rl: �11�1 f�.il:N� 0 1P d Qj'sa c�:�;ll�l�'/�ty}}��J�,�'r�r.�!>';,�ii•f��rr t',/r�r ��'�;.!� ,, ' �, )Il �y Hughes Aircraft a; Expansion Traffic Study 4! r fr, to •J%��LJ/�'yl� #J•f!} /�i' •lii i: % / � � ii}t•, •�''� "1 ' //. r�r ! r'f�,,r'7(�'f/��`.'�j�•�$�>''t�t�) i�jfl"r11f:!�r�'I�,• �r�'�i�i.�l�jf /•� la e -�.F.lyf)t,lft.rf' r/. i •".�)i7r J. �,✓ JJJI(, y/♦/ J ��Yjl• 'r I�J'i'7`fi7�7a/'yl �iY A�rrr.l'^•y�.ri• •%'4)i,�r'"i V �'l. �'^.rid y�''�' %r >'J '1;; C%/. ,,r'I ' i�,l� , V,�,./rl `/ f^` 'rz ,f•1 f ' ,�• ,j�Y�� /j1(f �.J•1p� f y�j�fr,{(/''`r'- r F_�'� f�.''�'f`[,�.)'r�Y%��a`!'"'�tr"/ �,/, , C,• ,y/,/)Jf' 0r r Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering r1� Jt r �' ,�.J ' •:;'!�,•Jl,•�',)7fS' �t y ( •i 'A� f,' r , '••ftr •'�,��//� /fir y^� •JA�r)�' •/ ��d �,'L�F }�� ' .n/ I'.t�'';Jf� .•,AJ�k •tl r.{,f.�/, �y� J ti '1 ��!'` •�ff/ ;� ��j1 : Cf ��/i �. l /f/ f�l�^: 'f r i( ,fir j+�,f,f�kf Il%(•+�/ �tf�� '�'� ��I �J/)'�!Y f� �'j•��r�.J{,-r J'%��jr�'��{I/!/'j�f �f/ `�� rf i'�'��I, •?,.,• ��lL/ 1:�� 1/'•},% ,('1,:�f/�rif• (�J,1lr�••�1. �;Y//�li� C.l1•t�F'�t�� .�%�%�'� '/I ''✓;7J� •r ,•••(i 1''/�:J��I� y •y�:+i fl•f�.)r�,•��4}r1.rJ • •i:rl 1 ��w,'f• P ^ TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Project Traffic Generation 2 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Critical Intersections Analyzed 8 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Project Related Improvements . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 7. Other Traffic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... .17 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Work Sheets Appendix C - Alternative Improvements ICU Work Sheets LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page No. 1 Hughes Aircraft Employees 1983-1987 . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Calculating Traffic Generation Rates . . . . . . . . 4 3 Hughes Aircraft Traffic Count May 14. 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Traffic Generation by Project (1987) . . . . . . . . 6 5 One Percent Analysis Summary 9 6 Committed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 7 Intersection Capacity Utilization for Critical Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-12 8 Planned Intersection Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9 Alternative Superior Avenue and Coast Highway Intersection Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . 15 /3 LIST OP FIGURES Following . Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . 1 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . 7 iy 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, 307 employees at the project site. The building expansion will provide for an increase in the existing employee population. Hughes Aircraft projects a manpower loading increase at the site to 1,738 employees in 1987. This represents an increase of 431 new employees at the site over the five year period. This traffic analysis examines the traffic impact of adding 431 employees. The analysis is in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance and reviews traffic volumes to evaluate the need for a traffic signal. Figures 1 and 2 provide a project location map and site plan, respectively. 1 �J Figure 1 VICINITY MAP 31 111 alp it j z • , ,1=:y<; i 1y y ,(taw.. 11. •+ ,t��i �� \'4112" 4�1Y• !l ♦ ♦Y�.1J��•\ti�+� l �� rrt r 4/� ��. , i.C� j l�ur• � • ..'fir .+''`'�• y Q /�• • a ' ir. r': '•�•F"'+� •i .,p'= •.►tif � I Yi r�7� ` LISP tk. k ♦ ^i I *Project Site �un�tmah associates Figure 2 Site Plan t Parking ramp INN Parking Lot New New Building Existing Building Dona Street `�uit�rnan associates /7 2. PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity and type of land use. Trip generation rates are typically expressed in terms of trip ends per employee, per one thousand square feet of gross floor area, or per acre. For this traffic analysis, actual traffic counts at the Hughes Aircraft facility were made and correlated to number of employees. Table 1 depicts the number of existing and future employees by each shift. It will be noted that the 431 new employees will be added to all of the work shifts, although the increase will be slightly larger for the 3:00 PM to midnight shifts. Based upon conversations with a Hughes Aircraft representative, it was indicated that the new employees are anticipated to have starting and ending times proportional to the existing starting and ending times for the existing employees within that shift designation. Table 2 details traffic generation rates for the Hughes Aircraft Facility based upon actual traffic counts made at the facility in May 1981. The traffic counts are contained in Table 3. Table 3 provides a tabulation of the Hughes Aircraft facility inbound and outbound traffic. The peak 2. 5 hours is from 3:00 to 5:30 PM. The estimated traffic generation for the addition of 431 new employees is presented in Table 4. Using the distribution of employees by shift per Table 1, 404 employees and their respective -trips will affect the peak 2.5 hours of traffic, but only 147 employees and their respective trips will affect the 5: 00 PM to 6:00 PM peak hour traffic. 2 Table 1 HUGHES AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES 1983-1987 1983 New Employees 1987 Percent Distribution Percentage Percent Time Time Employees in each of 431 new for 431 Employees in each • Shift Arrive Depart April, 1983 Shift Employees Employees in 1987 Shift 1st Shift 5:30-6:30 AM 2:00-3:00 PM 17 1 5 1 22 1 7:00-8:00 AM 3:30-4:30 PM 502 39 132 31 634 36 8:00 AM 5:00 PM 561 43 147 34 708 41 Subtotal 1,080 83 284 66 1,364 78 w 2nd Shift Noon 8:30 PM 14 1 9 2 23 1 3:00-3:30 PM 12 AM - 1 AM 96 7 62 14 158 9 4:00 PM 11 AM 97 7 63 15 160 9 3rd Shift 12 AM 7:00-8:00 AM 20 2 13 3 33 2 Subtotal 2 and 3 227 17 147 34 374 22 Totals 1,307 100 431 100 1,738 100 • Table 2 CALCULATING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES Descriptor Peak 2 .5 Hours Peak Hour ' Time Frame 3:00 'to 5:30 PM 5:OO to 6:00 PM Employees Arriving and Departing in Time Frame Arriving 226 0 Departing 1021 440 Total 12.47 440 Traffic Volumes Inbound 176 9 Outbound 712 205 Total 888 214 Traffic Generated per Total Employees Arriving and De- parting in Time Frame Inbound 0 .1411 0.0205 Outbound 0 .5710 0 . 4659 Total 0-.7121 0.4864 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 .69,32 0.4659 Total 0 .7121 0 .4864 4 aD Table 3 HUGHES AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC COUNT May 14, 1981 IN OUT 15 Min. Time From South From North To South To North Increment North Mid South Total North Mid South Total North Mid South Total ,North Mid South Total Totals 3:00-3:15 0 0 3 3 3 15 4 22 1 3 2 6 1 7 9 17 48 3:15-3:30 1 1 15 17 1 23 10 34 1 10 10 21 1 21 8 30 102 3:30-3:45 0 1 11 12 2 17 15 34 2 47 22 71 29 51 23 103 220 3:45-4:00 1 0 6 1 7 0 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 cn 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 Table 4 TRAFFIC GENERATION by PROJECT (1987) 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 125 0 Departing 279 147 Total 404 147 Traffic Generated per Arriving Employee Inbound 0 .6932 I 0 Outbound 0 .0189 0 Total 0.7121 0 Traffic Generated by Arriving Employee Inbound 87 0 Outbound 2 0 Total 89 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 5 3 Outbound 194 69 Total 199 72 Traffic Generated by Arriving and Departing Employees Inbound 92 3 Outbound 196 69 Total 288 72 6 o7c�. 0 3. PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Traffic distribution and assignment is based on the directional orientation of traffic based upon residential , business, recreational, and employment opportunities. Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific route project traffic will use once a generalized distribution is determined. The traffic distribution and assignment are based upon actual traffic counts made at the Hughes Aircraft facility. It was found that 66 percent of the project's traffic will go north on Superior Avenue. Figure 3 displays this traffic distribution and . assignment. 7 C;) 3 -- - Figure 3 Project Traffic Distribution And Assignment 0 34% v P� 68% y>20% Newport vard Orange to l3ouk Prospect 27% 'ru 7% R sp ,a (�( Riverside A�c�f N! hwa 7% Dover c C + 7 u►,3nta►t v4ssociates ay • 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 One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis work sheets. Two intersections have the one percent volume criteria exceeded. They are as follows: Superior and Placentia Superior 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 intersection's peak period approach volume. If one percent or less 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 traffic and committed project traffic are included. Volume projections are made to a point in time one year after the project completion. This project's completion date is 1987, and traffic volumes are projected to 1988. Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City procedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 6. Although the Hughes Aircraft facility expansion is classified as a committed project for the analysis of other projects to comply with the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Hughes Aircraft facility expansion traffic was not included as a committed project for this analysis. 8 07`� Table 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections 1% of Projected Project' s 2 .5 Over Analyzed 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. 'Hour Peak Vol. 18 Superior and Placentia Northbound 11 25 Southbound 15 67 yes Eastbound 15 0 Westbound 15 7 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 15 7 Southbound 27 53 yes Eastbound 39 18 Westbound 48 0 Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 2 0 Southbound 1 10 no Eastbound 34 1.8 Westbound 61 39 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 1 0 Southbound 2 0 no Eastbound 35 18 Westbound 66 39 Newport and Hospital Northbound 36 7 Southbound 38 0 no Eastbound 20 14 Westbound 11 0 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound - Southbound 12 0 Eastbound 50 14 no Westbound 52 7 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 2 0 Southbound 27 0 no Eastbound 49 14 Westbound 75 7 o� 6 9 Table 6 COMMITTED PROJECTS ' Hoag Hospital (community facility) Far West Savings and Loan (office) Pacesetter Homes (office) Aeronutronic Ford (residential) Back Bay Office (office) Boyle Engineering (office) Cal Canadian Bank (office) Civic Plaza (office) Civic Plaza (office) Corporate Plaza (office) Koll Center Newport (office, industrial) Campus/MacArthur (office) National Education Office (office) North Ford (industrial) Orchard Office (office) Pacific Mutual Plaza (office) 3701 Birch Office (office) Newport Place (office) Shokrian (office) Bank of Newport (office) Bayside Square (office) Sea Island (residential) Baywood Apartments (residential) Harbor Point Homes (residential) Roger' s Gardens (commercial) Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) Rudy Baron (office) Quail Business Center (office) 441 Newport Boulevard (office) Martha' s Vineyard (restaurant) Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Highway (office) Coast Business Center (office) Koll Center Newport No. 1 TPP (office) Ford Aeronutronics TPP Ross Mollard (medical office) Banning/Newport Ranch (office, industrial, residential) Park Lido (medical office) Heritage Bank (bank office, medical office) Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 (residential) Fun Zone (commercial) Marriott Expansion St.. Andrews Church 10 07 7 5. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Of the two intersections exceeding the one percent criteria, one exceeds the 90 percent intersection capacity utilization as shown in Table 7. The Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection operates at a 1.'12'79 ICU for existing 1.983 conditions. Once the committed projects and growth traffic are added to the intersection volumesy the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection is projected to operate at 1. 3104 ICU. With or without this project, this intersection will be in need• of modification that will increase its capacity. Even though this project does not cause this intersection to exceed 90 percent of capacity, the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that necessary improvements be addressed to reduce the ICU to 90 percent or below because the project traffic exceeds the "one percent" intersection analysis criteria. Appendix B contains the ICU Work Sheets. 11 a� Table 7 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Intersection Ca acity Utilization Critical Existing 1988 Exist. 1988 Exist. Need for Intersections + Committed + Committed Improvement + Growth + Growth + Project Superior and Placentia . 7591 . 7942 . 8063 No Superior and Coast Highway 1. 1279 1. 3104 1. 3191 Yes 12 �r 6. PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS The Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection be reduced to an ICU of 90 percent or less because the project traffic exceeds the "one percent" intersection analysis criteria. The Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection is presently planned to be reconstructed by the City of Newport Beach. The planned Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection improvements per the current City Plans are shown in Table S. With the reconstruction of the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection per the current City plans-, this intersection is projected to operate .at, 1.0453 ICU with the Hughes Aircraft Facility Expansion project and other committed and growth traffic. To reduce the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection to 90 percent of capacity, several intersection modifications have been analyzed and are shown in Table 9. Appendix C contains the ICU Work Sheets for the alternative improvements analyzed. As required by the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU values shown in Table 9 are based on the use of 70 percent of the improvement capacity by the project. Based on use of the available capacity (100 percent of the improvement capacity), the presently planned reconstruction of the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection by the City, and a modification of critical intersection phasing , the intersection will operate at 0,8906 ICU for future conditions with other committed and growth traffic volumes and the Hughes Aircraft expansion. As shown in Table 9, to reduce the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection to below 90 percent of capacity, an additional fourth westbound through lane and a modification of critical intersection phasing at the intersection is required. To modify the critical intersection movement phasing, a southbound right turn signal indication will be needed to provide the southbound right turn from Superior Avenue to occur during the eastbound left turning movement. The intersection is impacted by this project and it is also impacted by other development projects and regional traffic. The responsibility for the improvements recommended should be apportioned in an equitable manner. Hughes Aircraft provides a car pool matching service for its employees. Employee participation in a car-pooling program will reduce the traffic impacts described in this report, thus further reducing the impact on the seven intersections analyzed. 13 30 i Table 8 PLANNED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Add a third westbound through lane Coast Highway to Coast Highway; restripe 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. 14 3/ Table 9 ALTERNATIVE SUPERIOR AVENUE AND COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 1988 Exist. 1988 Exist. + Committed + Committed + Growth t Growth + Project 1. Existing Intersection Geometrics 1. 3104 1. 3191 2. Reconstruct Intersection per 1.0399 1.0453 current City Plans 3. Reconstruct Intersection per .9708 . 9759 current City Plans and modify critical phasing 4. Reconstruct Intersection per .9464 .9515 current City Plans and ,modify critical phasing and modify northbound turning designations 5. Reconstruct Intersection per .9424 .9478 current City Plans and construct a fourth westbound through lane to Coast Highway 6. Reconstruct Intersection per .8733 .8784 current City Plans and construct a fourth westbound through lane to Coast Highway and modify critical phasing 15 0 7. OTHER TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS In discussions, with City of -Newport Beach staff, it was requested that signal warrants also be addressed. 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 assumed 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 hour and daily, traffic volumes. The daily warrant volume used in this analysis are based upon CalTrans criteria of ion from 1QegO oth direct ons vehicles combinedr on the pmajor street, and day aproaching the inteW vehicles per day approaching the intersection on the highest volume leg on the minor street. The project addition of 431 employees generates 1, 293 daily trips. When the existing daily traffic from 1, 307 employees is added to the project traffic, the total daily trips equals 5,214 trips. On a daily basis this means 2,607 trips enter the •site and 2,607 trips exit the site. Assuming that the central access point will generate 50 percent of the project traffic, approximately 1, 304 inbound and 1, 304 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 volume on the major street required to warrant a signal is 14, 400 vehicles per day as discussed above. The existing daily volume on Superior clearly exceeds the warrant. Assuming the central access will handle 50 percent of the daily project traffic, the warrant volume for interruption on continuous flow of 1, 200 vehicles per day is also exceeded. Thus a signal will be warranted. Since the project traffic daily volumes are predicated on full employment and signal warrants are not met with the existing number 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 be installed only when warranted. 16 33 8. CONCLUSIONS Of the seven intersections analyzed, two exceeded the one percent traffic volume criteria. When evaluating the two intersections which exceeded the one percent criteria, the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway rintersection under the "existing plus committed plus growth" conditions exceeds the 90 percent ICU level. Thus, with or without the project, the intersection volumes exceed 90 percent of its capacity. In accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, intersections having ICU's over 90 percent must be analyzed as to determine necessary improvements needed to reduce the ICU below 90 percent. With the presently planned intersection improvements at Superior and Coast Highway per current City plans, the intersection will exceed 90 percent with the project, committed traffic, and growth, per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. To reduce the intersection to 90 percent of capacity, a fourth westbound through lane and a modification of critical intersection turning movement traffic signal phasing is required. Since this project has not created the "over 90 percent ICU" at the critical intersection, intersection improvement responsibility should be proportional to the project's impact upon these intersections. 17 3y APPENDICES Appendix A - One percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Work Sheets Appendix C - Alternative Improvements ICU Work Sheets 3S APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS ' 3� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection. Placentia Ave./Superior Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 83 Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project j Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 957 0 140 1097 11 25* i Southbound 1425 0 64 1489 15 67* Eastbound 1496 0 35 1531 1 15 0 i westbound 1479 0 36 1515 15 7 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE: June 1983 PROJECT: 3� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection 'Coast HWy./Balboa B1 .-Superior Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Ginter]5pring 19$3)— Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volw* Volume Volume Volume ' Volume � Northbound 1495 0 29 1524 15 7 south bound 2655 0 44 2659 27 53* Eastbound 3198 '46 634 3878 39 18 Westbound 3516 51 1221 4788 48 0 I. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than Wof Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Vol.ume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (x� Peak.23� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision --DATE: June 1983 PROJECT: 3 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Orange Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19q3J Peak 211 Hour Approved �— Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1, of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 211 0 0 211 2 0 Southbound 132 0 0 132 1 0 Eastbound 2802 40 568 3410 I 34 18 i Westbound 4723 62 1329 6114 61 39 ® 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE: June 1983 PROJECT: FORM I • 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Prospect Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Peak 2k hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume ValW" Votum Volume Volume Volume Northbound 113 0 0 113 1 0 Southbdund 215 0 0 215 2 0 Eastbound 2882 42 568 3492 35 18 Westbound 5159 75 1329 6563 66 39 a 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 - Revision -DATE: June 1983 yU PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Bl ./Hospital Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 83 Peak 2k Hour Approved j Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! Northbound 3519 0 104 3623 36 7 southbound 3773 0 75 3848 38 0 ' Eastbound' 1636 0 326 1962 20 14 I Westbound 995 0 69 1064 11 0 0 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision ..DATE: June 1983 PROJECT: y� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Riverside Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 _ Peek 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour I Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Voluer Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 38 0 0 38 0 01 ! Southbound 1243 0 0 1243 12 0 EE&stb000n� 4509 �' 65 468 5042 50 14 und 4834 70 304 5208 52 7 I 0 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 23j Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion — Revision DATE: June 1983 PROJECT: y'� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.-Bayshore Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 83 Peak 21s Hour Approved —�—� Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2;. Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour I Peek 2k HOUr I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 236 2 238 2 I 0 southbound 2655 79 2734 27 0 Eastbound 4025 34 820 4879 I 49 14 Westbound 6191 52 1270 .7513 75 7 a 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision --DATE: June 1983 PROJECT: y3 FORM I APPENDIX 8 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS L -7 INTERSEC19 CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI• Intersection Placentia Ave./Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 83) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Cap. Lanes tap. PK. RatV/Cio Vol WTHone PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Vol.i. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 30 NT 3200 331 .1281* 31 . 1513* 1 , 1516* NR 49 43 SL 1600 5 .0031 5 .0063 5 .0094 ST 1600 271 .1694* 19 . 18l3* 19 , 1931* SR 1600 350 .2188 13 :2269 .2269 EL 1600 288 .1800 . 1800* , 18o0* ET 3200 305 .0953 7 .0975 .0975 ER 1600 18 .0112 3 .0131 .0131 WL 1600 60 .0375 30 .0563 .0563 WT . 3200 581 .1816* 1816* 1816* WR 1600 6 .0038 0 .0038 0 .0038 YELLOWTIME .1000* . 1000*• i i . 1000* t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7591 j M EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .7942 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I..C.U. 8063 ® 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 improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE: June 1983 „PROJECT FORM II y INTERSEd*N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS. Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 3 ) Lanes Ca EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COWITTEO PROJECTED Ibrement EXISTING PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lines Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume 1 V/C Ratio Vol ume NL 2400 357 .1488* .1488* . 1488* NT 2400_ 236 .0983 4 .1000 0 . 1000 NR 1600 55 1 .0344 .0344 .0344 SL 141 _ ST 3200 398 .1703 8 .1728 5 .1744 SR 1600 '675 ,4219* .'4219+t 14 .4306* EL 3200 221 .0691 .0691 1 oW ET 3200 707 .2209 10 32 ..3259 .3259 ER 1600 443 -2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 o663 o663 WT • 3200 1463 .4572* 21 563 .6397* .6397* . WR 1600 1 62 .03881 1 ,0388 0388 YELLOWTINE ,1000* . 1000* 1 .1000. t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .1279 EXISTING PLUS COIMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 3104 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 11,3191 ❑ 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 improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Hucl Exnancinn — Reyi'cinn DATE: June 1983 4/G PROJECT FORM II APPENDIX C ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS ICU WORK SHEETS y7 INTERSEC& CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY0 Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd.-Superior AVe. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily '.{traffic Winter/Spring 1GB3 ) llovaarnt EXISTING Lanes G EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED ane Ca PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lp. Vol. Ratio Volune Volune w/o Pro e t Vol me V/C Ratio Volume(lIr} (1 NL 2400 357 .1488* 1488* 1488* NT 2400 236 .0983 4 . 1000 0 .1000 NR 1600 55 .0344 1 .0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 .1313 .1313 ST 3200 398 1 .1703 8 .1269 5 . 1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482* 14 .2533* EL 3200, 221 .0691 .p691* 1 .06941. ET 3200 707 .2209 1,0 , 326 .3259 .3259 ER 1600 443 .2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 o663' .0633 WT • 3200 4800 1463 .4572* 21 563 .4738* .4738.E WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 1 .0388 YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000*• . 1000,` 1 1 � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .1279 I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 1 .0399 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1 .0453 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than ,or equal to 0.90 0 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement 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 Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - 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 June 1984 PROJECT FORM II + INTERSECO CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY16 Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. _ ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 193 ) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Ibrenent PK.NLanes Cap. Lanes Cap. RatV/Cio GROWTHVOILM PROJECT w/o Pro eCf�t Volume V/C R@tio Vol.Yol. Retio Volume Volume Volm t'll/ (1 J NL 2400 357 .1488* 1488* . 1488* NT 2400 236 .0983 4 .1000 0 . 1000 NR 1600 1 55 .0344 1 .0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 . 1313 . 1313 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 . 1269 5 . 1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482* 14 .2533* EL 1 3200 221 1 .0691 1 .0691 1 o694 ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 .3259 ER 1600 443 .2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 o663 .0633 WT • 3200 4800 1463 .4572* 21 563 .4738* .4738* WR 1600 62 • .0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOWTIME 1000* . 1000*• . 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .1279 1 l _ I � 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 970 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .9759 ❑ 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 improvement 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 Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Modify Critical Turn Phasing (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: June 1983 PROJECT FORM II INTERSECO CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY0 Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd'.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily 'traffic Winter/Spring 19�3 ) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COfMITTED PROJECTED Horenent �n PK.HR. V/C GROWTH � PROJECT Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap.P P w o Pro ct Vol me Ratio Vol me Yolume / j Yo ume Y/ Ratio Yolime jj j i 1 ) ( I NL 4800 357 .1488* NT 236 .0983 4 � • 1244& 0 1.12h4 NR 1.600 55 .0344 .0344 .0344 $L 1600 147 .1313 . 1313 ST 3200 398 .1703 18 . 1269 5 . 1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482* 14 .2533* EL 3200 221 .0691 .0691 1 .0694 ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 .3259 ER 1600 . 443 .2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 o663 .0633 WT - 3200 4800 1463 .4572* 21 563 .4738* .4738* WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 1 .0388 YELLOWTIME .1000* .1000*. .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .1279 1 EXISTING PLUS 60MMITTEb PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IN,PROYEMENTS I.C.U.' 9464, EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 9515 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.50 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement 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 Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Modify Critical Turn Phasing -Modify Northbound Lane Designations (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. Hughes Aircraft Expansion % DATE• June 1983 5_0PROJECT FORM 1I INTERSEC•N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY• Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily 'traffic Winter/Spring 1933 ) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Lanes Ca PROPOSEDV/C GROWTHV/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PK.NR. Ratio Volme PROJECT w/o Project) Vol me `/j Ratio Vol. Ratio Yolume Yolune Volme NL 2400 357 .1488* . 1488* . 1488* NT 2400 236 .0983 4 . 1000 0 . 1000 NR 1600 55 .0344 .0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 . 1313 . 1313 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 . 1269 5 . 1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482* 14 .2533* EL 3200 221 .0691 o6gl* 1 .0694* ET 3200 707 •2209 10 326 1 .3259 1 •3259 ER 1600 443 .2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 o663 .0633 WT • •3200 6400 1463 .4572* 21 563 •3763* -3763* WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOWTIME . 1000* .1000*- 1 . 1000* EXISTING INTERiiCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .1279 j EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.f 7= i EXISTING PLUS C"ITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 9478 ❑ 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 improvement 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 Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Construct Fourth westbound through lane (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: June 1983 S/ PROJECT FORM II w r, INTERSEffN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. u ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1933 ) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL LOtS11TTEO PROJECIED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement PX.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volme Volume Wo P�Ifs` Volme M Ratio NL 2400 357 .1488* 14881\* . 1488-* NT 2400 236 .0983 4 .1000 0 . 1000 NR 1600 55 .0344 .0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 . 1313 . 1313 ST 3200 398 . 1703 8 1269 5 . 1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482* 14 .2533^ EL 3200 221 .0691 .0691 1 .0694 ET f 3200 707 .2209 10 1326 .3259 .3259 ER 1600 443 .2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 .0663 .0633 WT . 3200 6400 1463 .4572* 21 563 .3763- .3763` WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOWTIME 1000* . 1000*. . 1000'-, EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION . 1279 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .8733 EXISTING PLUS COM4ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 8784 ❑ 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 improvement 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 Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Construct Fourth westbound through lane Modify Critical, Turn Phasing (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. 5� HuQhes Aircraft Exaansion DATE: June.. 1983 PROJECT FORM II ' INTERSEC#N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL Intersection Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd.-Superlor_Ave. ___ ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1B3 ) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Novnoent Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project) Volume (iC Ratio Vol: Ratio Volumeme Volume Volu NL 2400 357 .1488* . 1488* 1488* NT 2400 236 .0983 4 . 1000 0 . 1000 NR 1600 55 .0344 •0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 •0919 .0919 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 . 1269 5 . 1284' SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2109* 14 .2153* EL 3200 221 .0691 o691* 1 o694* ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 1 •3259 ER 1600 443 .2769 •2769 •2769 WL 1600 106 • .0663 o663 o633 WT • •3200 4800 1463 .4572* 21 563 .4265* .4265* WR 1600 62 •0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOWTIME • 1000* . 1000*- 1 . 1000* 1 , � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION • 1279 1 1 1 - 1 i I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIOMAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .8862 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIDNAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' .8906 ❑ • 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 improvement 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 l@ne to Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Modify Critical Turn Phasing (1) Based on available roadway capacity (100% of improvement capacity) . Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: June 1983 - 3PROJECT FORM II r - qrl � ,z GINAL AGREEMENT NENp��t eii Cal, CAL1F i THIS AGREEMENT, made this .21 day of Ttivi5 1983 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City (hereinafter "City") , and HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Delaware and having its principal place of business at 200 No. Sepulveda Blvd. , E1 Segundo, California 90245 , (hereinafter "Company") is made with reference to the following facts, the materiality and existence of which is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto: A. On or about May 1, 1981, Company applied to the City for approval to construct a structure of approximately 110,000 sq. ft. , to be built on the site of an existing facility, with the new structure to house office and laboratory facilities (hereinafter project) ; B. Thereafter , the City determined that, prior to the issuance of permits, certain approvals were required including : 1. The approval of a Use Permit to allow the structure to exceed the basic height limits; 2. The approval of a traffic study conducted pursuant to the traffic phasing ordinance of the City of Newport Beach; and 3 . The approval and certification of an environ- mental document; C. On or about July 9 , 1981, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach approved the Use Permit, Traffic Study and Environmental documentation, subject to certain condi- tions which are more fully discussed below: D. On or about August 24, 1981, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach reviewed, and approved, the action of the Planning Commission in authorizing construction of the pro- ject subject to conditions of approval; E. The conditions of approval of the project which are relevant to this Agreement relate to certain traffic system im- provements necessary to mitigate the adverse impact of the in- crease in traffic that could be generated by employees of Company that could occupy or use the new facilities. The conditions of approval that relate to traffic system improvements require Company to pay "its fair share" as determined by City to fund necessary traffic system improvements. These improvements must be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed structure, al- though Company can occupy the project prior to completion if a traffic management plan is implemented. The traffic system improvements which are conditions of approval are the following: 1. Pacific Coast Highway & Superior ; 2 2. Pacific Coast Highway & Prospect; 3. Pacific Coast Highway & Orange; F. The parties, by this Agreement, wish to establish the sum of money which will satisfy the "fair share" contribu- tions required by conditions of approval to the project and pro- vide for prompt payment of this sum. The desire of the parties stems from a recognition that each will benefit by fixing the sum at this time and by prompt payment. The benefits accruing to both Company and City stem from the ability of City, if an im- mediate contribution is made by Company, to utilize County funds (appoximately $400 ,000) to defer expenses incurred in making the intersection improvements thus, reducing the costs to both Com- pany and City costs. The Company also benefits insofar as the costs and expenses that may be incurred in the construction of the required intersection improvements are likely to increase in the future. G. The parties recognize the certain inequities may result from efforts to fix the contribution of Company prior to the actual construction of the improvements , but each believes that the benefits described above far outweigh the possibility that the contribution established by this Agreement will not accurately reflect the "fair share" of Company. 3 i NOW; THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Costs of Improvements 1. The parties agree that the City' s share of the current estimated costs of constructing the intersection improve- ments required of Company is the sum of $1. 7 million dollars,. This sum has the following components: a) Superior/Pacific Coast Highway $1,400 ,000. b) Orange/Pacific Coast Highway $150 ,000. c) Prospect/Pacific Coast Highway $150 ,000 . The parties acknowledge that the estimated costs for intersection improvements include expenditures for right-of-way acquisition, actual construction, and all other costs and ex- penses normally incurred in the construction of intersection improvements. The parties also recognize that certain right-of- way and construction costs associated with the improvement of the Superior/Pacific Coast Highway intersection may be reduced by virtue of the deducation of right-of-way, however , the estimated costs of construction may in fact increase if right-of-way is not dedicated and labor and material costs increase. 2. Calculation of Fair Share Contribution/Payment in Full The parties agree that a precise determination of the "fair share" contribution by Company is impossible because 4 the extent to which other property owners may be required to contribute to these intersection improvements is unknown at this time and the precise costs to be incurred by City will fluctuate according to the cost of the right-of-way, the cost of construc- tion materials, and the cost of labor necessary to build the improvements. In view of the difficulty in ascertaining the precise amount which would constitute the "fair share" contribu- tion, the parties have agreed that the sum of $300 ,000 con- _ stitutes an amount which, given current information, constitutes Company's fair share. This sum has been derived from information relating to construction costs , contributions from other deve- lopers, and the potential for increased traffic created by the project. City, in consideration of the payment of the sum referenced above, will require no further contributions from Company with respect to the project described above, this not- withstanding the fact that the actual costs of those improvements may exceed the estimates contained in this Agreement or that the City may not receive contributions from other developers whose projects will have an impact on the intersections described in this Agreement. 5 t 71 3. Complilance With Other Conditions The parties agree that, Company will. remain obligated to comply with the conditions of approval of the traf- fic study and Use Permit No. 1994 which restrict occupancy of the structure until the traffic intersection improvements described in this Agreement are complete, or until a traffic management plan is successfully implemented by Company. Company may, however , apply for an amendment to Use . Permit No. 1994 to allow occupancy prior to completion of the intersection improvements at Pacific Coast Highway/Orange and Pacific Coast Highway/Prospect, in the event that Company can demonstrate that, due to low staffing levels or other factors, the traffic impact of the project was less than anticipated. City does not, by this agreement, commit itself to approve any amendment proposed by Company. 5. Current Project The parties agree that the duties and obligations imposed by this Agreement relate only to the project described in this Agreement and in no way restrict or impair the ability of the City to condition any future project which requires the ap- proval of the City of Newport Beach. 6 I 6 . Assignment This Agreement shall be binding upon the assigns and successors-in-interest of City and Company. 7 . Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto and may be amended only by writing executed by the party to be charged. Any promise, statement or representa- tion made by the parties, or any representative, agent, employer or officer thereof, not contained in this Agreement shall be of no force and effect. 7 I Executed the day and year first above written. COMPANY: HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY Solid State Products Division By: W. S. Walker Division Manager CITY: THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By: Zvel',, Ha� Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: o ert H. Burnham City Attorney -8- i initial study i 1 Expansion of 1 Hughes Aircraft Facilities City- of Newport Beach 1 1 THE - COO 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 215, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660, (714) 640-4911 INITIAL STUDY FOR EXPANSION OF HUGHES AIRCRAFT FACILITIES Initial Study Prepared By ' THE PLANNING CENTER 240 Newport Center Drive Suite 215 ,Newport Beach, California 92660 Project Sponsor ' 'Hughes Aircraft Company 500 Superior Avenue •Newport'Beach, California 92663 ' Project Planner RMA Architectural Group, Inc. 1895 Newport Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92627 Lead Agency ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Telephone: (714) 640-2197 Contact Person: Fred-Talarico LL1 L` TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C. Project Description . 1 D. Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 ' II . DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITLONS , THE ENVIRONMEN AL IMPACTS OF N, N G N URES L ELS A. Land Use and Zoning . $ B . Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D . Air Quality. . . 1g E . Public Services and Utilities : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 F. Aesthetics . 30 G . Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 III . ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 IV. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .40 ' APPENDIX _t LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 1 L. 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 - . � x� I . PROJECT DESCRIPTION tA. 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 . B . 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 . Si:211•�ia�'1.i'6I � ' �sr�"� '�",•P�, Jq tgao � ,oM ��'•`��++�ia_'r��I�7Q1Y_�1 �wZ�ii �,:��i'd�a IRINONM ♦��cf�'. N('1■p��(;ll��'-n��'{T7�� .TT�,�!�Y.��T�;(S��.[�t'.�'��s��y��"5^�' a 4ry�ya, 1 IIT�,C[ +,� 1!7'�j ♦ • 1`A��.11�]lf�l�• ,�+�w•ii �� e'1�1.i\ .yr„d+ � El � �♦ 11�'C,f� /�wrs/.�L � u�,Tl "�V.. y ro.'! 7MOZOMWI Elm fA ::..�..� �•IiNa��i!��ir��'�i1(rllFl � . € j ,-r,fr'noft % vrrr. .��, � �`` 14 POP 11120 Inl1� L�dlj �'yJ/y.L m-mw" o (Jf .'ll�li►\�f—�l: ,I ::.` .,..�.�. .mil! �.�:Uk\� 0.. n Y i llW _ " • •a y� . �- yr, 1�,.f�.A��,��.• , �'' �� •' �R lal�� •,.r >r If -Willi Sch ( . SST •Br, ally. •AYOG .S v ' Oe ru i or ~q„ :: (`._ _ •i -. t r 'a4;+ :yr R :Taller. � `�� 11 k off.. >, �♦ ./ II h o : '21 p 1 '3c4t•: `c Sehtry.r"� i - .: 'r I Park 1 * . - - %•• ♦•n — � r�: i ill°tar• �I ,•• - ire ~ + � A P. _iP Jul n.:��IJ�•ni ■s6:.+.11 110 Tar M�i railer ,L \ Perk r •. \` f 1-7 !,c\' ,i anks'•, '1 IAII r ` H ,,� ,rPark — �Kf� i %� '�J •\�•�_9��ILlJ1.� •,. •<�, � ••+ t!t i9�, •r Nlll� ell M i . `I ,\`\tv III � •1—e��0 r' ah Is J •� � / ' 7 `� y\�` Ne b ♦ e Mfm°fml-/Lba t /i� 0 1. hch _ _ Myt..:_7.�'• n I�I((ty ©© _`� ,_ L ~,1 �ss�. lrt�. ,i•��✓_ "�P�7�•�1\ C-aao W. ' - �`�•, — .1 = g .r r+r,�; "ems �•. �� r •� I' v ` Harbor 11 ,o,r,�-�•�f :4 •.33 ro Light Parking Area' t,as Arenas 'N c Collins "Par -�' T Ughl NEWPORT BEACH / '— ! S- �., �.°o�p sa.;. a N' r_ ��-' alboa FIG. 2 LOCATION MAP low Igo I,ow Ilm* low IV* low two too low low Im .I110 IM low Ila Ime I10=1 Im a i 4:P o W -,r. - ry BUILDING TABULATION BUILDING AREA V xxI VFN.xi rearaaaw .nnM 33i OW.J • c � t TOTAL arose AREA 1tD,000 228,000 33e,0oo • rswwu,�' p TOTAL NET AREA 99,000 190,000 289,000 _ 8 4 �8 � - . PARKING TABULATION 7 I 705°nBUILDING CITY REQUIREMENTS OMCE(5%OF TOTAL AREA)251F l5,930 S.F.701 CARS SWSTNIALPARKINO(2STALLS/1.000SF.) 455CARS - {> —V- -_-- (45%OF TOTAL GROSS AREA) /30,050AF. TOTAL CITY REOUIREMENTS 1,163 CARS HUGHES REQUIREMENTS x¢mvewwY n nave° 5 « - __ _iSi- .�A9�r 'EWLOYEE PARKNO 1.249 CARS .t C •.�.. (1.23eNUMSER OF PERSON/nTALL) SpL091G a (1.530/1.23:1.249 CARS) NANDICiAPPEO PARKI N(6.2%) 77 CARS _ • TOTAL HUGHES REQUIREMENTS 1,328 CARS (I — 'r• "" °°• PARKING PROVIDED '2 JIx NEW irORAN we".aw,. - PARKING STRUCTURE +�+y sr.c°r,l,a,aad,na, T. SUBTERRANEAN 123 38 0 158 GROUND LEM 130 37 0 175 --+ E 9rY�ay . ' ." 2ND LEVEL 140 39 O 178 SAD LEVEL ISO 44 0 /9/ 4TN LEM 150 44 0 194 ROOF ISO 44 0 194 SUS TOTAL 852 242 0 1,024 Wt-• ; 2 _- .'xd.4 GROUND PARKING n.11 A°r IYRia,am IOrLL PARKING307 137 13 457 �:/7• • , r _ �y .�� TOTAL 1,159 379 1a 1,551 'SJc. ZU { TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 1,551 CARS t ewr,n >an,rone •x„rwe,aa[e Ta �f A % ao.au � 5�i census .�•• A7 CF: uom sT.x°,w M-d ,5'd x,..ac..a u•sw ewf C ..w x�+` •\ _ i• Z;' -,'i.+N^Txm'�... ti+F.,T 4'-a Is.i .e. y�DANA$T a••'ua,rxa ,PAItltWO STALL DETAIL ara SITE PLAN ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY EXPANSION AND PARKING STRUCTURE 6HLH3HES AIRCRAFT COMPANY SOLID STATE- PRODUCTS DIVISION S"r MOpa BU�P�ER�gT�VE. N9LWPORT YEAt<N .A IIIIC43, ��aYY11A/aY�l FIGURE 3 MEOW aaml111110010r0ltmrrh \��R'�II WEST ELEVATION (FROM O. AVE) t wa�wl� I• No NEE wwww�� wwwwwww ww—w �ww.�..Ql> www all it�rw O„ IMI_ ' SJUNVII ELECTRONIC PF SECTION (CUT THROUGH RAMP) ASSEMBLY _ _ • PARKING DIVISIONG - - INMIN 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 freight 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 ca-r standards . 6 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. 1 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 across 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-1-A, according to Districting Map No . 25 ( Figure 6) , which provides for " limited manufacturing" 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 . 8 t� r R"' � '�J •/. q. '.gxys': . . .x:, w rY">' ,1i5.' - 'tY"9K '-S�'..• ,1 ..r w.} I}.1^ } .. . w ��y... 1 -.+ � � `^•"'♦1•rxw4�T ~ it r� •1' t? .✓ice .,;•�' -j'y ' ti��9 x•'''.'�; e` Ti..i".j�+.r121^�4r✓'ir. '� '� � .' '. .Y„'� .... W' !` I 1 .A '4� ♦4. B� r� f` .1 r i � u�,r, ';4 9j :,7•.•: ., a'f � r. f l t S y. J�.. D r tiwl„ xn ,1tp jiTlk��;➢' All if.q Y Y t . FIG. 5 EXISTING LAND USE Photo Date: 1/31/81. too In* I#w too 106 IN" too low IN" 100 low Is" •10" Ifto too II♦ too Im is I R'Z v • \ a \ \ 00cn•oF.r.<...r 5cnen a R-2 R•2 R-1 /T1 0 a � P.-1 Ilk �'. ^ PROJECT SITE -j M-1-A w r \ nDANAr A re fats eY .!•' j .. �`\�; "\• /',�.( � R'341 u' yL� C s�r`nri FI i♦�`�. D A-P-p r 1 ,i . ,'"• \ j! •Y"i.► V O r..o /:` A-P dA4 A-P-N [� FIG. 6 ZONING MAP P_c Su. MAP Ah 22.A DISTRICTING MAP - i NEW PORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA_ man., ,:: �::.+� M1 " •. I M'I.VI(°fi C.i.[[.l,Mrilih It Y�•t.n'N ' , , F—� Iu FJa.re M m�lA Xl" •R.. M I AEAKAR.TUtAL RESIDENTNSL MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL • - ._._ ____'__.A_--. �•:•:•_ r - SNELE FAMLY RESMENIML LIONT COMMgIgAI i-, R'+'cam cSrot OOPLEX RESIDENTIAL - GENERAL COM.IFRCIAL �—�•:t:••^..•••-••••••••• '_�� '. SGaa yr •ear RE51'D MULTIPLE FAIA<TRIDDRIAL RIANUFACTURIND am • en lee -- — O•RND.nNO•K. S MCD RIRNA DISTRICTS wr ff vf• MAPN0FRDNY d PET SHOWN THUS: -10- VlCLASSIFIEO . ^ C G✓ i 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-I-A District regulations require one parking space for each 225 square feet of net floor area of administrative office use , and three parking spaces 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 total 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 r 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 ' Rear* 15 ' 15 ' Side (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 exceedi.ng 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 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 . Potential Impacts A detailed traffic analysis , performed in accordance with the City' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance , is presented in the 1Correspondence with Claudette Kunzman , Kunzman Associ- ates , April 23 , 1981 . 13 1 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. 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 The 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 in num- bers 2 through 4, listed above , were found to exceed the . 90 ICU level . 14 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 . --Su erior and Pacific Coast Hi hwa : Add a third west ound ane to Paci is oast Highway; restripe Superior to include two southbound — through lanes , two right turn lanes and one left turn lane . --Oran a and Pacific Coast Highway : Add a west- bound through ane to Pacific Coast Highway. --Prospect and Pacific Coast Hi hwa : Convert — westbound right turn only an e 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 . tHowever , 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 1 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 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 project applicant . 16 1 -- 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 j 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 III 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 1 - 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 . i8 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 Newpport Beach Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 81-1 , March 19,1 , 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 g- 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 NDT with project ) : Total Concentrations (ppm)* -- I.ntersection/Roadway 50 Feet 100 Feet 20U Feet 1_ Superior at Placentia 5 .69 4 .63 2 .65 Superior ( at site) 4 .62 3 .76 2 . 16 *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 . 1 r r t _ 21 1 E . Public Services and Utilities 1 . Wastewater ' Existing Conditionsl 1 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 Engineering Aide , Co-unty 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 . ;�4 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 design of the project should provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste . 4 . Natural Gas Existing Conditions Natural 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 . r25 sufficient to handle 1 an le such an increase . 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 new ' 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 lPersonal 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 . 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 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 lHarold Strahler, op . cit . ' 2Ibid . 3Personal communication with Marshall Andrews , Engineer, ' Pacific Telephone Company, April 15 , 1981 . [7 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. 1 7 . Fire Protection ' Existin•g Conditions2 ' Fire protection service for the project site is provided by the City of Newport Beach . The closest fire station to 1 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 1Marshall 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 . 8 . 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 reqiure 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 uP0 Ice oDepartment , 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 pr _ for 'f 1• ^;y.`� `�-"•'r'.�=H �x' ` t -� a "�'f-: 1 �,STi�� Y �� -- xi' }. � 1 )S • �i t A � _ LOCATION OF NEW PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATION OF NEW BUILDING southwest edge northwest edge ft FIG. 9 Looking southeast across Superior, directly at Hughes building W. FIG. 10 Looking east toward building, from Superior-Dana intersection r llllr rmiiiii Potential Impacts The 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 plan (Figure 11) , the planting of additional trees throughout the site and construction of a five-foot high , fifteen-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 Avenue are not currently afforded an 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 above the basic height limit of 32 feet affords a building design and scale that is more consistent , hence more 33 No im 1 "00 I WA ice■ I �1111 INS low 11111P3 -Aft Im I "m if" I mm 1 m I m 6®'Sir1 - Mnrpt�n�f�_ •1.. fnu - '- BUILDING TABULATION `"'•"` .a.o . ��Tf_ u -» . _- BUILDING AREA f"'"'en"`.,rr.11 D, ve.»rwr owww mrr rmKtwm. ol� III _Ia d. a wa,r.r -• TOTAL OROSS AREA 110,000 22S.000 338,000 O , •• •. ',1y I •`•r Rw4PCK TOTAL NET AREA $9.000 120.000 2ee,000 r'.ef v 00 0 4 0 0 PARKING TABULATION • 7 t I cos n CITY REQUIREMENTS or uwn (5 OF (NET AREA)26S 15P.e00 SF.707 CARS .n 8 Q • O i D16Y OF TOTAL GROSS STALAREA I ,S, ,JO0S.P.I /Se CARS NEW PAid(IN(i STRUCTU(E(ROD�$ ( 030 TOTAL CITY REQUIREMENTS 1,163 CARS __. pQ...- _...�__ _• EXISTING RLDG. e-•y•! • y.ti aTs:z_ ryQr,,,; .e HUGHES REQUIREMENTS ll�n IY why TVOYEEPA 1,249 CAR (136ROF► STALL) eDmDae (t,6]e/12a:l,2lsCARS) _ ,g•'• KANOICAPPED PARKRN0(0.2f) 77 CARS t:_4 -_ TOTAL HUGHES REQUIREMENTS 1,326 CARS PARKING PROVIDED _ PARKING STRUCTURE NEW ADDITION arcx.ncn xa 12 STORY) r lrueKp eo 35 u„xA,nl row T•' SUBTERRANEAN ta] ]S O 1is oaouxo LEVEL lae a7 o ue a �jaOUNF� MnAW E,- u .± fs 2110 LEVEL 1/0 ]S 0 ITS. 1 ♦ aADLEVEL 150 11 0 191 ueccuc yg ITN LEVEL 160 I/ 0 191 .��^ :-7yC SUBDRIO A• mrw ��• ROOF 170 11 0 19/ NIR TOTAL 852 2/2 0 1.094 3 GROUND PARKING _ ui307 eor.er,u 13 *mK /ARKMD f01 137 1] IN TOTAL 1.159 379 /] 1.551 �, •t t'��,' nun�� a a'+L•w TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 1,551 CARS I ,III 111.11 "FtW .i. . .. . .KM .M n.�r v r _ r Ja•• 11 eumn > r m„v»p •PRIeAp[l / >a.ql ppA 9-: L+;j I' anr.or.:bri>aR I• ��Rj ,,1I I ¢;m. rnne.u.mnu4 - r�^-•n-,_- __r�/V/> ��• �.' T'"'nwwV Tsurr.Yo.a.co- vYVm-tiKN L,,mYY.>_/Aa YYY wul W,1 �'Yilwn , L_ L r rul.v F`AVt O.d Id•C Jill ap S F.•,r- •' I I u'nun_ ;` nl^ � - :i ,WPrIN1a Id_D IP.e __ au.ow.c nw,„n rm n,a' �"•„'r,,,,. ,►ARKINO BTALL DETAIL ars ^ W DANA ST er ,.v SITE PLAN ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY EXPANSION AND PARKING STRUCTURE HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION woD0 a6Lg1PpERIORnAv lY�F,EWPCRT 9HA6tt.>.CA 92683 M vW.m 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 whi-ch 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 concerns 'of conditions 19, 21 and 22 above to the maximum extent practicable . Any change( s ) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 24. Development of the site should be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments . 25 . The project should be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses . All parking lot lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Plan- ning Department . r _T 36 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 . 1D .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 A Don Webb 1 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 Stud The Planning Center Diana Hoard Brooks White Keeton Kreitzer 39 IIV . REFERENCES California 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- P sed Industrial Building, Newport Beachti Aacatiyforroo rcra t Company. South Coast Air Quality Management District . ( 1980) . Air Duality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports . 40 APPENDICES : A. Hughes Aircraft Company, Five-Year Forecast of Manpower and Space Requirements B. Full Text of Traffic Impact Analysis I' in* ism In II♦ low low ism Ism I (w Iwo low low .led lomi low 140 is* tm im FIVE YEAR FORECAST MANPOWER & SPACE REQUIREMENTS ----------------- SOLID STATE PRODUCTS DIVISION ; H U G H ES ------------------ 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 fD 7 OTHER 264 276 295 313 362 385 C. K 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 1 Li '.t�!!� ^! r/'i r,�i,•j�i'Cf`.4'� �5�. .(/f 3j„ ��r�:r.,t r�l r,••� S�- ;�� .�• '�tFf�J� ��r'��i/ft�7��`r�`�f�)! r��f' / � f{� r�,l r1(;ip ViVr r 'a r a' r'ri �, �j"�,r��•5,r:" - ,5, ti !/ ;iJ� It� r I r 1'tllt` r t r ' fir y �4?i.l u'{4 wr�,ry, '1/1 [1.;�Y1r f,,o,1� • �yfLr , �r/;�i� J rr;>'nl(j.c �i��• ;�c'ti,��•,3, 1fif—i}"..'�t'�?'',t} /'1;�t• 1'1 �`�' ��! S'. ;,rJ�;�}u,��"{�,�•�>,��r,l��,: ,�J1.;,�'r�s',. � [)i$•` .ir.�!^'.�; I'S ✓,Jr [',y/�r,r.> r7 r; :/F t•r11•.,: i • �, },f•r��,rl_%�,r f�'v�,fr^{' , ��. 1 1''.%,{�r>)i5�` tr�.�•i ��fJ %/, �1 ��rly' � � 1•�f�� j+i 7�, %��'ff1':l/�:')i{//!�" .�`/r,r�`G4J' ,.'!• ��Gr�• ',f,�lr5 �f, /1/��(.•••'�� — �Tt.l,}l`1i1 '�;�r +��yi 7'tisl•�(7"r'IY�`(' ;!'�.�!Ft•{'}��t''17.`1' S.,'j�.' Sj •l/l Ei�' ��j.�;%' 1 I/ �!`?',�!�T� r)/,,�fll��r`�;i>,•// 1�� `��l,,,jl. r',l�r rr H� ' %. lr/I�:f.n Ya. Lt}Gr'I'r .�r'�:r '�•''' r ,�4r�,")r`'GUfrJ;j, t�r}'` 4 }?l'�� jr••:P 4).• l�r. ftl✓'.`M1.�iiSr S%il7 J,1(��'/YY %Ij'•�f�fnY +�/ r� l:Lrrf%��r!l,�� t� ��j, J �N -- � ✓)},/��1r/,�1',�l.lr(•+ .L f iJ f r f ?�f •��() JJ,'A+ �'E ��,.!t ,�N�rJf' ��;�;:f�,r��rr>�i��Y•��`ur.�%r<;3�f��';'r'��'11,:3:�;,r,� ,, jif��,Fl,rt �S Hughes Aircraft Expansion Traffic Study ,y! Appendix B jyf�'r >,y f ,/ /mil j•� �} r yr F, � !'L' t�r/y?'f'01 f 1'•C { / .. ,,(�^ 7Xr r''/�+1 C•�� .t,{�ff�•. �I�> '�ilG�iSy�,ti ��,,�r•I; Aht + ',c � ,/'y'y�y+ir}iI 'iJ,/_�r�'•�f�, 'l l�4fr/• •)GfJ5J7��if//,rl'�, .��Y)�� '�'� 1 1 ,✓�}��•(j". /�W�`''r�J'��Y7r• f1T �„r,�,�'�.. �l,r_ ,�,f,• ;� 1 '� �"?I tQ . — rJr�i:f.�%f f�f!•'7��'rlrrJ' J. r�•//i�fvl��r i.)ry�tr�r''<t']�� f• r �'� �Sl'S„'?,: ! np ti , .� J f 1}. 3, , f•F 21 f• �,Ar�!f ,f�r: Jr � �� . y�Y�{)' �[f�,�j'/�1. ��j , ;.SJt/'rH'��+�Y�.(,��J:,r��''� •I•. �{nt /X4� ,., •�� •f.',}".!s rJ ! S� Jrjj• •�' �Jr,;,3?..�,�f��•s.� ,,��,�l+,t•r�i � � • ��.L;y. f�irf r /f� ii ' t� lf�CyJ j✓'/1 '' r (Cr''(, Y% ' {.t �. �(p uN u�1a �� ,�4ssociates `f{'s,''r �f Transportation Planning•Traffic Engineering }��'� �,trr•,�dr�,�t F•.�,,l+r'��..�``;J•�:J+�?;�:;,G�r,.fr,{fr j,•�)� ;�3�' �;�i��l�� — �'�!ir� Sir; i��n r✓r�`1fT lj��)?Jr�.s% f r r' i'•Il :4' y�l�Trff+''Y'J'J:.r�f'y'. T� •r�5f3�rK 1� rY., t) /f�! •�� .'✓� ' '� J v. �J � � utn �. u�� atn c�ssoc � ates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering May 19, 1981 i Ms . Diana Hoard — The Plarining Center 240 Newport Center Drive Suite 215 L 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 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. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, — K^U,N1ZMAN ASSOCIATES William Kunzman, P.E. 4664 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * (714) 559-4231 4b ITable of Contents Section Page No. 1-Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2-Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3-Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 4-Critical Intersections Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5-Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6-Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 7-Other Traffic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 - Internal Circulation r. - Signal Warrants 8-Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 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 RAI List of Figures _ L Following Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 �. 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 — 3 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment 9 4'Z List of Tables r 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 r 6 Committed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7 Intersection Capacity Utilization for Critical Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8 Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 r • r r r r r r r Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Traffic Study y , Project Description — 1 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 — I 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. _ 1 50 Figure 1 VICINITY MAP ................, . E . OWN �Clllc *Project Site � @ Fire 2 Site Plan � . @ � � . . Parking Ramp @ ` _ � } � / min p New Building , Existing BuildingXx — @ $ / Da_ a_ $ — � � @ � 1 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 afia- 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: 3.0 PM. 1 . 2 Table 1 HUGHES AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES 1981-1985 1981 N,ew 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 Shift 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 i , Totals 1,285 100 680 100 1,965 100 1 Table 2 1 CALCULATING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES (FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS) 1 Descriptor Peak 2.5 Hours Peak Hour Time Frame 3:00 to 5:30 PM 5:00 to 6:00 PM — Employees Arriving and ' Departing in Time Frame Arriving 226 0 Departing 1021 440 Total 1247 440 Traffic Volumes 1 Inbound 176 9 _ Outbound 712 205 Total 888 214 1 Traffic Generated per Total — Employees Arriving and De- parting in Time Frame Inbound 0.1411 0.0205 Outbound 0 .5710 0 .4659 Total 0 .7121 0.4864 Traffic Generated per Arriving Employee Inbound 0.6932 0 Outbound 0.0189 0 Total 0 .7121 0 — Traffic Generated per 1 Departing Employee — Inbound 0.0189 0 .6205 1 Outbound 0 .6932 0.4659 Total 0. 7121 0 .4864 1 ' 4 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 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 t HUGHES AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC COUNT May 14, 1981 IN OUT 15 Min. Time From South From North To South To North Increment North Mid South Total North Mid South Total North Mid South Total North Mid South Total Totals 3:00-3:15 0 0 3 3 3 15 4 22 1 3 2 6 1 7 9 17 48 3:15-3:30 1 1 15 17 1 23 10 34 1 10 10 21 1 21 8 30 102 3:30-3:45 0 1 11 12 2 17 15 34 2 47 22 71 29 51 23 103 220 3:45-4:00 1 0 6 7 0 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 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. ' 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment 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- eralized distribution is determined. _ The traffic distribution and assignment are based upon actual traf- fic counts made at the Hughes Aircraft facility. It was found that 66 percent of the project's traffic will go north on Superior Avenue. 1 Figure 3 displays this traffic distribution and assignment. 1 7 - 5-5 1 ' Figure 3 _ Project Traffic Distribution And Assignment 34% roe 66% yJ � Boulevard �% to Orarge ' Prospect 27% 7% ' Hospl w Road Riverside A Hi hwa Dover ace'% 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 J<a3nicm V4SSOCiateg 1 15� _ 1 4. Critical Intersections Analyzed Seven critical intersections were analyzed as identified by City 1 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: 1 Superior and Placentia ' Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Orange and Pacific Coast Highway 1 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 _ 1 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 _ 1 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 1 forecasted in accordance with City procedures, and committed pro- ject traffic includes those projects listed in Table 6 . 1 1 1 . I 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. 18 Superior and Placentia ' Northbound 8 95 Southbound 7 41 Eastbound 12 0 yes ' Westbound 8 25 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway ' Northbound 12 25 Southbound 23 32 Eastbound 33 70 yes ' 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 70 ' Westbound 53 24 yes Newport and Hospital ' Northbound 41 25 Southbound 38 0 no Eastbound 18 8 Westbound 15 0 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway ' Northbound Southbound 12 0 no Eastbound 50 8 ' Westbound 52 25 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway ' Northbound 3 0 Southbound 25 0 Eastbound 47 8 no ' Westbound 63 25 9 iL 'CI Table 6 COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT NAME Aeronutronic Ford Backbay Office Bank of Newport Bayside Square — Baywood Apartments 3701 Birch Office MacArthur Plaza — Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport — National Education Office North Ford Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza Sea Island Seaview Lutheran Plaza Cal Canadian Bank — Boyal Engineering Shokrian Office Harbor Point Rogers Gardens — Pacesetter Homes Ruddy Barns Far West Savings — Quail Business Center f 441 Newport Avenue Hoag Hospital Hughes Expansion (13,000 sq.£t.) t ' 10 — 5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis _ LOf the four intersections exceeding the one percent criteria, three exceed the 90 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. r ' r r r r r � — 11 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 — i i 1 T l 1 12 — t 6. 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. �' � 13 • 1 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. — tPropsect 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 1 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 stree. 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. t 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 1 � ' �r s i .� 1 1 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 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 2,040 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 2,948 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 1,474 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 14,400 . 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 - S. 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 ICUs" at the critical intersections, intersection improvement responsibi- lity should be proportional to a project' s impact upon these in- tersections. 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 L 1 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Superior Ave/Placentia Ave (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter spring 1980) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume • Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 732 34 766 8 95 — northbound 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 22 Hour Traffic Volume — ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: Mav 19R1 PROJECT: FORM I — 1 �2 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Balboa Ave/Superior Ave. @ Coast Hwy. (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 80) _ Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Protected IS of Protected Protect Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Vol ume Volume Volume Volume Volume northbound 1221 8 1229 12 25 i •� southbound 2271 16 2287 23 32 Eastbound 2857 1 25 410 3292 1 33 70 'escbound 3335 29 962 4326 43 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected — Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i Hughes Aircraft Exnansion DATE: May 1981 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./And Orange St. (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected project Direction j Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2i Hour Peak 2), Hour Peak 2h Hpgri Volume Growth Peak 2h,Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 250 .t0 2 252 3 0 Y - outhboune 132 0 1 133 1 0 _ stbound 2605 23 410 3030 3,0 70 1 stbound I 4304 1 37 962 5303 53 24 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z 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. xJ .t 1 Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May PROJECT: — 74 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Propect Street (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/Spring 198o) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2b Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hourl 1 Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume. Volume Volume l Volume Volume Northbound 1 thbound j 275 0 2 277 3 0 I , astbound 2270 19 410 2699 27 70 stbound 4266 1 37 962 5265 53 24 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic 'Volume D 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 1. t Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981 ,' PROJECT: FORM 7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital. Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1980) Approach , Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 2% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y flour Peak 2y Nouri 1 Volume Growth Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volme Votuwe Volume (Northbound 4055 30 4115 41 25- uthbound 3719 34 3753 38 0 I astbound 1645 140 1785 18 8 stbound144A 40 1488 1 r, 0 —� i 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 lash PROJECT: 74 .� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Avp 1 (Existing Traffic Vo umes- based on Average Winter/Spring 1980) =, Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21s Hour, Volume Growth Ptak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume (Northbound thbound 1106 76 1182 12 0 i . Eastbound 9901 38 512 4951 50 8 stbound 4082 1 36 1094 5212 52 25 Q 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 23� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981 ` PROJECT: � t 1 • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection _ r (Existing Traffic Volmes u based on Average Winter/Spring 1980) Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project 1 Direction I Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour' Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume volume Volume (Northbound 277 4 281 3 0 uthbound 2487 44 2531 25 1 0 astbound 4172 36 442 4650 47 8 I stbound 5251 46 1008 6305 63 25 I — ® 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization i (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981 PROJECT: FORM T ' APPENDIX B ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS InterSeCtiOn Su erior Ave and Placentia (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage Tnter prIng 960 ' Xovexnt EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST I REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK MR V/C GRWM PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. _ NL 15 NT 3200 216 613 17 .1666* ' 1 .1669* NR 285 SL 1600 29 181* .0181* 5 .0213* ' ST 1600 277 P731 1 .1763 20 .1856 SR 1600 33 P206 1 5 .0206 .0206 _ EL 1600 - 40 0250 .0250 .0250 ET 3200 1 556 175311 .1763* .1763* _ ER 5 3 WL 1600 161 006* .1006* .1006* WT 3200 226 0744 .0744 .0822 WR 12 25 YELLOLTIXE 1000 .1000* .1000* — •' EXISTING INTE4SECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 5553 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH I.C.0 .56,16 1 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GRONEH 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 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 1981 ' PROJECT: FORM II Ll/ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Su erior and Pacific Coast Hi hway (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage Winter/Spring 980 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 Protect Vol. NL 1 308 NT 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 8 .0681* 1 .0684* 1 ET 3200 660 R063 4 205 .2716 .2716 ER 1600 270 688 .1688 .168E WL 1600 69 431 .0431 .0431 WT 3200 1301 066 7 481 .5591* .5591* WR 1600 83 519 .0519 .0519 000* .1000* .1000* YELLOVTIME EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 3102 EXISTING PLUS COMWTTEO 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: 1 1 H-ughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: ray 1981 PROJECT: FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection coast H and Oran a Street (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pr ng T9 8 Movement EXISTING PRDPOSEO EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Yol. Rat10 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 B1 _ 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 d1845766* 19 481 .7328* 15 .7375* WR 1600 244 1 .0250 .0250 YELLOCIME 000* .1000* .1000*EXISTING INTERSECIION CAPACIlY UTILI; 654_ EXISTING PLUS COMITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH I.c.0 - 9223 - ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .9270 ' 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 1981 PROJECT: FORM II _ $Z INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Coast Highway and Prospect Street (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter pring 9-8 Movexnt EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project — Vol. ' NL NT NR SL 103 ' ST 1600 694 .0694* .0694* SR 8 EL 20 D125A .0125* .0125* ET 1600 934 1946 1 10 205 .2393 1 .2396 ' ER 4800 WL ' WT 3200 1769 5781A 19 481 .7343* 15 .7391* WR 81 YELLaTINE 000* .1000* .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7600 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH I.C.U. 1 EXISTING PLUS COMRTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.G.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 1 1 APPENDIX C PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENT ICU WORK SHEETS r � INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS rIntersection Superior and Pacific Coast Highway _ (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 80 r Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL. COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT � Lanes Cap Lines Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o ProJeot Vol. (1) rNL 308 r NT f 4800 173 002* 4 .1010* 1 .1013* NR NS 69 SL 1600 133 .1188* .1188* rST f 3200 .300 353* 8 .0969 5 .0978 SR NS 3200 545 .2433 15 .2500 rEL 3200 681* .0681* 1 .0684* ET 3200 660 P063 4 205 .2716 .2716 rER 1600 270 1688 .1688 .1688 WL 1600 69 431 .0431 .0431 r WT 3200 4800 1301 066* 7 481 .4147* .4141* WR 1600 83 D519 .0519 .0519 ' r YELLDMTIME 000* .1000* 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 102 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 rEXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .8026 r Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 rr7 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r Description of system improvement: Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans r 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. r (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. rHughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981 67 PROJECT: FORM II s 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway and Orange (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average inter pring 980) ' Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cep Lanes Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Voluaae Y/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. W/o Project Vol. (1) NL 1600 39 244* .0244* .0244* ' NT. l600 10 0319 .0325 .0325 NR 1 41 SL IT 26 1 ST 1600 12 431* .0438* .0438* SR 31 — EL 1600 34 213* .0213* .0213* ET 14800 1068 277 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 0 39 244 1 YELLOWTIME 000* •1000* .1000* ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 654 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PRDPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U7416 —' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 7451 ' Projected plus project traffic T.C.U. hill 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: Add a westbound through lane (1) Permitted to use only 70 percent of improvement capacity Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: May 1981 PROJECT: FORM II — INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection Prospect and Pacific Coast Hi hcaay (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage inter Spring 9 80 ' Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED ,PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK HA V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. W/o Project Vol. (1 1 NL NT NR SL 103 ST 0694 .0694* .0694* SR 8 ' EL 1600 20 0125 .0125* .0125* _ ET 4800 934 11946 -1 10 205 .2393 1 .2396 1 ER WL ' WT T3200 4800 1769 781 19 481 .5440* 15 .5475* WR 81 YELLOWTIME , 1000 .1000* 1000* ' EXISTING !NTE4':ECTIDN CAPACITY UTILIZATION 76 0 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 ' El Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 7, 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: 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 � l jCiC '(Wu ►npan v4noclates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering May 19, 19 81 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 _ ' o a vantages or 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 - Ib. Ride Sharing and Van Pools (programs of government and emp Oyer-create opportunities for ride sharing) _ ' 1. Park and ride lots 48S4 Barranca Parkway s Irvine, CA S2714 * [714) 555-4231 _ 2. Preferential pool parking 3. Limited parking supply and/or stricter parking regulations I 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 1 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. - IBus 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 l4. 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. - 1 yv ICarpool Program I 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 t8. 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. i 1 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 1 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 _ 1 $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 1 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 1 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. _ 1 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. ' 1 1 yL 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 ,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 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 I 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. 1 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. 1 ��s I Table A — TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT COSTS (ANNUAL) — 1 Descriptor Bus Pass Car Pooling - Van Pooling _ Program Program Program Proportion of Employees 3 to 6% 8 to 16% 10 to 20% Expected to Participate — rNumber of 1785 Employees .54 to 107 143 to 286 179 to 357 Expected to Participate _ ' Total Peak Hour Trips by 1,017 1,017 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 $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 $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% I 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), RICH' MCDONALD I PRIME BROPERTY REVEL. CO.: RALPH GRAY ROBERT MARSHALL 802 501 SUPERIOR AVE. 407 EVENING STAR LN. 11661 SAN VICENTE BLVD. STEM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 LOS ANGELES,, CA 424-131-06, 07, 16 425-251-13, 14, 15 A25-261-16 AARON SAGE JOHN R. GAUDLITZ - -- - LIGHTNER,OUGENE W %NEWPORT FEDERAL 4201 DANA RD. 2201 S. WI.LLSADE ST., 3355 VIA LIDO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WICHITA, KS 67211 NEWPORT BEACH CA 425-251-16 425-261-17, 18 424-131-17 - -- - - - ---- --1 RAYMOND P, TOTAM ERROL F. DAVIDSON AMERICAN-CAL MED, SERVICES 24966 GRISSON RD. i 4211 DANA DR. 1051 E. OGDEN AVE. LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MILWAUKEEf WI 53202 424-131-18 425-251-17 425-261-19 ROLAND N, PETERSON SUZANNE MC BRIEN SIDNEY L. SOFFER 129 E. BAY AVE. 1812 ANTIGUA CIR. 107 21ST ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92261 ; NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 424-161--03 425-251-18 425-271-02 -------------------------- --- GEORGE H, WILSON TR HENRY M. HO ROGER SCHWENK 1504 BEECH ST. l814 1/2 SPEYER LN, 238 TUSTIN AVE. SO, PASADENA, CA 91030 REDONDO BEACH, CA 90278 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 424-161-05 425-251-19 425-271-03 IRVINE NATIONAL BANK KAREN ALONSO ROBERT E, JOHNSON 2171 CAMPUS DR. 4243 DANA RD. 475 N, NEWPORT BLVD. NB RVINE1 CA 92715 NEWPORT,,BEACH.. CA 92663 425-271-04 DEVELOPMENT ROTHERY RON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLD NEWPORT ENTERPRISES %LTD DOMINION CAPITAL 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. %HORBOR COMPANY 2081 BUS. CNTR DR. P 0 BOX 1768 340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA NEWPORT BEACH, CA NEWPOPX BEACH, CA 424-161-10 425-252-01 425-271-05 -- -_ -_- -- -- _-- --- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA BERNARD W. WHITING 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. %DEPT OF GEN, SERV, 2538 PEARTREE LN. P 0 BOX 1768 REAL ESTATE DIV, SPARKS, NV 89431 NEWPORT BEACH] CA 425-252-02 425-271-06 425-171-01 JAMES D. DODGE PHILIP R. HECKENDORN ET AL DERHER JENG 325 -G N. MELROSE DR. 2304 HUNTINGTON DR, STE208 % SHU L. CHAU VISTA, CA 92083 SAN MARINOo CA 455 N. NEWPORT BLVD. 425-251-11 425-261-13 NEWPORT 07 BEACH.. CA KUO-CHEN HU TYKYE G. CAMARAS ALBERT M, IRWIN 25902 SERUNATA DR. 932 SANDCASTLE DR, 1802 W, OCEANFRONT MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 CRONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425-251-12 425-261-14j. 15 425-271-08 OWEN E. MINNEY PEYTON P. CALLAWAY JOOHNJOSEPH DRAUS 447 N. NEWPORT BLVD. 467 BOLERO WAY 6502 W. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 425-271-09 425-373-15 425-373-44 JACOB MENDEL EDWARD F. SOWERS LLOYD J. HARGREAVES P 0 BOX 554 465 BOLERO WAY 454 ORION WAY COSTA MESA, CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACH,. CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425-271-10, 11 425-373-16 425-373-45 NAT.-BENVENUTI JNT. VENTUR; HENRY L. STORTI CHARLES D. DE LANEY 610 NEWPORT CENTER DR. 483 463 BOLERO WAY %BANK OF NEWPORT TR DIV NEWPORT BEACH, CA NEWPORT BEACH, CA P 0 BOX 1070 425-271-12 425-373-17 NEWPORT BEACH„ CA 425-373-46 DONALD FIDUCCIA FORREST C. BALDWIN AUDREY MOSS 14971 RANCHO CIR. 461 BOLERO WAY 1125 N. KINGS RD*301 IRVINE, CA 91714 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOS ANGELES.. CA 9o069 425-373-08 425Y-373-18 425-373-47 HELEN J. NIX DAVID L. SILIN FRED L. HARTLEY 452 BOLERO WAY 457 BOLERO WAY %UNION OIL CO. OF CAL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT REACH, CA 92663 P 0 BOX 7600 425-373-09 425-373-19 LOS ANGELES.. CA 425-373-48 MARY M. DYER j ANTHONY DE SOUSA JOAN M. REYNOLDS 454 BOLERTO WAY 1155 BOLERO WAY 462 ORION WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, AA 92663 425-373-10 425-373-21 425-373-49 PATRICIA A. STOMLE DELIA E. MAURICE DENVER N. TREADSAY 4 BALBOA COVES ' 453 BOLERO WAY 4301 DANA RD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 425-373-11 425-373-21 425-373-50 CURTIS L. NELSON WANDA I . SCHWANEKE DONALD E. PUGH 351 HOSPITAL RD. STE 414 451 BOLERO WAY 4305 DANA RD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA NEWPORT BEACH, CA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 425-373-12 425-373-22 425-373-51 YANDEL E. SNELL EDWARD CARLICK CECLIA R. CLOCK 464 BOLERO WAY 30 SUNSET DR. 4307 DANA RD. NEWPORT BEACH., CA KENDINGTON, CA 94707 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425-373-13 425-373-42 425-373-52 - -- - - ----- - --- ------- - ---- -- ---- ------------•--- - ------------ -- ---------------- -------- THOMAS STRAZA EDWARD W. LUTZE 468 BOLERO WAY 4304 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425-373-14 425-373-49 OWEN E. MINNEY PEYTON P. CALLAWAY JOHN JOSEPH DRAUS 447 N. NEWPORT BLVD. 467 BOLERO WAY 6502 W. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 425-271-09 425-373-10 425-373-44 JACOB MENDEL EDWARD F. SOWERS LLOYD J. HARGREAVES P 0 BOX 054 465 BOLERO WAY 454 ORION WAY COSTA MESAr CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 425-271-10, 11 425-373-16 425-373-45 NAT.-BENVENUTI JNT, VENTUR HENRY L. STORTI CHARLES D. DE LANEY 610 NEWPORT CENTER DR. 483; 463 BOLERO WAY %BANK OF NEWPORT TR DIV NEWPORT BEACHr CA NEWPORT BEACH? CA P 0 BOX 1070 425-271-11 425-373-17 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 425-373-46 DONALD FIDUCCIA FORREST C. BALDWIN AUDREY MOSS 14971 RANCHO CIR. 461 BOLERO WAY 1125 N. KINGS RD1301 IRVINEr CA 91714 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 LOS ANGELESv CA 90069 425-373-08 T 425-373-18 425-373-47 J HELEN J. NIX ^DAVID L. SILIN ' V FRED L. HARTLEY 452 BOLERO WAY 457 BOLERO WAY %UNION OIL CO. OF CAL NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 P 0 BOX 7600 425-373-09 425-373-19 LOS ANGELESr CA 425-373-48 MARY M. DYER ANTHONY DE SOUSA JOAN M. REYNOLDS 454 BOLERTO WAY 455 BOLERO WAY 462 ORION WAY NEWPORT BEACH} CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr RA 92663 425-373-10 425-373-21 425-373-49 PATRICIA A. STOMLE DELTA E. MAURICE DENVER N. TREADSAY 4 BALBOA COVES 453 BOLERO WAY 4301 DANA RD. NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 425-373-11 425-373-21 425-373-50 �CURTIS L. NELSON WANDA It SCHWANEKE DONALD E. PUGH 351 HOSPITAL RD, STE 414 451 BOLERO WAY 4305 DANA RD. NEWPORT BEACHr CA NEWPORT BEACHr CA NEWPORT BEACHr CA 425-373-12 425-373-22 425-373-51 ^ 4 ~~~ YANDEL E. SNELL EDWARD CARLICK __- ' CECLIA R.. CLOCK 464 BOLERO WAY 30 SUNSET DR. 4307 DANA RD. BEWBORT BEACHr CA KENDINGTONr CA 94707 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 425-373-13 425-$73-42 425-373-52 THOMAS STRAZA EDWARD W. LUTZE 468 BOLERO WAY 4304 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACHr CA 92663 425-373-14 425-373-49