Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date Document Type
Document Description
13
13
n.d.
Report
Articles of Incorporation of The Richard
Nixon Foundation. 11 pages.
13
13
03/27/1970
Letter
From Leonard Firestone to John Ehrlichman
re: Economics Research Associates analysis.
1 page.
13
13
03/09/1970
Report
"Location Analysis for the Proposed Nixon
Center prepared by The Richard M. Nixon
Foundation" by the Economics Research
Associates. 43 pages.
13
13
04/1970
Report
A Study for the Richard Nixon Foundation,
Phase 1 by William L. Pereira Associates.
Apprx. 122 pages. Oversized - not scanned.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Page 1 of 1
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
THE RICHARD NIXON FOUNDATION
I
The name of this corporation shall be
THE RICHARD NIXON FOUNDATION
II
The purposes for which this corporation is formed are:
(a) The specific and primary purposes are to receive and
maintain a fund or funds of real or personal property, or both, and,
subject to the restrictions and limitations hereinafter set forth, to use
and apply the whole or any part of the income therefrom and the prin-
cipal thereof exclusively for charitable, religious, scientific, literary
or educational purposes either directly or by contributions to organi-
zations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code and its Regulations as they now exist or
as they may hereafter be amended.
(b) The general purposes and powers are:
(1) To accept, acquire, receive, take, and
hold by bequest, devise, grant, gift, purchase, exchange,
1-1
lease, transfer, judicial order or decree, or otherwise,
for any of its objects and purposes, any property, both
real and personal, of whatever kind, nature, or des-
cription and wherever situated.
(2) To sell, exchange, convey, mortgage, lease,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of, any such property,
both real and personal, as the objects and purposes of
the corporation may require, subject to such limitations
as may be prescribed by law.
(3) To borrow money, and, from time to time to
make, accept, endorse, execute and issue bonds, deben-
tures, promissory notes, bills of exchange, and other
obligations of the corporation for moneys borrowed or
in payment for property acquired or for any of the other
purposes of the corporation, and to secure the payment
of any such obligations by mortgage, pledge, deed, in-
denture, agreement, or other instrument of trust, or
by other lien upon, assignment of, or agreement in regard
to all or any part of the property, rights, or privileges
of the corporation wherever situated, whether now owned
or hereafter to be acquired.
-2-
1-2.
(4) To invest and reinvest its funds in such stock,
common or preferred, bonds, debentures, mortgages,
or in such other securites and property as its Board of
Trustees shall deem advisable, subject to the limitations
and conditions contained in any bequest, devise, grant
or gift, provided such limitations and conditions are not
in conflict with the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code and its Regulations as they
now exist or as they may hereafter be amended.
(5) In general, and subject to such limitations
and conditions as are or may be prescribed by law, to
exercise such other powers which now or hereafter may
be conferred by law upon a corporation organized for the
purposes hereinabove set forth, or necessary or inci-
dental to the powers so conferred, or conducive to the
attainment of the purposes of the corporation, subject
to the further limitation and condition that, notwithstanding
any other provision of this certificate, only such powers
shall be exercised as are in furtherance of the tax-exempt
purposes of the corporation and as may be exercised by
an organization exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the
-3-
/ 3
Internal Revenue Code and its Regulations as they
now exist or as they may hereafter be amended
and by an organization contributions to which are
deductible under Section 170(c)(2) of such Code
and Regulations as they now exist or as they may
hereafter be amended.
III
This corporation is organized pursuant to the General Non-
profit Corporation Law of the State of California.
IV
The county in this State where the principal office for the
transaction of the business of this corporation is located is Los
Angeles County.
V
The names and addresses of the persons who are to act
in the capacity of Executive Trustees of the corporation until the
selection of their successors are:
Name
Address
JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN
330 Chesapeake Drive
Great Falls, Virginia 22066
ROBERT H. FINCH
6323 Beachway Drive
Falls Church, Virginia 22044
LEONARD GARMENT
Watergate Hotel, Room 302
Washington, D.C. 20036
-4-
/ - 4
Name
Address
H. R. HALDEMAN
The Watergate Hotel
Washington, D. C. 20036
PATRICIA REILLY HITT
3113 Woodley Road N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
HERBERT W. KALMBACH
1056 Santiago Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
JOHN N. MITCHELL
2510 Virginia Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C.
VI
The authorized number and qualifications of the Executive
Trustees, Trustees, or members of the corporation, the different
classes of membership, if any, the property, voting, and other rights
and privileges of members and their liability to dues or assessments and
the method of collection thereof, shall be as set forth in the By-Laws.
VII
No part of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure
to the benefit of any trustee, member, officer, or any private in-
dividual (except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services
rendered to or for the corporation affecting one or more of its purposes)
and no trustee, member, officer of the corporation, or any private in-
dividual shall be entitled to share in the distribution of any of the corporate
assets on dissolution of the corporation.
-5-
1-5.
VIII
This corporation is one which does not contemplate pecu-
niary gain or profi it to the members thereof and it is organized solely
for non-profit purposes. Upon the winding up and dissolution of
this corporation, after paying or adequately providing for the debts and
obligations of the corporation, the remaining assets shall be distributed
to a non-profit fund, foundation or corporation, which is organized and
operated exclusively for charitable, religious and/or scientific pur-
poses and which has established its tax-exempt status under Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If this corporation holds any
assets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as
may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the county in which
this corporation's principal office is located, upon petition therefor by
the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the persons
hereinabove named as the first Executive Trustees, have executed
these Articles of Incorporation this 20th
day of
May
,
1969.
JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN - Incorporator
-6-
1-6
ROBERT H. FINCH - Incorporator
femand Gurment
LEONARD GARMENT - Incorporator
H. R. HALDEMAN
- Incorporator
Patrice PATRICIA REILLY Billy HITT Hite
- Incorporator
HERBERT W. KALMBACH - Incorporator
JOHN N. MITCHELL - Incorporator
-7-
1
1- 7
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
) ss:
City of Washington
)
On this, the 20th day of may
, 1969, before
me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the District of
Columbia, personally appeared before me in said District JOHN D.
EHRLICHMAN, ROBERT H. FINCH, LEONARD GARMENT, H. R.
HALDEMAN, PATRICIA REILLY HITT and JOHN N. MITCHELL, known
to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within
Articles of Incorporation, and acknowledged to me that they executed
the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I Have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal on the day and year first above written.
My commission expires:
December 14, 1970
Carson m. Howell
Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia
- -8-
1-8
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
) SS:
City of Washington
)
On this, the 20th day of may
, 1969, before
me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the District of
Columbia, personally appeared before me in said District JOHN D.
EHRLICHMAN, ROBERT H. FINCH, LEONARD GARMENT, H. R.
HALDEMAN, PATRICIA REILLY HITT and JOHN N. MITCHELL, known
to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within
Articles of Incorporation, and acknowledged to me that they executed
the same.
d
Serial
'A
56270
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
To ALL WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:
I CERTIFY THAT
CARSON M. HOWELL
whose name is subscribed to the accompanying instrument, was at the time of signing the same a Notary Public
in and for the District of Columbia, and duly commissioned and authorized by the laws of said District of Colum-
bia to take the acknowledgment and proof of deeds or conveyance of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, and other
1
instruments in writing to he recorded in said District, and to administer onths; and that I am well acquainted with
the handwriting of said Notary Public and verily believe that the signature and impression of seal thereon are
genuine, after comparison with signature and impression of seal on file in this office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Secretary to the Commissionerz of the District of Columbia, has hereunto
caused the Seal of the District of Columbia to be affixed at the City of Washington, D.C., this
20th
day of
(D.C. SEAL)
Manager May Boardion consissioners 1969
Notary Public Clerk
-8-
1-9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
) ss:
County of
)
On this, the
day of
, 1969,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of
California, County of
, personally appeared before me
in said County HERBERT W. KALMBACH known to me to be the person
whose name is subscribed to the within Articles of Incorporation, and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal on the day and year first above written.
My commission expires:
Notary Public in and for said County
and State
-9-
1-1.0
STATE OF CA FORNIA
)
)
ss:
County of "range
)
On this, the 20 day of may , 1969,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of
California, County of Orange , personally appeared before me
in said County HERBERT W. KALMBACH known to me to be the person
whose name is subscribed to the within Articles of Incorporation, and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal on the day and year first above written.
My commission expires:
My Commission Expires February i7 1970
Clarence and Notary State Public in and for a said King Count
FLORENCE A. KING
NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
ORANGE COUNTY
-9- -
1-11 11
MAR 31 1969
THE RICHARD NIXON FOUNDATION
CROCKER-CITIZENS PLAZA
611 WEST SIXTH STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
March 27, 1970
To:
John Ehrlichman
From:
Leonard Fires
We have just received copies of the Economics
Research Associates analysis, which we decided
to have undertaken at our December meeting in
Washington, and one is enclosed for your perusal
and possible comments.
The William L. Pereira and Associates report,
which will go into considerable more detail as
far as site and construction suggestions are
concerned, should be coming along soon.
Best regards.
LOCATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR THE
PROPOSED NIXON CENTER
Prepared for
THE RICHARD M. NIXON FOUNDATION
Economics Research Associates
er+
Los Angeles, California
Washington, D.C.
LOCATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR THE
PROPOSED NIXON CENTER
Prepared for
THE RICHARD M. NIXON FOUNDATION
March 9, 1970
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
I
INTRODUCTION
I- 1
Method of Approach
I- 2
II
CONTRIBUTION TO THE ACADEMIC COM-
MUNITY
II- 1
General Background of Presidential Libraries
II- 1
Accessibility to Air Transportation
II- 4
III
ATTENDANCE GENERATION FACTORS
III- 1
Location in Relation to the Los Angeles Basin
and to Regional Population Centers
III- 2
California Recreation Travel Patterns.
III- 7
Attendance Patterns at Existing Presidential
Museums,
III- 12
Planning Parameters
III- 13
Concluding Recommendations
III-20
IV
INDIVIDUAL SITE ANALYSIS
IV- 1
General Description of Candidate Sites
IV- 3
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
Page
1
DISTRIBUTION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
COLLEGES WITH GRADUATE STUDIES
PROGRAMS
I-3
2
GEOGRAPHIC CENTERS OF POPULATION, 1970
III- 3
3
GEOGRAPHIC CENTERS OF POPULATION, 1985
III- 4
4
AREA WITHIN 20 MINUTES DRIVING TIME OF
U.C. IRVINE
IV 2
5
LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITES WITHIN
REGIONAL CONTEXT
IV 4
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Number
Page
1
ESTIMATED DRIVING TIMES FROM SELECTED
UNIVERSITIES TO THE CENTERS OF
POPULATION
III- 5
2
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CALIFORNIA
RESIDENT VISITATION TO RECREATION
ATTRACTIONS (ONE-DAY AND OVERNIGHT
PLEASURE TRIPS)
III- 8
3
POPULARITY OF RECREATIONAL ATTRAC-
TIONS VISITED BY CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS
ON ONE-DAY AND OVERNIGHT PLEASURE
TRIPS
III-10
4
ATTENDANCE AT SELECTED MUSEUMS
III-14
5
ESTIMATED CURRENT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE
AT SELECTED LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE
COUNTY ATTRACTIONS
III-15
6
ESTIMATED PEAK IN-GROUNDS ATTENDANCE
AT SELECTED ANNUAL ATTENDANCE LEVELS
III-17
7
ESTIMATED MINIMUM RANGE OF PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NIXON CENTER
III-18
8
ESTIMATED CIRCULATION SPACE REQUIRED
AT SELECTED ATTENDANCE LEVELS
III-19
9
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATE
SITES FOR THE NIXON CENTER.
III-21
iv
Section I
INTRODUCTION
The Richard M. Nixon Foundation is planning the development of
an elaborate museum-library complex, to be referred to in this study as
the Nixon Center. The Nixon Center may eventually consist of any or all
of the following components:
1. A library facility and a library collection for scholarly
research in fields related to the administration and
philosophy of President Nixon.
2. A museum displaying President Nixon's biography, papers,
highlights of his years in office, and other memorabilia all
presented to the museum visitor in a dramatically interest-
ing and broadly appealing manner.
3. Facilities for scholars in residence and other distinguished
visitors who may be invited to come together for confer-
ences or seminars dealing with major world and national
problems.
4.
A park-like setting with an atmosphere of historic signifi-
cance, conducive to deep discussion and to quiet reflection.
Economics Research Associates was asked to assist the Nixon
Foundation in determining the most suitable site for the complex.
Location criteria were set out in broad terms to allow maximum flexi-
bility in the choice of site alternatives, and Coldwell, Banker and
Company was retained to aid in the selection process of available land
sites within the defined areas.
Total area requirements have been established at 100 to 300 acres.
The Nixon Foundation wishes the facility to be located within a 50-mile
radius of Los Angeles, and within at least 10 miles of a university or
universities affording graduate study credits.
I-1
METHOD OF APPROACH
In view of the above criteria, the study focused on the areas adja-
cent to the four universities within a 50-mile radius of the Los Angeles
Civic Center. These include the University of California (Los Angeles),
University of California (Irvine), University of Southern California, and
the Claremont Colleges. The one remaining school in the area with a
doctoral program, the California Institute of Technology, was eliminated
from consideration because its graduate studies program is devoted
entirely to the physical and biological sciences, and it is believed that a
library serving primarily as a depository for presidential papers would
make a significant contribution only to an institution with graduate pro-
grams in the social sciences and humanities.
The University of California (Riverside) also was excluded from
consideration since the campus is located somewhat more than 50 miles
from the Los Angeles Civic Center and on the outer fringe of the high
population density area of Southern California. It also is somewhat
isolated with respect to the large number of institutions offering graduate
study programs in the region, as shown in Figure 1.
Sites near the Claremont Colleges were excluded from serious
consideration after it was determined that the complex currently has a
graduate student enrollment of only 1, 151 students, with a future ceiling
of approximately 1, 500 full- and part-time graduate students. Accord-
ingly, final consideration was given only to areas within a 10-mile radius
of the two University of California campuses, Los Angeles and Irvine,
and the University of Southern California.
With respect to such broad measures as population growth and
density and tourist visitation, pertinent statistics have been applied to
each of the three university areas under consideration, rather than to
individual sites within the areas, in order to present an overview of each.
The type of facility planned for construction will be multi-
functional and, therefore, must be approached from several aspects.
Similar to the presidential libraries established for Presidents Hoover,
Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, the Nixon Library will
serve as a depository for the papers, books, and other historical materi-
als relative to the President. It is wished both that the materials be
preserved and made available to scholars for purposes of exhibit and
I-2
SANTA
BARBARA
KERN
VENTURA
LOS ANGELES
Sonta
Barbara
Ventura
SAN BERNARDINO
OLos Angele
RIVERSIDE
ORANGE
SAN DIEGO
MAJOR UNIVERSITIES
OSan Diego
Figure 1
SOURCE: Economics Research Associates
DISTRIBUTION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLEGES
WITH GRADUATE STUDIES PROGRAMS
research. To properly fulfill this function, the Foundation deems it
important that the library be located near a major university with a large
graduate student population, so that research facilities will be fully
utilized in contrast to the experience of the Eisenhower Library at Abilene,
Kansas, and the Hoover Library at West Branch, Iowa. Accordingly,
ERA gathered statistics concerning graduate student enrollment at Los
Angeles area universities and interviewed university officials to obtain
their estimates of future levels of graduate student enrollment.
Another potential function of the Center will be the provision of a
place in which outstanding scholars, industrialists, leaders of govern-
ment, and other distinguished individuals can come together in a serene
and inspiring atmosphere to discuss issues and exchange ideas. Accord-
ingly, it is necessary that the site chosen have a setting in which no
surrounding land uses will detract from the spacious, park-like environ-
ment envisioned.
Unlike its predecessor$, the Nixon Museum will be an important
facet of the museum-library complex. While other presidential museums
have housed mediocre exhibits and static photography, the Nixon Museum
is to utilize new and sophisticated techniques for the recall and display of
exhibit material. It is believed that many of the important events occur-
ring during President Nixon's Administration, such as the first manned
landing on the moon, can be displayed in a manner so interesting that
many visitors will be attracted.
This report is organized in four sections. Following this brief
introduction, Section II presents the general background of presidential
libraries as well as pertinent factors relative to each of the three univer-
sity areas under consideration for location of the Nixon Center. In order
to determine those sites within the defined areas in which attendance
potential could be maximized, Section III deals with attendance factors
such as population, accessibility, and tourist patterns. Planning para-
meters, with respect to acreage requirements and timing, and assuming
varying levels of attendance, also are set forth in Section III. Section IV
examines specific sites within the three university areas. The available
sites are ranked based on their desirability in light of the locational cri-
teria discussed herein. The effects on the Center of broad measures
such as population growth and density and tourist visitation also are con-
sidered in this section.
This research study was conducted under the administrative super-
vision of Harrison A. Price, President of Economics Research Associates.
Michael D. Jenkins, serving as Project Leader, conducted the research.
The assistance of Charles Detoy, Jr., and Peter Marr of Coldwell,
Banker and Company is gratefully acknowledged.
I-4
Section II
CONTRIBUTION TO THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY
GENERAL BACKGROUND OF PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES
Since the beginning of American government, the separate and
independent status of the Office of the President has been construed as
extending to and embracing the "papers" of the incumbent of the office.
These "papers" are not public records subject to Federal law, but rather
are the private property of the President, to be disposed of as he wishes.
Although it has always been recognized that a President's papers are his
private property, it also has long been recognized that they constitute a
form of property in which the Federal Government has a legitimate inter-
est. They are a vital and important part of the nation's historical heri-
tage, and our history cannot properly be understood or written without
them. Accordingly, their preservation is an important matter.
Also of significance is the availability of these materials to the
people. This has been particularly recognized in recent decades, and
every President since Herbert Hoover has been instrumental in establish-
ing a library to preserve his papers. Since 1939, at which time legisla-
tion was passed accepting the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library as a
presidential archival depository, the burden of assembling land for a site
and constructing a suitable building or buildings has been on the President
himself or on private persons or non-Federal governmental agencies.
To provide suitable buildings, Presidents have turned to private,
nonprofit organizations or to state or local governmental units and have
lent their prestige and occasionally their own assets to the effort. The
precedent is now firmly established. The library is completed and given
to the Federal Government, which is thereafter responsible for its main-
tenance and operation.
If a presidential library is to properly fulfill its function as a
storehouse of information for scholarly research, it follows that the value
of its contribution to our national heritage will be directly proportional to
the frequency with which it is utilized by scholars. The question then
arises as to how utilization of the library can be maximized, to which the
most logical answer appears to be its location near a major university
with a large body of graduate students able to conveniently use its
II-1
resources. This appears to be the approach followed by the planners of
the last two presidential libraries, the Lyndon B. Johnson Library,
located on the University of Texas campus in Austin, and the John F.
Kennedy Library, scheduled for location adjacent to Harvard University
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. With this in mind, Economics Research
Associates compiled data relative to current and future levels of graduate
enrollment at the universities under consideration. The resulting pro-
jections are as follows:
Graduate Student Enrollment
University
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
UC Irvine
1,063
2,700
4,800
7,700
11,000
UCLA
8,850
10,000
11,000
12,000
12,500
USC
8,643
11,000
12,000
12,500
13,500
Claremont
1,151
1,400
1,500
1,500
1,500
As indicated, present graduate student enrollments at UCLA and
USC are almost eight times those at UC Irvine and the Claremont
Colleges. Since, however, a strong likelihood exists that President
Nixon will remain in office until 1977, it is unlikely that the proposed
center will be established until the latter part of the decade. On this
basis, the more relevant figures are those for 1980 and thereafter. By
1980, the graduate enrollment at UC Irvine should be approximately half
that at USC and at UCLA, and, by 1990, it should be only slightly less
than at the latter two schools. This is based on the fact that UCLA
already has reached the maximum planned enrollment for a University of
California general campus (27, 500), and USC, with a current enrollment
of more than 20, 000, probably will not expand to more than 25, 000 or
30,000 in the future. Increases in graduate enrollments at UCLA and
USC will be largely a function of the maturation process, whereby major
urban universities tend to have increasingly higher percentages of gradu-
ate students once the growth in overall enrollment ceases or tapers off.
II-2
The table below exemplifies this pattern, with the matured and more
prestigious universities showing a much greater emphasis on graduate
education than the newer institutions in less urbanized areas:
Percentage of
Number of
University
Graduate Enrollment
Graduate Students
USC
43%
8,643
Stanford University
42
4,850
Harvard University
41
7,750
UC Berkeley
36
10,911
UCLA
29
8,850
Claremont Colleges
24
1,151
UC Irvine
23
1,063
University of Texas
18
5,387
Growth in the graduate student enrollment at the Claremont
Colleges Center will be minimal, since current plans are to limit gradu-
ate enrollment to 1, 200 full-time and, possibly, 300 part-time students.
Accordingly, graduate enrollment at Claremont should be only about one-
tenth as large as at the other three universities in the area by 1990,
strongly indicating that the Claremont area should be eliminated from
consideration as a possible site for the Nixon Center.
UC Irvine is the only university under consideration that is expected
to show a large increase in enrollment during the next 20 years. Although
its current total enrollment is only 4, 724, with 1, 063 graduate students
(23 percent of total enrollment), Irvine planners expect total enrollment to
rise to 10, 000 in 1975 and to 27, 500 by 1990. In view of the aforementioned
tendency of major universities to place increasing emphasis on graduate
studies as they approach their limits of physical expansion, it is conserva-
tively estimated that by 1975 and 1990 graduate students at UCI will total
2, 700 and 11, 000 respectively.
II-3
The conclusion to be drawn from these projections is that, by
1990, the number of graduate students at USC, UCLA, and UC Irvine will
be approximately equal. Therefore, no clear preference exists with re-
spect to where the library can be most fully utilized. It is obvious, how-
ever, that, in terms of proximity to a large graduate student body, the
Claremont Colleges area constitutes the least suitable location.
ACCESSIBILITY TO AIR TRANSPORTATION
Although most users of a presidential library are either scholars
in residence or students and faculty members of neighboring universities,
a fair number of persons can be expected to come to the complex from
other parts of the country. Also, distinguished citizens who might from
time to time be invited to meet in small groups at the Center would, in
most cases, come to the Los Angeles area by air. Thus, it is important
that the university area in which the Nixon Center is located be relatively
accessible to an airport served by one or more scheduled airlines. ERA
has computed the average driving time from each major university to the
nearest scheduled air transport facility, assuming an average freeway
driving speed of 48 miles per hour, and an average surface street speed
of 24 miles per hour. Different sites within each university area would,
of course, involve different driving times, but the table below presents a
generalized illustration of conditions within each area:
Driving Time to
Nearest Airport
University
(minutes)
Airport
UC Irvine
3
Orange County
USC
21
Los Angeles
International
UCLA
23
Los Angeles
International
As indicated, UC Irvine is much more conveniently located with
respect to air transportation facilities than either USC or UCLA. None-
theless, both USC and UCLA are quite conveniently located, so that rela-
tive accessibility by air is not a significant factor in this analysis.
II-4
Section III
ATTENDANCE GENERATION FACTORS
The proposed Nixon Center will probably resemble existing presi-
dential libraries. However, as presently envisioned, it will be more
than a library or museum or facility of specialized service and narrow
appeal. On the contrary, in totality it can constitute a perpetual place of
learning about man and his political institutions; a source of service to
scholars and, through their research, to society; and a dramatic and
meaningful contact with American heritage for every citizen and, indeed,
for visitors from around the world.
To effectuate these goals, it is intended that the museum take the
fullest possible advantage of state-of-the-art technological innovations.
Since public impact is largely a function of public exposure, the site
chosen for the Center must be one calculated to maximize attendance
potential.
Given the quality of the attraction, the other attendance-generation
factors that must be examined are:
Proximity to population centers.
Future population growth.
Tourism.
Accessibility.
Quality of surrounding land use.
Freedom from physical nuisances.
This section analyzes the first three of these factors as they
relate to the three university areas under consideration in this study. The
remaining factors are analyzed, by individual site, in the following sec-
tion.
III-1
LOCATION IN RELATION TO THE LOS ANGELES BASIN
AND TO REGIONAL POPULATION CENTERS
A weighted center of population is computed in Figure 2 for the
1970 population of the Los Angeles Basin and the five-county area. The
1970 Basin population center is computed by setting all metropolitan Los
Angeles and seven Orange County census divisions on XY product coordi-
nates and solving for the point of zero difference. This point is the loca-
tion which, if converged upon by the total population, would involve the
least aggregate travel distance. In 1970, the Basin center of population
is on Gage Street, 1 - 1/2 miles east of the Long Beach Freeway.
A weighted center of population (particularly significant for a high-
quality attraction deriving attendance from a wide area) for the five
Southern California counties of Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino,
Riverside, and San Diego also is shown in Figure 2.
The five-county area, comprised of Los Angeles, San Bernardino,
Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties, comprises the regional system
for which population growth and movement of the population center were com-
puted. This area comprises a contiguous group of counties which generally
are recognized as a homogeneous economic and social unit. The center
was computed by setting individual county population centers on XY prod-
uct coordinates and solving for the point of zero difference. In 1970, the
center of population for this broader area is on the Riverside Freeway in
Orange County, five miles east of the Santa Ana Freeway.
The movement of these two centers of population by 1985 is shown
in Figure 3. In 1985, the expected Basin center will have moved south-
east to the intersection of Gage Street and the Santa Ana Freeway. Also
by 1985, the population center of the five Southern California counties will
have moved to the Garden Grove Freeway, 1-1/2 miles west of the
Newport Freeway.
The distance and driving time relationship of these centers of
population to university areas is shown in tabular form in Table 1. These
data are indicative of comparative accessibility. The 1970 Basin popu-
lation center distance from the universities ranges from 12. 3 miles
(USC) to 32. 1 miles (UC Irvine). However, by 1985, the Basin population
center will have moved somewhat nearer to UC Irvine and slightly farther
from USC and UCLA.
III-2
:
BURBANK
VAN NUYS
WOODLAND HILLS
RENCING
MONROVIA
PASADENA
CALIFORNIA
AZUSA
GLEND
ARCADIA
RESERVED
HOLLYWOOD
ALHAMBRA
EL
MONTE
BERNARD
BEVERLY HILLS
BERNARDING
FREEWAY
WEST COVINA
4
MONICA
SANTA
CULVER CITY
MONTEBELLO
SANTA MONICA
LOS ANGELES
FREEWAY
WHITTIER
1970 CENTERS OF POPULATION
HUNTINGTON
VENICE
PARK
BEACH
INGLEWOOD
ONG
PLAYA OEL REY
ANGELES
COUNTY
DOWNEY
ORANGE
COUNTY
CENTER OF LOS ANGELES BASIN
BLVD
CENTER OF FIVE COUNTIES
NORWALK
COMPTON
MANHATTAN
BEACH
-
El
YORBA LINDA
GARDENA
ARTESIA
FREEWAY
commeticate
HERMOSA
FULLERTON
BEACH
PRESENT
SCALE IN MILES
5
ANAHEIM
REDONDO
N
BEACH
TORRANCE
BEACH
$
w
era
€
:
ORANGE
LONG BEACH
-
S
SEAL BEACH
SANTA ANA
SAN PEDRO
9TH IT
SOURCE: Economics Research Associates
Figure 2
GEOGRAPHIC CENTERS OF POPULATION
1970
/
BLVD
BURBANK
VAN NUYS
...
WOODLAND HILLS
TURA
THE
RESERVER
Bown
RIVER
MONROVIA
PASADENA
AZUSA
GLEND
ARCADIA
-
FREEWAY
HOLLYWOOD
ALHAMBRA
BERNARD
EL MONTE
BEVERLY HILLS
WEST COVINA
&
FREEWAY
MONICA
SANTA
CULVER CITY
MONTEBELLO
SANTA MONICA
LOS ANGELES
FREEWAY
WHITTER
1985 CENTERS OF POPULATION
HUNTINGTON
VENICE
PARK
BEACH
INGLEWOOD
LONG
PLAYA OELREY
-
CENTURY
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
DOWNEY
ORANGE
COUNTY
CENTER OF LOS ANGELES BASIN
I
CENTER OF FIVE COUNTIES
1
"
ORWALK
COMPTON
MANHATTAN
BEACH
-
YORBA LINDA
GARDENA
ARTESIA
FREEWAY
COMMINWEALTH
HERMOSA
FULLERTON
BEACH
FREE
RO EF
SCALE IN MILES
5
SANTYS
ANAHEIM
REDONDO
n
BEACH
TORRANCE
-
90
€
$
and
LONG BEACH
-
S
SEAL BEACH
SANTA ANA
SAN PEDRO
X
SOURCE: Economics Research Associates
Figure 3
GEOGRAPHIC CENTERS OF POPULATION
1985
Table 1
ESTIMATED DRIVING TIMES FROM SELECTED
UNIVERSITIES TO THE CENTERS OF POPULATION
UC
UC Irvine
USC
UCLA
UCSB
Riverside
UCSD
Average Driving Time (Minutes) To:
Center of Los Angeles Basin
Population
1970
47.0
18.5
38.0
143.0
59.8
132.0
1985
44.5
16.0
35.5
140.5
52.5
129.5
Center of Southern California
Five-County Population
III-5
1970
27.9
40.3
59.8
160.0
84.7
114.6
1985
18.4
45.2
64.7
165.0
82.2
105.0
Driving Distance (Miles) To:
Center of Los Angeles Basin
Population
1970
32.1
12.3
27.3
113.2
56.1
104.0
1985
31.0
13.4
28.9
114.3
55.0
102.9
Center of Southern California
Five-County Population
1970
18.5
29.3
44.3
128.0
37.3
91.6
1985
10.9
33.3
48.3
132.0
41.3
83.9
Source: Economics Research Associates.
With respect to the larger five-county area, a location near the
University of Californiat Irvine would have a decided accessibility advan-
tage over the USC and UCLA areas in 1970, and an even more pronounced
advantage in the years ahead as the regional population center moves in a
southeasterly direction. Freeway network improvements planned by 1980
also will enhance the comparative regional access advantage of UC Irvine.
Although the absolute number of persons living within a 45-minute
driving radius of the UC Irvine area is considerably less in 1970 than that
within 45 minutes of USC and UCLA, this gap should become steadily
smaller as urbanization of Orange County proceeds, since the rate of
population growth in the Irvine area will be approximately three times that
of the USC and UCLA areas. The current and projected population of
areas within a 45-minute driving radius of each university, assuming
average speeds of 48 miles per hour on freeways and 24 miles per hour
on surface streets, is shown below:
Population within 45 minutes Driving
Time of Selected Universities
University
(millions of persons)
Percentage Change
1970
1985
1970-1985
USC
7.8
9.3
19%
UCLA
6.9
8.4
20
UC Irvine
3.3
5.3
61
Based on the table, it can be concluded that, with respect to proxi-
mity to the population "center of gravity" of the Los Angeles Basin, USC
has a decided advantage over both UCLA and UC Irvine in 1970. More-
over, this situation will not change appreciably by 1985, although shifts in
the population center occurring between now and 1985 and future freeway
development will tend to favor the position of UC Irvine.
In terms of the larger Southern California area, UC Irvine pres-
ently is much more favorably situated than either USC or UCLA. More-
over, this advantage will be magnified in the future by burgeoning popula-
tion growth in Orange County and in nearby Riverside and San Bernardino
counties. Other University of California branches in Southern California
at Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Diego are even less favorably
situated than UCLA and USC with respect to population centers, as
indicated in Table 1.
III-6
While the location of the Nixon Center relative to population centers
and to major universities is of considerable importance, its proximity to
the large number of smaller educational institutions in Southern California
is also an important factor. Figure 3 shows the locations of all colleges
in Southern California offering graduate level studies as well as the USC
and the University of California campuses (shown in red). As indicated,
the UC Irvine, USC, and UCLA campuses are roughly comparable in terms
of their centrality to all higher educational institutions in the region, but
are much more centrally located than the University of California campuses
at Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Diego.
CALIFORNIA RECREATION TRAVEL PATTERNS
While it is important that the Nixon Museum be located near
population centers, if attendance is to be maximized, it also is highly
important that the Center be well situated relative to the enormous poten-
tial tourist audience of Southern California. It is not possible to precisely
quantify the number of tourists passing any given point; however, studies
of tourism in Southern California do reveal very definite general trends.
A study of tourism and recreation in California conducted by
Economics Research Associates in 1966-1967 for the U. S. Department
of Commerce and the California Office of Tourism provides many answers
concerning the locations of the greatest concentrations of tourists. The
study disclosed that the most popular destinations of California residents
on one-day trips within the state are beach and coastal areas. Travel to
the seashore accounted for 29 percent of all one-day trips taken during
the summer months of 1966. The second most popular destinations of
California residents on one-day trips are amusement attractions such as
Disneyland, Knott's Berry Farm, the San Diego Zoo, Marineland, and
Sea World. Visitation to these attractions accounted for 23 percent of all
non-overnight summer travel. The least popular activities of California
residents on one-day trips are visits to historical attractions, public
non-scenic sights (i.e., civic centers, public buildings, universities,
and stadiums), cultural attractions, and spectator sports. Table 2 pre-
sents the percentage distribution of California resident visitors to recre-
ation attractions within the state.
III-7
Table 2
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENT
VISITATION TO RECREATION ATTRACTIONS
(One-Day and Overnight Pleasure Trips)
Percentage Distribution
One-Day
Overnight
Type of Attraction
Trips
Trips 2/
National, state, and city parks
14.7%
10.0%
Beach and coastal areas
28.8
9.2
Active recreation
6.3
23.5
Spectator sports
3.8
1.4
Public non-scenic sights
1.3
3.3
Inland water and resort areas
9.3
13.3
Amusement attractions
22.9
13.8
Cultural attractions
3.6
3.6
Historical attractions
1.1
1.7
General sight-seeing
8.2
20.2
Total
100.0%
100.0%
1/
One-day trips during June, July, and August 1966.
21
Overnight trips during the 12-month period from September 1965
through August 1966.
Sources: Facts Consolidated and Economics Research Associates.
III-8
The popularity of beach and coastal areas and amusement attrac-
tions among Californians on one-day trips during the summer months is
not surprising, given California's climate, school recesses, and the
accessibility of both types of attractions to large metropolitan populations.
Disneyland, which was visited by some member of 7. 75 households out
of every 100 in the entire state during the year of the survey, was re-
vealed by the sample survey to be the most popular of all specific indivi-
dual attractions in California. Knott's Berry Farm followed with a
visitation rate of 5. 33 households per 100. Golf, the third most popular
type of activity or attraction, attained a visitation rate of 5. 17. Trips to
Newport Beach ranked fourth, achieving a visitation rate of 3.58 per 100.
Table 3 ranks the popularity of recreational attractions visited by
California residents on one-day trips within the state.
The one fact of overriding importance that emerges from the
above statistics is that the three leading specific tourist-oriented
recreation attractions visited by California residents on one-day pleasure
trips throughout the state all are located in Orange County. Clearly,
Orange County has become one of the most powerful magnets for intra-
state pleasure trips in California. In view of the fact that the most
popular general types of pleasure trip destinations are beach and coastal
areas, it is apparent that a site in reasonable proximity to the University
of California at Irvine, which is in immediate proximity to the coast and
to Newport Beach and within 15 miles of both Disneyland and Knott's
Berry Farm, would be in the most strategic location in the state with
regard to resident visitation patterns.
Out-of-State Tourists
In order to obtain a total picture of recreational travel patterns,
however, it also is necessary to analyze the comings and goings of out-of-
state visitors to California. During 1968, an estimated 16,100,000 out-of-
state visitors came to California, 10. 3 million by automobile and 5. 8million
by air. An October 1968 survey by Facts Consolidated, a wholly owned
subsidiary of ERA, indicated that 82. 7 percent of auto visitors and 48. 2
percent of air visitors came to California for pleasure and personal
reasons as opposed to business or other reasons. Furthermore, while
only about 4.9 percent of native Californians visited public non-scenic
sights and cultural attractions (the category in which museums are classi-
fied), nearly 14 percent of out-of-state visitors attended such attractions.
Therefore, it appears that out-of-state visitors would comprise a major
component of the potential audience for the proposed museum. The table
below indicates the specific attractions most frequently visited by out-of-
state tourists during 1968.
III-9
Table 3
POPULARITY OF
RECREATIONAL ATTRACTIONS VISITED BY
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS ON ONE-DAY AND
OVERNIGHT PLEASURE TRIPS
Percent of California Households Visiting Attraction
1/
2/
One-Day Trips - 3- Month Period
Overnight Trips - 12. - Month Period
Disneyland
7.7%
Fishing
14.5%
Knott's Berry Farm
5.3
Hiking
9.3
Golf
5.1
San Francisco
7.1
Newport Beach
3.5
Boating
5.5
San Diego Zoo
3.4
Yosemite National Park
4.4
San Francisco
3.1
Lake Tahoe
4.3
Griffith Park
3.1
Carmel - Monterey
4.1
Fleishhacker Zoo
2.1
Disneyland
4.0
Golden Gate Park
2.1
Fisherman's Wharf
3.6
Marineland
1.6
Water skiing
3.0
Sea World
1.5
San Diego Zoo
2.8
Laguna Beach
1.3
Hunting
2.5
Tijuana - Baja, California
1.0
Stinson Beach
2.4
Hiking
1.0
Skiing
2.3
Fishing
1.0
Sequoia National Park
2.0
Palm Springs
2.0
Horseback riding
1.8
Hearst Castle
1.7
Big Bear Lake
1.5
Chinatown
1.5
Solvang
1.3
Lake Arrowhead
1.3
Morro Bay
1.3
Knott's Berry Farm
1.2
Sea World
1.2
Golf
1.1
Fleishhacker Zoo
1.1
Marineland
1.0
1/ June, July, and August 1966.
2/ September 1965 through August 1966.
Sources: Facts Consolidated and Economics Research Associates.
III- 10
Percentage of All
Leading Specific
Out-of-State Visitors
Attractions Visited
Auto Visitors
Air Visitors
Disneyland
34.8%
22. 4%
Fisherman's Wharf-
San Francisco
18.3
18.8
Marineland
15.7
7.0
Chinatown - San Francisco
14.8
17.6
Knott's Berry Farm
11.3
7.0
Newport Beach
8.7
5.0
San Diego Zoo
7.0
1.7
These data point to the fact that, similar to intra-state tourists,
a great many out-of-state tourists are attracted to Orange County, with
Disneyland, Knott's Berry Farm, and Newport Beach again ranking high
among the most popular drawing points. Only one of the major out-of-
state visitor attractions, Marineland, is located in Los Angeles County.
From the standpoint of obtaining maximum exposure to tourists,
it is unmistakably clear from the data available on tourist visitation
patterns in California that a site in Orange County in the UC Irvine area,
preferably near the seashore, would be far superior to any location in
Los Angeles near UCLA or USC. As already indicated, Orange County
is the focal point of tourism in the state, with respect to both intra- - and
inter-state tourists. Moreover, a higher concentration of first-rank
tourist attractions cannot be found. In addition, the coastal region of
Orange County lies directly in the path of visitors en route to San Diego
and Mexico, both significant tourist areas in their own right.
The tourist complex that has developed around the Disneyland,
Knott's Berry Farm, Newport Beach axis has caused a major tourist
reorientation within Southern California. Busch Gardens, Farmers
Market, Forest Lawn, and Sunset Strip still attract a substantial volume
of tourists but not in comparison to attractions in Orange County. Thus
from the standpoint of tourist exposure sites in the vicinity of UCLA or
USC do not compare as favorably as those in Orange County in the vici-
nity of UC I. As more tourist-oriented attractions are located in Orange
County the relative locational disadvantages will undoubtedly become
more apparent.
III-11
ATTENDANCE PATTERNS AT EXISTING PRESIDENTIAL MUSEUMS
Existing presidential museums generally have not constituted
notable visitor attractions. The table below presents attendance levels
at the existing presidential museums for the year ending June 30, 1969:
Museum
Annual Attendance
Hoover
80,000
FDR
164,300
Truman
165,300
Eisenhower
329,000
As indicated, the Eisenhower Museum, despite its location in
small (population 6, 746) Abilene, Kansas, drew by far the largest num-
ber of persons during 1968-1969. A fairly large portion of that attend-
ance undoubtedly was drawn after General Eisenhower's death during
that year. It should be noted, however, that none of the existing presi-
dential museums are elaborate structures designed with a view to
attracting large numbers of visitors. On the contrary, they are largely
devoted to a static display of various gifts and medals received by recent
presidents, and to other artifacts of historic interest. The location of
the Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower museums in the towns
of West Branch, Iowa, Hyde Park, New York, Independence, Missouri,
and Abilene, Kansas, respectively, has been another major factor con-
tributing to low levels of attendance, since all of the above-mentioned
towns, with the exception of Independence, Missouri, are relatively small
and distant from major population centers.
The proposed Nixon Museum, to be located in Southern California,
should have a considerably greater attendance potential than any of the
existing presidential museums due to a combination of factors:
1.
The opportunity to locate in or near one of the nation's
major population centers.
2.
The high level of tourist visitation already prevailing
in the-area.
3.
The intention of the Nixon Foundation to create an
attraction that will have a more varied and appealing
content than its predecessors.
III-12
Museums with highly attractive and interesting program content
are capable of drawing surprisingly large numbers of visitors, as illus-
trated in Table 4. While the Nixon Museum will not be erected on nearly
so grand a scale as the Smithsonian or the Museum of Science and Indus-
try, it is significant that the much more modest Movieland Wax Museum
in Orange County registered an attendance of more than 700, 000 in a
recent year. There are no good reasons why a well conceived and imagi-
natively designed presidential museum should not equal or surpass the
performance of a limited-appeal commercial operation such as the
Movieland Wax Museum.
PLANNING PARAMETERS
ERA has estimated the acreage requirements for parking and the
footage requirements for circulation space within the museum, assuming
different levels of annual attendance. However, no attempt has been made to
quantify total acreage requirements, since the size and scope of the
museum, library, conference center, and other possible components of
the Nixon Center have not yet been decided and, in any event, are not
within the scope of this study.
Since it is not now known how elaborate the proposed museum will
be, it is not possible to make accurate attendance projections. Attendance
levels at museums in other cities vary to such an extent that even the
indicated preliminary range of expectations is extremely wide. This part
of the report attempts to narrow that range through a review of attendance
levels at Los Angeles and Orange County museums. Estimated annual
attendance at area attractions is shown in Table 5. Since the proposed
museum will presumably be at least as significant an attraction as the
Huntington Library and Art Gallery, the low range of attendance can
probably be set at about 600, 000. The upper range obviously will be less
than at a major museum, such as the Museum of Science and Industry.
Therefore, it would not seem reasonable to expect more than 1, 200, 000
as a maximum attendance level, unless very dynamic programs and ex-
ceptionally interesting and novel exhibition techniques are developed, in
which case the above estimates might prove to be extremely conservative.
III-13
Table 4
ATTENDANCE AT SELECTED MUSEUMS
Annual
Attendance
Museum
Location
(000)
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D.C.
Natural History
2,870
Museum of History
and Technology
4,840
American Museum of Natural
History and Hayden Planetarium
New York, New York
3,496
California Museum of Science
and Industry
Los Angeles, California 1, 469
Chicago Museum of Science
and Industry
Chicago, Illinois
3,044
Henry Ford Museum and
Greenfield Village
Detroit, Michigan
1,000
Milwaukee Public Museum
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
813
Movieland Wax Museum
Buena Park, California
700
Oak Ridge Atomic Museum
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
130
Sources: The Franklin Institute of Philadelphia and Economics Research
Associates.
III-14
Table 5
ESTIMATED CURRENT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE
AT SELECTED
LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTY ATTRACTIONS
Annual
Attraction
Attendance
Huntington Library and Art Gallery
530
Movieland Wax Museum
700
Griffith Park Hall of Science
700
Los Angeles County Museum of
Natural History
850
Forest Lawn, Glendale
1,100
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
1,250
California Museum of Science and
Industry
1,470
Source: Economics Research Associates.
III- 15
An examination of the seasonal distribution pattern of attendance
at such attractions as Busch Gardens in Van Nuys, Disneyland, and the
Movieland Wax Museum indicates that about 30 percent of total annual
museum attendance will be generated in the months of July and August.
On peak days during July and August, which are weekend days, attendance
will normally approximate 22. 5 percent of average weekly attendance
during that period. Assuming an eight- to ten-hour operation period, it
is estimated that the peak in-grounds attendance on the average high day
will approximate 50 percent of total attendance for that day. Thus, it is
possible to estimate peak-day in-grounds attendance, based on a given
annual attendance. Table 6 derives peak-day in-grounds attendance for
various levels of annual attendance, using the factors described above.
For purposes of anticipating land use requirements, estimates of
parking needs can be derived from estimated peak-day in-grounds attendance
figures. Table 7 calculates these requirements for annual attendance levels
ranging from 600, 000 to 1,200,000, assuming a high-day crowd level 20
percent greater than average high-day attendance. As indicated, a rela-
tively modest, medium-impact facility attracting only 600, 000 visitors in
its first year would initially require only 7.6 acres of museum parking
space. More attractive and elaborate facilities would be expected to draw
larger crowds and, as such, would require more parking space (up to 15. 2
acres if attendance were to reach 1, 200, 000). An allowance for future
expansion is also included in Table 7, ranging from 150 percent on the
lower end of the scale to 75 percent where the facility is sufficiently
elaborate to attract 1, 200, 000 or more persons in its first year of operation.
Required circulation space in the museum is estimated in Table 8,
allowing 20 square feet per person, computed on the basis of average high-
day peak in-grounds attendance plus 20 percent. Initial requirements range
from 54, 800 square feet to 109, 400 square feet, depending upon the quality
of the attraction and, therefore, the expected attendance. It should be
noted that the above figures include only the circulation space required
for the audience, and not exhibit space.
III-16
Table 6
ESTIMATED PEAK IN-GROUNDS ATTENDANCE
AT SELECTED ANNUAL ATTENDANCE LEVELS
Selected annual attendance (000)
600
800
1,000
1,200
Peak two months, at 30 percent
of total attendance (000)
180
240
300
360
Average weekly attendance
20,300
27,000
33,800
40,600
Average high-day, at 22. 5
percent of weekly attendance
4,560
6,080
7,600
9,120
Peak in-grounds, at 50 percent of
average high-day attendance
2,280
3,040
3,800
4,560
Source: Economics Research Associates.
III- 17
Table 7
ESTIMATED MINIMUM RANGE OF PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NIXON CENTER
Selected annual attendance (000)
600
800
1,000
1,200
Peak-day in-grounds attendance
1/
2,740
3,650
4,550
5,470
Number of persons arriving
by car 2/
2,650
3,540
4,400
5,300
Number of cars 3/
945
1,265
1,570
1,895
Acreage initially required 4/
7.6
10.1
12.5
15.2
Allowance for expansion (acres)
11.4
12.6
12.5
11.4
Total acreage required
19.0
22.7
25.0
26.8
1/
20 percent higher than the average high day.
2/
Estimated at 97 percent of the crowd.
3/
Based on 2.8 persons per car.
4/
Based on 125 cars per acre.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
III- 18
Table 8
ESTIMATED CIRCULATION SPACE
REQUIRED AT SELECTED ATTENDANCE LEVELS
Selected annual attendance (000)
600
800
1,000
1,200
Peak-day in-grounds attendance
1/
2,740
3,650
4,550
5,470
Circulation space
requirement 2 / (square feet)
54,800
73,000
91,000 109,400
1/
20 percent higher than the average high day.
2/
Based on 20 square feet per person.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
III- 19
Environmental Factors
From the standpoint of environment, the Irvine area has a clear
advantage over any part of the Los Angeles County and especially over the
USC and UCLA areas. If the center is to attract scholars and thinkers
as well as the general public, it appears most inappropriate to locate it in
the solidly built-up area of Los Angeles where smog is frequently a
problem. In contrast, the UCI area and, particularly, the Irvine Ranch,
can be considered almost smog-free. Moreover, the area comprises one
of the few remaining locations near Southern California population centers
in which wide open spaces of developable land still exist.
A final and crucial factor that almost certainly rules out the loca-
tion of a large center (100 acres or more) in proximity to USC or UCLA
is land cost. While land cost in Orange County is by no means low (see
Table 9), almost any tract in the heavily urbanized areas of Los Angeles
can be expected to sell for at least several hundred thousand dollars per
acre. Even if a minimum of 100 acres were obtained in Los Angeles for
the Center, a probable cost of $20 million to $30 million or more would
make the acquisition, or even the donation, of such property prohibitively
expensive. Thus, little choice appears to exist other than to look to the
UCI area, unless an attempt is made to locate the Center on a much
smaller tract of land, seriously altering its character and limiting the
scope of activity.
CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS
From the foregoing analysis, it is clear that, of the university
areas considered in this study, the vicinity of the University of California
at Irvine is easily the general area best suited to the type of museum-
library complex planned for establishment by the Nixon Foundation. As
this report has shown, the desire of the Foundation to have the Center
achieve maximum public impact can best be effectuated by locating it in
coastal Orange County near UC Irvine, which is the one area in California
most heavily frequented both by California and out-of-state tourists.
Although USC is somewhat closer to the Los Angeles Basin popula-
tion center, UC Irvine is much closer than either USC or UCLA to the
more statistically significant regional population center. Moreover, in
both cases, future population trends will tend to move the "center of
gravity" even closer to UC Irvine.
III-20
Table 9
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATE SITES
FOR THE NIXON CENTER
Relative Cost of
Approximate
Compatible
Proximity to
Developing
Price
Surrounding
UCI and the
Center Excluding
Acreage
Per Acre
Topography
Land Use
Tourist Market
Land Cost
San Joaquin Fruit
Company property
234
$19,000
Flat
Probably not
Poor
Average
Segerstrom property
1,400
$35,000-$50,000
Flat
No
Good
Above average
Sakioka property
200
$65,000
Flat
No
Good
Above average
Veeh Ranch
250
$13,500
Flat to rolling
Yes
Fair-good
Average
Irvine Ranch
85,000
Variable
Variable
Yes
Excellent
Average
Great Lakes Carbon
521
$7,500
Rugged
Yes
Fair-poor
Well above average
Company property
Laguna Niguel
Undefined
Variable
Variable
Yes
Fair-poor
Above average
Source: Coldwell, Banker and Company and Economics Research Associates.
In terms of the proximity of the Nixon Center to large numbers of
graduate students, UCI lags far behind both USC and UCLA at present.
However, by the late 1970s, at which time the Center probably will have
been completed, the rapid growth in enrollment projected at UCI and the
lack of growth in enrollment projected at both USC and UCLA will have
narrowed the gap considerably. Furthermore, continuing increases in
enrollment at UCI until 1990 will bring it into approximate parity with the
two older universities.
Finally, with respect to environmental factors such as smog
intrusion and density of development, the UCI vicinity is, by far, the
superior area. Moreover, the prohibitively high cost of land in Los
Angeles militates strongly against consideration of a site near UCLA or
USC.
III-22
Section IV
INDIVIDUAL SITE ANALYSIS
After narrowing the search to the UC Irvine area, Coldwell,
Banker and Company was enlisted for the purpose of studying in depth
individual sites located in the portion of Orange County within 20 minutes
driving time of UCI, or sites that will be located within this distance upon
completion of the Newport Freeway and construction of the proposed
Coastal Freeway. The area of intensive study is shown in Figure 4.
A number of criteria were considered to be of fundamental impor --
tance in this site analysis. The kind of facility that is planned must be
quiet and serene, projecting an aura of both dignity and historical signifi-
cance. It therefore should be free not only from such disturbances as
noise, odor, congestion, smog, and the unsightly conditions resulting
from heavy industry, but should possess that intangible something which
might be termed a "sense of place.' Whether or not a site has this "sense
of place" can be felt as much as seen. It has to do with beauty, but also
with the historic associations, character, and cultural atmosphere of a
location, with its vital, inspiring qualities. It is a sum total of the qualities
which impart a feeling that this is not just another piece of land, but a
special place.
Accordingly, the topographical features of sites were considered
with a view to inherent aesthetic qualities as well as to the practical
considerations relative to the feasibility of construction. Similarly,
attention was given to present surrounding land uses, with a view to elim-
inating sites adjacent to development that might eventually detract from
the dignity and tranquility of the Center. For example, a location near
unsightly industrial or even strip commercial development might tend to
downgrade the image that the Center should project, while this might not
be true in the case of neighboring high-quality residential districts.
Closely related to the above criteria is whether or not potential
exists for development within a surrounding master plan framework. In
the search for specific sites, areas are seen which have no orderly plans
for development, and communities somehow indifferent to planning, which
appear to have insurmountable difficulties in the path of their orderly
development. In these areas and communities, the indiscriminate en-
croachment of industrial and commercial uses and improper standards
IV-1
$ANTA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
U.C. IRVINE
1.
The San Joaquin Fruit Company.
2.
The Segerstrom Property.
LAGUNA
3.
Sakioka Property.
JUAN
4.
Veeh Ranch.
CAPISTRANO
5.
Irvine Ranch.
6.
Great Lakes Carbon.
SOURCE: Economics Research Associates
Figure 4
AREA WITHIN 20 MINUTES DRIVING TIME OF U.C. IRVINE
for streets, highways, housing, and SO forth are all in view. Certain
areas have deteriorated to such an extent that little likelihood exists for
the development of orderly, healthy communities without comprehensive
surgery.
Fortunately, areas also are seen in which ragged, unplanned growth
has not and will not occur. The example in the area studied is the Irvine
Ranch, which not only offers a large open area of beautiful and unspoiled
land, but also the advantage of unified ownership and a well conceived
master plan for future development. The most scenic and, from the point
of view of the type of setting which should be had by the proposed Center,
the most interesting portion of the vast Irvine Ranch holdings is the area
along the coast from Corona Del Mar to Laguna Beach. Many sites along
this strip seem to offer the ideal climate, the majestic setting, and the
proper "sense of place" that would contribute so greatly to the contempla-
tive and dignified atmosphere of the Nixon Center.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATE SITES
Seven sites were submitted by Coldwell, Banker and Company. Although
extensive information is available on each of the properties, this prelimi-
nary evaluation deals primarily with size, price, location, topography,
and characteristics which would be particularly relevant in considering
the properties as sites for the Nixon Center. Figures 4 and 5 show the
locations of each of the properties. The seven sites are as follows:
1. The San Joaquin Fruit Company property. This property is
situated approximately two miles north of the Santa Ana
Freeway. It consists of 234 acres of level citrus groves,
but is fragmented. However, one section contains 100 acres
of contiguous property. Property in close proximity to this
parcel has been selling for $19,000 per acre. The property
would have relatively little exposure and might present noise
problems due to the close proximity of the E1 Toro Marine
Corps Air Station. As a whole, the site offers little to
distinguish it.
IV-3.
LOS ANGELES
SAN BERNARDINO
Los Angeles
3
RIVERSIDE
ORANGE
1
2
5
4
6
7
SAN DIEGO
OSan Diego
SOURCE: Economics Research Associates
Figure 5
LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITES WITHIN REGIONAL CONTEXT
2. The Segerstrom property. This property, similar to adjacent
Sakioka property discussed next, has excellent accessibility
and exposure since it is located near both the San Diego and
Newport freeways. It contains 1, 400 acres, part of which
already is developed in a major shopping center. The re-
mainder is zoned for industrial use. Because of the probable
incompatibility of surrounding land uses and the selling price
of $35,000 to $50,000 per acre, which reflects intensive use
potential, this property most likely would be unsuitable for the
Nixon Center.
3. The Sakioka property. As mentioned above, this 200-acre
property is similar to the Segerstrom property, except that,
at $65,000 per acre, it is more costly.
4. The Veeh Ranch. This property contains 250 acres and is
located one mile from the San Diego Freeway between the
Irvine Ranch and the Rossmoor Corporation's Leisure World
development. Access from the San Diego Freeway is via the
Moulton Parkway. Necessary utilities are presently located
within the parkway. The property is unique in that it contains
a 30-acre lake. Although most of it is relatively level, there
are nearby hills which provide a buffer from surrounding land
uses. The entire 250-acre parcel is currently priced at $13,500.
This property seemingly meets many of the site selection
criteria.
5. The Irvine Ranch. As mentioned previously, this property,
particularly the coastal section, probably possesses the most
advantages for the site of the Nixon Center. Proximity to the
university, tourist exposure, climate, and aesthetic qualities
all are in its favor. Assuming favorable site acquisition and
development costs, it is the opinion of ERA that this property
represents the prime location for the Nixon Center.
6. The Great Lakes Carbon Company property. This property
consists of 521 acres in a triangular shape at the intersection
of El Toro and Laguna Canyon roads. According to the des-
cription submitted by Coldwell, Banker and Company, the
terrain is extremely rugged, making development difficult.
Moreover, to bring utilities to the property would cost some
$300,000. The selling price of the property is estimated at
$3.9 million, or $7,500 per acre.
IV-5
7. The Laguna Niguel property. This is a large tract of generally
high-quality land located east of Laguna Beach. According to
Coldwell, Banker and Company, it consists of a variety of
landscapes, and the costs of different segments vary accord-
ingly. The surrounding areas would provide an excellent
buffer zone. This property seemingly meets many of the site
selection criteria.
The site descriptions and qualification judgments of ERA are
summarized in Table 9.
IV-6
Document source description
This file contains:
Articles of Incorporation of The Richard Nixon Foundation. 11 pages. [Report], n.d.
From Leonard Firestone to John Ehrlichman re: Economics Research Associates analysis. 1 page. [Letter], 3/27/1970
"Location Analysis for the Proposed Nixon Center prepared by The Richard M. Nixon Foundation" by the Economics Research Associates. 43 pages. [Report], 3/9/1970
A Study for the Richard Nixon Foundation, Phase 1 by William L. Pereira Associates. Apprx. 122 pages. Oversized - not scanned. [Report], 4/1/1970
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- aa57d63009589868
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 26126332
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "26126332",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26126332",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "WHSF: Returned, 13-13",
"description": "This file contains:\n\nArticles of Incorporation of The Richard Nixon Foundation. 11 pages. [Report], n.d.\n\nFrom Leonard Firestone to John Ehrlichman re: Economics Research Associates analysis. 1 page. [Letter], 3/27/1970\n\n\"Location Analysis for the Proposed Nixon Center prepared by The Richard M. Nixon Foundation\" by the Economics Research Associates. 43 pages. [Report], 3/9/1970\n\nA Study for the Richard Nixon Foundation, Phase 1 by William L. Pereira Associates. Apprx. 122 pages. Oversized - not scanned. [Report], 4/1/1970",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26126332",
"collections": [
"Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
"Returned White House Special Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/32/1263/26126332/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/3599958/WHSF_Box_13/WHSF13-13.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/32/1263/26126332/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/3599958/WHSF_Box_13/WHSF13-13.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/32/1263/26126332/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/3599958/WHSF_Box_13/WHSF13-13.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "26126332",
"label": "WHSF: Returned, 13-13",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26126332"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "26126332",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26126332",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "WHSF: Returned, 13-13",
"description": "This file contains:\n\nArticles of Incorporation of The Richard Nixon Foundation. 11 pages. [Report], n.d.\n\nFrom Leonard Firestone to John Ehrlichman re: Economics Research Associates analysis. 1 page. [Letter], 3/27/1970\n\n\"Location Analysis for the Proposed Nixon Center prepared by The Richard M. Nixon Foundation\" by the Economics Research Associates. 43 pages. [Report], 3/9/1970\n\nA Study for the Richard Nixon Foundation, Phase 1 by William L. Pereira Associates. Apprx. 122 pages. Oversized - not scanned. [Report], 4/1/1970",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26126332",
"collections": [
"Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
"Returned White House Special Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/32/1263/26126332/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/3599958/WHSF_Box_13/WHSF13-13.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/32/1263/26126332/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/3599958/WHSF_Box_13/WHSF13-13.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/32/1263/26126332/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/3599958/WHSF_Box_13/WHSF13-13.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26126332",
"naId": 26126332,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/32/1263/26126332/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/3599958/WHSF_Box_13/WHSF13-13.pdf",
"mediaId": "aa57d63009589868",
"ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nWhite House Special Files Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number Folder Number Document Date Document Type\nDocument Description\n13\n13\nn.d.\nReport\nArticles of Incorporation of The Richard\nNixon Foundation. 11 pages.\n13\n13\n03/27/1970\nLetter\nFrom Leonard Firestone to John Ehrlichman\nre: Economics Research Associates analysis.\n1 page.\n13\n13\n03/09/1970\nReport\n\"Location Analysis for the Proposed Nixon\nCenter prepared by The Richard M. Nixon\nFoundation\" by the Economics Research\nAssociates. 43 pages.\n13\n13\n04/1970\nReport\nA Study for the Richard Nixon Foundation,\nPhase 1 by William L. Pereira Associates.\nApprx. 122 pages. Oversized - not scanned.\nMonday, July 16, 2007\nPage 1 of 1\nARTICLES OF INCORPORATION\nOF\nTHE RICHARD NIXON FOUNDATION\nI\nThe name of this corporation shall be\nTHE RICHARD NIXON FOUNDATION\nII\nThe purposes for which this corporation is formed are:\n(a) The specific and primary purposes are to receive and\nmaintain a fund or funds of real or personal property, or both, and,\nsubject to the restrictions and limitations hereinafter set forth, to use\nand apply the whole or any part of the income therefrom and the prin-\ncipal thereof exclusively for charitable, religious, scientific, literary\nor educational purposes either directly or by contributions to organi-\nzations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3)\nof the Internal Revenue Code and its Regulations as they now exist or\nas they may hereafter be amended.\n(b) The general purposes and powers are:\n(1) To accept, acquire, receive, take, and\nhold by bequest, devise, grant, gift, purchase, exchange,\n1-1\nlease, transfer, judicial order or decree, or otherwise,\nfor any of its objects and purposes, any property, both\nreal and personal, of whatever kind, nature, or des-\ncription and wherever situated.\n(2) To sell, exchange, convey, mortgage, lease,\ntransfer, or otherwise dispose of, any such property,\nboth real and personal, as the objects and purposes of\nthe corporation may require, subject to such limitations\nas may be prescribed by law.\n(3) To borrow money, and, from time to time to\nmake, accept, endorse, execute and issue bonds, deben-\ntures, promissory notes, bills of exchange, and other\nobligations of the corporation for moneys borrowed or\nin payment for property acquired or for any of the other\npurposes of the corporation, and to secure the payment\nof any such obligations by mortgage, pledge, deed, in-\ndenture, agreement, or other instrument of trust, or\nby other lien upon, assignment of, or agreement in regard\nto all or any part of the property, rights, or privileges\nof the corporation wherever situated, whether now owned\nor hereafter to be acquired.\n-2-\n1-2.\n(4) To invest and reinvest its funds in such stock,\ncommon or preferred, bonds, debentures, mortgages,\nor in such other securites and property as its Board of\nTrustees shall deem advisable, subject to the limitations\nand conditions contained in any bequest, devise, grant\nor gift, provided such limitations and conditions are not\nin conflict with the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of\nthe Internal Revenue Code and its Regulations as they\nnow exist or as they may hereafter be amended.\n(5) In general, and subject to such limitations\nand conditions as are or may be prescribed by law, to\nexercise such other powers which now or hereafter may\nbe conferred by law upon a corporation organized for the\npurposes hereinabove set forth, or necessary or inci-\ndental to the powers so conferred, or conducive to the\nattainment of the purposes of the corporation, subject\nto the further limitation and condition that, notwithstanding\nany other provision of this certificate, only such powers\nshall be exercised as are in furtherance of the tax-exempt\npurposes of the corporation and as may be exercised by\nan organization exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the\n-3-\n/ 3\nInternal Revenue Code and its Regulations as they\nnow exist or as they may hereafter be amended\nand by an organization contributions to which are\ndeductible under Section 170(c)(2) of such Code\nand Regulations as they now exist or as they may\nhereafter be amended.\nIII\nThis corporation is organized pursuant to the General Non-\nprofit Corporation Law of the State of California.\nIV\nThe county in this State where the principal office for the\ntransaction of the business of this corporation is located is Los\nAngeles County.\nV\nThe names and addresses of the persons who are to act\nin the capacity of Executive Trustees of the corporation until the\nselection of their successors are:\nName\nAddress\nJOHN D. EHRLICHMAN\n330 Chesapeake Drive\nGreat Falls, Virginia 22066\nROBERT H. FINCH\n6323 Beachway Drive\nFalls Church, Virginia 22044\nLEONARD GARMENT\nWatergate Hotel, Room 302\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n-4-\n/ - 4\nName\nAddress\nH. R. HALDEMAN\nThe Watergate Hotel\nWashington, D. C. 20036\nPATRICIA REILLY HITT\n3113 Woodley Road N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20008\nHERBERT W. KALMBACH\n1056 Santiago Drive\nNewport Beach, California 92660\nJOHN N. MITCHELL\n2510 Virginia Avenue N.W.\nWashington, D.C.\nVI\nThe authorized number and qualifications of the Executive\nTrustees, Trustees, or members of the corporation, the different\nclasses of membership, if any, the property, voting, and other rights\nand privileges of members and their liability to dues or assessments and\nthe method of collection thereof, shall be as set forth in the By-Laws.\nVII\nNo part of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure\nto the benefit of any trustee, member, officer, or any private in-\ndividual (except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services\nrendered to or for the corporation affecting one or more of its purposes)\nand no trustee, member, officer of the corporation, or any private in-\ndividual shall be entitled to share in the distribution of any of the corporate\nassets on dissolution of the corporation.\n-5-\n1-5.\nVIII\nThis corporation is one which does not contemplate pecu-\nniary gain or profi it to the members thereof and it is organized solely\nfor non-profit purposes. Upon the winding up and dissolution of\nthis corporation, after paying or adequately providing for the debts and\nobligations of the corporation, the remaining assets shall be distributed\nto a non-profit fund, foundation or corporation, which is organized and\noperated exclusively for charitable, religious and/or scientific pur-\nposes and which has established its tax-exempt status under Section\n501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If this corporation holds any\nassets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as\nmay be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the county in which\nthis corporation's principal office is located, upon petition therefor by\nthe Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the persons\nhereinabove named as the first Executive Trustees, have executed\nthese Articles of Incorporation this 20th\nday of\nMay\n,\n1969.\nJOHN D. EHRLICHMAN - Incorporator\n-6-\n1-6\nROBERT H. FINCH - Incorporator\nfemand Gurment\nLEONARD GARMENT - Incorporator\nH. R. HALDEMAN\n- Incorporator\nPatrice PATRICIA REILLY Billy HITT Hite\n- Incorporator\nHERBERT W. KALMBACH - Incorporator\nJOHN N. MITCHELL - Incorporator\n-7-\n1\n1- 7\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )\n) ss:\nCity of Washington\n)\nOn this, the 20th day of may\n, 1969, before\nme, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the District of\nColumbia, personally appeared before me in said District JOHN D.\nEHRLICHMAN, ROBERT H. FINCH, LEONARD GARMENT, H. R.\nHALDEMAN, PATRICIA REILLY HITT and JOHN N. MITCHELL, known\nto me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within\nArticles of Incorporation, and acknowledged to me that they executed\nthe same.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I Have hereunto set my hand and\naffixed my official seal on the day and year first above written.\nMy commission expires:\nDecember 14, 1970\nCarson m. Howell\nNotary Public in and for the\nDistrict of Columbia\n- -8-\n1-8\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )\n) SS:\nCity of Washington\n)\nOn this, the 20th day of may\n, 1969, before\nme, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the District of\nColumbia, personally appeared before me in said District JOHN D.\nEHRLICHMAN, ROBERT H. FINCH, LEONARD GARMENT, H. R.\nHALDEMAN, PATRICIA REILLY HITT and JOHN N. MITCHELL, known\nto me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within\nArticles of Incorporation, and acknowledged to me that they executed\nthe same.\nd\nSerial\n'A\n56270\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nTo ALL WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:\nI CERTIFY THAT\nCARSON M. HOWELL\nwhose name is subscribed to the accompanying instrument, was at the time of signing the same a Notary Public\nin and for the District of Columbia, and duly commissioned and authorized by the laws of said District of Colum-\nbia to take the acknowledgment and proof of deeds or conveyance of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, and other\n1\ninstruments in writing to he recorded in said District, and to administer onths; and that I am well acquainted with\nthe handwriting of said Notary Public and verily believe that the signature and impression of seal thereon are\ngenuine, after comparison with signature and impression of seal on file in this office.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Secretary to the Commissionerz of the District of Columbia, has hereunto\ncaused the Seal of the District of Columbia to be affixed at the City of Washington, D.C., this\n20th\nday of\n(D.C. SEAL)\nManager May Boardion consissioners 1969\nNotary Public Clerk\n-8-\n1-9\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA\n)\n) ss:\nCounty of\n)\nOn this, the\nday of\n, 1969,\nbefore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of\nCalifornia, County of\n, personally appeared before me\nin said County HERBERT W. KALMBACH known to me to be the person\nwhose name is subscribed to the within Articles of Incorporation, and\nacknowledged to me that he executed the same.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and\naffixed my official seal on the day and year first above written.\nMy commission expires:\nNotary Public in and for said County\nand State\n-9-\n1-1.0\nSTATE OF CA FORNIA\n)\n)\nss:\nCounty of \"range\n)\nOn this, the 20 day of may , 1969,\nbefore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of\nCalifornia, County of Orange , personally appeared before me\nin said County HERBERT W. KALMBACH known to me to be the person\nwhose name is subscribed to the within Articles of Incorporation, and\nacknowledged to me that he executed the same.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and\naffixed my official seal on the day and year first above written.\nMy commission expires:\nMy Commission Expires February i7 1970\nClarence and Notary State Public in and for a said King Count\nFLORENCE A. KING\nNOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA\nPRINCIPAL OFFICE IN\nORANGE COUNTY\n-9- -\n1-11 11\nMAR 31 1969\nTHE RICHARD NIXON FOUNDATION\nCROCKER-CITIZENS PLAZA\n611 WEST SIXTH STREET\nLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017\nMarch 27, 1970\nTo:\nJohn Ehrlichman\nFrom:\nLeonard Fires\nWe have just received copies of the Economics\nResearch Associates analysis, which we decided\nto have undertaken at our December meeting in\nWashington, and one is enclosed for your perusal\nand possible comments.\nThe William L. Pereira and Associates report,\nwhich will go into considerable more detail as\nfar as site and construction suggestions are\nconcerned, should be coming along soon.\nBest regards.\nLOCATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR THE\nPROPOSED NIXON CENTER\nPrepared for\nTHE RICHARD M. NIXON FOUNDATION\nEconomics Research Associates\ner+\nLos Angeles, California\nWashington, D.C.\nLOCATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR THE\nPROPOSED NIXON CENTER\nPrepared for\nTHE RICHARD M. NIXON FOUNDATION\nMarch 9, 1970\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nSection\nPage\nI\nINTRODUCTION\nI- 1\nMethod of Approach\nI- 2\nII\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE ACADEMIC COM-\nMUNITY\nII- 1\nGeneral Background of Presidential Libraries\nII- 1\nAccessibility to Air Transportation\nII- 4\nIII\nATTENDANCE GENERATION FACTORS\nIII- 1\nLocation in Relation to the Los Angeles Basin\nand to Regional Population Centers\nIII- 2\nCalifornia Recreation Travel Patterns.\nIII- 7\nAttendance Patterns at Existing Presidential\nMuseums,\nIII- 12\nPlanning Parameters\nIII- 13\nConcluding Recommendations\nIII-20\nIV\nINDIVIDUAL SITE ANALYSIS\nIV- 1\nGeneral Description of Candidate Sites\nIV- 3\nii\nLIST OF FIGURES\nNumber\nPage\n1\nDISTRIBUTION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA\nCOLLEGES WITH GRADUATE STUDIES\nPROGRAMS\nI-3\n2\nGEOGRAPHIC CENTERS OF POPULATION, 1970\nIII- 3\n3\nGEOGRAPHIC CENTERS OF POPULATION, 1985\nIII- 4\n4\nAREA WITHIN 20 MINUTES DRIVING TIME OF\nU.C. IRVINE\nIV 2\n5\nLOCATION OF SUBJECT SITES WITHIN\nREGIONAL CONTEXT\nIV 4\niii\nLIST OF TABLES\nNumber\nPage\n1\nESTIMATED DRIVING TIMES FROM SELECTED\nUNIVERSITIES TO THE CENTERS OF\nPOPULATION\nIII- 5\n2\nPERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CALIFORNIA\nRESIDENT VISITATION TO RECREATION\nATTRACTIONS (ONE-DAY AND OVERNIGHT\nPLEASURE TRIPS)\nIII- 8\n3\nPOPULARITY OF RECREATIONAL ATTRAC-\nTIONS VISITED BY CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS\nON ONE-DAY AND OVERNIGHT PLEASURE\nTRIPS\nIII-10\n4\nATTENDANCE AT SELECTED MUSEUMS\nIII-14\n5\nESTIMATED CURRENT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE\nAT SELECTED LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE\nCOUNTY ATTRACTIONS\nIII-15\n6\nESTIMATED PEAK IN-GROUNDS ATTENDANCE\nAT SELECTED ANNUAL ATTENDANCE LEVELS\nIII-17\n7\nESTIMATED MINIMUM RANGE OF PARKING\nREQUIREMENTS FOR THE NIXON CENTER\nIII-18\n8\nESTIMATED CIRCULATION SPACE REQUIRED\nAT SELECTED ATTENDANCE LEVELS\nIII-19\n9\nSUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATE\nSITES FOR THE NIXON CENTER.\nIII-21\niv\nSection I\nINTRODUCTION\nThe Richard M. Nixon Foundation is planning the development of\nan elaborate museum-library complex, to be referred to in this study as\nthe Nixon Center. The Nixon Center may eventually consist of any or all\nof the following components:\n1. A library facility and a library collection for scholarly\nresearch in fields related to the administration and\nphilosophy of President Nixon.\n2. A museum displaying President Nixon's biography, papers,\nhighlights of his years in office, and other memorabilia all\npresented to the museum visitor in a dramatically interest-\ning and broadly appealing manner.\n3. Facilities for scholars in residence and other distinguished\nvisitors who may be invited to come together for confer-\nences or seminars dealing with major world and national\nproblems.\n4.\nA park-like setting with an atmosphere of historic signifi-\ncance, conducive to deep discussion and to quiet reflection.\nEconomics Research Associates was asked to assist the Nixon\nFoundation in determining the most suitable site for the complex.\nLocation criteria were set out in broad terms to allow maximum flexi-\nbility in the choice of site alternatives, and Coldwell, Banker and\nCompany was retained to aid in the selection process of available land\nsites within the defined areas.\nTotal area requirements have been established at 100 to 300 acres.\nThe Nixon Foundation wishes the facility to be located within a 50-mile\nradius of Los Angeles, and within at least 10 miles of a university or\nuniversities affording graduate study credits.\nI-1\nMETHOD OF APPROACH\nIn view of the above criteria, the study focused on the areas adja-\ncent to the four universities within a 50-mile radius of the Los Angeles\nCivic Center. These include the University of California (Los Angeles),\nUniversity of California (Irvine), University of Southern California, and\nthe Claremont Colleges. The one remaining school in the area with a\ndoctoral program, the California Institute of Technology, was eliminated\nfrom consideration because its graduate studies program is devoted\nentirely to the physical and biological sciences, and it is believed that a\nlibrary serving primarily as a depository for presidential papers would\nmake a significant contribution only to an institution with graduate pro-\ngrams in the social sciences and humanities.\nThe University of California (Riverside) also was excluded from\nconsideration since the campus is located somewhat more than 50 miles\nfrom the Los Angeles Civic Center and on the outer fringe of the high\npopulation density area of Southern California. It also is somewhat\nisolated with respect to the large number of institutions offering graduate\nstudy programs in the region, as shown in Figure 1.\nSites near the Claremont Colleges were excluded from serious\nconsideration after it was determined that the complex currently has a\ngraduate student enrollment of only 1, 151 students, with a future ceiling\nof approximately 1, 500 full- and part-time graduate students. Accord-\ningly, final consideration was given only to areas within a 10-mile radius\nof the two University of California campuses, Los Angeles and Irvine,\nand the University of Southern California.\nWith respect to such broad measures as population growth and\ndensity and tourist visitation, pertinent statistics have been applied to\neach of the three university areas under consideration, rather than to\nindividual sites within the areas, in order to present an overview of each.\nThe type of facility planned for construction will be multi-\nfunctional and, therefore, must be approached from several aspects.\nSimilar to the presidential libraries established for Presidents Hoover,\nRoosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, the Nixon Library will\nserve as a depository for the papers, books, and other historical materi-\nals relative to the President. It is wished both that the materials be\npreserved and made available to scholars for purposes of exhibit and\nI-2\nSANTA\nBARBARA\nKERN\nVENTURA\nLOS ANGELES\nSonta\nBarbara\nVentura\nSAN BERNARDINO\nOLos Angele\nRIVERSIDE\nORANGE\nSAN DIEGO\nMAJOR UNIVERSITIES\nOSan Diego\nFigure 1\nSOURCE: Economics Research Associates\nDISTRIBUTION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLEGES\nWITH GRADUATE STUDIES PROGRAMS\nresearch. To properly fulfill this function, the Foundation deems it\nimportant that the library be located near a major university with a large\ngraduate student population, so that research facilities will be fully\nutilized in contrast to the experience of the Eisenhower Library at Abilene,\nKansas, and the Hoover Library at West Branch, Iowa. Accordingly,\nERA gathered statistics concerning graduate student enrollment at Los\nAngeles area universities and interviewed university officials to obtain\ntheir estimates of future levels of graduate student enrollment.\nAnother potential function of the Center will be the provision of a\nplace in which outstanding scholars, industrialists, leaders of govern-\nment, and other distinguished individuals can come together in a serene\nand inspiring atmosphere to discuss issues and exchange ideas. Accord-\ningly, it is necessary that the site chosen have a setting in which no\nsurrounding land uses will detract from the spacious, park-like environ-\nment envisioned.\nUnlike its predecessor$, the Nixon Museum will be an important\nfacet of the museum-library complex. While other presidential museums\nhave housed mediocre exhibits and static photography, the Nixon Museum\nis to utilize new and sophisticated techniques for the recall and display of\nexhibit material. It is believed that many of the important events occur-\nring during President Nixon's Administration, such as the first manned\nlanding on the moon, can be displayed in a manner so interesting that\nmany visitors will be attracted.\nThis report is organized in four sections. Following this brief\nintroduction, Section II presents the general background of presidential\nlibraries as well as pertinent factors relative to each of the three univer-\nsity areas under consideration for location of the Nixon Center. In order\nto determine those sites within the defined areas in which attendance\npotential could be maximized, Section III deals with attendance factors\nsuch as population, accessibility, and tourist patterns. Planning para-\nmeters, with respect to acreage requirements and timing, and assuming\nvarying levels of attendance, also are set forth in Section III. Section IV\nexamines specific sites within the three university areas. The available\nsites are ranked based on their desirability in light of the locational cri-\nteria discussed herein. The effects on the Center of broad measures\nsuch as population growth and density and tourist visitation also are con-\nsidered in this section.\nThis research study was conducted under the administrative super-\nvision of Harrison A. Price, President of Economics Research Associates.\nMichael D. Jenkins, serving as Project Leader, conducted the research.\nThe assistance of Charles Detoy, Jr., and Peter Marr of Coldwell,\nBanker and Company is gratefully acknowledged.\nI-4\nSection II\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY\nGENERAL BACKGROUND OF PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES\nSince the beginning of American government, the separate and\nindependent status of the Office of the President has been construed as\nextending to and embracing the \"papers\" of the incumbent of the office.\nThese \"papers\" are not public records subject to Federal law, but rather\nare the private property of the President, to be disposed of as he wishes.\nAlthough it has always been recognized that a President's papers are his\nprivate property, it also has long been recognized that they constitute a\nform of property in which the Federal Government has a legitimate inter-\nest. They are a vital and important part of the nation's historical heri-\ntage, and our history cannot properly be understood or written without\nthem. Accordingly, their preservation is an important matter.\nAlso of significance is the availability of these materials to the\npeople. This has been particularly recognized in recent decades, and\nevery President since Herbert Hoover has been instrumental in establish-\ning a library to preserve his papers. Since 1939, at which time legisla-\ntion was passed accepting the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library as a\npresidential archival depository, the burden of assembling land for a site\nand constructing a suitable building or buildings has been on the President\nhimself or on private persons or non-Federal governmental agencies.\nTo provide suitable buildings, Presidents have turned to private,\nnonprofit organizations or to state or local governmental units and have\nlent their prestige and occasionally their own assets to the effort. The\nprecedent is now firmly established. The library is completed and given\nto the Federal Government, which is thereafter responsible for its main-\ntenance and operation.\nIf a presidential library is to properly fulfill its function as a\nstorehouse of information for scholarly research, it follows that the value\nof its contribution to our national heritage will be directly proportional to\nthe frequency with which it is utilized by scholars. The question then\narises as to how utilization of the library can be maximized, to which the\nmost logical answer appears to be its location near a major university\nwith a large body of graduate students able to conveniently use its\nII-1\nresources. This appears to be the approach followed by the planners of\nthe last two presidential libraries, the Lyndon B. Johnson Library,\nlocated on the University of Texas campus in Austin, and the John F.\nKennedy Library, scheduled for location adjacent to Harvard University\nin Cambridge, Massachusetts. With this in mind, Economics Research\nAssociates compiled data relative to current and future levels of graduate\nenrollment at the universities under consideration. The resulting pro-\njections are as follows:\nGraduate Student Enrollment\nUniversity\n1970\n1975\n1980\n1985\n1990\nUC Irvine\n1,063\n2,700\n4,800\n7,700\n11,000\nUCLA\n8,850\n10,000\n11,000\n12,000\n12,500\nUSC\n8,643\n11,000\n12,000\n12,500\n13,500\nClaremont\n1,151\n1,400\n1,500\n1,500\n1,500\nAs indicated, present graduate student enrollments at UCLA and\nUSC are almost eight times those at UC Irvine and the Claremont\nColleges. Since, however, a strong likelihood exists that President\nNixon will remain in office until 1977, it is unlikely that the proposed\ncenter will be established until the latter part of the decade. On this\nbasis, the more relevant figures are those for 1980 and thereafter. By\n1980, the graduate enrollment at UC Irvine should be approximately half\nthat at USC and at UCLA, and, by 1990, it should be only slightly less\nthan at the latter two schools. This is based on the fact that UCLA\nalready has reached the maximum planned enrollment for a University of\nCalifornia general campus (27, 500), and USC, with a current enrollment\nof more than 20, 000, probably will not expand to more than 25, 000 or\n30,000 in the future. Increases in graduate enrollments at UCLA and\nUSC will be largely a function of the maturation process, whereby major\nurban universities tend to have increasingly higher percentages of gradu-\nate students once the growth in overall enrollment ceases or tapers off.\nII-2\nThe table below exemplifies this pattern, with the matured and more\nprestigious universities showing a much greater emphasis on graduate\neducation than the newer institutions in less urbanized areas:\nPercentage of\nNumber of\nUniversity\nGraduate Enrollment\nGraduate Students\nUSC\n43%\n8,643\nStanford University\n42\n4,850\nHarvard University\n41\n7,750\nUC Berkeley\n36\n10,911\nUCLA\n29\n8,850\nClaremont Colleges\n24\n1,151\nUC Irvine\n23\n1,063\nUniversity of Texas\n18\n5,387\nGrowth in the graduate student enrollment at the Claremont\nColleges Center will be minimal, since current plans are to limit gradu-\nate enrollment to 1, 200 full-time and, possibly, 300 part-time students.\nAccordingly, graduate enrollment at Claremont should be only about one-\ntenth as large as at the other three universities in the area by 1990,\nstrongly indicating that the Claremont area should be eliminated from\nconsideration as a possible site for the Nixon Center.\nUC Irvine is the only university under consideration that is expected\nto show a large increase in enrollment during the next 20 years. Although\nits current total enrollment is only 4, 724, with 1, 063 graduate students\n(23 percent of total enrollment), Irvine planners expect total enrollment to\nrise to 10, 000 in 1975 and to 27, 500 by 1990. In view of the aforementioned\ntendency of major universities to place increasing emphasis on graduate\nstudies as they approach their limits of physical expansion, it is conserva-\ntively estimated that by 1975 and 1990 graduate students at UCI will total\n2, 700 and 11, 000 respectively.\nII-3\nThe conclusion to be drawn from these projections is that, by\n1990, the number of graduate students at USC, UCLA, and UC Irvine will\nbe approximately equal. Therefore, no clear preference exists with re-\nspect to where the library can be most fully utilized. It is obvious, how-\never, that, in terms of proximity to a large graduate student body, the\nClaremont Colleges area constitutes the least suitable location.\nACCESSIBILITY TO AIR TRANSPORTATION\nAlthough most users of a presidential library are either scholars\nin residence or students and faculty members of neighboring universities,\na fair number of persons can be expected to come to the complex from\nother parts of the country. Also, distinguished citizens who might from\ntime to time be invited to meet in small groups at the Center would, in\nmost cases, come to the Los Angeles area by air. Thus, it is important\nthat the university area in which the Nixon Center is located be relatively\naccessible to an airport served by one or more scheduled airlines. ERA\nhas computed the average driving time from each major university to the\nnearest scheduled air transport facility, assuming an average freeway\ndriving speed of 48 miles per hour, and an average surface street speed\nof 24 miles per hour. Different sites within each university area would,\nof course, involve different driving times, but the table below presents a\ngeneralized illustration of conditions within each area:\nDriving Time to\nNearest Airport\nUniversity\n(minutes)\nAirport\nUC Irvine\n3\nOrange County\nUSC\n21\nLos Angeles\nInternational\nUCLA\n23\nLos Angeles\nInternational\nAs indicated, UC Irvine is much more conveniently located with\nrespect to air transportation facilities than either USC or UCLA. None-\ntheless, both USC and UCLA are quite conveniently located, so that rela-\ntive accessibility by air is not a significant factor in this analysis.\nII-4\nSection III\nATTENDANCE GENERATION FACTORS\nThe proposed Nixon Center will probably resemble existing presi-\ndential libraries. However, as presently envisioned, it will be more\nthan a library or museum or facility of specialized service and narrow\nappeal. On the contrary, in totality it can constitute a perpetual place of\nlearning about man and his political institutions; a source of service to\nscholars and, through their research, to society; and a dramatic and\nmeaningful contact with American heritage for every citizen and, indeed,\nfor visitors from around the world.\nTo effectuate these goals, it is intended that the museum take the\nfullest possible advantage of state-of-the-art technological innovations.\nSince public impact is largely a function of public exposure, the site\nchosen for the Center must be one calculated to maximize attendance\npotential.\nGiven the quality of the attraction, the other attendance-generation\nfactors that must be examined are:\nProximity to population centers.\nFuture population growth.\nTourism.\nAccessibility.\nQuality of surrounding land use.\nFreedom from physical nuisances.\nThis section analyzes the first three of these factors as they\nrelate to the three university areas under consideration in this study. The\nremaining factors are analyzed, by individual site, in the following sec-\ntion.\nIII-1\nLOCATION IN RELATION TO THE LOS ANGELES BASIN\nAND TO REGIONAL POPULATION CENTERS\nA weighted center of population is computed in Figure 2 for the\n1970 population of the Los Angeles Basin and the five-county area. The\n1970 Basin population center is computed by setting all metropolitan Los\nAngeles and seven Orange County census divisions on XY product coordi-\nnates and solving for the point of zero difference. This point is the loca-\ntion which, if converged upon by the total population, would involve the\nleast aggregate travel distance. In 1970, the Basin center of population\nis on Gage Street, 1 - 1/2 miles east of the Long Beach Freeway.\nA weighted center of population (particularly significant for a high-\nquality attraction deriving attendance from a wide area) for the five\nSouthern California counties of Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino,\nRiverside, and San Diego also is shown in Figure 2.\nThe five-county area, comprised of Los Angeles, San Bernardino,\nRiverside, Orange, and San Diego counties, comprises the regional system\nfor which population growth and movement of the population center were com-\nputed. This area comprises a contiguous group of counties which generally\nare recognized as a homogeneous economic and social unit. The center\nwas computed by setting individual county population centers on XY prod-\nuct coordinates and solving for the point of zero difference. In 1970, the\ncenter of population for this broader area is on the Riverside Freeway in\nOrange County, five miles east of the Santa Ana Freeway.\nThe movement of these two centers of population by 1985 is shown\nin Figure 3. In 1985, the expected Basin center will have moved south-\neast to the intersection of Gage Street and the Santa Ana Freeway. Also\nby 1985, the population center of the five Southern California counties will\nhave moved to the Garden Grove Freeway, 1-1/2 miles west of the\nNewport Freeway.\nThe distance and driving time relationship of these centers of\npopulation to university areas is shown in tabular form in Table 1. These\ndata are indicative of comparative accessibility. The 1970 Basin popu-\nlation center distance from the universities ranges from 12. 3 miles\n(USC) to 32. 1 miles (UC Irvine). However, by 1985, the Basin population\ncenter will have moved somewhat nearer to UC Irvine and slightly farther\nfrom USC and UCLA.\nIII-2\n:\nBURBANK\nVAN NUYS\nWOODLAND HILLS\nRENCING\nMONROVIA\nPASADENA\nCALIFORNIA\nAZUSA\nGLEND\nARCADIA\nRESERVED\nHOLLYWOOD\nALHAMBRA\nEL\nMONTE\nBERNARD\nBEVERLY HILLS\nBERNARDING\nFREEWAY\nWEST COVINA\n4\nMONICA\nSANTA\nCULVER CITY\nMONTEBELLO\nSANTA MONICA\nLOS ANGELES\nFREEWAY\nWHITTIER\n1970 CENTERS OF POPULATION\nHUNTINGTON\nVENICE\nPARK\nBEACH\nINGLEWOOD\nONG\nPLAYA OEL REY\nANGELES\nCOUNTY\nDOWNEY\nORANGE\nCOUNTY\nCENTER OF LOS ANGELES BASIN\nBLVD\nCENTER OF FIVE COUNTIES\nNORWALK\nCOMPTON\nMANHATTAN\nBEACH\n-\nEl\nYORBA LINDA\nGARDENA\nARTESIA\nFREEWAY\ncommeticate\nHERMOSA\nFULLERTON\nBEACH\nPRESENT\nSCALE IN MILES\n5\nANAHEIM\nREDONDO\nN\nBEACH\nTORRANCE\nBEACH\n$\nw\nera\n€\n:\nORANGE\nLONG BEACH\n-\nS\nSEAL BEACH\nSANTA ANA\nSAN PEDRO\n9TH IT\nSOURCE: Economics Research Associates\nFigure 2\nGEOGRAPHIC CENTERS OF POPULATION\n1970\n/\nBLVD\nBURBANK\nVAN NUYS\n...\nWOODLAND HILLS\nTURA\nTHE\nRESERVER\nBown\nRIVER\nMONROVIA\nPASADENA\nAZUSA\nGLEND\nARCADIA\n-\nFREEWAY\nHOLLYWOOD\nALHAMBRA\nBERNARD\nEL MONTE\nBEVERLY HILLS\nWEST COVINA\n&\nFREEWAY\nMONICA\nSANTA\nCULVER CITY\nMONTEBELLO\nSANTA MONICA\nLOS ANGELES\nFREEWAY\nWHITTER\n1985 CENTERS OF POPULATION\nHUNTINGTON\nVENICE\nPARK\nBEACH\nINGLEWOOD\nLONG\nPLAYA OELREY\n-\nCENTURY\nLOS ANGELES\nCOUNTY\nDOWNEY\nORANGE\nCOUNTY\nCENTER OF LOS ANGELES BASIN\nI\nCENTER OF FIVE COUNTIES\n1\n\"\nORWALK\nCOMPTON\nMANHATTAN\nBEACH\n-\nYORBA LINDA\nGARDENA\nARTESIA\nFREEWAY\nCOMMINWEALTH\nHERMOSA\nFULLERTON\nBEACH\nFREE\nRO EF\nSCALE IN MILES\n5\nSANTYS\nANAHEIM\nREDONDO\nn\nBEACH\nTORRANCE\n-\n90\n€\n$\nand\nLONG BEACH\n-\nS\nSEAL BEACH\nSANTA ANA\nSAN PEDRO\nX\nSOURCE: Economics Research Associates\nFigure 3\nGEOGRAPHIC CENTERS OF POPULATION\n1985\nTable 1\nESTIMATED DRIVING TIMES FROM SELECTED\nUNIVERSITIES TO THE CENTERS OF POPULATION\nUC\nUC Irvine\nUSC\nUCLA\nUCSB\nRiverside\nUCSD\nAverage Driving Time (Minutes) To:\nCenter of Los Angeles Basin\nPopulation\n1970\n47.0\n18.5\n38.0\n143.0\n59.8\n132.0\n1985\n44.5\n16.0\n35.5\n140.5\n52.5\n129.5\nCenter of Southern California\nFive-County Population\nIII-5\n1970\n27.9\n40.3\n59.8\n160.0\n84.7\n114.6\n1985\n18.4\n45.2\n64.7\n165.0\n82.2\n105.0\nDriving Distance (Miles) To:\nCenter of Los Angeles Basin\nPopulation\n1970\n32.1\n12.3\n27.3\n113.2\n56.1\n104.0\n1985\n31.0\n13.4\n28.9\n114.3\n55.0\n102.9\nCenter of Southern California\nFive-County Population\n1970\n18.5\n29.3\n44.3\n128.0\n37.3\n91.6\n1985\n10.9\n33.3\n48.3\n132.0\n41.3\n83.9\nSource: Economics Research Associates.\nWith respect to the larger five-county area, a location near the\nUniversity of Californiat Irvine would have a decided accessibility advan-\ntage over the USC and UCLA areas in 1970, and an even more pronounced\nadvantage in the years ahead as the regional population center moves in a\nsoutheasterly direction. Freeway network improvements planned by 1980\nalso will enhance the comparative regional access advantage of UC Irvine.\nAlthough the absolute number of persons living within a 45-minute\ndriving radius of the UC Irvine area is considerably less in 1970 than that\nwithin 45 minutes of USC and UCLA, this gap should become steadily\nsmaller as urbanization of Orange County proceeds, since the rate of\npopulation growth in the Irvine area will be approximately three times that\nof the USC and UCLA areas. The current and projected population of\nareas within a 45-minute driving radius of each university, assuming\naverage speeds of 48 miles per hour on freeways and 24 miles per hour\non surface streets, is shown below:\nPopulation within 45 minutes Driving\nTime of Selected Universities\nUniversity\n(millions of persons)\nPercentage Change\n1970\n1985\n1970-1985\nUSC\n7.8\n9.3\n19%\nUCLA\n6.9\n8.4\n20\nUC Irvine\n3.3\n5.3\n61\nBased on the table, it can be concluded that, with respect to proxi-\nmity to the population \"center of gravity\" of the Los Angeles Basin, USC\nhas a decided advantage over both UCLA and UC Irvine in 1970. More-\nover, this situation will not change appreciably by 1985, although shifts in\nthe population center occurring between now and 1985 and future freeway\ndevelopment will tend to favor the position of UC Irvine.\nIn terms of the larger Southern California area, UC Irvine pres-\nently is much more favorably situated than either USC or UCLA. More-\nover, this advantage will be magnified in the future by burgeoning popula-\ntion growth in Orange County and in nearby Riverside and San Bernardino\ncounties. Other University of California branches in Southern California\nat Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Diego are even less favorably\nsituated than UCLA and USC with respect to population centers, as\nindicated in Table 1.\nIII-6\nWhile the location of the Nixon Center relative to population centers\nand to major universities is of considerable importance, its proximity to\nthe large number of smaller educational institutions in Southern California\nis also an important factor. Figure 3 shows the locations of all colleges\nin Southern California offering graduate level studies as well as the USC\nand the University of California campuses (shown in red). As indicated,\nthe UC Irvine, USC, and UCLA campuses are roughly comparable in terms\nof their centrality to all higher educational institutions in the region, but\nare much more centrally located than the University of California campuses\nat Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Diego.\nCALIFORNIA RECREATION TRAVEL PATTERNS\nWhile it is important that the Nixon Museum be located near\npopulation centers, if attendance is to be maximized, it also is highly\nimportant that the Center be well situated relative to the enormous poten-\ntial tourist audience of Southern California. It is not possible to precisely\nquantify the number of tourists passing any given point; however, studies\nof tourism in Southern California do reveal very definite general trends.\nA study of tourism and recreation in California conducted by\nEconomics Research Associates in 1966-1967 for the U. S. Department\nof Commerce and the California Office of Tourism provides many answers\nconcerning the locations of the greatest concentrations of tourists. The\nstudy disclosed that the most popular destinations of California residents\non one-day trips within the state are beach and coastal areas. Travel to\nthe seashore accounted for 29 percent of all one-day trips taken during\nthe summer months of 1966. The second most popular destinations of\nCalifornia residents on one-day trips are amusement attractions such as\nDisneyland, Knott's Berry Farm, the San Diego Zoo, Marineland, and\nSea World. Visitation to these attractions accounted for 23 percent of all\nnon-overnight summer travel. The least popular activities of California\nresidents on one-day trips are visits to historical attractions, public\nnon-scenic sights (i.e., civic centers, public buildings, universities,\nand stadiums), cultural attractions, and spectator sports. Table 2 pre-\nsents the percentage distribution of California resident visitors to recre-\nation attractions within the state.\nIII-7\nTable 2\nPERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENT\nVISITATION TO RECREATION ATTRACTIONS\n(One-Day and Overnight Pleasure Trips)\nPercentage Distribution\nOne-Day\nOvernight\nType of Attraction\nTrips\nTrips 2/\nNational, state, and city parks\n14.7%\n10.0%\nBeach and coastal areas\n28.8\n9.2\nActive recreation\n6.3\n23.5\nSpectator sports\n3.8\n1.4\nPublic non-scenic sights\n1.3\n3.3\nInland water and resort areas\n9.3\n13.3\nAmusement attractions\n22.9\n13.8\nCultural attractions\n3.6\n3.6\nHistorical attractions\n1.1\n1.7\nGeneral sight-seeing\n8.2\n20.2\nTotal\n100.0%\n100.0%\n1/\nOne-day trips during June, July, and August 1966.\n21\nOvernight trips during the 12-month period from September 1965\nthrough August 1966.\nSources: Facts Consolidated and Economics Research Associates.\nIII-8\nThe popularity of beach and coastal areas and amusement attrac-\ntions among Californians on one-day trips during the summer months is\nnot surprising, given California's climate, school recesses, and the\naccessibility of both types of attractions to large metropolitan populations.\nDisneyland, which was visited by some member of 7. 75 households out\nof every 100 in the entire state during the year of the survey, was re-\nvealed by the sample survey to be the most popular of all specific indivi-\ndual attractions in California. Knott's Berry Farm followed with a\nvisitation rate of 5. 33 households per 100. Golf, the third most popular\ntype of activity or attraction, attained a visitation rate of 5. 17. Trips to\nNewport Beach ranked fourth, achieving a visitation rate of 3.58 per 100.\nTable 3 ranks the popularity of recreational attractions visited by\nCalifornia residents on one-day trips within the state.\nThe one fact of overriding importance that emerges from the\nabove statistics is that the three leading specific tourist-oriented\nrecreation attractions visited by California residents on one-day pleasure\ntrips throughout the state all are located in Orange County. Clearly,\nOrange County has become one of the most powerful magnets for intra-\nstate pleasure trips in California. In view of the fact that the most\npopular general types of pleasure trip destinations are beach and coastal\nareas, it is apparent that a site in reasonable proximity to the University\nof California at Irvine, which is in immediate proximity to the coast and\nto Newport Beach and within 15 miles of both Disneyland and Knott's\nBerry Farm, would be in the most strategic location in the state with\nregard to resident visitation patterns.\nOut-of-State Tourists\nIn order to obtain a total picture of recreational travel patterns,\nhowever, it also is necessary to analyze the comings and goings of out-of-\nstate visitors to California. During 1968, an estimated 16,100,000 out-of-\nstate visitors came to California, 10. 3 million by automobile and 5. 8million\nby air. An October 1968 survey by Facts Consolidated, a wholly owned\nsubsidiary of ERA, indicated that 82. 7 percent of auto visitors and 48. 2\npercent of air visitors came to California for pleasure and personal\nreasons as opposed to business or other reasons. Furthermore, while\nonly about 4.9 percent of native Californians visited public non-scenic\nsights and cultural attractions (the category in which museums are classi-\nfied), nearly 14 percent of out-of-state visitors attended such attractions.\nTherefore, it appears that out-of-state visitors would comprise a major\ncomponent of the potential audience for the proposed museum. The table\nbelow indicates the specific attractions most frequently visited by out-of-\nstate tourists during 1968.\nIII-9\nTable 3\nPOPULARITY OF\nRECREATIONAL ATTRACTIONS VISITED BY\nCALIFORNIA RESIDENTS ON ONE-DAY AND\nOVERNIGHT PLEASURE TRIPS\nPercent of California Households Visiting Attraction\n1/\n2/\nOne-Day Trips - 3- Month Period\nOvernight Trips - 12. - Month Period\nDisneyland\n7.7%\nFishing\n14.5%\nKnott's Berry Farm\n5.3\nHiking\n9.3\nGolf\n5.1\nSan Francisco\n7.1\nNewport Beach\n3.5\nBoating\n5.5\nSan Diego Zoo\n3.4\nYosemite National Park\n4.4\nSan Francisco\n3.1\nLake Tahoe\n4.3\nGriffith Park\n3.1\nCarmel - Monterey\n4.1\nFleishhacker Zoo\n2.1\nDisneyland\n4.0\nGolden Gate Park\n2.1\nFisherman's Wharf\n3.6\nMarineland\n1.6\nWater skiing\n3.0\nSea World\n1.5\nSan Diego Zoo\n2.8\nLaguna Beach\n1.3\nHunting\n2.5\nTijuana - Baja, California\n1.0\nStinson Beach\n2.4\nHiking\n1.0\nSkiing\n2.3\nFishing\n1.0\nSequoia National Park\n2.0\nPalm Springs\n2.0\nHorseback riding\n1.8\nHearst Castle\n1.7\nBig Bear Lake\n1.5\nChinatown\n1.5\nSolvang\n1.3\nLake Arrowhead\n1.3\nMorro Bay\n1.3\nKnott's Berry Farm\n1.2\nSea World\n1.2\nGolf\n1.1\nFleishhacker Zoo\n1.1\nMarineland\n1.0\n1/ June, July, and August 1966.\n2/ September 1965 through August 1966.\nSources: Facts Consolidated and Economics Research Associates.\nIII- 10\nPercentage of All\nLeading Specific\nOut-of-State Visitors\nAttractions Visited\nAuto Visitors\nAir Visitors\nDisneyland\n34.8%\n22. 4%\nFisherman's Wharf-\nSan Francisco\n18.3\n18.8\nMarineland\n15.7\n7.0\nChinatown - San Francisco\n14.8\n17.6\nKnott's Berry Farm\n11.3\n7.0\nNewport Beach\n8.7\n5.0\nSan Diego Zoo\n7.0\n1.7\nThese data point to the fact that, similar to intra-state tourists,\na great many out-of-state tourists are attracted to Orange County, with\nDisneyland, Knott's Berry Farm, and Newport Beach again ranking high\namong the most popular drawing points. Only one of the major out-of-\nstate visitor attractions, Marineland, is located in Los Angeles County.\nFrom the standpoint of obtaining maximum exposure to tourists,\nit is unmistakably clear from the data available on tourist visitation\npatterns in California that a site in Orange County in the UC Irvine area,\npreferably near the seashore, would be far superior to any location in\nLos Angeles near UCLA or USC. As already indicated, Orange County\nis the focal point of tourism in the state, with respect to both intra- - and\ninter-state tourists. Moreover, a higher concentration of first-rank\ntourist attractions cannot be found. In addition, the coastal region of\nOrange County lies directly in the path of visitors en route to San Diego\nand Mexico, both significant tourist areas in their own right.\nThe tourist complex that has developed around the Disneyland,\nKnott's Berry Farm, Newport Beach axis has caused a major tourist\nreorientation within Southern California. Busch Gardens, Farmers\nMarket, Forest Lawn, and Sunset Strip still attract a substantial volume\nof tourists but not in comparison to attractions in Orange County. Thus\nfrom the standpoint of tourist exposure sites in the vicinity of UCLA or\nUSC do not compare as favorably as those in Orange County in the vici-\nnity of UC I. As more tourist-oriented attractions are located in Orange\nCounty the relative locational disadvantages will undoubtedly become\nmore apparent.\nIII-11\nATTENDANCE PATTERNS AT EXISTING PRESIDENTIAL MUSEUMS\nExisting presidential museums generally have not constituted\nnotable visitor attractions. The table below presents attendance levels\nat the existing presidential museums for the year ending June 30, 1969:\nMuseum\nAnnual Attendance\nHoover\n80,000\nFDR\n164,300\nTruman\n165,300\nEisenhower\n329,000\nAs indicated, the Eisenhower Museum, despite its location in\nsmall (population 6, 746) Abilene, Kansas, drew by far the largest num-\nber of persons during 1968-1969. A fairly large portion of that attend-\nance undoubtedly was drawn after General Eisenhower's death during\nthat year. It should be noted, however, that none of the existing presi-\ndential museums are elaborate structures designed with a view to\nattracting large numbers of visitors. On the contrary, they are largely\ndevoted to a static display of various gifts and medals received by recent\npresidents, and to other artifacts of historic interest. The location of\nthe Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower museums in the towns\nof West Branch, Iowa, Hyde Park, New York, Independence, Missouri,\nand Abilene, Kansas, respectively, has been another major factor con-\ntributing to low levels of attendance, since all of the above-mentioned\ntowns, with the exception of Independence, Missouri, are relatively small\nand distant from major population centers.\nThe proposed Nixon Museum, to be located in Southern California,\nshould have a considerably greater attendance potential than any of the\nexisting presidential museums due to a combination of factors:\n1.\nThe opportunity to locate in or near one of the nation's\nmajor population centers.\n2.\nThe high level of tourist visitation already prevailing\nin the-area.\n3.\nThe intention of the Nixon Foundation to create an\nattraction that will have a more varied and appealing\ncontent than its predecessors.\nIII-12\nMuseums with highly attractive and interesting program content\nare capable of drawing surprisingly large numbers of visitors, as illus-\ntrated in Table 4. While the Nixon Museum will not be erected on nearly\nso grand a scale as the Smithsonian or the Museum of Science and Indus-\ntry, it is significant that the much more modest Movieland Wax Museum\nin Orange County registered an attendance of more than 700, 000 in a\nrecent year. There are no good reasons why a well conceived and imagi-\nnatively designed presidential museum should not equal or surpass the\nperformance of a limited-appeal commercial operation such as the\nMovieland Wax Museum.\nPLANNING PARAMETERS\nERA has estimated the acreage requirements for parking and the\nfootage requirements for circulation space within the museum, assuming\ndifferent levels of annual attendance. However, no attempt has been made to\nquantify total acreage requirements, since the size and scope of the\nmuseum, library, conference center, and other possible components of\nthe Nixon Center have not yet been decided and, in any event, are not\nwithin the scope of this study.\nSince it is not now known how elaborate the proposed museum will\nbe, it is not possible to make accurate attendance projections. Attendance\nlevels at museums in other cities vary to such an extent that even the\nindicated preliminary range of expectations is extremely wide. This part\nof the report attempts to narrow that range through a review of attendance\nlevels at Los Angeles and Orange County museums. Estimated annual\nattendance at area attractions is shown in Table 5. Since the proposed\nmuseum will presumably be at least as significant an attraction as the\nHuntington Library and Art Gallery, the low range of attendance can\nprobably be set at about 600, 000. The upper range obviously will be less\nthan at a major museum, such as the Museum of Science and Industry.\nTherefore, it would not seem reasonable to expect more than 1, 200, 000\nas a maximum attendance level, unless very dynamic programs and ex-\nceptionally interesting and novel exhibition techniques are developed, in\nwhich case the above estimates might prove to be extremely conservative.\nIII-13\nTable 4\nATTENDANCE AT SELECTED MUSEUMS\nAnnual\nAttendance\nMuseum\nLocation\n(000)\nSmithsonian Institution\nWashington, D.C.\nNatural History\n2,870\nMuseum of History\nand Technology\n4,840\nAmerican Museum of Natural\nHistory and Hayden Planetarium\nNew York, New York\n3,496\nCalifornia Museum of Science\nand Industry\nLos Angeles, California 1, 469\nChicago Museum of Science\nand Industry\nChicago, Illinois\n3,044\nHenry Ford Museum and\nGreenfield Village\nDetroit, Michigan\n1,000\nMilwaukee Public Museum\nMilwaukee, Wisconsin\n813\nMovieland Wax Museum\nBuena Park, California\n700\nOak Ridge Atomic Museum\nOak Ridge, Tennessee\n130\nSources: The Franklin Institute of Philadelphia and Economics Research\nAssociates.\nIII-14\nTable 5\nESTIMATED CURRENT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE\nAT SELECTED\nLOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTY ATTRACTIONS\nAnnual\nAttraction\nAttendance\nHuntington Library and Art Gallery\n530\nMovieland Wax Museum\n700\nGriffith Park Hall of Science\n700\nLos Angeles County Museum of\nNatural History\n850\nForest Lawn, Glendale\n1,100\nLos Angeles County Museum of Art\n1,250\nCalifornia Museum of Science and\nIndustry\n1,470\nSource: Economics Research Associates.\nIII- 15\nAn examination of the seasonal distribution pattern of attendance\nat such attractions as Busch Gardens in Van Nuys, Disneyland, and the\nMovieland Wax Museum indicates that about 30 percent of total annual\nmuseum attendance will be generated in the months of July and August.\nOn peak days during July and August, which are weekend days, attendance\nwill normally approximate 22. 5 percent of average weekly attendance\nduring that period. Assuming an eight- to ten-hour operation period, it\nis estimated that the peak in-grounds attendance on the average high day\nwill approximate 50 percent of total attendance for that day. Thus, it is\npossible to estimate peak-day in-grounds attendance, based on a given\nannual attendance. Table 6 derives peak-day in-grounds attendance for\nvarious levels of annual attendance, using the factors described above.\nFor purposes of anticipating land use requirements, estimates of\nparking needs can be derived from estimated peak-day in-grounds attendance\nfigures. Table 7 calculates these requirements for annual attendance levels\nranging from 600, 000 to 1,200,000, assuming a high-day crowd level 20\npercent greater than average high-day attendance. As indicated, a rela-\ntively modest, medium-impact facility attracting only 600, 000 visitors in\nits first year would initially require only 7.6 acres of museum parking\nspace. More attractive and elaborate facilities would be expected to draw\nlarger crowds and, as such, would require more parking space (up to 15. 2\nacres if attendance were to reach 1, 200, 000). An allowance for future\nexpansion is also included in Table 7, ranging from 150 percent on the\nlower end of the scale to 75 percent where the facility is sufficiently\nelaborate to attract 1, 200, 000 or more persons in its first year of operation.\nRequired circulation space in the museum is estimated in Table 8,\nallowing 20 square feet per person, computed on the basis of average high-\nday peak in-grounds attendance plus 20 percent. Initial requirements range\nfrom 54, 800 square feet to 109, 400 square feet, depending upon the quality\nof the attraction and, therefore, the expected attendance. It should be\nnoted that the above figures include only the circulation space required\nfor the audience, and not exhibit space.\nIII-16\nTable 6\nESTIMATED PEAK IN-GROUNDS ATTENDANCE\nAT SELECTED ANNUAL ATTENDANCE LEVELS\nSelected annual attendance (000)\n600\n800\n1,000\n1,200\nPeak two months, at 30 percent\nof total attendance (000)\n180\n240\n300\n360\nAverage weekly attendance\n20,300\n27,000\n33,800\n40,600\nAverage high-day, at 22. 5\npercent of weekly attendance\n4,560\n6,080\n7,600\n9,120\nPeak in-grounds, at 50 percent of\naverage high-day attendance\n2,280\n3,040\n3,800\n4,560\nSource: Economics Research Associates.\nIII- 17\nTable 7\nESTIMATED MINIMUM RANGE OF PARKING\nREQUIREMENTS FOR THE NIXON CENTER\nSelected annual attendance (000)\n600\n800\n1,000\n1,200\nPeak-day in-grounds attendance\n1/\n2,740\n3,650\n4,550\n5,470\nNumber of persons arriving\nby car 2/\n2,650\n3,540\n4,400\n5,300\nNumber of cars 3/\n945\n1,265\n1,570\n1,895\nAcreage initially required 4/\n7.6\n10.1\n12.5\n15.2\nAllowance for expansion (acres)\n11.4\n12.6\n12.5\n11.4\nTotal acreage required\n19.0\n22.7\n25.0\n26.8\n1/\n20 percent higher than the average high day.\n2/\nEstimated at 97 percent of the crowd.\n3/\nBased on 2.8 persons per car.\n4/\nBased on 125 cars per acre.\nSource: Economics Research Associates.\nIII- 18\nTable 8\nESTIMATED CIRCULATION SPACE\nREQUIRED AT SELECTED ATTENDANCE LEVELS\nSelected annual attendance (000)\n600\n800\n1,000\n1,200\nPeak-day in-grounds attendance\n1/\n2,740\n3,650\n4,550\n5,470\nCirculation space\nrequirement 2 / (square feet)\n54,800\n73,000\n91,000 109,400\n1/\n20 percent higher than the average high day.\n2/\nBased on 20 square feet per person.\nSource: Economics Research Associates.\nIII- 19\nEnvironmental Factors\nFrom the standpoint of environment, the Irvine area has a clear\nadvantage over any part of the Los Angeles County and especially over the\nUSC and UCLA areas. If the center is to attract scholars and thinkers\nas well as the general public, it appears most inappropriate to locate it in\nthe solidly built-up area of Los Angeles where smog is frequently a\nproblem. In contrast, the UCI area and, particularly, the Irvine Ranch,\ncan be considered almost smog-free. Moreover, the area comprises one\nof the few remaining locations near Southern California population centers\nin which wide open spaces of developable land still exist.\nA final and crucial factor that almost certainly rules out the loca-\ntion of a large center (100 acres or more) in proximity to USC or UCLA\nis land cost. While land cost in Orange County is by no means low (see\nTable 9), almost any tract in the heavily urbanized areas of Los Angeles\ncan be expected to sell for at least several hundred thousand dollars per\nacre. Even if a minimum of 100 acres were obtained in Los Angeles for\nthe Center, a probable cost of $20 million to $30 million or more would\nmake the acquisition, or even the donation, of such property prohibitively\nexpensive. Thus, little choice appears to exist other than to look to the\nUCI area, unless an attempt is made to locate the Center on a much\nsmaller tract of land, seriously altering its character and limiting the\nscope of activity.\nCONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS\nFrom the foregoing analysis, it is clear that, of the university\nareas considered in this study, the vicinity of the University of California\nat Irvine is easily the general area best suited to the type of museum-\nlibrary complex planned for establishment by the Nixon Foundation. As\nthis report has shown, the desire of the Foundation to have the Center\nachieve maximum public impact can best be effectuated by locating it in\ncoastal Orange County near UC Irvine, which is the one area in California\nmost heavily frequented both by California and out-of-state tourists.\nAlthough USC is somewhat closer to the Los Angeles Basin popula-\ntion center, UC Irvine is much closer than either USC or UCLA to the\nmore statistically significant regional population center. Moreover, in\nboth cases, future population trends will tend to move the \"center of\ngravity\" even closer to UC Irvine.\nIII-20\nTable 9\nSUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATE SITES\nFOR THE NIXON CENTER\nRelative Cost of\nApproximate\nCompatible\nProximity to\nDeveloping\nPrice\nSurrounding\nUCI and the\nCenter Excluding\nAcreage\nPer Acre\nTopography\nLand Use\nTourist Market\nLand Cost\nSan Joaquin Fruit\nCompany property\n234\n$19,000\nFlat\nProbably not\nPoor\nAverage\nSegerstrom property\n1,400\n$35,000-$50,000\nFlat\nNo\nGood\nAbove average\nSakioka property\n200\n$65,000\nFlat\nNo\nGood\nAbove average\nVeeh Ranch\n250\n$13,500\nFlat to rolling\nYes\nFair-good\nAverage\nIrvine Ranch\n85,000\nVariable\nVariable\nYes\nExcellent\nAverage\nGreat Lakes Carbon\n521\n$7,500\nRugged\nYes\nFair-poor\nWell above average\nCompany property\nLaguna Niguel\nUndefined\nVariable\nVariable\nYes\nFair-poor\nAbove average\nSource: Coldwell, Banker and Company and Economics Research Associates.\nIn terms of the proximity of the Nixon Center to large numbers of\ngraduate students, UCI lags far behind both USC and UCLA at present.\nHowever, by the late 1970s, at which time the Center probably will have\nbeen completed, the rapid growth in enrollment projected at UCI and the\nlack of growth in enrollment projected at both USC and UCLA will have\nnarrowed the gap considerably. Furthermore, continuing increases in\nenrollment at UCI until 1990 will bring it into approximate parity with the\ntwo older universities.\nFinally, with respect to environmental factors such as smog\nintrusion and density of development, the UCI vicinity is, by far, the\nsuperior area. Moreover, the prohibitively high cost of land in Los\nAngeles militates strongly against consideration of a site near UCLA or\nUSC.\nIII-22\nSection IV\nINDIVIDUAL SITE ANALYSIS\nAfter narrowing the search to the UC Irvine area, Coldwell,\nBanker and Company was enlisted for the purpose of studying in depth\nindividual sites located in the portion of Orange County within 20 minutes\ndriving time of UCI, or sites that will be located within this distance upon\ncompletion of the Newport Freeway and construction of the proposed\nCoastal Freeway. The area of intensive study is shown in Figure 4.\nA number of criteria were considered to be of fundamental impor --\ntance in this site analysis. The kind of facility that is planned must be\nquiet and serene, projecting an aura of both dignity and historical signifi-\ncance. It therefore should be free not only from such disturbances as\nnoise, odor, congestion, smog, and the unsightly conditions resulting\nfrom heavy industry, but should possess that intangible something which\nmight be termed a \"sense of place.' Whether or not a site has this \"sense\nof place\" can be felt as much as seen. It has to do with beauty, but also\nwith the historic associations, character, and cultural atmosphere of a\nlocation, with its vital, inspiring qualities. It is a sum total of the qualities\nwhich impart a feeling that this is not just another piece of land, but a\nspecial place.\nAccordingly, the topographical features of sites were considered\nwith a view to inherent aesthetic qualities as well as to the practical\nconsiderations relative to the feasibility of construction. Similarly,\nattention was given to present surrounding land uses, with a view to elim-\ninating sites adjacent to development that might eventually detract from\nthe dignity and tranquility of the Center. For example, a location near\nunsightly industrial or even strip commercial development might tend to\ndowngrade the image that the Center should project, while this might not\nbe true in the case of neighboring high-quality residential districts.\nClosely related to the above criteria is whether or not potential\nexists for development within a surrounding master plan framework. In\nthe search for specific sites, areas are seen which have no orderly plans\nfor development, and communities somehow indifferent to planning, which\nappear to have insurmountable difficulties in the path of their orderly\ndevelopment. In these areas and communities, the indiscriminate en-\ncroachment of industrial and commercial uses and improper standards\nIV-1\n$ANTA\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nU.C. IRVINE\n1.\nThe San Joaquin Fruit Company.\n2.\nThe Segerstrom Property.\nLAGUNA\n3.\nSakioka Property.\nJUAN\n4.\nVeeh Ranch.\nCAPISTRANO\n5.\nIrvine Ranch.\n6.\nGreat Lakes Carbon.\nSOURCE: Economics Research Associates\nFigure 4\nAREA WITHIN 20 MINUTES DRIVING TIME OF U.C. IRVINE\nfor streets, highways, housing, and SO forth are all in view. Certain\nareas have deteriorated to such an extent that little likelihood exists for\nthe development of orderly, healthy communities without comprehensive\nsurgery.\nFortunately, areas also are seen in which ragged, unplanned growth\nhas not and will not occur. The example in the area studied is the Irvine\nRanch, which not only offers a large open area of beautiful and unspoiled\nland, but also the advantage of unified ownership and a well conceived\nmaster plan for future development. The most scenic and, from the point\nof view of the type of setting which should be had by the proposed Center,\nthe most interesting portion of the vast Irvine Ranch holdings is the area\nalong the coast from Corona Del Mar to Laguna Beach. Many sites along\nthis strip seem to offer the ideal climate, the majestic setting, and the\nproper \"sense of place\" that would contribute so greatly to the contempla-\ntive and dignified atmosphere of the Nixon Center.\nGENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATE SITES\nSeven sites were submitted by Coldwell, Banker and Company. Although\nextensive information is available on each of the properties, this prelimi-\nnary evaluation deals primarily with size, price, location, topography,\nand characteristics which would be particularly relevant in considering\nthe properties as sites for the Nixon Center. Figures 4 and 5 show the\nlocations of each of the properties. The seven sites are as follows:\n1. The San Joaquin Fruit Company property. This property is\nsituated approximately two miles north of the Santa Ana\nFreeway. It consists of 234 acres of level citrus groves,\nbut is fragmented. However, one section contains 100 acres\nof contiguous property. Property in close proximity to this\nparcel has been selling for $19,000 per acre. The property\nwould have relatively little exposure and might present noise\nproblems due to the close proximity of the E1 Toro Marine\nCorps Air Station. As a whole, the site offers little to\ndistinguish it.\nIV-3.\nLOS ANGELES\nSAN BERNARDINO\nLos Angeles\n3\nRIVERSIDE\nORANGE\n1\n2\n5\n4\n6\n7\nSAN DIEGO\nOSan Diego\nSOURCE: Economics Research Associates\nFigure 5\nLOCATION OF SUBJECT SITES WITHIN REGIONAL CONTEXT\n2. The Segerstrom property. This property, similar to adjacent\nSakioka property discussed next, has excellent accessibility\nand exposure since it is located near both the San Diego and\nNewport freeways. It contains 1, 400 acres, part of which\nalready is developed in a major shopping center. The re-\nmainder is zoned for industrial use. Because of the probable\nincompatibility of surrounding land uses and the selling price\nof $35,000 to $50,000 per acre, which reflects intensive use\npotential, this property most likely would be unsuitable for the\nNixon Center.\n3. The Sakioka property. As mentioned above, this 200-acre\nproperty is similar to the Segerstrom property, except that,\nat $65,000 per acre, it is more costly.\n4. The Veeh Ranch. This property contains 250 acres and is\nlocated one mile from the San Diego Freeway between the\nIrvine Ranch and the Rossmoor Corporation's Leisure World\ndevelopment. Access from the San Diego Freeway is via the\nMoulton Parkway. Necessary utilities are presently located\nwithin the parkway. The property is unique in that it contains\na 30-acre lake. Although most of it is relatively level, there\nare nearby hills which provide a buffer from surrounding land\nuses. The entire 250-acre parcel is currently priced at $13,500.\nThis property seemingly meets many of the site selection\ncriteria.\n5. The Irvine Ranch. As mentioned previously, this property,\nparticularly the coastal section, probably possesses the most\nadvantages for the site of the Nixon Center. Proximity to the\nuniversity, tourist exposure, climate, and aesthetic qualities\nall are in its favor. Assuming favorable site acquisition and\ndevelopment costs, it is the opinion of ERA that this property\nrepresents the prime location for the Nixon Center.\n6. The Great Lakes Carbon Company property. This property\nconsists of 521 acres in a triangular shape at the intersection\nof El Toro and Laguna Canyon roads. According to the des-\ncription submitted by Coldwell, Banker and Company, the\nterrain is extremely rugged, making development difficult.\nMoreover, to bring utilities to the property would cost some\n$300,000. The selling price of the property is estimated at\n$3.9 million, or $7,500 per acre.\nIV-5\n7. The Laguna Niguel property. This is a large tract of generally\nhigh-quality land located east of Laguna Beach. According to\nColdwell, Banker and Company, it consists of a variety of\nlandscapes, and the costs of different segments vary accord-\ningly. The surrounding areas would provide an excellent\nbuffer zone. This property seemingly meets many of the site\nselection criteria.\nThe site descriptions and qualification judgments of ERA are\nsummarized in Table 9.\nIV-6"
}