2005 Master Plan Update 1-2.pdf · Volume I of II: Draft Environmental Impact Report 2005 Master...

A B C D E F G

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

12.ev

A yeldni L

.dvl

B a

d es eR

)y eld ni L( .r

D yti sre vinU .E

)a

dna

wi tE( . rD yti s rev in

U .W

. rD r

od

ata

M

.e vA y br

aD

Nordhoff St.

Deaborn St.

Prarie St.

Vincennes St.

Plummer St.

Halsted St.

N. University Dr. (Plummer)

Proposed Academic Buildings

Proposed Parking Structure

Proposed Parking Lot

Proposed Student Housing

Play Fields

Transit Hub

Propsed Faculty/Staff Housing

Legend

.evA h

azleZ

.tS nessaL

Devonshire St.

PL-B6H10

H9

H11

H12PS-B5-N

PL-B5

B

M

PS-B1C

H1

H2

J

T

O

K

L

I

N

F

D E1 E2

H6H5

H7HDH8

L-E6 PF-E6PF-F6 PS-G6

PF-G6

G

PS-G4

PF-G4

PF-G3

PL-G2

PS-G3

QP

S R

U

X

V

W

Y

Z

A1

PF-F8

PF-F7

A

H2H1

H3

PS-F9

H4

PF-G12

A2

TH

L-G12

(PS-G9)

(L-G8)

(L-G7)(L-F7)

(L-E5)

(L-B4)

(L-B2)

(L-D1)

Volume I of II:Draft Environmental Impact Report

2005 Master Plan Update

SCH #2005051008

November 2005

Volume I of II:Draft Environmental Impact Report

2005 Master Plan Update

SCH #2005051008

November 2005

Prepared for:

California State University, NorthridgeContact: Colin Donahue, Director,

Facilities Planning,Design and Construction18111 Nordhoff Street

Northridge, CA 91330-8219

Prepared by:

Impact Sciences, Inc.Contact: Anne Doehne

234 E. Colorado BoulevardSuite 205

Pasadena, CA 91101

California State University, Northridge 1 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Introduction

1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................1.0-1 1.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................1.0-1 1.2 Introduction............................................................................................................................................1.0-1 1.3 Project Location .....................................................................................................................................1.0-2 1.4 Topics of Known Concern ...................................................................................................................1.0-3 1.5 Type of EIR, Level of Analysis and Standards for EIR Adequacy .............................................1.0-3 1.6 EIR Processing and Review.................................................................................................................1.0-5 1.7 Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Unavoidable Significant Impacts .......................................1.0-6 1.8 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................1.0-6 1.9 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved..................................................................................1.0-7 1.10 Effects Not Found to be Significant...................................................................................................1.0-8 1.11 Related Projects and Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................1.0-8 1.12 Incorporation of Studies, Comments, Responses and Other Documents...............................1.0-11 1.13 CSU Mitigation Limitations ..............................................................................................................1.0-11

2.0 Project Description..........................................................................................................................................2.0-1 2.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................2.0-1 2.2 Introduction............................................................................................................................................2.0-1

2.2.1 Introduction to the Project.......................................................................................................2.0-1 2.2.2 Project Location .........................................................................................................................2.0-2 2.2.3 Project Information ...................................................................................................................2.0-4 2.2.4 Level of Environmental Review.............................................................................................2.0-4

2.3 Campus History and Existing Campus Conditions ......................................................................2.0-5 2.3.1 Campus History ........................................................................................................................2.0-5 2.3.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................2.0-6

2.4 Project Background...............................................................................................................................2.0-7 2.4.1 California State University (CSU) Mission ..........................................................................2.0-7 2.4.2 1998 CSUN Master Plan.........................................................................................................2.0-10 2.4.3 2005 CSUN Master Planning Process .................................................................................2.0-11 2.4.4 Statewide and Regional Demographic Projections..........................................................2.0-11 2.4.5 CSU Enrollment Projections..................................................................................................2.0-13

2.5 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................2.0-14 2.6 Project Characteristics ........................................................................................................................2.0-15

2.6.1 2005 Master Plan......................................................................................................................2.0-15 2.6.2 Campus Precincts....................................................................................................................2.0-16 2.6.3 Master Plan Phases .................................................................................................................2.0-17 2.6.4 Academic and Administrative Facilities ............................................................................2.0-18 2.6.5 Student Recreational and Support Facilities .....................................................................2.0-20 2.6.6 Housing and Campus Support Facilities ...........................................................................2.0-21 2.6.7 Landscaping, Open Space, and Pedestrian Circulation..................................................2.0-21 2.6.8 Transportation Management, Campus Entry, Parking Facilities and

Vehicular Circulation .......................................................................................................2.0-24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page


2.6.9 Campus Utilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................2.0-28 2.6.10 2005 Master Plan Campus Precincts ...................................................................................2.0-28 2.6.11 Phasing of Master Plan Implementation............................................................................2.0-39

2.7 EIR Intended Uses/Project Actions and Approvals....................................................................2.0-48 2.7.1 Intended Uses...........................................................................................................................2.0-48 2.7.2 Requested Project Approvals ...............................................................................................2.0-49 2.7.3 Responsible Agency................................................................................................................2.0-50

3.0 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................................................3.0-1 3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.1-1 3.1.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.1-1 3.1.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.1-1 3.1.4 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................................3.1-14 3.1.5 Significance Criteria................................................................................................................3.1-18 3.1.6 Environmental Impacts..........................................................................................................3.1-18 3.1.7 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.1-34 3.1.8 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................3.1-35 3.1.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation.........................................3.1-35

3.2 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................................3.2-1 3.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.2-1 3.2.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.2-1 3.2.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.2-1 3.2.4 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................................................3.2-7 3.2.5 Local Rules and Regulations.................................................................................................3.2-11 3.2.6 Planned Improvements..........................................................................................................3.2-12 3.2.7 Thresholds of Significance.....................................................................................................3.2-14 3.2.8 Project Impacts.........................................................................................................................3.2-16 3.2.9 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.2-29 3.2.10 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................3.2-32 3.2.11 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation.........................................3.2-33

3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.4 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................................................3.3-4 3.3.5 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................................3.3-5 3.3.6 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................3.3-6 3.3.7 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.3-12 3.3.8 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................3.3-13 3.3.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation.........................................3.3-14

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page


3.4 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.4-5 3.4.4 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................................................3.4-9 3.4.5 Significance Criteria................................................................................................................3.4-13 3.4.6 Environmental Impacts..........................................................................................................3.4-14 3.4.7 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.4-34 3.4.8 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................3.4-36 3.4.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation.........................................3.4-41

3.5 Population and Housing......................................................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.4 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................................................3.5-3 3.5.5 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................................3.5-4 3.5.6 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................3.5-4 3.5.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................3.5-8 3.5.8 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................................3.5-8 3.5.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation...........................................3.5-8

3.6 Public Services .......................................................................................................................................3.6-1 3.6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.6-1 3.6.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.6-1 3.6.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.6-1 3.6.4 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................................................3.6-7 3.6.5 Significance Criteria................................................................................................................3.6-10 3.6.6 Environmental Impacts................................................................................................. 3.6-113.6.7 Mitigation Measures 3.6-19 3.6.8 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................3.6-19 3.6.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation.........................................3.6-21

3.7 Recreation ...............................................................................................................................................3.7-1 3.7.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.7-1 3.7.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.7-1 3.7.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.7-1 3.7.4 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................................................3.7-3 3.7.5 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................................3.7-3 3.7.6 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................3.7-4 3.7.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................3.7-7 3.7.8 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................................3.7-7 3.7.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation...........................................3.7-8

3.8 Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................................................3.8-1 3.8.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.8-1 3.8.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.8-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page


3.8.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.8-4 3.8.4 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................................3.8-20 3.8.5 Significance Criteria................................................................................................................3.8-21 3.8.6 Environmental Impacts..........................................................................................................3.8-22 3.8.7 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.8-67 3.8.8 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................3.8-70 3.8.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation.........................................3.8-70

3.9 Public Utilities: Water Demand and Supply ...................................................................................3.9-1 3.9.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................3.9-1 3.9.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3.9-1 3.9.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................3.9-1 3.9.4 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................................................3.9-4 3.9.5 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................................3.9-7 3.9.6 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................3.9-7 3.9.7 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.9-16 3.9.8 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................3.9-16 3.9.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation.........................................3.9-16

3.10 Public Utilities: Wastewater..............................................................................................................3.10-1 3.10.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................3.10-1 3.10.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................3.10-1 3.10.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................3.10-1 3.10.4 Regulatory Setting..................................................................................................................3.10-3 3.10.5 Significance Criteria...............................................................................................................3.10-4 3.10.6 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................3.10-4 3.10.7 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................3.10-11 3.10.8 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................3.10-11 3.10.9 Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Impacts After Mitigation.......................................3.10-11

4.0 Significant Irreversible Changes ...................................................................................................................4.0-1 4.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................4.0-1 4.2 Irreversible Commitment of Resources............................................................................................4.0-1

4.2.1 Intensification of Land Use .....................................................................................................4.0-1 4.2.2 Nonrenewable Energy Resources..........................................................................................4.0-1 4.2.3 Environmental Accident ..........................................................................................................4.0-2

5.0 Alternatives 5.1 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Selection of Range of Alternatives........................................................................................................5-2 5.3 Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration..........................................................................5-3 5.4 Project Alternatives..................................................................................................................................5-4

5.4.1 No Project Alternative.................................................................................................................5-4 5.4.2 Reduced Building Square Footage Alternative .....................................................................5-9 5.5.3 Reduced Faculty/Staff Housing Alternative .......................................................................5-14

5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ..............................................................................................5-20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page


6.0 Growth Inducement.........................................................................................................................................6.0-1 6.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................6.0-1 6.2 The Project’s Growth-Inducing Potential.........................................................................................6.0-1

6.2.1 Growth Inducement Related to Enhanced Educational Opportunities ........................6.0-1 6.2.2 Growth Inducement Related to Additional Housing Demand.......................................6.0-5

7.0 Effects Not Found to be Significant ..............................................................................................................7.0-1 7.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................7.0-1 7.2 Introduction............................................................................................................................................7.0-1

7.2.1 Agricultural Resources.............................................................................................................7.0-1 7.2.2 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................7.0-2 7.2.3 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................7.0-3 7.2.4 Geotechnical/Soils ....................................................................................................................7.0-4 7.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ...............................................................................................7.0-5 7.2.6 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................7.0-7 7.2.7 Mineral Resources .....................................................................................................................7.0-7 7.2.8 Public Services (Libraries, Parks, Schools)...........................................................................7.0-7

8.0 List of Preparers................................................................................................................................................8.0-1 9.0 References ..........................................................................................................................................................9.0-1


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1.0-1 Related Projects .............................................................................................................................................1.0-9 2.0-1 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................................2.0-3 2.0-2 Campus Map .................................................................................................................................................2.0-8 2.0-3 Existing Campus ...........................................................................................................................................2.0-9 2.0-4 Illustrative Master Plan .............................................................................................................................2.0-18 2.0-5 Precinct Plans Keys Diagram ...................................................................................................................2.0-19 2.0-6 Open Space and Pedestrian Circulation ................................................................................................2.0-22 2.0-7 Pedestrian Pathway System .....................................................................................................................2.0-23 2.0-8 Vehicular Circulation and Parking Plan................................................................................................2.0-26 2.0-9 Service and Emergency Vehicle Access .................................................................................................2.0-27 2.0-10 South Campus Arts Precinct ....................................................................................................................2.0-30 2.0-11 Academic Core Precinct ............................................................................................................................2.0-31 2.0-12 West Gateway Precinct..............................................................................................................................2.0-32 2.0-13 East Gateway Precinct ...............................................................................................................................2.0-35 2.0-14 Instructional, Athletics, and Recreational Precinct..............................................................................2.0-36 2.0-15 University Park Housing Precinct...........................................................................................................2.0-37 2.0-16 Northwest Precinct.....................................................................................................................................2.0-38 2.0-17 Phase 1...........................................................................................................................................................2.0-41 2.0-18 Phase 2...........................................................................................................................................................2.0-42 2.0-19 Phase 3...........................................................................................................................................................2.0-43 2.0-20 Phase 4...........................................................................................................................................................2.0-44 3.1-1 Site Photos 1 & 2............................................................................................................................................3.1-5 3.1-2 Site Photos 3 & 4............................................................................................................................................3.1-8 3.1-3 Site Photos 5 & 6............................................................................................................................................3.1-9 3.1-4 Site Photos 7 & 8..........................................................................................................................................3.1-10 3.1-5 Site Photos 9 & 10........................................................................................................................................3.1-11 3.1-6 Site Photos 11 & 12 .....................................................................................................................................3.1-12 3.1-7 Site Photos 13 & 14 .....................................................................................................................................3.1-13 3.1-8 Site Photos 15 & 16 .....................................................................................................................................3.1-16 3.1-9 Site Photos 17 & 18 .....................................................................................................................................3.1-17 3.1-10 Open Space and Landscaping..................................................................................................................3.1-20 3.1-11 Roadway Landscaping ..............................................................................................................................3.1-21 3.1-12 Orange Grove Arts Walk ..........................................................................................................................3.1-24 3.1-13 East University Main Entrance ................................................................................................................3.1-27 3.1-14 View Window from Nordhoff St.............................................................................................................3.1-28 3.4-1 Common Noise Levels.................................................................................................................................3.4-3 3.4-2 Noise Attenuation by Barriers ...................................................................................................................3.4-4 3.4-3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines .......................................................................................................3.4-11 3.4-4 Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment...............................................................................3.4-16 3.6-1 Fire Station Locations...................................................................................................................................3.6-3 3.6-2 Existing Fire Water System.......................................................................................................................3.6-14 3.8-1 Local Roadway Improvements..................................................................................................................3.8-7 3.8-2 Analyzed Intersections ..............................................................................................................................3.8-12 3.8-3 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................3.8-13 3.8-4 Current On-Campus Parking Lots and Structures..............................................................................3.8-18 3.8-5 Current Off-Campus Parking Supply ....................................................................................................3.8-19 3.8-6 Future Year 2035 Without Project Traffic Volumes.............................................................................3.8-28 3.8-7 Distribution of CSUN Students by Zip Code .....................................................................................3.8-329 3.8-8 Distribution of CSUN Staff/Faculty by Zip Code...............................................................................3.8-30 3.8-9 Project Trip Distribution ...........................................................................................................................3.8-31 3.8-10 Year 2035 With Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................3.8-32 3.8-11 Vehicle Circulation and Parking Plan ....................................................................................................3.8-53 3.9-1 Existing Domestic Water System...............................................................................................................3.9-5 3.9-2 Existing Fire Water System.........................................................................................................................3.9-6

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page


3.9-3 Proposed Domestic Water System ..........................................................................................................3.9-11 3.9-4 Proposed Fire Water System ....................................................................................................................3.9-14 3.10-1 Existing Wastewater System ....................................................................................................................3.10-5 3.10-2 Proposed Wastewater System..................................................................................................................3.10-8


LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1.0-1 Related Projects ...........................................................................................................................................1.0-10 1.0-2 Summary Chart ...........................................................................................................................................1.0-14 2.0-1 Master Plan Phases.....................................................................................................................................2.0-39 3.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards.................................................................................................................3.2-3 3.2-2 Ambient Air Pollutant Concentrations Registered in SRA 6 ..............................................................3.2-5 3.2-3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Status – South Coast Air Basin ..............................3.2-8 3.2-4 California Ambient Air Quality Standards and Status – South Coast Air Basin ..........................3.2-10 3.2-5 Estimated Unmitigated Construction Emissions.................................................................................3.2-19 3.2-6 Estimated Operational Emissions without Mitigation – Phase 1 .....................................................3.2-22 3.2-7 Estimated Operational Emissions without Mitigation – Phase 2 .....................................................3.2-22 3.2-8 Estimated Operational Emissions without Mitigation – Phase 3 .....................................................3.2-23 3.2-9 Estimated Operational Emissions without Mitigation – Phase 4 .....................................................3.2-23 3.2-10 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations with Project Traffic (ppm) .........................................................3.2-27 3.2-11 Comparison of Growth of ADT to Population Growth .....................................................................3.2-33 3.2-12 Estimated Mitigated Construction Emissions .....................................................................................3.2-34 3.4-1 Outside-to-Inside Noise Attenuation .......................................................................................................3.4-2 3.4-2 Existing Weekday Modeled Roadway Noise Levels ............................................................................3.4-6 3.4-3 City of Los Angeles Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise ............................................3.4-12 3.4-4 Future Year (2035) Weekday Modeled Roadway Noise Levels .......................................................3.4-20 3.4-5 Cumulative Weekday Modeled Roadway Noise Levels ...................................................................3.4-39 3.5-1 SCAG Forecast of Population and Housing for the City of Los Angeles Subregion .....................3.5-2 3.5-2 SCAG Forecast of Population and Housing for the City of Los Angeles .........................................3.5-3 3.6-1 Related Projects and Associated Population Growth .........................................................................3.6-20 3.7-1 Parks within Proximity to CSUN ..............................................................................................................3.7-2 3.8-1 Roadway Level of Service Criteria............................................................................................................3.8-2 3.8-2 Level of Service Definitions for TWSC Intersections ............................................................................3.8-3 3.8-3 LOS Definitions for Freeway Mainline Segments .................................................................................3.8-4 3.8-4 Intersection Level of Service, Average Vehicular Delay, and V/C Ratios .....................................3.8-14 3.8-5 Existing Neighborhood Street Segment ADT.......................................................................................3.8-16 3.8-6 Related Project Trip Generation ..............................................................................................................3.8-24 3.8-7 Year 2035 Without Project Intersection Level of Service, Average Vehicular

Delay, and V/C Ratios................................................................................................................3.8-25 3.8-8 Year 2035 Project Trip Generation ..........................................................................................................3.8-27 3.8-9 Year 2035 With Project Intersection Level of Service, Average Vehicular Delay,

and V/C Ratios ............................................................................................................................3.8-34 3.8-10 Project Intersection Increase in V/C and Impact Conclusion...........................................................3.8-37 3.8-11 Year 2035 With Project Intersection Level of Service, Average Vehicular Delay,

and V/C Ratios With Mitigation..............................................................................................3.8-42 3.8-12 Project Intersection Increase in V/C and Impact Conclusion With Mitigation ............................3.8-45 3.8-13 Neighborhood Street Segment ADT Analysis......................................................................................3.8-47 3.8-14 Year 2035 Parking Demand ......................................................................................................................3.8-51 3.8-15 Year 2035 Parking Demand With Demand Reduction Program......................................................3.8-54 3.8-16 Year 2035 Project Freeway Segment Trip Generation.........................................................................3.8-58 3.8-17 Year 2035 Without Project Freeway Segment Level of Service and V/C Ratios...........................3.8-60 3.8-18 Year 2035 With Project Freeway Segment Level of Service and V/C Ratios.................................3.8-61 3.8-19 Project Freeway Segment Increase in V/C and Impact Conclusion................................................3.8-62 3.8-20 CMP Transit Analysis ................................................................................................................................3.8-63 3.9-1 Summary of Total Campus Water Demands for 2003..........................................................................3.9-3 3.9-2 Summary of Projected Total Master Plan Water Demands for 2035 .................................................3.9-9 3.9-3 Summary of Projected Phase 1 and 2 Water Demands for 2015.......................................................3.9-13 3.10-1 Summary of Total Campus Wastewater Generation for 2005 ..........................................................3.10-2 3.10-2 Summary of Projected Total Master Plan Wastewater Generation for 2035..................................3.10-6 3.10-3 Summary of Projected Total Phase 1 and 2 Wastewater Generation for 2015...............................3.10-9

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page



APPENDICES

Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP); Public Comments on NOP; Scoping Meeting Materials B Air Quality Technical Data C Noise Technical Data D Traffic Study E Water Supply Technical Data; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power “Will Serve” Letter F Wastewater Generation Technical Data G Enrollment Projection Materials

California State University, Northridge 1.0-1 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PURPOSE

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to contain a brief summary of the proposed project

and its consequences, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the

State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines §15123 require the Executive Summary to identify each

significant impact, recommended mitigation measures, and alternatives that would reduce or avoid the

project's significant effects on the environment. The summary is also required to identify ”areas of

controversy,” including issues raised by public agencies and the public, and the ”issues to be resolved,”

including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant impacts of the

proposed project. This Introduction and Executive Summary is intended to provide a clear summary

description of the proposed project and its potential environmental effects, pursuant to CEQA and the

CEQA Guidelines.

1.2 INTRODUCTION

This Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2005051008) has been prepared by the California State

University, Northridge (CSUN or the University), Office of Facilities Planning, Design & Construction, to

address the potential significant environmental effects associated with the adoption and subsequent

implementation of the 2005 Master Plan (Master Plan or proposed project). The Master Plan encompasses

the California State University, Northridge campus in the City of Los Angeles community of Northridge.

The Master Plan is a comprehensive, coordinated series of proposals intended to configure and guide the

physical development of the CSUN campus over the next 30 years. This EIR evaluates the campus

Master Plan at a programmatic level and specific near-term Master Plan projects for which site-level

detail is available at the project level.

CSUN is one of 23 campuses within the California State University (CSU) system, which is overseen by

the CSU Board of Trustees. In May 2003, in keeping with its state charter and in response to projections

of unprecedented demand for higher education enrollment, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution

directing each campus within the CSU to take the necessary steps to accommodate a projected system-

wide enrollment increase of 107,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students by 2011.1, 2 To comply with this 1 Whereas headcount simply accounts for the number of students enrolled, for master planning and academic

planning purposes, CSUN utilizes the full-time equivalent (FTE), unit of measurement to calculate enrollment. One FTE is defined as one student taking 15 course units, which represents a full course load. Students taking fewer course units are considered to constitute a fraction of an FTE (10 course units = .66 FTE), whereas students taking more than 15 course units constitute more than one FTE (20 units = 1.33 FTEs).

2 California State University Committee on Educational Policy. Campus Options to Achieve California State University Enrollment and Access Goals (REP 05-03-04). May 13–14, 2003.

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary


directive, CSU campuses are required to periodically review and revise their master plans, in part to

ensure that proposed capital improvement programs remain in compliance with those plans.

CSUN provides education to nearly 33,000 undergraduate and graduate students (24,473 FTEs) and

employs 2,017 faculty members and 1,964 staff members. The University is approaching its current

enrollment ceiling of 25,000 FTEs and facilities are reaching capacity. CSUN’s 2005 Master Plan is

intended to respond to the Board of Trustees’ directive to plan for its share of increased enrollment and

accommodate the evolving needs of the University’s academic, administrative, and student- and campus-

support programs.

The University consulted with its academic units in preparation for the master planning process to

determine the implications of increasing its enrollment cap on campus facilities. The Master Plan

architects were then asked to determine the capacity of the campus to support the increased enrollment.

At the CSU system average of 115,000 gross square feet (gsf) per 1,000 FTE students, an increase of

approximately 1.15 million gsf of new academic and administrative facilities is needed to accommodate

an additional 10,000 FTEs.

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION

The CSUN campus is located in the community of Northridge, part of the City of Los Angeles.

Northridge is located in the San Fernando Valley, approximately 22 miles northwest of downtown Los

Angeles. Adjacent communities include Porter Ranch, Knollwood, Granada Hills, San Fernando,

Panorama City, Van Nuys, Chatsworth, and West Hills. Major regional access to Northridge is provided

by the Ronald Reagan Freeway (State Route 118), the San Diego Freeway (I-405), and the Ventura

Freeway (US 101).

CSUN occupies 353 acres in north-central Northridge. The campus setting is generally suburban, with

single-family and multi-family residential uses and commercial uses adjacent to the campus perimeter.

The campus is irregular in shape and comprises two distinct subareas known as the north and south

campuses. The north campus is bounded on the north by Devonshire Street; on the south by Lassen

Street; on the east by Zelzah Avenue; and on the west by Lindley Avenue. The south campus is partially

bounded on the north by Halsted Street; on the south by Nordhoff Street; on the east by Zelzah Avenue;

and on the west by Darby Avenue.

For a detailed discussion of the project location, see Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR.



1.4 TOPICS OF KNOWN CONCERN

To determine the number, scope and extent of environmental issues to be addressed in this EIR, CSUN

prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and circulated it for 30 days, beginning May 2, 2005 and ending

May 31, 2005, to interested public agencies, organizations, community groups, and individuals in order to

receive input on the proposed project. CSUN also held a Draft EIR scoping meeting on May 19th, 2005, in

conjunction with presentation of the final Master Plan, to obtain public input on the proposed scope and

content of this EIR. Interested parties attended the meeting and provided input.

Copies of the NOP and the notice for the public meeting, all written comments submitted in response to

the NOP and during the meeting, and list of those attending the meeting are provided in Appendix A to

this EIR.

Based on the NOP scoping process, this EIR addresses the following topics:

• Aesthetics

• Air Quality

• Hazards and Hazardous Materials

• Noise

• Population and Housing

• Public Services: (Police and Fire)

• Recreation

• Transportation/Traffic

• Public Utilities: Water Demand and Supply

• Public Utilities: Wastewater

Also based on the NOP scoping process, potential impacts on the following resources were determined to

be less than significant and are not discussed in detail in this EIR: Agricultural Resources; Biological

Resources; Cultural Resources; Geotechnical/Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and

Planning; Mineral Resources; and certain Public Services (Libraries, Parks, Schools).

1.5 TYPE OF EIR, LEVEL OF ANALYSIS AND STANDARDS FOR EIR ADEQUACY

This EIR is intended as both a “program EIR” and a “project EIR” under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA distinguishes between an EIR for a program or plan and an EIR for a single, specific development

project. A program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project



and are related as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions (CEQA Guidelines §15168). A project

EIR typically focuses on the environmental changes associated with all phases of a specific development

project, including planning, construction, and operation (CEQA Guidelines §15161). A program EIR

allows the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures early

in the program process; subsequent project-specific activities are evaluated in light of the program EIR to

determine if additional environmental documentation is required (CEQA Guidelines 15168(b) and (c)). A

program-level analysis is intended to provide the public and decision-makers with an overview of the

potential environmental impacts associated with one large project.

The comprehensive Master Plan is evaluated at the program level in this EIR. CSUN does not anticipate

proceeding with development of all proposed Master Plan projects in the immediate future, nor has it

developed sufficient project detail to enable analysis of all project-specific impacts at this time. Because

of the long-term nature of the Master Plan, the precise nature, size, and location of all the proposed

programs and facilities cannot be accurately projected at this time. Additional environmental review of

Master Plan projects will be undertaken as the Master Plan is implemented.

However, the University has developed sufficient detail for certain Master Plan development projects to

enable project-specific evaluation of potential environmental impacts: a Transit Center; Parking

Structures G3 and G6; a Student Housing Administration Building; a Faculty Offices/Lecture Hall

facility; two Lecture/Laboratory facilities; the Science 5 facility; the Student Recreation Center; two

components of Faculty/Staff housing; and two components of Student Housing. Accordingly, this EIR

evaluates these near-term Master Plan development projects at the project level.

CSUN has also developed sufficient detail regarding the Valley Performing Arts Center, originally

evaluated at the program level in the 1998 Master Plan EIR, to enable project-specific evaluation of

impacts. Accordingly, this EIR evaluates this development project at the project level.

The 2005 Master Plan represents the first comprehensive update of the campus master plan since 1998.

Since CSUN is already nearing its enrollment cap of 25,000 FTEs and substantial enrollment increases are

projected in the near term, the 2005 Master Plan’s horizon was set at 30 years to facilitate long-term

planning. As a result of the projected enrollment increase to 35,000 FTEs, the final 2005 Master Plan

differs substantially from the current master plan.

In order to accommodate this revised enrollment ceiling, the 2005 Master Plan proposes 1.9 million

square feet of new academic, administrative and student service development on the main campus. In

addition, 2,688 student-housing beds are proposed on the main campus, along with a net increase of



approximately 4,500 parking spaces. The 2005 Master Plan does not include the main campus multi-

purpose stadium proposed in the 1998 Master Plan.

The 2005 Master Plan proposes significant changes to the North Campus, including development of a

faculty/staff housing community as the primary use. Instructional/athletic space is also proposed north

of the housing community. Biotechnology development on the northern portion of the North Campus is

limited to the existing 500,000 square feet.

This EIR is an informational document to be used as part of the planning process for the proposed Master

Plan. The standards of adequacy for an EIR, as defined in the CEQA Guidelines §15151, are as follows:

“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”

The standards for EIR adequacy were followed by the CSUN Office of Facilities Planning, Design &

Construction in preparing this EIR.

1.6 EIR PROCESSING AND REVIEW

This EIR will be available for public and agency comment for a 45-day period, beginning in November

2005 and concluding in December 2005. During this public comment period, written comments on the

adequacy of the Draft EIR must be submitted by all interested public agencies, organizations, community

groups, and individuals, to Colin Donahue, Director, Facilities Planning, Design & Construction,

California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, California 91330-8219.

Written comments may also be submitted to Mr. Donahue by fax at (818) 677-6552.

The EIR will be available for public review during the 45-day comment period at the following locations: • Office of Facilities Planning, Design & Construction, University Hall Room 325, California State

University, Northridge

• Oviatt Library, California State University, Northridge

• City of Los Angeles Public Library, 9051 Darby Avenue, Northridge

The EIR may also be reviewed on the internet at http://www.csun.edu/envision2035/.

A public meeting will be held on the California State University, Northridge campus in the Oviatt Library

Presentation Room, on November 29, 2005, from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM, for purposes of receiving public



comment on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR. After the public meeting,

written responses to all public comments regarding environmental issues will be compiled in a Final EIR.

As required by CEQA, written responses to comments submitted by public agencies will be provided to

those agencies for review at least 10 days prior to the CSU Board of Trustees’ consideration of

certification of the Final EIR.

Prior to making a final decision on the proposed project, the Board of Trustees will consider the Final EIR

and associated administrative record, and decide whether to certify the adequacy of the Final EIR and

approve the proposed project.

CSUN encourages public agencies, organizations, community groups, and all other interested persons to

provide written comments on the EIR prior to the end of the 45-day public review period. If any agency,

organization, group, or person wishes to make a legal challenge to the Board of Trustees’ final decision on

the proposed project, that agency or person may be limited to addressing only those environmental issues

that they or someone else raised during the 45-day public review period for this EIR.

1.7 IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

This EIR has been prepared to assess the potentially significant impacts on the environment that could

result from implementation of the proposed Master Plan. For a detailed discussion regarding potential

significant impacts, see Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR.

As required by CEQA, a summary of the proposed Master Plan’s potential environmental impacts is

provided in Table 1.0-1, Summary Table of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, presented at the

end of this section. This table summarizes potentially significant impacts that could result from

implementation of the proposed project, mitigation measures recommended in response to potentially

significant impacts identified in the EIR, and a determination of the significance of impacts after

implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

1.8 ALTERNATIVES

An EIR is required to evaluate ways to avoid or reduce significant environmental effects associated with a

proposed project. This EIR evaluates the following alternatives:

• No Project Alternative. CEQA requires the evaluation of a No Project Alternative in order to compare the effects of a proposed project to the existing, or reasonably foreseeable future, conditions on a site. The No Project Alternative evaluated in this Draft EIR evaluates retention of CSUN’s existing 25,000-FTE enrollment ceiling and future development of the campus in accordance with the existing master plan.



• Reduced FTE Alternative. Under this project alternative, CSUN would reduce its proposed enrollment cap increase by 5,000 FTEs as compared to the proposed project, for a total of 30,000 FTEs. The proposed number of student beds on campus would be reduced by half and the number of proposed new parking spaces would be reduced.

• No Faculty/Staff Housing. Under this alternative, the 600 dwelling units proposed for faculty and staff under the 2005 Master Plan, to be located north of Lassen Street and in the northwestern portion of the main campus, would not be built. Instead, these areas would be developed over time, as needed, with academic, administrative, and student support facilities consistent with those included in the current master plan and proposed by the 2005 Master Plan.

1.9 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Comments were received in response to the Notice of Preparation and the public scoping meeting held

for the proposed project. The comments included statements and concerns regarding the following issues

(the EIR section that addresses the issue raised is shown in parentheses):

• Potential reduction of campus open space as a result of intensified development (Section 3.1, Aesthetics);

• Potential construction impacts on mature campus trees and potential related removal of mature trees and vegetation to accommodate facility siting (Section 3.1, Aesthetics);

• Potential air quality impacts generated by project-related stationary and mobile sources during construction and operation (Section 3.2, Air Quality);

• Potential safety hazards associated with implementation of the proposed project (Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials);

• Potential noise impacts on residential neighborhoods surrounding the CSUN campus, especially in proximity to campus dormitories (Section 3.4, Noise);

• Potential traffic impacts on streets surrounding the CSUN campus (Section 3.8, Transportation/Traffic);

• Potential traffic impacts associated with the placement and operation of campus points of entry and exit (Section 3.8, Transportation/Traffic);

• Potential traffic impacts on area highways and freeways (Section 3.8, Transportation/Traffic);

• Potential residential student parking impacts on streets surrounding the CSUN campus (Section 3.8, Transportation/Traffic);

• Potential project impacts on public transit (Section 3.8, Transportation/Traffic);

• Potential impacts on available water supply (Section 3.9, Public Utilities: Water Demand and Supply); and

• Potential impacts on sensitive plant or animal species, wildlife habitat, migratory wildlife, breeding birds, or watercourses and wetlands (Section 7.0, Effects Not Found to be Significant).

See Appendix A of the EIR for copies of the written comments submitted by public agencies,

organizations, and individuals in response to the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR scoping meeting.



1.10 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT

CEQA Guidelines §15128 state that an EIR shall state the reasons that various possible project effects were

determined not to be significant and are therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. This discussion is

contained in Section 7.0, Effects Not Found to be Significant, of this EIR. As stated therein, resources on

which the proposed project is not expected to have significant impacts include Agricultural Resources;

Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geotechnical/Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use

and Planning; Mineral Resources; and certain Public Services (Libraries, Parks, Schools).

1.11 RELATED PROJECTS AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

For planning purposes, a total of 12 projects were identified as being located in the vicinity of the CSUN

campus. Projects were determined at the time of Notice of Preparation (NOP) issuance. These projects

are identified in Table 1.0-1, Related Projects, and are shown in Figure 1.0-1, Related Projects. This

section explains the purpose behind the analysis of cumulative impacts and presents a list of past, present

and probable future impacts that were considered when evaluating the project’s contribution to

cumulative impacts.

Section §15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as follows:

“…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”

CEQA Guidelines 15130(b) further state that:

“The discussion of [cumulative impacts] need not provide as great detail as is provided [for] the effects attributable to the project alone.”

The CEQA requirement to evaluate past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects located in

the proximity of the project undergoing environmental review acknowledges the fact that the incremental

effects of each project may collectively constitute substantial cumulative impacts over time. That is,

cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, project impacts. For

example, the volume of traffic generated by a proposed project may not be significant when analyzed

independently; however, when considered together with traffic generated by other approved or

proposed projects in the same area, the total traffic volume may exceed roadway capacity, resulting in

significant cumulative impacts. For this reason, CEQA requires evaluation of a proposed project in

conjunction with other past, present, and future projects that might result in impacts that compound

those of the project under review.

CH

ATSW

ORT

HST

LASS

ENST

DEV

ON

SHIR

EST

PLUM

MER

ST

NO

RDH

OFF

ST

PAR

THEN

IAST

RO

SCO

EBL

CORBIN AV

TAMPA AV

WILBUR AV

RESEDA BL

ZELZAH AV

LOUISE AV

BALBOA BL

WOODLEY AV

DARBY AVE

W. UNIVERSITY DR

LINDLEY AV

HAL

STED

ST

VIN

CEN

NES

ST

PRAI

RIE

ST

DEA

RBO

RNST

PRAI

RIE

ST

E. UNIVERSITY DR

N.U

NIV

ERSI

TYDR

WHITE OAK AV

ETIWANDA AV

TUPP

ERST

HAVENHURST ST

504

811

8 16

7

3

5

2

4

#

DNEGE L

e tiS tce jor P -tce j orP deta le

R -

Rel

ated

Pro

ject

s

FIG

UR

E 1.0-1

75

0-0

01

•10

/05

SO

UR

CE

: K

aku

Ass

ocia

tes

– S

epte

mbe

r 20

05

NO

T T

O S

CA

LE

n



Table 1.0-1

Related Projects

# Project Size Project Location 1 Shopping Center 59,000 sq. ft. 19401 Business Center Drive 2 Convenience Store 2,000 sq. ft. 18173 Chatsworth Street 3 Light Industrial Building 28,000 sq. ft. 8817 Amigo Drive 4 Target Store 30,000 sq. ft. 8999 Balboa Avenue 5 Apartments & Retail 9423 Reseda Boulevard Apartments 202 d.u. Retail 4,000 sq. ft. 6 Fast Food with Drive Through 3,300 sq. ft. 8800 Tampa Ave. 7 Apartments & Retail 19401 Parthenia Street Apartments 312 d.u. Retail 43,000 sq. ft. 8 Discount Store 163,000 sq. ft. 19350 Nordhoff Way

Source: Kaku Associates, Inc., September 2005. sq. ft. = square feet; d.u. = dwelling unit

1.12 INCORPORATION OF STUDIES, COMMENTS, RESPONSES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

This EIR contains references to studies, reports, and other documents that were used as the basis for, or a

source of, information summarized in the technical analysis presented in this EIR. These documents are

incorporated by reference in this EIR in accordance with §15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. Where a study,

report, or document is briefly cited or referred to in the body of this EIR, the reader should consult

Section 9.0, References, of this EIR for a full citation.

During the 45-day period allotted for public circulation and review of this Draft EIR, copies of reference

documents will be available upon reasonable request and during normal business hours (9:00 AM – 5:00

PM, Monday through Friday) at the Office of Facilities Planning, Design & Construction, University Hall

Room 325, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, California 91330-

8219. Written comments received by CSUN during the public review period, and the responses to those

comments, will be integrated into the Final EIR.

1.13 CSU MITIGATION LIMITATIONS

The CSU Board of Trustees is vested with “full power and responsibility in the construction and

development of any state University campus, and any buildings or other facilities or improvements

connected with the California State University” (California Education Code §66606).



However, there are legal limitations on CSU regarding the commitment of funds for off-site

improvements to local streets, roadways, highways, and freeways that arise from the proposed

construction and development of “projects” on a campus within the CSU system. These limitations are

discussed below.

In mitigating significant environmental effects, public agencies may exercise only those express or

implied powers provided by law other than CEQA (e.g., Pub. Res. Code §21004; CEQA Guidelines

§15040(b); Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1994) 24

Cal.App.4th 826, 842; and Kenneth Mebane Ranches v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 276, 291).

CEQA, by itself, does not confer independent authority on public agencies, nor does it expand the

authority granted by other laws to those agencies. When public agencies adopt measures to mitigate

significant environmental effects, their actions must be consistent with express or implied limitations on

the agencies’ authority found in those other laws.

For example, if the California Constitution, a statute, or other law generally confers upon public agencies

the authority to levy a fee or otherwise impose an exaction for public health and welfare purposes, those

public agencies may, to the extent expressly or impliedly permitted by such other law, choose to impose

that fee or exaction for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding a project's significant effect on the

environment under CEQA. However, CEQA makes it clear that it cannot be an independent basis for

allowing public agencies to mitigate for a project’s significant environmental effects beyond the express

or implied powers conferred by other laws or regulations.

CSU has specific powers to mitigate significant environmental impacts that occur within its jurisdiction

(i.e., on the various campuses), but limited powers for those effects that occur outside of the various

campus sites. Because of these legal limitations, it is not feasible for CSU to mitigate certain off-site

impacts. In addition, the State of California has a clear constitutional and statutory assignment of

responsibilities for various public works and methods for allocating revenues to pay for such facilities.

This assignment also places legal limitations upon CSU that govern the adoption of mitigation to avoid or

otherwise minimize certain off-site impacts.

Given these legal limitations, the CSU system recognizes that a campus presence may impose certain

burdens upon surrounding communities. At the same time, however, the CSU system, and the

individual campus locations, provide innumerable benefits, such as educational opportunities, jobs,

technical assistance and support for economic development, provision of highly trained students for

employment in a growing public and private sector, cultural activities, entertainment, sports and other

related activities, and libraries. CSUN, in particular, is a major producer of K-12 teachers for the Los

Angeles region, state, and nation; it is a top producer of students who subsequently pursue Ph.D.



programs in science and other disciplines; it is widely recognized for providing educational services to

minority, handicapped and hearing-impaired students; it provides programs for adult education,

extended education, and professional continuing education; and it is the primary center for athletics, art,

and culture for the 1.6 million residents of the San Fernando Valley.

Consequently, California law provides that, in the absence of express legislative authority, State property

is exempt from property taxation and special assessments for street and other local improvements (see,

e.g., Cal. Const., Art. XIII, §3(d); San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified School Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d

154, 161). According to the California Supreme Court in the San Marcos decision, the rationale behind this

exemption is “to prevent one tax-supported entity from siphoning tax money from another such entity;

the end result of such a process could be unnecessary administrative costs and no actual gain in tax

revenues.” Id. The only express legislative authority for assessments against State property is found in

Government Code §§54999, et seq. However, this authority is limited to specific purposes, and street and

other related off-site improvements are not among them. In keeping with CSU's statutory and

constitutional mission of public education, and consistent with the principles articulated in the San

Marcos decision and other cases, CSU has a long history of dedicating its limited state and non-state

capital outlay resources to the development and maintenance of educational facilities, and not to local

and regional infrastructure.

Moreover, CSU's educational mission does not include responsibility for, nor jurisdiction over, the

construction of off-site improvements. Neither CSU nor any CSU campus has the jurisdiction to

construct improvements beyond campus boundaries as mitigation for avoiding or minimizing impacts to

campus development projects. The legal issue is a state University's funding of certain off-site

improvements, not an issue of identifying environmental impacts or mitigation for campus development

projects under CEQA. It is the position of the CSU Board of Trustees that a CSU University is not legally

authorized to fund various offsite improvements as mitigation for campus development projects under

CEQA. Any such commitment to fund off-site improvements could lead to legal challenges that such

expenditures are illegal gifts of public funds. Thus, the state's constitutional and statutory framework

require that certain off-site improvements, such as road, highway or freeway infrastructure upgrades,

necessary to offset the loads placed on them by a CSU University are not the responsibility of either CSU

or a CSU University, but rather of the local jurisdiction or other entity.

A University's revenue is derived from state general fund appropriation (including appropriation of

student fee income). CSU does not receive funding from the Legislature for off-site improvements. For

example, unlike cities and counties, CSU does not directly receive income from sales, transient

occupancy, real estate or gasoline taxes, nor is it allocated federal highway funds. Since gasoline and

sales taxes are important sources of road and highway funding, it is appropriate that off-site street and



road improvements be funded by local government. In addition to local funding for street

improvements, the state separately funds state highways through its Transportation Commission and the

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). CSU has no direct access to such funding.

CEQA recognizes the differentiation of responsibility and authority among various public agencies (see, e.g., Goleta Union School District v. Regents of the University of California (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, CSU may approve campus projects resulting in significant environmental effects under circumstances where applicable mitigation measures are “within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or should be, adopted by that other agency” (Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(2); CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(2)). The Board of Trustees for CSU, as lead agency, must adopt “Overriding Considerations” where project benefits outweigh significant impacts that remain unmitigated (CEQA Guidelines §15093). CSU cannot guarantee implementation of mitigation measures that are under the jurisdiction and responsibility of another agency, but may address them with “Overriding Considerations” supported by substantial evidence in the record of a project approval.

Thus, the purpose of an EIR for a CSU campus development project is to identify and analyze the project's significant environmental impacts, and identify the improvements or facilities necessary to mitigate those impacts, including the identification of mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and either have been, or should be, adopted by that other agency (Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(2)). However, any such proposed off-site road/transportation improvement mitigation measures must be funded and ultimately constructed by the public agencies best suited to do so (e.g., local municipalities, counties and state agencies [Caltrans]).

In 2003, a California Court of Appeal ruled that off-site traffic improvements that are necessary to off-set a projected increase in traffic caused by a CSU University are not the responsibility of that University, but, rather, are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 1179). The California Supreme Court is presently reviewing the Court of Appeal's decision in the City of Marina case, and, as of this writing, the Supreme Court has not issued its ruling. In the event that the California Supreme Court ultimately modifies a CSU University's obligation under existing law with respect to the funding of off-site road/traffic improvements, CSU and the campuses within the CSU system will comply fully with the law, provided that a funding/financing program is in effect that conforms to the constitutional principles of proportionality and nexus.

Additionally, in May 2005, a San Diego County Superior Court ruling found that San Diego County could not charge the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District for off-site traffic improvements around the campus, where expansion and new construction are planned, and further found that the college district was prohibited from using educational funds to pay for the associated costs.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge

1.0-

14

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Ta

ble

1.0-

2 Su

mm

ary

Cha

rt

En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

Leve

l of P

roje

ct Im

pact

Aft

er M

itiga

tion

3.1

Aes

thet

ics

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

The

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

hav

e a

subs

tant

ially

ad

vers

e im

pact

to s

ceni

c vi

stas

, as

no s

ceni

c vi

stas

hav

e be

en id

entif

ied

in lo

cal l

and

use

plan

s.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

CSU

N M

aste

r Pla

n w

ould

not

sub

stan

tially

dam

age

scen

ic

reso

urce

s,

tree

s, ro

ck

outc

ropp

ings

, an

d/or

hi

stor

ic b

uild

ings

with

in a

sta

te sc

enic

hig

hway

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

CSU

N M

aste

r Pla

n w

ould

not

sub

stan

tially

deg

rade

th

e ex

istin

g vi

sual

cha

ract

er o

r qua

lity

of th

e si

te a

nd it

s su

rrou

ndin

gs.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Thro

ugh

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

lig

htin

g de

sign

gu

idel

ines

, the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

cre

ate

a ne

w s

ourc

e of

sub

stan

tial

light

tha

t w

ould

adv

erse

ly

affe

ct n

ight

time

view

s in

the

area

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

Mas

ter P

lan

prop

oses

four

new

pla

ying

fiel

ds a

long

Ze

lzah

Ave

nue.

The

se p

layi

ng fi

elds

wou

ld in

corp

orat

e fie

ld li

ghtin

g fix

ture

s to

allo

w fo

r ni

ghtti

me

recr

eatio

nal

activ

ities

. In

add

ition

, tw

o ne

w p

arki

ng s

truc

ture

s ar

e pr

opos

ed a

long

Zel

zah

Ave

nue

and

anot

her

two

alon

g D

arby

Ave

nue.

The

par

king

str

uctu

res

wou

ld i

nclu

de

light

ing

with

in t

he s

truc

ture

, fix

ture

s m

ount

ed a

long

th

e fa

çade

, an

d lig

ht p

oles

on

the

top

leve

l of

the

st

ruct

ure.

The

lig

htin

g as

soci

ated

with

the

pro

pose

d pl

ayfie

lds

and

park

ing

stru

ctur

es w

ould

be

a pr

omin

ent

sour

ce o

f ni

ghtti

me

light

with

in t

he a

rea.

Th

eref

ore,

im

pact

s are

con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt, a

bsen

t miti

gatio

n.

AES

-1:

Fiel

d lig

htin

g as

soci

ated

with

all

play

field

s al

ong

Zelz

ah A

venu

e sh

all

be e

quip

ped

with

sh

ield

s an

d ho

ods

to a

void

the

cre

atio

n of

ni

ghtti

me

sky

glow

or

light

spi

llove

r to

the

gr

eate

st e

xten

t pos

sibl

e.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

A

ES-2

: Fi

eld

light

ing

asso

ciat

ed w

ith a

ll pl

ayfie

lds

alon

g Ze

lzah

A

venu

e sh

all

be

dire

cted

do

wnw

ard

or o

nto

play

ing

surf

aces

to

avoi

d th

e cr

eatio

n of

nig

httim

e sk

y gl

ow.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

15

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

1 A

esth

etic

s (c

onti

nued

)

A

ES-3

: Fi

eld

light

ing

asso

ciat

ed w

ith a

ll pl

ayfie

lds

alon

g Ze

lzah

Ave

nue

shal

l be

dir

ecte

d aw

ay

from

res

iden

ces

acro

ss Z

elza

h A

venu

e to

the

ea

st.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

A

ES-4

: C

onsi

sten

t w

ith t

he L

ands

cape

Mas

ter

Plan

, pi

ne a

nd s

ycam

ore

tree

pl

antin

gs s

hall

be

inst

alle

d al

ong

the

Zelz

ah A

venu

e ca

mpu

s pe

rim

eter

as

need

ed to

scr

een

light

em

itted

by

play

field

fixt

ures

.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

A

ES-5

: Fi

eld

light

ing

asso

ciat

ed w

ith a

ll pl

ayfie

lds

alon

g Ze

lzah

Ave

nue

shal

l be

used

onl

y w

hen

the

field

s ar

e be

ing

utili

zed

duri

ng n

ight

time

hour

s.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

A

ES-6

: Li

ghtin

g as

soci

ated

with

par

king

str

uctu

res

PS-B

1, P

S-B5

-N, P

S-G

3, P

S-G

4, a

nd P

S-G

6 sh

all

be e

quip

ped

with

shi

elds

and

hoo

ds t

o av

oid

the

crea

tion

of n

ight

time

sky

glow

and

lig

ht

spill

over

to th

e gr

eate

st e

xten

t pos

sibl

e.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

A

ES-7

: Li

ghtin

g as

soci

ated

with

par

king

str

uctu

res

PS-B

1, P

S-B5

-N, P

S-G

3, P

S-G

4, a

nd P

S-G

6 sh

all

be

dire

cted

do

wnw

ard

and

to

avoi

d th

e cr

eatio

n of

nig

httim

e sk

y gl

ow, a

nd in

war

d to

th

e gr

eate

st e

xten

t pos

sibl

e.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

A

ES-8

: C

onsi

sten

t w

ith t

he L

ands

cape

Mas

ter

Plan

, pi

ne a

nd s

ycam

ore

tree

pla

ntin

gs,

and

tall

gras

ses

shal

l be

ins

talle

d al

ong

the

Zelz

ah

Ave

nue

and

Dar

by S

tree

t ca

mpu

s pe

rim

eter

s as

nee

ded

to s

cree

n lig

htin

g as

soci

ated

with

pa

rkin

g st

ruct

ures

PS-

B1, P

S-B5

-N, P

S-G

3, P

S-G

4, a

nd P

S-G

6.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

16

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

1 A

esth

etic

s (c

onti

nued

)

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

Mas

ter

Plan

is

not

expe

cted

to

resu

lt in

a n

ew s

ourc

e of

sub

stan

tial

glar

e.

New

st

ruct

ures

on

ca

mpu

s w

ould

be

co

nstr

ucte

d w

ith

mat

eria

ls t

hat

are

non-

refle

ctiv

e, s

uch

as s

tucc

o.

Gla

ss

inco

rpor

ated

int

o bu

ildin

g fa

cade

s w

ould

eith

er b

e co

mpo

sed

of lo

w-r

efle

ctiv

ity g

lass

or

wou

ld b

e fin

ishe

d w

ith a

non

-gla

re c

oatin

g.

Land

scap

ing,

pav

ing,

and

ot

her

surf

ace

area

s w

ithin

th

e ca

mpu

s w

ould

no

t in

crea

se

or

crea

te

refle

ctiv

e co

nditi

ons.

Th

eref

ore,

im

pact

s w

ould

be

less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

The

near

-term

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

s w

ould

not

hav

e a

subs

tant

ially

adv

erse

im

pact

to

scen

ic v

ista

s, as

no

scen

ic v

ista

s ha

ve b

een

iden

tifie

d in

loc

al l

and

use

plan

s.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

near

-term

M

aste

r Pl

an

proj

ects

w

ould

no

t su

bsta

ntia

lly

dam

age

scen

ic

reso

urce

s,

tree

s, ro

ck

outc

ropp

ings

, and

/or

hist

oric

bui

ldin

gs w

ithin

a s

tate

sc

enic

hig

hway

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

near

-term

M

aste

r Pl

an

proj

ects

w

ould

no

t su

bsta

ntia

lly d

egra

de t

he e

xist

ing

visu

al c

hara

cter

or

qual

ity o

f the

site

and

its s

urro

undi

ngs.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Thro

ugh

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

lig

htin

g de

sign

gu

idel

ines

, th

e ne

ar-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld

not

crea

te a

new

sou

rce

of s

ubst

antia

l lig

ht t

hat

wou

ld

adve

rsel

y af

fect

nig

httim

e vi

ews i

n th

e ar

ea.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

near

-term

Mas

ter P

lan

proj

ects

incl

ude

the

two

new

pa

rkin

g st

ruct

ures

alo

ng Z

elza

h A

venu

e.

As

with

the

M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

ct, i

mpa

cts

are

cons

ider

ed s

igni

fican

t ab

sent

miti

gatio

n.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res A

ES-6

thro

ugh

AES

-8 id

entif

ied

for t

he M

aste

r Pla

n pr

ojec

t wou

ld a

pply

to th

e pr

opos

ed n

ear-

term

Mas

ter P

lan

proj

ects

. Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

near

-term

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

s is

no

t ex

pect

ed t

o re

sult

in a

new

sou

rce

of s

ubst

antia

l gl

are.

D

esig

n fe

atur

es t

hat

redu

ce g

lare

wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as th

ose

for t

he M

aste

r Pla

n pr

ojec

t.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

17

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

2 A

ir Q

ualit

y

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

Max

imum

Mas

ter

Plan

con

stru

ctio

n em

issi

ons

wou

ld

exce

ed

the

Sout

h C

oast

A

ir

Qua

lity

Man

agem

ent

Dis

tric

t’s

(SC

AQ

MD

’s)

vola

tile

orga

nic

com

poun

ds

(VO

C),

nitr

ogen

dio

xide

(N

Ox),

and

car

bon

mon

oxid

e (C

O)

thre

shol

ds

of

sign

ifica

nce

duri

ng

the

proj

ect

cons

truc

tion

peri

od.

CSU

N

shal

l in

clud

e th

e fo

llow

ing

SCA

QM

D-

reco

mm

ende

d m

easu

res

in i

ts c

onst

ruct

ion

cont

ract

co

nditi

ons:

AIR

-1:

Dev

elop

an

d im

plem

ent

a co

nstr

uctio

n m

anag

emen

t pla

n, a

s app

rove

d by

CSU

N p

rior

to

is

suan

ce

of

a gr

adin

g pe

rmit,

w

hich

in

clud

es

the

follo

win

g m

easu

res

reco

mm

ende

d by

th

e SC

AQ

MD

, or

eq

uiva

lent

ly e

ffect

ive

mea

sure

s ap

prov

ed b

y th

e SC

AQ

MD

:

The

Mas

ter

Plan

’s

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

emis

sion

s of

V

OC

, N

Ox,

and

CO

ar

e co

nsid

ered

una

void

ably

sign

ifica

nt.

a.

C

onfig

ure

cons

truc

tion

park

ing

to

min

imiz

e tr

affic

inte

rfer

ence

.

b.

Pr

ovid

e te

mpo

rary

tra

ffic

cont

rols

dur

ing

all

phas

es

of

cons

truc

tion

activ

ities

to

m

aint

ain

traf

fic fl

ow (e

.g.,

flag

pers

on).

c.

Sc

hedu

le c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

that

affe

ct

traf

fic f

low

on

the

arte

rial

sys

tem

to

off-

peak

hou

rs to

the

degr

ee p

ract

icab

le.

d.

Re

-rou

te c

onst

ruct

ion

truc

ks a

way

fro

m

cong

este

d st

reet

s.

e.

C

onso

lidat

e tr

uck

deliv

erie

s w

hen

poss

ible

.

f.

Prov

ide

dedi

cate

d tu

rn

lane

s fo

r m

ovem

ent

of

cons

truc

tion

truc

ks

and

equi

pmen

t on

and

off s

ite.

g.

M

aint

ain

equi

pmen

t an

d ve

hicl

e en

gine

s in

goo

d co

nditi

on a

nd i

n pr

oper

tun

e as

pe

r m

anuf

actu

rers

’ spe

cific

atio

ns a

nd p

er

SCA

QM

D

rule

s, to

m

inim

ize

exha

ust

emis

sion

s.

h.

Su

spen

d us

e of

all

cons

truc

tion

equi

pmen

t op

erat

ions

du

ring

se

cond

st

age

smog

al

erts

. C

onta

ct th

e SC

AQ

MD

at 8

00/2

42-

4022

for d

aily

fore

cast

s.

i.

Use

ele

ctri

city

fro

m p

ower

pol

es r

athe

r th

an

tem

pora

ry

dies

el-

or

gaso

line-

pow

ered

gen

erat

ors.

j.

Use

m

etha

nol-

or

natu

ral

gas-

pow

ered

m

obile

equ

ipm

ent a

nd p

ile d

rive

rs in

stea

d of

die

sel i

f rea

dily

ava

ilabl

e at

com

petit

ive

pric

es.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

18

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

2 A

ir Q

ualit

y (c

ontin

ued)

AIR

-1 (c

ontin

ued)

k.

U

se p

ropa

ne-

or b

utan

e-po

wer

ed o

n-si

te

mob

ile e

quip

men

t in

stea

d of

gas

olin

e if

read

ily a

vaila

ble

at co

mpe

titiv

e pr

ices

.

A

IR-2

: D

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent a

dus

t con

trol

pla

n, a

s ap

prov

ed b

y th

e C

SUN

pri

or t

o is

suan

ce o

f a

grad

ing

perm

it, w

hich

inc

lude

s th

e m

easu

res

reco

mm

ende

d by

th

e SC

AQ

MD

, or

eq

uiva

lent

ly e

ffect

ive

mea

sure

s ap

prov

ed b

y th

e SC

AQ

MD

, as

pr

ovid

ed

in

Rule

s 40

3 re

gard

ing

fugi

tive

dust

fr

om

cons

truc

tion

activ

ities

.

The

Mas

ter

Plan

’s

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

emis

sion

s of

V

OC

, N

Ox,

and

CO

ar

e co

nsid

ered

una

void

ably

sign

ifica

nt.

A

IR-3

: A

ll on

- an

d of

f-roa

d co

nstr

uctio

n eq

uipm

ent

shal

l to

the

ext

ent

feas

ible

, as

det

erm

ined

by

CSU

N, u

se e

mul

sifie

d di

esel

fuel

.

The

Mas

ter

Plan

’s

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

emis

sion

s of

V

OC

, N

Ox,

and

CO

ar

e co

nsid

ered

una

void

ably

sign

ifica

nt.

The

prop

osed

Mas

ter

Plan

is

not

expe

cted

to

incl

ude

any

poin

t so

urce

s th

at w

ould

be

perm

itted

by

the

SCA

QM

D a

s reg

ulat

ed.

No

miti

gatio

n is

requ

ired

. Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

Mas

ter P

lan

at b

uild

out a

nd in

full

oper

atio

n w

ould

ge

nera

te to

tal s

umm

ertim

e or

win

tert

ime

emis

sion

s th

at

wou

ld e

xcee

d SC

AQ

MD

rec

omm

ende

d th

resh

olds

for

V

OC

(su

mm

ertim

e), N

Ox

(win

tert

ime)

, and

PM

10 (

both

su

mm

ertim

e an

d w

inte

rtim

e) d

urin

g Ph

ases

1 to

4 (

the

PM10

thre

shol

d w

ould

be

exce

eded

onl

y in

Pha

se 4

).

AIR

-4:

Com

ply

with

Ti

tle

24

of

the

UBC

en

ergy

co

nser

vatio

n re

quir

emen

ts.

The

Mas

ter

Plan

’s

oper

atio

nal-r

elat

ed

emis

sion

s of

VO

C,

NO

x, an

d PM

10 a

re

cons

ider

ed u

navo

idab

ly si

gnifi

cant

.

A

IR-5

: To

th

e ex

tent

C

SUN

ha

s no

t pr

evio

usly

im

plem

ente

d th

e fo

llow

ing

tran

spor

tatio

n co

ntro

l m

easu

res,

as

soon

as

re

ason

ably

fe

asib

le, C

SUN

, or i

ts d

esig

nee,

will

:

The

Mas

ter

Plan

’s

oper

atio

nal-r

elat

ed

emis

sion

s of

VO

C,

NO

x, an

d PM

10 a

re

cons

ider

ed u

navo

idab

ly si

gnifi

cant

.

a.

Pr

ovid

e pr

efer

entia

l pa

rkin

g sp

aces

on

ca

mpu

s fo

r em

ploy

ee

carp

ools

an

d va

npoo

ls;

b.

Sc

hedu

le tr

uck

deliv

erie

s an

d pi

ckup

s fo

r of

f-pea

k ho

urs

whe

re fe

asib

le a

nd r

equi

re

that

del

iver

y tr

ucks

tur

n of

f th

eir

engi

nes

if th

e an

ticip

ated

du

ratio

n of

id

ling

exce

eds 5

min

utes

;

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

19

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

2 A

ir Q

ualit

y (c

ontin

ued)

AIR

-5 (c

ontin

ued)

c.

Pa

rtic

ipat

e in

pub

lic o

utre

ach

prog

ram

s th

at

prom

ote

alte

rnat

ive

met

hods

of

tr

ansp

orta

tion.

The

Mas

ter

Plan

im

plem

enta

tion

wou

ld b

e co

nsis

tent

w

ith

the

2003

A

QM

P an

d,

ther

efor

e,

wou

ld

not

jeop

ardi

ze t

he l

ong-

term

atta

inm

ent

of t

he a

ir q

ualit

y st

anda

rds p

redi

cted

in th

e 20

03 A

QM

P. T

he p

roje

ct a

lso

does

not

exc

eed

the

addi

tiona

l ind

icat

ors

of p

oten

tial a

ir

qual

ity

impa

cts,

in

clud

ing:

inte

rfer

ence

w

ith

the

atta

inm

ent

of t

he f

eder

al o

r st

ate

ambi

ent

air

qual

ity

stan

dard

s by

eith

er v

iola

ting

or c

ontr

ibut

ing

to a

n ex

istin

g or

pro

ject

ed a

ir q

ualit

y vi

olat

ion;

res

ult

in

popu

latio

n in

crea

ses

with

in a

n ar

ea w

hich

wou

ld b

e in

ex

cess

of

that

pro

ject

ed b

y SC

AG

in

the

AQ

MP,

or

incr

ease

the

popu

latio

n in

an

area

whe

re S

CA

G h

as n

ot

proj

ecte

d th

at g

row

th f

or t

he p

roje

ct’s

bui

ld-o

ut y

ear;

gene

rate

veh

icle

trip

s th

at c

ause

a C

O h

otsp

ot o

r pro

ject

co

uld

be

occu

pied

by

se

nsiti

ve

rece

ptor

s th

at

are

expo

sed

to a

CO

hot

spot

; cre

ate,

or

be s

ubje

cted

to,

an

obje

ctio

nabl

e od

or th

at c

ould

impa

ct s

ensi

tive

rece

ptor

s;

have

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

on

site

and

res

ult

in a

n ac

cide

ntal

re

leas

e of

to

xic

air

emis

sion

s or

ac

utel

y ha

zard

ous m

ater

ials

pos

ing

a th

reat

to p

ublic

hea

lth a

nd

safe

ty;

emit

a to

xic

air

cont

amin

ant

regu

late

d by

SC

AQ

MD

rul

es o

r th

at is

on

a fe

dera

l or

stat

e ai

r to

xics

lis

t; be

oc

cupi

ed

by

sens

itive

re

cept

ors

with

in

one

quar

ter

mile

of

an e

xist

ing

faci

lity

that

em

its a

ir t

oxic

s id

entif

ied

in S

CA

QM

D R

ule

1401

; or

emit

carc

inog

enic

or

to

xic

air

cont

amin

ants

th

at

indi

vidu

ally

or

cu

mul

ativ

ely

exce

ed t

he m

axim

um i

ndiv

idua

l ca

ncer

ri

sk o

f ten

in o

ne m

illio

n.

No

miti

gatio

n is

requ

ired

. Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

Max

imum

nea

r-te

rm

proj

ects

con

stru

ctio

n em

issi

ons

wou

ld e

xcee

d th

e So

uth

Coa

st A

ir Q

ualit

y M

anag

emen

t D

istr

ict’s

(S

CA

QM

D’s

) vo

latil

e or

gani

c co

mpo

unds

(V

OC

), ni

trog

en d

ioxi

de (

NO

x), a

nd c

arbo

n m

onox

ide

(CO

) th

resh

olds

of

si

gnifi

canc

e du

ring

th

e pr

ojec

t co

nstr

uctio

n pe

riod

.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res A

IR-1

thro

ugh

AIR

-4 id

entif

ied

for

the

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

wou

ld a

pply

to

the

near

-term

M

aste

r Pla

n pr

ojec

ts.

The

near

-term

M

aste

r Pl

an

proj

ect’s

co

nstr

uctio

n-re

late

d em

issi

ons

of

VO

C,

NO

x, an

d C

O a

re c

onsi

dere

d un

avoi

dabl

y si

gnifi

cant

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

20

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

2 A

ir Q

ualit

y (c

ontin

ued)

The

prop

osed

nea

r-te

rm p

roje

cts

are

not

expe

cted

to

incl

ude

any

poin

t so

urce

s th

at w

ould

be

perm

itted

by

the

SCA

QM

D a

s reg

ulat

ed.

No

miti

gatio

n is

requ

ired

. Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

Phas

e 2

near

-term

pro

ject

in

full

oper

atio

n w

ould

ge

nera

te to

tal s

umm

ertim

e or

win

tert

ime

emis

sion

s th

at

wou

ld e

xcee

d SC

AQ

MD

rec

omm

ende

d th

resh

olds

for

V

OC

(sum

mer

time)

and

NO

x (w

inte

rtim

e).

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re A

IR-5

ide

ntifi

ed f

or t

he M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

ct w

ould

app

ly to

the

near

-term

Mas

ter

Plan

pr

ojec

ts.

The

near

-term

M

aste

r Pl

an’s

pr

ojec

ts

oper

atio

nal-r

elat

ed

emis

sion

s of

V

OC

, N

Ox,

and

PM10

ar

e co

nsid

ered

un

avoi

dabl

y si

gnifi

cant

.

The

Mas

ter

Plan

im

plem

enta

tion

wou

ld b

e co

nsis

tent

w

ith

the

2003

A

QM

P an

d,

ther

efor

e,

wou

ld

not

jeop

ardi

ze t

he l

ong-

term

atta

inm

ent

of t

he a

ir q

ualit

y st

anda

rds

pred

icte

d in

the

200

3 A

QM

P.

Beca

use

the

Mas

ter P

lan

is c

onsi

sten

t, th

e ne

ar-te

rm p

roje

cts

are

also

co

nsis

tent

. Th

e ne

ar-te

rm p

roje

cts

also

do

not

exce

ed

the

addi

tiona

l ind

icat

ors

of p

oten

tial a

ir q

ualit

y im

pact

s id

entif

ied

for t

he M

aste

r Pla

n pr

ojec

ts.

No

miti

gatio

n is

requ

ired

. Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

3.3

Haz

ards

& H

azar

dous

Mat

eria

ls

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

th

e pr

opos

ed

2005

M

aste

r Pl

an

wou

ld n

ot re

sult

in th

e cr

eatio

n of

sig

nific

ant h

azar

ds to

th

e pu

blic

th

roug

h th

e ro

utin

e st

orag

e,

tran

spor

t, an

d/or

di

spos

al

of

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

. Im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e M

aste

r Pl

an is

not

ant

icip

ated

to

intr

oduc

e ne

w h

azar

ds o

r ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls o

nto

the

CSU

N c

ampu

s; in

stea

d, q

uant

ities

of e

xist

ing

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

use

d on

cam

pus

may

inc

rem

enta

lly i

ncre

ase

as

the

cam

pus

popu

latio

n an

d op

erat

ions

in

crea

se.

Add

ition

al

use

of

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

w

ould

be

do

cum

ente

d in

the

ann

ual

UP

Form

s an

d w

ould

be

subj

ect

to E

nvir

onm

enta

l H

ealth

and

Saf

ety’

s ex

istin

g pr

ogra

ms,

polic

ies

and

proc

edur

es r

elat

ed t

o ha

zard

s an

d m

ater

ials

safe

ty.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

21

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

3 H

azar

ds &

Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

(con

tinue

d)

The

proj

ect w

ould

not

cre

ate

a si

gnifi

cant

haz

ard

to th

e pu

blic

or

th

e en

viro

nmen

t th

roug

h re

ason

ably

fo

rese

eabl

e up

set a

nd a

ccid

ent c

ondi

tions

invo

lvin

g th

e re

leas

e of

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

int

o th

e en

viro

nmen

t.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

Mas

ter

Plan

is n

ot a

ntic

ipat

ed to

in

trod

uce

new

haz

ards

or

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

ont

o th

e C

SUN

cam

pus;

inst

ead,

qua

ntiti

es o

f exi

stin

g ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls u

sed

on c

ampu

s m

ay i

ncre

men

tally

inc

reas

e as

the

cam

pus

popu

latio

n an

d op

erat

ions

incr

ease

. T

he

Envi

ronm

enta

l Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y O

ffice

is a

war

e of

, and

ov

erse

es, a

ll ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls p

rese

nt o

n th

e C

SUN

ca

mpu

s in

com

plia

nce

with

fed

eral

, st

ate,

and

loc

al

regu

latio

ns.

In th

e un

likel

y ev

ent o

f a r

eal o

r po

tent

ial

rele

ase,

the

Env

iron

men

tal

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y O

ffice

’s

emer

genc

y pr

oced

ure

for

Haz

ardo

us

Mat

eria

ls

Spill

s/Re

leas

es i

s em

ploy

ed.

Thi

s pr

oced

ure

requ

ires

im

med

iate

not

ifica

tion

of th

e re

al o

r po

tent

ial r

elea

se to

th

e En

viro

nmen

tal H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Offi

ce, w

hich

then

co

ntac

ts t

he L

os A

ngel

es F

ire

Dep

artm

ent

(LA

FD)

and

the

Cal

/EPA

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

proj

ect

wou

ld n

ot e

mit

haza

rdou

s em

issi

ons

or

hand

le

haza

rdou

s or

ac

utel

y ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls,

subs

tanc

es o

r w

aste

w

ithin

one

-qua

rter

mile

of

an

exis

ting

or p

ropo

sed

scho

ol, a

nd in

the

even

t of a

real

or

pote

ntia

l re

leas

e of

a

haza

rdou

s su

bsta

nce,

th

e em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

pro

cedu

res

curr

ently

in

plac

e at

C

SUN

wou

ld b

e em

ploy

ed u

pon

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

prop

osed

M

aste

r Pl

an,

thus

pr

even

ting

sign

ifica

nt

impa

cts

from

oc

curr

ing

at

the

adja

cent

N

orth

ridg

e A

cade

my

Hig

h Sc

hool

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Pres

ently

, the

CSU

N c

ampu

s is

not

kno

wn

to b

e lis

ted

on a

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

site

list

com

pile

d pu

rsua

nt to

G

over

nmen

t C

ode

§659

62.5

. H

owev

er,

due

to

the

unkn

own

stat

e of

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

site

list

ings

with

re

spec

t to

th

e C

SUN

ca

mpu

s,

cons

truc

tion

and

oper

atio

nal a

ctiv

ities

ass

ocia

ted

with

impl

emen

tatio

n of

th

e pr

opos

ed M

aste

r Pl

an c

ould

hav

e th

e po

tent

ial

to

crea

te a

haz

ard

to t

he p

ublic

and

/or

the

envi

ronm

ent.

Th

is

is

cons

ider

ed

a po

tent

ially

si

gnifi

cant

im

pact

, ab

sent

miti

gatio

n.

HA

Z-1:

For

eac

h pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct t

o be

im

plem

ente

d un

der

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an,

CSU

N s

hall

cons

ult

spec

ified

co

mpr

ehen

sive

lis

ts

of

cont

amin

ated

site

s to

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

the

si

te

cont

ains

ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls

(PR

C

§210

92.6

, Gov

ernm

ent C

ode

§659

62.5

). W

here

a

prop

osed

pro

ject

is

iden

tifie

d on

one

of

the

lists

, CSU

N s

hall

dete

rmin

e w

heth

er th

e si

te’s

ha

zard

ous m

ater

ials

pos

e a

sign

ifica

nt th

reat

to

the

publ

ic a

nd/o

r the

env

iron

men

t.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

22

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

3 H

azar

ds &

Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

(con

tinue

d)

H

AZ-

2: I

f a

prop

osed

pr

ojec

t si

te

is

liste

d as

a

cont

amin

ated

si

te

and

pose

s a

sign

ifica

nt

thre

at to

the

publ

ic a

nd/o

r the

env

iron

men

t, in

ac

cord

ance

with

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re H

AZ

-1,

or if

site

con

tam

inat

ion

is k

now

n or

bel

ieve

d to

ex

ist

by

CSU

N,

CSU

N s

hall,

as

nece

ssar

y,

cond

uct a

Pha

se I

envi

ronm

enta

l ass

essm

ent o

f th

at s

ite.

Base

d on

the

res

ults

of

the

Phas

e I

envi

ronm

enta

l ass

essm

ent,

in c

onju

nctio

n w

ith

the

LARW

QC

B an

d/or

DTS

C, C

SUN

and

the

ag

ency

(s)

shal

l de

term

ine

whe

ther

or

no

t ad

ditio

nal

inve

stig

atio

n is

ne

eded

on

th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct s

ite.

The

res

ults

of

each

in

vest

igat

ion

shal

l be

sha

red

with

the

Los

A

ngel

es R

egio

nal W

ater

Qua

lity

Con

trol

Boa

rd

(LA

RWQ

CB)

an

d/or

th

e C

alifo

rnia

St

ate

Dep

artm

ent

of

Toxi

c Su

bsta

nces

C

ontr

ol

(DTS

C).

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

H

AZ-

3: I

f add

ition

al s

tudy

is d

eem

ed to

be

need

ed a

nd

CSU

N i

nten

ds t

o pr

ocee

d w

ith t

he p

ropo

sed

proj

ect,

addi

tiona

l in

vest

igat

ion

of

the

site

sh

all

be c

ondu

cted

in

com

plia

nce

with

the

re

quir

emen

ts s

et fo

rth

by e

ither

LA

RW

QC

B or

D

TSC

. T

he e

nvir

onm

enta

l ev

alua

tion

shal

l in

clud

e re

view

of

the

hist

oric

al u

se o

f th

e pr

oper

ty,

field

sa

mpl

ing

and

anal

ysis

, es

timat

es t

he p

oten

tial t

hrea

t to

pub

lic h

ealth

, an

d as

sess

es p

oten

tial

impa

cts

from

off-

site

so

urce

s to

the

proj

ect.

Bas

ed o

n re

view

of t

he

addi

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

tal

asse

ssm

ent,

eith

er

LARW

QC

B or

D

TSC

w

ould

th

en

mak

e a

deci

sion

on

the

pote

ntia

l ri

sks

pose

d by

the

si

te.

This

det

erm

inat

ion

shal

l in

clud

e on

e of

th

ree

optio

ns:

(1)

furt

her

inve

stig

atio

n is

ne

eded

th

roug

h ad

ditio

nal

mor

e in

tens

ive

inve

stig

atio

ns, (

2) a

rem

oval

act

ion

is n

eede

d;

a cl

eanu

p ag

reem

ent w

ould

be

mad

e be

twee

n ei

ther

LA

RWQ

CB

or D

TSC

and

CSU

N, o

r (3

) N

o Fu

rthe

r Act

ion

is n

eede

d on

the

site

.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

23

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

3 H

azar

ds &

Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

(con

tinue

d)

H

AZ-

4: I

f rem

oval

act

ion

is r

equi

red,

CSU

N s

hall

take

ne

cess

ary

step

s to

ens

ure

prop

er h

andl

ing

of

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

rem

oved

fro

m t

he s

ite

and

min

imiz

e th

e po

tent

ial r

isks

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith t

he r

equi

rem

ents

of

the

publ

ic h

ealth

ov

ersi

ght a

genc

y (L

AR

WQ

CB

or D

TSC

).

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

H

AZ-

5: C

SUN

sha

ll in

corp

orat

e in

form

atio

n re

gard

ing

site

in

vest

igat

ions

in

su

bseq

uent

en

viro

nmen

tal r

evie

w d

ocum

ents

pre

pare

d fo

r sp

ecifi

c pr

ojec

ts, w

hich

sha

ll be

ava

ilabl

e to

the

publ

ic fo

r re

view

and

com

men

t as

requ

ired

by

CEQ

A.

The

pub

lic h

as t

he o

ppor

tuni

ty t

o re

view

the

site

-spe

cific

inve

stig

atio

ns t

hrou

gh

eith

er L

ARW

QC

B’s

or D

TSC

’s p

ublic

rev

iew

pr

oces

s.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

The

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

int

erfe

re w

ith t

he

CSU

N

Dep

artm

ent

of

Publ

ic

Safe

ty’s

an

d/or

th

e En

viro

nmen

tal

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y O

ffice

’s e

mer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss

reco

mm

enda

tions

an

d/or

ca

mpu

s em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

an

d ev

acua

tion

proc

edur

es.

CSU

N’s

D

epar

tmen

t of

Pu

blic

Sa

fety

an

d En

viro

nmen

tal

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y O

ffice

wou

ld r

evie

w

and

upda

te

all

emer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss

reco

mm

enda

tions

and

cam

pus

emer

genc

y re

spon

se a

nd

evac

uatio

n pr

oced

ures

to

refle

ct c

hang

es i

n ca

mpu

s la

yout

thro

ugh

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

prop

osed

Mas

ter

Plan

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

24

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

3 H

azar

ds &

Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

(con

tinue

d)

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld r

esul

t in

the

sam

e im

pact

s al

read

y id

entif

ied

for

build

out o

f the

Mas

ter P

lan.

Im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e pr

opos

ed n

ear-

term

Mas

ter

Plan

pr

ojec

ts w

ould

res

ult

in l

ess

than

sig

nific

ant

impa

cts

rela

ted

to h

azar

ds a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e ro

utin

e tr

ansp

ort,

use,

or

disp

osal

of

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

; re

ason

ably

fo

rese

eabl

e up

set a

nd a

ccid

ent c

ondi

tions

invo

lvin

g th

e re

leas

e of

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

int

o th

e en

viro

nmen

t; an

d ha

zard

ous

emis

sion

s or

the

hand

ling

of h

azar

dous

or

acu

tely

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

, su

bsta

nces

or

was

te

with

in o

ne-q

uart

er m

ile o

f an

exi

stin

g or

pro

pose

d sc

hool

. Ea

ch p

roje

ct w

ould

lik

ely

incr

emen

tally

inc

reas

e th

e qu

antit

ies

of h

azar

dous

mat

eria

ls o

n ca

mpu

s. T

he

Envi

ronm

enta

l H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Offi

ce h

as p

repa

red

and

adop

ted

num

erou

s pr

ogra

ms,

polic

ies,

an

d pr

oced

ures

inte

nded

to p

reve

nt a

ccid

ents

resu

lting

from

th

e re

leas

e of

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

. A

s ea

ch p

roje

ct i

s de

velo

ped

and

impl

emen

ted,

CSU

N’s

Env

iron

men

tal

Hea

lth

and

Safe

ty

Offi

ce

wou

ld

be

requ

ired

to

de

mon

stra

te c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith a

pplic

able

fed

eral

, sta

te,

and

loca

l reg

ulat

ions

gov

erni

ng th

e tr

ansp

ort,

use,

and

di

spos

al o

f haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

The

CSU

N c

ampu

s is

not

kno

wn

to b

e lis

ted

on a

ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls

site

lis

t co

mpi

led

purs

uant

to

G

over

nmen

t C

ode

§659

62.5

. H

owev

er, b

ecau

se o

f th

e un

know

n st

ate

of h

azar

dous

mat

eria

ls s

ite l

istin

gs o

n th

e C

SUN

ca

mpu

s, co

nstr

uctio

n an

d op

erat

iona

l ac

tiviti

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

coul

d ha

ve t

he p

oten

tial

to

crea

te a

haz

ard

to th

e pu

blic

and

/or t

he e

nvir

onm

ent.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

HA

Z-1

thro

ugh

HA

Z-5

iden

tifie

d fo

r th

e M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

ct w

ould

app

ly t

o th

e ne

ar-

term

Mas

ter P

lan

proj

ects

.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

pro

pose

d ne

ar-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an

proj

ects

wou

ld n

ot h

ave

the

pote

ntia

l to

sig

nific

antly

in

terf

ere

with

th

e ca

mpu

s’s

adop

ted

emer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss r

ecom

men

datio

ns a

nd/o

r th

e em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

pro

cedu

res.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

25

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

4 N

oise

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

Off-

Site

and

On-

Site

Con

stru

ctio

n N

oise

C

onst

ruct

ion-

rela

ted

nois

e w

ould

ex

ceed

ex

istin

g am

bien

t ex

teri

or n

oise

lev

els

by m

ore

than

5 d

B(A

) at

ex

istin

g of

f-site

noi

se s

ensi

tive

uses

, as

allo

wed

by

the

Mun

icip

al C

ode.

NO

ISE-

1:

As

per

Sect

ion

41.4

0 of

the

City

of

Los

Ang

eles

N

oise

O

rdin

ance

, co

nstr

uctio

n op

erat

ions

sha

ll be

lim

ited

to th

e ho

urs

of 7

A

M t

o 6

PM M

onda

y th

roug

h Fr

iday

and

8

AM

to 6

PM

on

Satu

rday

s an

d ho

liday

s. N

o co

nstr

uctio

n op

erat

ions

sha

ll be

per

mitt

ed

on S

unda

ys.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le.

N

OIS

E-2:

A

s pe

r Se

ctio

n 11

2.05

of

the

City

of

Los

Ang

eles

N

oise

O

rdin

ance

, al

l te

chni

cally

fe

asib

le m

easu

res

shal

l be

im

plem

ente

d to

re

duce

no

ise

leve

ls

of

cons

truc

tion

equi

pmen

t op

erat

ing

with

in

500

feet

of

re

side

ntia

l are

as in

cas

es w

here

noi

se le

vels

ex

ceed

75

dB(A

) at

50

feet

fro

m t

he n

oise

so

urce

.

Tech

nica

lly

feas

ible

m

easu

res

incl

ude,

but

are

not

lim

ited

to, c

hang

ing

the

loca

tion

of

stat

iona

ry

cons

truc

tion

equi

pmen

t, sh

uttin

g of

f id

ling

equi

pmen

t, no

tifyi

ng a

djac

ent

land

use

s in

adv

ance

of

cons

truc

tion

wor

k,

ensu

ring

th

at

cons

truc

tion

equi

pmen

t is

fit

ted

with

m

oder

n so

und

redu

ctio

n eq

uipm

ent,

and

inst

allin

g te

mpo

rary

ac

oust

ic

barr

iers

ar

ound

st

atio

nary

co

nstr

uctio

n no

ise

sour

ces.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

26

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

4 N

oise

(con

tinue

d)

N

OIS

E-3:

Eq

uipm

ent

used

fo

r pr

ojec

t co

nstr

uctio

n sh

all

be

hydr

aulic

ally

- or

el

ectr

ical

ly-

pow

ered

im

pact

too

ls (

e.g.

, ja

ck h

amm

ers)

w

here

ver

poss

ible

to

avoi

d no

ise

asso

ciat

ed

with

co

mpr

esse

d ai

r ex

haus

t fr

om

pneu

mat

ical

ly p

ower

ed to

ols.

Whe

re u

se o

f pn

eum

atic

ally

-pow

ered

to

ols

is

unav

oida

ble,

an

ex

haus

t m

uffle

r on

th

e co

mpr

esse

d ai

r ex

haus

t sh

all

be u

sed.

A

m

uffle

r co

uld

low

er n

oise

lev

els

from

the

ex

haus

t by

up

to a

bout

10

dB(A

). E

xter

nal

jack

ets

on th

e to

ols

them

selv

es s

hall

be u

sed

whe

re

feas

ible

; th

is

coul

d ac

hiev

e a

redu

ctio

n of

5 d

B(A

). Q

uiet

er p

roce

dure

s sh

all

be u

sed

(suc

h as

dri

lling

rat

her

than

im

pact

equ

ipm

ent)

whe

reve

r fe

asib

le.

The

pr

ojec

t ap

plic

ant

shal

l re

quir

e co

nstr

uctio

n co

ntra

ctor

s to

en

sure

th

at

cons

truc

tion

equi

pmen

t is

fitt

ed w

ith s

ound

red

uctio

n eq

uipm

ent,

per

man

ufac

ture

r’s

spec

ifica

tions

.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le.

N

OIS

E-4:

A

s pe

r th

e C

ity

of

Los

Ang

eles

N

oise

or

dina

nce,

CSU

N s

hall

post

sig

ns p

rior

to

cons

truc

tion

activ

ities

with

a p

hone

num

ber

for r

esid

ents

to c

all w

ith n

oise

com

plai

nts.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le.

N

OIS

E-5:

Pr

ior

to c

onst

ruct

ion,

noi

se b

arri

ers

with

a

soun

d tr

ansm

issi

on c

oeffi

cien

t (S

TC)

that

w

ould

atte

nuat

e no

ise

leve

ls a

t off-

site

noi

se

sens

itive

use

s fo

r al

l co

nstr

uctio

n ph

ases

sh

all b

e sp

ecifi

ed b

y an

aco

ustic

al e

ngin

eer.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le.

The

daily

tran

spor

t of c

onst

ruct

ion

wor

kers

to a

nd fr

om

the

proj

ect s

ite is

exp

ecte

d to

cau

se te

mpo

rary

incr

ease

s in

noi

se l

evel

s al

ong

proj

ect

road

way

s; ho

wev

er,

this

tr

affic

wou

ld n

ot b

e a

subs

tant

ial

perc

enta

ge o

f da

ily

volu

mes

in th

e ar

ea a

nd, t

hus,

wou

ld n

ot in

crea

se le

vels

by

mor

e th

an 3

dB(

A).

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

27

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

4 N

oise

(con

tinue

d)

Off-

Site

and

On-

Site

Ope

ratio

n N

oise

Im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he C

SUN

Mas

ter

Plan

wou

ld n

ot

resu

lt in

a s

igni

fican

t in

crea

se i

n th

e of

f-site

am

bien

t no

ise

leve

ls m

easu

red

at t

he p

rope

rty

line

of a

ffect

ed

nois

e us

es.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

res

ult

in i

ncre

ased

roa

dway

noi

se i

n ex

cess

of

the

dB(A

) “n

orm

ally

acc

epta

ble”

thr

esho

ld f

or m

ulti-

fam

ily u

ses

(alo

ng Z

elza

h A

venu

e so

uth

of L

asse

n St

reet

and

alo

ng

Lass

en S

tree

t eas

t of L

indl

ey A

venu

e).

NO

ISE-

6:

CSU

N s

hall

inst

all

a so

lid b

arri

er b

etw

een

the

road

way

and

on-

site

res

iden

tial

uses

al

ong

Zelz

ah A

venu

e, b

etw

een

Lass

en S

tree

t an

d Pa

rkin

g Lo

t G7,

and

alo

ng L

asse

n St

reet

, be

twee

n Li

ndle

y A

venu

e an

d Ze

lzah

A

venu

e.

The

solid

bar

rier

wou

ld r

educ

e no

ise

leve

ls b

y 5

to 1

0 dB

(A).

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

N

OIS

E-7:

So

und

atte

nuat

ion

mea

sure

s sh

all

be

inco

rpor

ated

int

o th

e de

sign

to

min

imiz

e no

ise

impa

cts

gene

rate

d by

ope

ratio

n of

the

abov

egro

und

park

ing

stru

ctur

e on

th

e su

rrou

ndin

g ca

mpu

s.

Thes

e m

easu

res

may

in

clud

e a

half-

wal

l on

th

e gr

ade-

leve

l pa

rkin

g de

ck a

nd/o

r fu

ll w

alls

on

the

side

s of

th

e st

ruct

ure

that

ar

e fa

cing

ne

arby

re

cept

ors

and/

or n

oise

con

trol

lou

vers

on

sele

cted

str

uctu

re f

acad

es t

hat

pote

ntia

lly

influ

ence

rec

epto

r ar

eas.

Aco

ustic

al a

naly

sis

shal

l be

per

form

ed t

o de

mon

stra

te t

hat

the

abov

egro

und

park

ing

stru

ctur

e do

es

not

resu

lt in

no

ise

leve

ls

that

ex

ceed

st

ate

stan

dard

s at

ext

erio

r on

-site

res

iden

tial a

nd

scho

ol u

ses.

Th

ese

com

pone

nts

shal

l be

in

corp

orat

ed in

to t

he p

lans

to

be s

ubm

itted

by

the

app

lican

t to

CSU

N f

or r

evie

w a

nd

appr

oval

pri

or t

o th

e is

suan

ce o

f bu

ildin

g pe

rmits

.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

28

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

4 N

oise

(con

tinue

d)

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

Off-

Site

and

On-

Site

Con

stru

ctio

n N

oise

C

onst

ruct

ion-

rela

ted

nois

e w

ould

ex

ceed

ex

istin

g am

bien

t ex

teri

or n

oise

lev

els

by m

ore

than

5 d

B(A

) at

ex

istin

g of

f-site

noi

se s

ensi

tive

uses

, as

allo

wed

by

the

Mun

icip

al C

ode.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

NO

ISE-

1 th

roug

h N

OIS

E-5

iden

tifie

d fo

r th

e M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

ct c

onst

ruct

ion

nois

e im

pact

s app

ly to

the

near

-term

Mas

ter P

lan

proj

ects

.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le.

The

daily

tran

spor

t of c

onst

ruct

ion

wor

kers

to a

nd fr

om

the

proj

ect s

ite is

exp

ecte

d to

cau

se te

mpo

rary

incr

ease

s in

noi

se l

evel

s al

ong

proj

ect

road

way

s; ho

wev

er,

this

tr

affic

wou

ld n

ot b

e a

subs

tant

ial

perc

enta

ge o

f da

ily

volu

mes

in th

e ar

ea a

nd, t

hus,

wou

ld n

ot in

crea

se le

vels

by

mor

e th

an 3

dB(

A).

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Off-

Site

and

On-

Site

Ope

ratio

n N

oise

Im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he C

SUN

Mas

ter

Plan

wou

ld n

ot

resu

lt in

a s

igni

fican

t in

crea

se i

n th

e of

f-site

am

bien

t no

ise

leve

ls m

easu

red

at t

he p

rope

rty

line

of a

ffect

ed

nois

e us

es.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

res

ult

in i

ncre

ased

roa

dway

noi

se i

n ex

cess

of

the

dB(A

) “n

orm

ally

acc

epta

ble”

thr

esho

ld f

or m

ulti-

fam

ily u

ses

(alo

ng Z

elza

h A

venu

e so

uth

of L

asse

n St

reet

and

alo

ng

Lass

en S

tree

t eas

t of L

indl

ey A

venu

e).

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

NO

ISE-

6 an

d N

OIS

E-7

iden

tifie

d fo

r th

e M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

ct c

onst

ruct

ion

nois

e im

pact

s ap

ply

to th

e ne

ar-te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n pr

ojec

ts.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

29

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

5 Po

pula

tion

and

Hou

sing

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

In

addi

tion

to

bein

g co

nsis

tent

w

ith

the

Sout

hern

C

alifo

rnia

Ass

ocia

tion

of G

over

nmen

ts (

SCA

G)

and

Nor

thri

dge

Com

mun

ity P

lan

proj

ectio

ns, t

he a

dditi

onal

ho

usin

g pr

opos

ed o

n ca

mpu

s, a

s with

all

com

pone

nts

of

the

2005

M

aste

r Pl

an,

is

spec

ifica

lly

inte

nded

to

ac

com

mod

ate

proj

ecte

d en

rollm

ent

incr

ease

s at

CSU

N

thro

ugh

2035

. Fa

culty

/sta

ff ho

usin

g is

inte

nded

to a

id

in f

acul

ty/s

taff

recr

uitm

ent

to m

aint

ain

the

nece

ssar

y fa

culty

:stud

ent

ratio

at

the

Uni

vers

ity.

Mas

ter

Plan

im

plem

enta

tion

is n

ot g

row

th in

duci

ng a

nd w

ould

not

re

sult

in th

e ex

ceed

ance

of l

ocal

pop

ulat

ion

proj

ectio

ns.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

di

rect

ly o

r in

dire

ctly

ind

uce

subs

tant

ial

grow

th i

n an

un

deve

lope

d ar

ea.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

di

spla

ce e

xist

ing

hous

ing,

esp

ecia

lly a

fford

able

hou

sing

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

The

near

-term

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

s ar

e co

nsis

tent

with

th

e So

uthe

rn C

alifo

rnia

Ass

ocia

tion

of G

over

nmen

ts

(SC

AG

) an

d N

orth

ridg

e C

omm

unity

Pla

n pr

ojec

tions

. A

ll co

mpo

nent

s of

the

2005

Mas

ter

Plan

are

spe

cific

ally

in

tend

ed

to

acco

mm

odat

e pr

ojec

ted

enro

llmen

t in

crea

ses

at C

SUN

thro

ugh

2035

. Fa

culty

/sta

ff ho

usin

g is

in

tend

ed

to

aid

in

facu

lty/s

taff

recr

uitm

ent

to

mai

ntai

n th

e ne

cess

ary

facu

lty:st

uden

t ra

tio

at

the

Uni

vers

ity.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

is n

ot g

row

th i

nduc

ing

and

wou

ld n

ot

resu

lt in

the

exce

edan

ce o

f loc

al p

opul

atio

n pr

ojec

tions

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld

not

dire

ctly

or

in

dire

ctly

in

duce

su

bsta

ntia

l gr

owth

in a

n un

deve

lope

d ar

ea.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld

not

disp

lace

ex

istin

g ho

usin

g,

espe

cial

ly

affo

rdab

le h

ousi

ng.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

30

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

6 Pu

blic

Ser

vice

s

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

Serv

ices

Im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he C

SUN

Mas

ter

Plan

wou

ld n

ot

resu

lt in

ina

dequ

ate

emer

genc

y ac

cess

or

acce

ss t

o ne

arby

use

s eith

er d

urin

g co

nstr

uctio

n or

ope

ratio

n.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

in

crea

se f

ire

haza

rd i

n ar

eas

with

fla

mm

able

bru

sh,

gras

s, or

tree

s dur

ing

eith

er c

onst

ruct

ion

or o

pera

tion.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

ha

ve a

n ef

fect

upo

n, o

r re

sult

in a

nee

d fo

r, ne

w o

r al

tere

d go

vern

men

t se

rvic

es

in

the

area

of

fir

e pr

otec

tion

duri

ng e

ither

con

stru

ctio

n or

ope

ratio

n.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Polic

e Pro

tect

ion

Serv

ices

Im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he C

SUN

Mas

ter

Plan

wou

ld n

ot

incr

ease

dem

and

for

polic

e se

rvic

es a

t th

e tim

e of

pr

ojec

t bu

ildou

t co

mpa

red

to t

he e

xpec

ted

leve

l of

se

rvic

e av

aila

ble.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

th

e C

SUN

M

aste

r Pl

an

wou

ld

incl

ude

secu

rity

and

/or

desi

gn f

eatu

res

that

wou

ld

redu

ce th

e de

man

d fo

r pol

ice

serv

ices

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

Serv

ices

Im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he n

ear-

term

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

s w

ould

not

res

ult

in i

nade

quat

e em

erge

ncy

acce

ss o

r ac

cess

to

near

by u

ses

eith

er d

urin

g co

nstr

uctio

n or

op

erat

ion.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld n

ot in

crea

se fi

re h

azar

d in

are

as w

ith fl

amm

able

br

ush,

gra

ss,

or t

rees

dur

ing

eith

er c

onst

ruct

ion

or

oper

atio

n.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

31

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

6 Pu

blic

Ser

vice

s (co

ntin

ued)

Polic

e Pro

tect

ion

Serv

ices

Im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he n

ear-

term

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

s w

ould

not

hav

e an

effe

ct u

pon,

or

resu

lt in

a n

eed

for,

new

or

alte

red

gove

rnm

ent

serv

ices

in

the

area

of

fire

prot

ectio

n du

ring

eith

er c

onst

ruct

ion

or o

pera

tion.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld n

ot i

ncre

ase

dem

and

for

polic

e se

rvic

es a

t th

e tim

e of

pro

ject

bui

ldou

t com

pare

d to

the

expe

cted

leve

l of

serv

ice

avai

labl

e.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld i

nclu

de s

ecur

ity a

nd/o

r de

sign

fea

ture

s th

at

wou

ld re

duce

the

dem

and

for p

olic

e se

rvic

es.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

3.7

Rec

reat

ion

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

in

crea

se t

he u

se o

f ex

istin

g ne

ighb

orho

od a

nd r

egio

nal

park

s or

ot

her

recr

eatio

nal

faci

litie

s su

ch

that

su

bsta

ntia

l ph

ysic

al d

eter

iora

tion

of t

he f

acili

ty w

ould

oc

cur o

r be

acce

lera

ted.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

in

clud

e its

ow

n re

crea

tiona

l fa

cilit

ies.

No

addi

tiona

l re

crea

tiona

l fac

ilitie

s w

ould

be

requ

ired

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

af

fect

exi

stin

g re

crea

tiona

l opp

ortu

nitie

s at

CSU

N o

r in

th

e N

orth

ridg

e C

omm

unity

Pla

n ar

ea.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld n

ot i

ncre

ase

the

use

of e

xist

ing

neig

hbor

hood

an

d re

gion

al p

arks

or

othe

r re

crea

tiona

l fa

cilit

ies

such

th

at s

ubst

antia

l ph

ysic

al d

eter

iora

tion

of t

he f

acili

ty

wou

ld o

ccur

or b

e ac

cele

rate

d.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

32

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

7 R

ecre

atio

n (c

ontin

ued)

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld n

ot i

nclu

de i

ts o

wn

recr

eatio

nal

faci

litie

s. N

o ad

ditio

nal r

ecre

atio

nal f

acili

ties

wou

ld b

e re

quir

ed.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld n

ot a

ffect

exi

stin

g re

crea

tiona

l op

port

uniti

es a

t C

SUN

or i

n th

e N

orth

ridg

e C

omm

unity

Pla

n ar

ea.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

33

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

res

ult

in s

igni

fican

t im

pact

s to

34

inte

rsec

tions

in

the

proj

ect

vici

nity

, as i

dent

ified

in T

able

3.8

-10

of th

e D

raft

EIR.

TRA

F-1:

Th

e C

ity o

f Lo

s A

ngel

es A

dapt

ive

Traf

fic

Con

trol

Sy

stem

(A

TCS)

sh

ould

be

im

plem

ente

d at

the

follo

win

g in

ters

ectio

ns a

s M

aste

r Pl

an

deve

lopm

ent

proj

ects

ar

e im

plem

ente

d:

• A

mig

o A

venu

e/SR

-118

w

estb

ound

ra

mps

& R

inal

di S

tree

t (in

t. #1

) •

Rese

da B

oule

vard

& R

inal

di S

tree

t (in

t. #2

) •

Balb

oa B

oule

vard

& S

R-1

18 w

estb

ound

ra

mps

(int

. #4)

•

Balb

oa B

oule

vard

& S

R-11

8 ea

stbo

und

ram

ps (i

nt. #

5)

• Re

seda

Bou

leva

rd &

Cha

tsw

orth

Str

eet

(int.

#6)

• Ze

lzah

Ave

nue

& C

hats

wor

th S

tree

t (in

t. #7

) •

Balb

oa B

oule

vard

& C

hats

wor

th S

tree

t (in

t. #8

) •

Rese

da B

oule

vard

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

(in

t. #9

) •

Lind

ley

Ave

nue

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

(int

. #1

0)

• Ze

lzah

Ave

nue

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

(int

. #1

1)

• Ba

lboa

Bou

leva

rd &

Dev

onsh

ire

Stre

et

(int.

#12)

•

Woo

dley

Ave

nue

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

(in

t. #1

3)

• I-4

05

sout

hbou

nd

ram

ps/B

luch

er

Ave

nue

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

(int

. #14

) •

Woo

dley

Ave

nue

& N

ordh

off S

tree

t (in

t. #4

0)

• I-4

05

sout

hbou

nd

ram

ps

&

Nor

dhof

f St

reet

(int

. #41

) •

I-405

no

rthb

ound

ra

mps

&

N

ordh

off

Stre

et (i

nt. #

42)

Sign

ifica

nt

and

unav

oida

ble

impa

cts

rem

ain

at th

e in

ters

ectio

ns o

f: •

Zelz

ah A

venu

e &

Dev

onsh

ire

Stre

et

duri

ng A

M P

eak

Hou

r •

Balb

oa B

oule

vard

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

du

ring

PM

Pea

k H

our

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

34

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c (co

ntin

ued)

TR

AF-

2:

The

City

of

Los

Ang

eles

Aut

omat

ed T

raffi

c Su

rvei

llanc

e an

d C

ontr

ol

(ATS

AC

) sy

stem

an

d A

dapt

ive

Traf

fic C

ontr

ol S

yste

m (A

TCS)

sh

ould

be

im

plem

ente

d at

th

e fo

llow

ing

inte

rsec

tions

, as

ne

eded

, as

M

aste

r Pl

an

deve

lopm

ent p

roje

cts a

re im

plem

ente

d:

• Ta

mpa

Ave

nue

& L

asse

n St

reet

(int

. #16

) •

Wilb

ur A

venu

e &

Las

sen

Stre

et (i

nt. #

17)

• Re

seda

Bou

leva

rd &

Las

sen

Stre

et (

int.

#18)

•

Lind

ley

Ave

nue

& L

asse

n St

reet

(in

t. #1

9)

• Ze

lzah

Ave

nue

& L

asse

n St

reet

(int

. #20

) •

Balb

oa B

oule

vard

& L

asse

n St

reet

(in

t. #2

1)

• Ta

mpa

Ave

nue

& P

lum

mer

Str

eet

(int.

#22)

•

Rese

da B

oule

vard

& P

lum

mer

Str

eet (

int.

#24)

•

Zelz

ah A

venu

e &

Plu

mm

er S

tree

t (in

t. #2

5)

• Ba

lboa

Bou

leva

rd &

Plu

mm

er S

tree

t (in

t. #2

7)

• Re

seda

Bou

leva

rd &

Pra

irie

Str

eet

(int.

#28)

•

Zelz

ah A

venu

e &

Pra

irie

Str

eet (

int.

#29)

•

Rese

da B

oule

vard

& N

ordh

off S

tree

t (in

t. #3

3)

• Ea

st U

nive

rsity

Dri

ve/L

indl

ey A

venu

e &

N

ordh

off S

tree

t (in

t. #3

6)

• Ze

lzah

Ave

nue

& N

ordh

off

Stre

et (

int.

#37)

•

Balb

oa B

oule

vard

& N

ordh

off S

tree

t (in

t. #3

9)

• Li

ndle

y A

venu

e &

Par

then

ia S

tree

t (in

t. #4

4)

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

TR

AF-

3:

The

inte

rsec

tion

of W

hite

Oak

Ave

nue

&

Plum

mer

St

reet

(in

t. #2

6)

shou

ld

be

sign

aliz

ed

as

Mas

ter

Plan

de

velo

pmen

t pr

ojec

ts a

re im

plem

ente

d.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

35

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c (co

ntin

ued)

TR

AF-

4:

An

east

boun

d th

roug

h la

ne s

houl

d be

add

ed

to t

he i

nter

sect

ion

of W

hite

Oak

Ave

nue

&

Plum

mer

St

reet

(in

t. #2

6) a

s M

aste

r Pl

an

deve

lopm

ent p

roje

cts a

re im

plem

ente

d.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

TR

AF-

5:

The

nort

hbou

nd a

ppro

ach

to t

he in

ters

ectio

n of

Am

igo

Ave

nue/

SR-1

18 W

estb

ound

Ram

ps

& R

inal

di S

tree

t (in

t. #1

) sh

ould

be

rest

ripe

d to

pro

vide

one

sha

red

thro

ugh/

left-

turn

lane

an

d tw

o ri

ght-t

urn

only

lane

s as

Mas

ter

Plan

de

velo

pmen

t pro

ject

s are

impl

emen

ted.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

TR

AF-

6:

The

sout

hbou

nd

appr

oach

on

Ba

lboa

Bo

ulev

ard

to

the

inte

rsec

tion

of

Balb

oa

Boul

evar

d &

SR-

118

Wes

tbou

nd R

amps

(in

t. #4

) sh

ould

be

re

stri

ped

to

prov

ide

two

thro

ugh

lane

s, on

e sh

ared

thro

ugh/

righ

t-tur

n la

ne a

nd o

ne r

ight

-turn

lan

e as

Mas

ter

Plan

de

velo

pmen

t pro

ject

s are

impl

emen

ted.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

TR

AF-

7:

The

east

boun

d C

hats

wor

th S

tree

t app

roac

h to

th

e in

ters

ectio

n of

Ba

lboa

Bo

ulev

ard

&

Cha

tsw

orth

St

reet

(in

t. #8

) sh

ould

be

re

stri

ped

to p

rovi

de a

left-

turn

poc

ket l

ane

as

Mas

ter

Plan

de

velo

pmen

t pr

ojec

ts

are

impl

emen

ted.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

TR

AF-

8:

The

east

boun

d D

evon

shir

e St

reet

app

roac

h to

th

e in

ters

ectio

n of

Ze

lzah

A

venu

e &

D

evon

shir

e St

reet

(in

t. #1

1)

shou

ld

be

rest

ripe

d to

pro

vide

ano

ther

thr

ough

lane

as

Mas

ter

Plan

de

velo

pmen

t pr

ojec

ts

are

impl

emen

ted.

The

east

boun

d ap

proa

ch

wou

ld

cons

ist

of

one

left-

turn

lan

e, t

hree

th

roug

h la

nes a

nd a

righ

t-tur

n on

ly la

ne.

Sign

ifica

nt

and

unav

oida

ble

impa

cts

rem

ain

at

the

inte

rsec

tion

of

Zelz

ah

Ave

nue

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

dur

ing

AM

Pe

ak H

our.

TR

AF-

9:

The

nort

hbou

nd Z

elza

h A

venu

e ap

proa

ch t

o th

e in

ters

ectio

n of

Zel

zah

Ave

nue

& P

lum

mer

St

reet

(in

t. #2

5)

shou

ld

be

rest

ripe

d to

pr

ovid

e an

othe

r th

roug

h la

ne a

s M

aste

r Pl

an

deve

lopm

ent

proj

ects

are

impl

emen

ted.

Th

e no

rthb

ound

app

roac

h w

ould

con

sist

of

one

left-

turn

lan

e, t

wo

thro

ugh

lane

s an

d on

e sh

ared

th

roug

h/ri

ght-t

urn

lane

.

The

nort

hbou

nd

depa

rtur

e w

ould

ne

ed

to

be

rest

ripe

d to

hav

e th

ree

rece

ivin

g la

nes.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

36

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c (co

ntin

ued)

TR

AF-

10: T

he

wes

tbou

nd

Plum

mer

St

reet

sh

ared

th

roug

h/ri

ght

lane

ap

proa

ch

to

the

inte

rsec

tion

of

Plum

mer

St

reet

&

Ba

lboa

Bo

ulev

ard

(int.

#27)

sho

uld

be r

estr

iped

to

crea

te a

10-

foot

thr

ough

lan

e an

d a

10-fo

ot

righ

t-tur

n on

ly

lane

as

M

aste

r Pl

an

deve

lopm

ent p

roje

cts a

re im

plem

ente

d.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

TR

AF-

11: B

albo

a Bo

ulev

ard

shou

ld b

e w

iden

ed t

o a

dedi

cate

d ri

ght-t

urn

lane

on

the

sout

hbou

nd

appr

oach

to

th

e in

ters

ectio

n of

Ba

lboa

Bo

ulev

ard

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

(in

t. #1

2) a

s M

aste

r Pl

an

deve

lopm

ent

proj

ects

ar

e im

plem

ente

d.

Th

e so

uthb

ound

ap

proa

ch

wou

ld

cons

ist

of

one

left-

turn

lan

e, t

hree

th

roug

h la

nes,

and

one

righ

t-tur

n on

ly la

ne.

Sign

ifica

nt

and

unav

oida

ble

impa

cts

rem

ain

at

the

inte

rsec

tion

of

Balb

oa

Boul

evar

d &

Dev

onsh

ire

Stre

et d

urin

g PM

Pe

ak H

our.

TR

AF-

12: T

he w

est s

ide

of th

e so

uthb

ound

I-40

5 ra

mps

at

th

e I-4

05

Sout

hbou

nd

Ram

ps/B

luch

er

Ave

nue

& D

evon

shir

e St

reet

(int

. #14

) sho

uld

be w

iden

ed to

pro

vide

one

left-

turn

onl

y la

ne

and

two

righ

t-tur

n on

ly la

nes

as M

aste

r Pl

an

deve

lopm

ent p

roje

cts a

re im

plem

ente

d.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

TR

AF-

13: T

he s

outh

boun

d ap

proa

ch (f

reew

ay o

ff-ra

mp)

at

the

I-4

05 S

outh

boun

d Ra

mps

& N

ordh

off

Stre

et (i

nt. #

41) s

houl

d be

wid

ened

to p

rovi

de

one

left-

turn

onl

y la

ne a

nd t

wo

righ

t-tur

n on

ly

lane

s as

M

aste

r Pl

an

deve

lopm

ent

proj

ects

are

impl

emen

ted.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Dev

elop

men

t of t

he M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

ct w

ould

gen

erat

e co

nstr

uctio

n-re

late

d tr

affic

. Th

e ad

ditio

n of

co

nstr

uctio

n-re

late

d ve

hicl

es w

ould

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt

impa

ct o

n tr

affic

flow

on

neig

hbor

ing

resi

dent

ial s

tree

ts.

TRA

F-14

: CSU

N s

hall

stat

e in

its

con

stru

ctio

n co

ntra

ct

cond

ition

s th

at c

onst

ruct

ion

traf

fic s

hall

be

rout

ed i

n su

ch a

way

to

redu

ce t

he u

se o

f ne

ighb

orin

g re

side

ntia

l str

eets

to th

e gr

eate

st

exte

nt

feas

ible

du

ring

al

l M

aste

r Pl

an

cons

truc

tion

activ

ities

.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

37

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c (co

ntin

ued)

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

th

e C

SUN

M

aste

r Pl

an

wou

ld

sign

ifica

ntly

impa

ct s

tree

t seg

men

t ope

ratin

g co

nditi

ons

and

wou

ld r

esul

t in

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d in

trus

ion

on l

ocal

re

side

ntia

l str

eets

in th

e fo

llow

ing

thre

e lo

catio

ns:

• D

earb

orn

Stre

et w

est o

f Dar

by A

venu

e

• W

est U

nive

rsity

Dri

ve/E

tiwan

da A

venu

e so

uth

of

Nor

dhof

f Str

eet

• Pr

airi

e St

reet

eas

t of Z

elza

h A

venu

e

No

feas

ible

miti

gatio

n ex

ists

. Si

gnifi

cant

an

d un

avoi

dabl

e im

pact

s re

mai

n al

ong

the

follo

win

g ne

ighb

orho

od

stre

et se

gmen

ts:

• D

earb

orn

Stre

et

wes

t of

D

arby

A

venu

e

• W

est

Uni

vers

ity

Dri

ve/E

tiwan

da

Ave

nue

sout

h of

Nor

dhof

f Str

eet

• Pr

airi

e St

reet

eas

t of Z

elza

h A

venu

e

Emer

genc

y ac

cess

to

th

e C

SUN

w

ould

no

t be

su

bsta

ntia

lly

alte

red

as

a re

sult

of

Mas

ter

Plan

im

plem

enta

tion,

and

thu

s w

ould

not

res

ult

in h

azar

ds

to s

afet

y fr

om d

esig

n fe

atur

es o

r in

com

patib

le u

ses;

in

adeq

uate

em

erge

ncy

acce

ss o

r ac

cess

to

near

by u

ses;

or

res

ult

in h

azar

ds o

r ba

rrie

rs f

or p

edes

tria

ns

or

bicy

clis

ts.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

A p

ortio

n of

the

new

stu

dent

s an

d an

y as

soci

ated

new

st

aff

or f

acul

ty w

ould

lik

ely

utili

ze t

he e

xist

ing

publ

ic

tran

spor

tatio

n sy

stem

to

co

mm

ute

to

the

CSU

N

cam

pus.

One

of

the

five

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an K

ey

Feat

ures

is

Park

ing

and

Tran

spor

tatio

n M

anag

emen

t.

The

Park

ing

and

Tran

spor

tatio

n M

anag

emen

t co

mpo

nent

incl

udes

an

Alte

rnat

ive

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pl

an

with

a t

arge

t pa

rkin

g de

man

d re

duct

ion

of 1

0 pe

rcen

t.

The

Alte

rnat

ive

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pl

an

cons

ists

of

si

x co

mpo

nent

s fo

r ac

hiev

ing

the

park

ing

dem

and

redu

ctio

n go

al.

The

Park

ing

and

Tran

spor

tatio

n M

anag

emen

t co

mpo

nent

al

so

incl

udes

re

conf

igur

ed

cam

pus

road

way

s to

rei

nfor

ce th

e pe

dest

rian

zon

e an

d a

seco

nd in

trac

ampu

s tr

am c

ircu

lato

r ro

ute.

The

CSU

N

Mas

ter

Plan

wou

ld n

ot c

onfli

ct w

ith a

dopt

ed p

olic

ies,

pl

ans,

or

prog

ram

s su

ppor

ting

alte

rnat

ive

tran

spor

tatio

n.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

38

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c (co

ntin

ued)

The

tota

l pr

ojec

ted

park

ing

dem

and,

un

der

2035

co

nditi

ons,

is 1

5,45

7 sp

aces

for

thos

e co

mm

utin

g to

the

ca

mpu

s an

d 3,

394

spac

es f

or r

esid

ents

. Par

king

for

the

pr

opos

ed f

acul

ty/s

taff

hous

ing

and

reta

il co

mpo

nent

s w

ould

be

pr

ovid

ed

sepa

rate

ly.

The

over

all

tota

l pr

ojec

ted

dem

and

is 1

8,85

1 sp

aces

. The

sim

ple

proj

ecte

d pa

rkin

g de

man

d w

ould

resu

lt in

a p

arki

ng d

efic

ienc

y as

it

exce

eds

the

prop

osed

on-

cam

pus

supp

ly b

y 1,

323

spac

es.

The

dem

and

plus

a 5

per

cent

con

tinge

ncy

of 9

09 s

pace

s is

16,

196

spac

es f

or c

omm

uter

s an

d 3,

564

for

resi

dent

s.

The

over

all

proj

ect

dem

and

with

a

5 pe

rcen

t co

ntin

genc

y is

19,

760

park

ing

spac

es.

Und

er t

he p

arki

ng d

eman

d re

duct

ion

prog

ram

, whi

ch

coul

d re

duce

par

king

dem

and

duri

ng th

e pe

ak p

erio

ds

by a

ppro

xim

atel

y 12

.5 p

erce

nt,

the

cam

pus

dem

and

wou

ld b

e 17

,413

spa

ces

with

the

5 pe

rcen

t co

ntin

genc

y an

d 16

,616

with

out.

Und

er t

his

prog

ram

and

with

the

in

corp

orat

ion

of th

e co

ntin

genc

y to

impr

ove

circ

ulat

ion,

th

e ca

mpu

s is

pro

ject

ed to

hav

e a

park

ing

surp

lus

of 1

15

spac

es.

As

a pa

rkin

g su

rplu

s w

ould

exi

st u

nder

203

5 co

nditi

ons,

im

pact

s to

par

king

cap

acity

wou

ld b

e le

ss

than

sign

ifica

nt.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Prog

ram

-leve

l an

alys

is

of

regi

onal

ar

teri

al

stre

ets

dete

rmin

ed

that

M

aste

r Pl

an

build

out

wou

ld

not

gene

rate

the

req

uire

d m

inim

um 5

0 tr

ips

to l

ocal

CM

P ar

teri

al in

ters

ectio

ns a

nd fu

rthe

r ana

lysi

s was

, the

refo

re,

not n

eces

sary

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

39

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c (co

ntin

ued)

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

res

ult

in s

igni

fican

t im

pact

s al

ong

the

follo

win

g th

ree

free

way

se

gmen

ts:

Wes

tbou

nd

• SR

118

bet

wee

n Ba

lboa

Bou

leva

rd a

nd H

aven

hurs

t A

venu

e (A

M p

eak

peri

od)

• SR

118

bet

wee

n W

oodl

ey A

venu

e an

d I-4

05 (

AM

pe

ak p

erio

d)

East

boun

d •

SR 1

18 b

etw

een

Rese

da B

oule

vard

and

Bal

boa

Boul

evar

d (A

M p

eak

peri

od)

No

feas

ible

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res e

xist

. Si

gnifi

cant

an

d un

avoi

dabl

e im

pact

s re

mai

n al

ong

the

follo

win

g th

ree

free

way

se

gmen

ts:

Wes

tbou

nd

• SR

11

8 be

twee

n Ba

lboa

Bo

ulev

ard

and

Hav

enhu

rst

Ave

nue

(AM

pea

k pe

riod

) •

SR 1

18 b

etw

een

Woo

dley

Ave

nue

and

I-405

(AM

pea

k pe

riod

) Ea

stbo

und

• SR

11

8 be

twee

n Re

seda

Bo

ulev

ard

and

Balb

oa

Boul

evar

d (A

M

peak

pe

riod

)

Whi

le tr

ansi

t tri

ps g

ener

ated

on

the

CSU

N c

ampu

s ar

e pr

ojec

ted

to

incr

ease

, si

gnifi

cant

im

pact

s on

tr

ansi

t sy

stem

cap

acity

are

not

ant

icip

ated

giv

en th

e nu

mbe

r of

ne

w

tran

sit

trip

s pr

ojec

ted

rela

tive

to

the

plan

ned

subs

tant

ial i

ncre

ases

in fu

ture

tran

sit s

yste

m ca

paci

ty.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld r

esul

t in

sign

ifica

nt im

pact

s to

2 in

ters

ectio

ns in

th

e pr

ojec

t vi

cini

ty, a

s id

entif

ied

in T

able

3.8

-10

of t

he

Dra

ft EI

R.

Impa

cts

on th

e re

mai

nder

of t

he in

ters

ectio

ns w

ould

be

less

tha

n si

gnifi

cant

with

the

im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he

reco

mm

ende

d m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s. A

s th

e pr

ogra

m-

leve

l an

alys

is d

eter

min

ed t

hese

int

erse

ctio

ns w

ould

ex

peri

ence

less

than

sig

nific

ant i

mpa

cts

with

miti

gatio

n un

der

2035

con

ditio

ns, i

mpa

cts

wou

ld a

lso

be le

ss th

an

sign

ifica

nt w

ith n

ear-

term

pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

n.

Miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

TRA

F-1

thro

ugh

TRA

F-13

id

entif

ied

for

the

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

app

ly to

the

near

-te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n pr

ojec

ts.

Sign

ifica

nt

and

unav

oida

ble

impa

cts

rem

ain

alon

g th

e fo

llow

ing

two

inte

rsec

tions

: •

Zelz

ah A

venu

e &

Dev

onsh

ire

Stre

et

(int.

#11)

dur

ing

the

AM

pea

k ho

ur;

and

• Ba

lboa

Bou

leva

rd &

Dev

onsh

ire

Stre

et

(int.

#12)

dur

ing

the

PM p

eak

hour

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

40

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c (co

ntin

ued)

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld s

igni

fican

tly i

mpa

ct s

tree

t se

gmen

t op

erat

ing

cond

ition

s an

d w

ould

res

ult i

n ne

ighb

orho

od in

trus

ion

on

loca

l re

side

ntia

l st

reet

s in

th

e fo

llow

ing

thre

e lo

catio

ns:

• D

earb

orn

Stre

et w

est o

f Dar

by A

venu

e

• W

est U

nive

rsity

Dri

ve/E

tiwan

da A

venu

e so

uth

of

Nor

dhof

f Str

eet

• Pr

airi

e St

reet

eas

t of Z

elza

h A

venu

e Im

pact

s on

the

rem

aini

ng a

naly

zed

neig

hbor

hood

str

eet

segm

ents

wer

e de

term

ined

to

be l

ess

than

sig

nific

ant

unde

r 20

35 M

aste

r Pl

an c

ondi

tions

. Th

eref

ore,

impa

cts

on

thos

e st

reet

se

gmen

ts

with

ne

ar-te

rm

proj

ect

impl

emen

tatio

n w

ould

als

o be

less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

No

feas

ible

miti

gatio

n ex

ists

. Si

gnifi

cant

an

d un

avoi

dabl

e im

pact

s re

mai

n al

ong

the

follo

win

g ne

ighb

orho

od

stre

et se

gmen

ts:

• D

earb

orn

Stre

et

wes

t of

D

arby

A

venu

e

• W

est

Uni

vers

ity

Dri

ve/E

tiwan

da

Ave

nue

sout

h of

Nor

dhof

f Str

eet

• Pr

airi

e St

reet

eas

t of Z

elza

h A

venu

e

Emer

genc

y ac

cess

to

the

CSU

N c

ampu

s w

ould

not

be

subs

tant

ially

alte

red

as a

res

ult

of n

ear-

term

pro

ject

im

plem

enta

tion.

Non

e of

th

e ne

ar-te

rm

proj

ects

pr

opos

e a

desi

gn

feat

ure

that

w

ould

re

sult

in

a ha

zard

ous

traf

fic

situ

atio

n or

cr

eate

ba

rrie

rs

for

pede

stri

ans

or b

icyc

lists

. R

athe

r, co

nsis

tent

with

the

M

aste

r Pl

an,

wou

ld r

epre

sent

a s

mal

l po

rtio

n of

the

ov

eral

l ca

mpu

s re

conf

igur

atio

n th

at

is

inte

nded

to

re

info

rce

the

pede

stri

an z

one.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

The

cons

truc

tion

of t

he T

rans

it H

ub w

ould

ser

ve t

o im

prov

e th

e pu

blic

tran

sit s

yste

m. T

he r

emai

nder

of t

he

near

-term

pro

ject

s w

ould

not

gen

erat

e a

subs

tant

ial

incr

ease

in

ride

rshi

p an

d im

pact

s w

ould

be

less

tha

n si

gnifi

cant

. Th

e ne

ar-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld

not

conf

lict

with

ado

pted

pol

icie

s, p

lans

, or

pro

gram

s su

ppor

ting

alte

rnat

ive

tran

spor

tatio

n.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Park

ing

Stru

ctur

e G

3 an

d Pa

rkin

g St

ruct

ure

G6

wou

ld

prov

ide

1,99

4 an

d 2,

769

new

pa

rkin

g sp

aces

, re

spec

tivel

y.

The

rem

aini

ng n

ear-

term

pro

ject

s w

ould

no

t ge

nera

te a

dem

and

for

park

ing

that

wou

ld e

xcee

d th

e su

pply

pro

vide

d by

par

king

str

uctu

res

G3,

G6,

and

ex

istin

g pa

rkin

g so

urce

s.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

41

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

8 T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affi

c (co

ntin

ued)

Prog

ram

-leve

l an

alys

is

of

regi

onal

ar

teri

al

stre

ets

dete

rmin

ed

that

M

aste

r Pl

an

build

out

wou

ld

not

gene

rate

the

req

uire

d m

inim

um 5

0 tr

ips

to l

ocal

CM

P ar

teri

al in

ters

ectio

ns a

nd fu

rthe

r ana

lysi

s was

, the

refo

re,

not n

eces

sary

. As

the

near

-term

pro

ject

s an

alyz

ed in

this

EI

R w

ould

gen

erat

e le

ss tr

ips

than

the

full

Mas

ter

Plan

, im

pact

s w

ould

be

less

tha

n si

gnifi

cant

and

no

furt

her

anal

ysis

is re

quir

ed.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld r

esul

t in

sign

ifica

nt im

pact

s al

ong

the

follo

win

g th

ree

free

way

segm

ents

: W

estb

ound

•

SR 1

18 b

etw

een

Balb

oa B

oule

vard

and

Hav

enhu

rst

Ave

nue

(AM

pea

k pe

riod

) •

SR 1

18 b

etw

een

Woo

dley

Ave

nue

and

I-405

(A

M

peak

per

iod)

Ea

stbo

und

• SR

118

bet

wee

n Re

seda

Bou

leva

rd a

nd B

albo

a Bo

ulev

ard

(AM

pea

k pe

riod

)

No

feas

ible

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res e

xist

. Si

gnifi

cant

an

d un

avoi

dabl

e im

pact

s re

mai

n al

ong

the

follo

win

g th

ree

free

way

se

gmen

ts:

Wes

tbou

nd

• SR

11

8 be

twee

n Ba

lboa

Bo

ulev

ard

and

Hav

enhu

rst

Ave

nue

(AM

pea

k pe

riod

) •

SR 1

18 b

etw

een

Woo

dley

Ave

nue

and

I-405

(AM

pea

k pe

riod

) Ea

stbo

und

• SR

11

8 be

twee

n Re

seda

Bo

ulev

ard

and

Balb

oa

Boul

evar

d (A

M

peak

pe

riod

)

As

impa

cts

to p

ublic

tran

sit w

ere

dete

rmin

ed to

be

less

th

an s

igni

fican

t fo

r th

e M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

ct,

impa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss t

han

sign

ifica

nt w

ith n

ear-

term

pro

ject

im

plem

enta

tion.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Dev

elop

men

t of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld

gene

rate

co

nstr

uctio

n-re

late

d tr

affic

. Th

e ad

ditio

n of

con

stru

ctio

n-re

late

d ve

hicl

es w

ould

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt

impa

ct

on

traf

fic

flow

on

ne

ighb

orin

g re

side

ntia

l str

eets

.

Miti

gatio

n m

easu

re T

RAF-

14 i

dent

ified

for

the

Mas

ter

Plan

pr

ojec

t ap

plie

s to

th

e ne

ar-te

rm

Mas

ter

Plan

pr

ojec

ts.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

42

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

9 Pu

blic

Util

ities

: Wat

er D

eman

d an

d Su

pply

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

As

dete

rmin

ed b

y D

WP,

suf

ficie

nt w

ater

sup

plie

s ar

e av

aila

ble

to s

erve

the

pro

ject

upo

n im

plem

enta

tion

of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pla

n.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

WA

T-1:

CSU

, CSU

N, o

r its

des

igne

e sh

all c

onsu

lt w

ith

the

City

of

Los

Ang

eles

Dep

artm

ent

of W

ater

an

d Po

wer

on

exac

t si

zing

and

ext

ensi

ons

requ

ired

for

wat

er l

ines

tha

t w

ill s

erve

eac

h pr

ojec

t co

mpo

nent

at

the

time

it un

dert

akes

si

te-s

peci

fic d

esig

n pl

ans.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le o

ff-si

te w

ater

fa

cilit

ies i

mpr

ovem

ents

. Th

e ex

istin

g on

-and

off-

cam

pus

wat

er fa

cilit

ies

syst

ems

will

nee

d to

be

upgr

aded

and

ext

ende

d to

mee

t th

e fu

ture

de

man

ds

of

the

2035

M

aste

r Pl

an.

Th

e U

nive

rsity

is re

spon

sibl

e fo

r all

lines

with

in it

s pr

oper

ty

and

for

mak

ing

conn

ectio

ns t

o th

e LA

DW

P’s

lines

off-

cam

pus.

Con

nect

ion

to th

e LA

DW

P’s

lines

will

req

uire

co

ordi

natio

n w

ith t

he L

AD

WP

to e

nsur

e th

e of

f-site

LA

DW

P im

prov

emen

ts c

an a

ccom

mod

ate

on-c

ampu

s im

prov

emen

ts.

Even

with

impl

emen

tatio

n of

new

on-

cam

pus

and

off-s

ite im

prov

emen

ts, i

mpa

cts

with

rega

rd

to o

ff-si

te w

ater

ser

vice

faci

litie

s w

ill b

e si

gnifi

cant

and

ad

vers

e.

WA

T-2:

CSU

, CSU

N, o

r its

des

igne

e sh

all c

ompl

y w

ith

the

requ

irem

ents

of

Gov

ernm

ent C

ode

§549

99

with

res

pect

to

conn

ectio

ns t

o of

f-site

wat

er

faci

litie

s an

d im

prov

emen

ts t

o of

f-site

wat

er

faci

litie

s.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le o

ff-si

te w

ater

fa

cilit

ies i

mpr

ovem

ents

.

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

As

dete

rmin

ed b

y D

WP,

suf

ficie

nt w

ater

sup

plie

s ar

e av

aila

ble

to s

erve

the

pro

ject

upo

n im

plem

enta

tion

of

the

near

-term

Mas

ter P

lan

proj

ects

.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

The

exis

ting

on-a

nd o

ff-ca

mpu

s w

ater

faci

litie

s sy

stem

s w

ill n

eed

to b

e up

grad

ed a

nd e

xten

ded

to m

eet

the

futu

re d

eman

ds o

f th

e ne

ar-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts.

Th

e U

nive

rsity

is

resp

onsi

ble

for

all

lines

with

in i

ts

prop

erty

and

for

mak

ing

conn

ectio

ns t

o th

e LA

DW

P’s

lines

off-

cam

pus.

Con

nect

ion

to th

e LA

DW

P’s

lines

will

re

quir

e co

ordi

natio

n w

ith th

e LA

DW

P to

ens

ure

the

off-

site

LA

DW

P im

prov

emen

ts

can

acco

mm

odat

e on

-ca

mpu

s im

prov

emen

ts.

Eve

n w

ith i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

ne

w o

n-ca

mpu

s an

d of

f-site

im

prov

emen

ts,

impa

cts

with

reg

ard

to o

ff-si

te w

ater

ser

vice

fac

ilitie

s w

ill b

e si

gnifi

cant

and

adv

erse

.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

WA

T-1

and

WA

T-2

iden

tifie

d fo

r th

e M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

ct a

pply

to

the

near

-term

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

s.

Sign

ifica

nt a

nd u

navo

idab

le o

ff-si

te w

ater

fa

cilit

ies i

mpr

ovem

ents

.

1.0

Intr

oduc

tion

and

Exe

cuti

ve S

umm

ary

Calif

orni

a St

ate U

nive

rsity

, Nor

thrid

ge,

1.0-

43

2005

Mas

ter P

lan

Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

N

ovem

ber 2

005

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s Le

vel o

f Pro

ject

Impa

ct A

fter

Miti

gatio

n 3.

10 P

ublic

Util

ities

: Was

tew

ater

Mas

ter P

lan

Proj

ect

Ade

quat

e ca

paci

ty e

xist

s at

Hyp

erio

n Tr

eatm

ent

Plan

t to

ser

ve C

SUN

upo

n im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he M

aste

r Pl

an.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

With

im

plem

enta

tion

of

new

on

-and

of

f-site

im

prov

emen

ts, t

he C

SUN

Mas

ter

Plan

wou

ld n

ot c

ause

si

gnifi

cant

en

viro

nmen

tal

effe

cts

rela

ted

to

the

cons

truc

tion

of n

ew w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent f

acili

ties.

WW

-1:

CSU

, CSU

N, o

r its

des

igne

e sh

all c

onsu

lt w

ith

the

City

of

Los

Ang

eles

Dep

artm

ent

of P

ublic

W

orks

on

exac

t siz

ing

and

exte

nsio

ns r

equi

red

for

was

tew

ater

lin

es

that

w

ill

serv

e ea

ch

proj

ect

com

pone

nt a

t th

e tim

e it

unde

rtak

es

site

-spe

cific

des

ign

plan

s.

Sign

ifica

nt

and

unav

oida

ble

off-s

ite

was

tew

ater

faci

litie

s im

prov

emen

ts.

W

W-2

: C

SU, C

SUN

, or

its d

esig

nee

shal

l com

ply

with

th

e re

quir

emen

ts o

f G

over

nmen

t Cod

e §5

4999

w

ith

resp

ect

to

conn

ectio

ns

to

off-s

ite

was

tew

ater

faci

litie

s an

d im

prov

emen

ts to

off-

site

was

tew

ater

faci

litie

s.

Sign

ifica

nt

and

unav

oida

ble

off-s

ite

was

tew

ater

faci

litie

s im

prov

emen

ts.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

CSU

N M

aste

r Pl

an w

ould

not

re

sult

in

an

exce

edan

ce

of

was

tew

ater

tr

eatm

ent

requ

irem

ents

, as

regu

late

d by

the

Los

Ang

eles

Reg

iona

l W

ater

Qua

lity

Con

trol

Boa

rd.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Nea

r-Te

rm M

aste

r Pla

n Pr

ojec

ts

Ade

quat

e ca

paci

ty e

xist

s at

Hyp

erio

n Tr

eatm

ent

Plan

t to

ser

ve C

SUN

upo

n im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he n

ear-

term

M

aste

r Pla

n pr

ojec

ts.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

With

im

plem

enta

tion

of

new

on

-and

of

f-site

im

prov

emen

ts,

the

near

-term

M

aste

r Pl

an

proj

ects

w

ould

no

t ca

use

sign

ifica

nt

envi

ronm

enta

l ef

fect

s re

late

d to

the

cons

truc

tion

of n

ew w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent

faci

litie

s.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

WW

-1 a

nd W

W-2

ide

ntifi

ed f

or

the

Mas

ter

Plan

pro

ject

app

lies

to th

e ne

ar-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

nea

r-te

rm M

aste

r Pl

an p

roje

cts

wou

ld

not

resu

lt in

an

ex

ceed

ance

of

w

aste

wat

er

trea

tmen

t re

quir

emen

ts,

as

regu

late

d by

th

e Lo

s A

ngel

es R

egio

nal W

ater

Qua

lity

Con

trol

Boa

rd.

No

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

re re

quir

ed.

Less

than

sign

ifica

nt.


2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PURPOSE

An Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR) Project Description is required to describe the proposed project

for the public, reviewing agencies, and decision makers. In accordance with California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA), a complete Project Description is required to contain, at a minimum, the location

and boundaries of the proposed project; a statement of project objectives, or the underlying project

purpose; a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and

a statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of agencies expected to use the EIR in

their decision making, a list of required permits and other approvals, and any other environmental

review or consultation requirements by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies. (CEQA

§15124). This section describes the proposed 2005 Master Plan project location, objectives, characteristics,

and intended uses.

2.2 INTRODUCTION

2.2.1 Introduction to the Project

The proposed project and subject of this EIR is the adoption and subsequent implementation of the 2005

Master Plan Update (2005 Master Plan or Master Plan) for the California State University, Northridge

campus (CSUN or the University). The Master Plan is a comprehensive, coordinated series of proposals

intended to configure and guide the physical development of the CSUN campus over the next 30 years.

This EIR evaluates the entire Master Plan at a programmatic level as well as specific near-term Master

Plan projects for which site-level detail is available.

CSUN is one of 23 campuses within the California State University (CSU) system, which is overseen by

the Board of Trustees. In May 2003, in keeping with its state charter and in response to projections of

unprecedented demand for higher education enrollment, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution

directing each campus within the CSU to take the necessary steps to accommodate a projected system-

wide enrollment increase of 107,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students by 2011.1, 2 To comply with this

1 Whereas headcount simply accounts for the number of students enrolled, for master planning and academic planning purposes, CSUN utilizes the full-time equivalent (FTE), unit of measurement to calculate enrollment. One FTE is defined as one student taking 15 course units, which represents a full course load. Students taking fewer course units are considered to constitute a fraction of an FTE (10 course units = .66 FTE), whereas students taking more than 15 course units constitute more than one FTE (20 units = 1.33 FTEs).


2.0 Project Description


directive, each campus is required to periodically review and revise its master plan, in part to ensure that

proposed capital improvement programs remain in compliance with those plans.

CSUN provides education to nearly 33,000 undergraduate and graduate students (24,473 FTEs), employs

2,017 faculty members and 1,964 staff members. The University is nearly at its current enrollment cap of

25,000 FTEs and facilities are reaching capacity. CSUN’s 2005 Master Plan is intended to respond to the

Board of Trustees’ directive to plan for its share of increased enrollment and accommodate the evolving

needs of the University’s academic, administrative, and student- and campus-support programs.

The University consulted with its academic units in preparation for the master planning process to

determine the implications for campus facilities of increasing the enrollment ceiling. The Master Plan

architects were then asked to determine the capacity of the campus to support the increased enrollment.

At the CSU system average of 115,000 gross square feet (gsf) per 1,000 FTE students, a minimum increase

of approximately 1.15 million gsf of new academic and administrative facilities is needed to

accommodate an additional 10,000 FTEs.

2.2.2 Project Location

The CSUN campus is located in the community of Northridge, part of the City of Los Angeles. As shown

in Figure 2.0-1, Vicinity Map, Northridge is located in the San Fernando Valley, approximately 22 miles

northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Adjacent communities include Porter Ranch, Knollwood, Granada

Hills, San Fernando, Panorama City, Van Nuys, Chatsworth, and West Hills. Major regional access to

Northridge is provided by the Ronald Reagan Freeway (State Route 118), the San Diego Freeway (I-405),

and the Ventura Freeway (US 101).

CSUN occupies 353 acres in north-central Northridge. The campus setting is generally suburban, with

single- and multi-family residential uses and commercial uses adjacent to the campus perimeter. The

campus is irregular in shape and comprises two distinct subareas known as the north and south

campuses. The north campus is bounded on the north by Devonshire Street; on the south by Lassen

Street; on the east by Zelzah Avenue; and on the west by Lindley Avenue. The south campus is partially

bounded on the north by Halsted Street; on the south by Nordhoff Street; on the east by Zelzah Avenue;

and on the west by Darby Avenue.

Sepulveda Damand Recreation

Center

L.A. PierceCollege

Van NuysAirport

US

101

210INTERSTATE

5INTERSTATE

27CALIFORNIA

118CALIFORNIA

405INTERSTATE

Rinaldi St.Rinaldi St.

Chatsworth St.Chatsworth St.

Devonshire St.Devonshire St.

Lassen St.Lassen St.

Plummer St.Plummer St.

Nordhoff St.Nordhoff St.

Parthenia St.Parthenia St.

Roscoe Blvd.Roscoe Blvd.

Saticoy St.Saticoy St.

Sherman WaySherman Way

Vanowen St.Vanowen St.

Victory Blvd.Victory Blvd.

Oxnard St.Oxnard St.

Topa

nga

Can

yon

Blv

d.To

pang

a C

anyo

n B

lvd.

Can

oga

Ave

.C

anog

a A

ve.

De

Sot

o A

ve.

De

Sot

o A

ve.

Win

netk

a A

ve.

Win

netk

a A

ve.

Tam

pa A

ve.

Tam

pa A

ve.

Res

eda

Blv

d.R

esed

a B

lvd.

Lind

ley

Ave

.Li

ndle

y A

ve.

Whi

te O

ak A

ve.

Whi

te O

ak A

ve.

Zel

zah

Ave

.Z

elza

h A

ve.

Loiu

se A

ve.

Loiu

se A

ve.

Bal

boa

Blv

d.B

albo

a B

lvd.

Bal

boa

Blv

d.B

albo

a B

lvd.

Van

Nuy

s B

lvd.

Van

Nuy

s B

lvd.

Hay

venh

urst

Ave

.H

ayve

nhur

st A

ve.

Woo

dley

Ave

.W

oodl

ey A

ve.

Has

kell

Ave

.H

aske

ll A

ve.

Sep

ulve

da B

lvd.

Sep

ulve

da B

lvd.

C.S.U.N.

Rinaldi St.

Chatsworth St.

Devonshire St.

Lassen St.

Plummer St.

Nordhoff St.

Parthenia St.

Roscoe Blvd.

Saticoy St.

Sherman Way

Vanowen St.

Victory Blvd.

Oxnard St.

Topa

nga

Can

yon

Blv

d.

Can

oga

Ave

.

De

Sot

o A

ve.

Win

netk

a A

ve.

Tam

pa A

ve.

Res

eda

Blv

d.

Lind

ley

Ave

.

Whi

te O

ak A

ve.

Zel

zah

Ave

.

Loiu

se A

ve.

Bal

boa

Blv

d.B

albo

a B

lvd.

Van

Nuy

s B

lvd.

Hay

venh

urst

Ave

.

Woo

dley

Ave

.

Has

kell

Ave

.

Sep

ulve

da B

lvd.

Terminal Island

Ventu

ra C

ounty

Los A

ngele

s C

ounty

Sherman Oaks

Calabasas

Malibu

San B

ern

ard

ino C

ounty

Los A

ngele

s C

ounty

Santa Monica

Santa Clarita

Chatsworth

Warner Center

Granada Hills

Porter Ranch

Mission Hills

Sun Valley

Woodland Hills Encino

Culver City

Pasadena

SouthPasadena

Hollywood

Beverly Hills

Inglewood

HuntingtonPark

LosAngeles

El Monte

Montbello

Whittier

Santa Fe Springs

Downey

Monterey Park

La MiradaParamountComptonCerritos

Gardena

CarsonTorranceLakewood

Rancho PalosVerdes

San Pedro

Long Beach

US

66

US

101

US

101

10INTERSTATE

210INTERSTATE

210INTERSTATE

10INTERSTATE

10INTERSTATE

605INTERSTATE

710INTERSTATE

605INTERSTATE

105INTERSTATE

5INTERSTATE

5INTERSTATE

5INTERSTATE

405INTERSTATE

405INTERSTATE

405INTERSTATE

405INTERSTATE

90CALIFORNIA

91CALIFORNIA

47CALIFORNIA

110CALIFORNIA

110CALIFORNIA

159CALIFORNIA

107CALIFORNIA

1CALIFORNIA

1CALIFORNIA

1CALIFORNIA

1CALIFORNIA

2CALIFORNIA

23CALIFORNIA

27CALIFORNIA

118CALIFORNIA

126CALIFORNIA

126CALIFORNIA

14CALIFORNIA

27CALIFORNIA

2CALIFORNIA

2CALIFORNIA

2CALIFORNIA

138CALIFORNIA

138CALIFORNIA

18CALIFORNIA

90CALIFORNIA

42CALIFORNIA

213CALIFORNIA

39CALIFORNIA

60CALIFORNIA

60CALIFORNIA

57CALIFORNIA

72CALIFORNIA

134CALIFORNIA

19CALIFORNIA

71CALIFORNIA

30CALIFORNIA

39CALIFORNIA

P a c i f i c O c e a n

ProjectSite

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

12 6 0 12

n

Vicinity Map

FIGURE 2.0-1

750-001•10/05

SOURCE: Thomas Bros. Maps – 2002, Impact Sciences, Inc. – April 2004

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

.25 .125 0 .5

n



2.2.3 Project Information

Project Title

California State University, Northridge 2005 Master Plan Update

Lead Agency

The Board of Trustees of the California State University

c/o Trustee Secretariat

401 Golden Shore Street, 6th Floor

Long Beach California, 90802

(562) 951-4020

Project Sponsor

California State University, Northridge Facilities Planning, Design & Construction 18111 Nordhoff Street Northridge, California 91330-8219

Contact Person

Colin Donahue, Director California State University, Northridge Facilities Planning, Design & Construction 18111 Nordhoff Street Northridge, California 91330-8219 (818) 677-2561

2.2.4 Level of Environmental Review

Under CEQA, a program EIR is prepared for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, with related actions forming logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions (CEQA Guidelines §15168(a)). A program EIR allows the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures early in the program process; subsequent project-specific activities are evaluated in light of the program EIR to determine if additional environmental documentation is required (CEQA Guidelines 15168(b) and (c)). A program-level analysis is intended to provide the public and decision makers with an overview of the potential environmental impacts associated with one large



project. A project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project, including planning, construction, and operations.

The scope of the 2005 Master Plan encompasses six major components: Academic and Administrative Facilities; Student Support and Recreational Facilities; Housing and Campus Support Facilities; Landscaping, Open Space and Pedestrian Circulation; Transportation Management, Campus Entry, Vehicular Circulation, and Parking Facilities; and Campus Utilities and Infrastructure. This EIR evaluates specific near-term Master Plan development projects at the project level, where enough detail exists to do so. All other Master Plan components are evaluated at the program level.

The University has developed sufficient detail concerning the following six Master Plan Phase 1 projects to permit project-level evaluation of potential environmental impacts in this EIR: the TH, Parking Structure G3, the Science 5 facility, University Park Student Housing, a Student Housing Administration Building, and 250 Faculty/Staff housing units. Six Master Plan Phase 2 projects are also evaluated in this EIR: Parking Structure G6; Faculty Offices and Lecture Hall; two Lecture/Laboratory facilities; the Student Recreation Center; and 100 Faculty/Staff housing units.

In addition, CSUN has developed sufficient site detail for the Valley Performing Arts Center, originally evaluated at the program level in the 1998 Master Plan, to enable its evaluation at the project level in this EIR.

The remainder of the 2005 Master Plan is evaluated at the program level. CSUN does not anticipate proceeding with development of all proposed Master Plan projects in the immediate future, nor has it developed sufficient project detail to enable analysis of project-specific impacts at this time. Because of the long-term nature of the 2005 Master Plan, the precise nature, size, and location of all the programs and facilities proposed under the Master Plan cannot be accurately projected at this time. Additional environmental review of Master Plan project will be undertaken as needed during subsequent Master Plan implementation.

2.3 CAMPUS HISTORY AND EXISTING CAMPUS CONDITIONS

2.3.1 Campus History

CSUN was established on its present site in 1956 as the San Fernando Valley Campus of the Los Angeles State College of Applied Arts and Sciences (later Cal State Los Angeles), and was originally dedicated to teacher training. In 1958, the founding date of the present University, the campus was formally recognized as an independent institution, renamed San Fernando Valley State College, and designated as one of seven state campuses created that year by the California State Legislature. Enrollment at the time was 3,300 students, with 104 faculty members. In June 1972, when the state college system was formally renamed the California State University and Colleges, the college was renamed California State



University, Northridge. The University celebrated its 40th anniversary during the 1998–1999 academic school year.

Through the 1960s, the campus comprised approximately 165 acres, some of it under agricultural cultivation. The State Division of Architecture undertook planning of the campus simultaneously with the planning of six other newly established CSU campuses throughout California. Since the majority of students enrolled at CSUN have traditionally commuted to the campus, with a relatively smaller residential student population, much of the campus was built to accommodate automobiles. As CSUN expanded during the latter half of the 20th century, buildings and facilities were constructed as needed. Moreover, little emphasis was given to designating formal points of entry to the campus or defining the campus perimeter. The campus expanded to its current 353-acre size in the late 1960s. The majority of development was concentrated on the southern campus, south of Lassen Street. Student housing and a football stadium were built on the portion of campus between Halsted Street and Lassen Street during the 1970s and 1980s. The northernmost 65 acres of the present campus, terminating along Devonshire Street, was known as the Devonshire Downs property, after the racetrack on the property that was eventually replaced with the aforementioned stadium. The University sought proposals for development of the property for revenue generation in support of educational programs, and ultimately the present MiniMed biotechnology complex, comprising office and conference facilities, was built through a joint public-private partnership in the late 1990s.

In January 1994, the campus was heavily damaged in the magnitude 6.8 Northridge earthquake and was forced to close for a month. Every building sustained damage and several were irreparable and required demolition; 350 trailers and several temporary domes were installed on campus to allow the academic year to continue. The campus underwent a decade-long reconstruction effort that was completed in 2004.

The University currently has nine colleges and offers 61 bachelor’s degrees and 43 master’s degrees.

2.3.2 Existing Conditions

The campus currently comprises 353 acres and retains the distinction between the north and south campuses. The University’s academic programs are located on the southern campus, with athletic facilities, parking, and the MiniMed complex occupying the north campus. Figure 2.0-2, Campus Map, provides an overview of existing buildings and facilities, student services, parking, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, as well as the adjacent roadway network. Figure 2.0-3, Existing Campus, is a bird’s-eye view of a three-dimensional model of the existing campus superimposed on an aerial photograph.

The campus encompasses approximately 3.25 million square feet of academic and administrative facilities. The campus remains generally decentralized. The prominent Oviatt Library and the Student



Services facility are located at the center of campus, with academic programs housed in buildings throughout the south campus. University administration offices are located on the western edge of campus next to the Prairie Avenue entry, one of the more prominent gateways to campus. Playfields, instructional fields, and athletic facilities, including tennis courts and a track, are concentrated along the eastern edge of campus and in the north campus. The north campus remains largely devoted to student housing and additional athletic facilities, including the stadium.

Campus playfields total approximately 40 acres. Additional open space throughout campus includes quadrangles and greens, landscaped areas associated with buildings and roadways, and the Orange Grove in the campus’ southeast quadrant.

Three multi-level parking structures are distributed across the campus, together with six surface parking lots. A total of 12,500 parking spaces are provided on the campus.

The primary point of campus entry is East University Drive at Nordhoff Street, along the southern perimeter. The campus is also accessible along its western perimeter via Prairie Street (where a visitor information booth is located), Vincennes Street, Dearborn Street, and Plummer Street. All four cross-streets provide access to/from Reseda Boulevard, a major commercial corridor one block to the west that provides access to the State Route 118 and US 101.

From the east, on-campus parking facilities can be accessed via Zelzah Avenue, Lassen Street, Plummer Street, and Prairie Street.

2.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.4.1 California State University (CSU) Mission

The CSU originated with the passage of the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, which united the individual state college campuses in a single system. Before 1960, the State Board of Education had oversight of the individual campuses. In 1972, the state college system was renamed the California State University and Colleges, subsequently becoming the California State University in 1982. Today, the CSU system comprises 23 campuses throughout California, including 10 campuses in Southern California. The mission of the CSU, as adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1985, includes the provision of access to postsecondary educational opportunities throughout California, including undergraduate and graduate instruction, through the University and its communities (i.e., campuses).3, 4 As of 2004, the CSU had a

3 California Education Code, §66010.4(b). Website: http://missionwww.lamission.edu/wms/accreditation/ documentation/ed%20code-66010.4.htm. Accessed: July 6, 2005.

4 California State University, Board of Trustees. The Mission of the California State University. November 1985.

Campus Map

FIGURE 2.0-2

750-001•10/05

SOURCE: Randal Scot Thomson – April 2005

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

800 400 0 800

n

Exis

ting

Cam

pus

FIG

UR

E 2.0-3

75

0-0

01

•10

/05

SOURCE:

AC

Mar

tin P

artn

ers

– O

ctob

er 2

005



The CSU is overseen by the Board of Trustees, a body appointed by the Governor and responsible for

electing the Chancellor, the chief executive officer of the CSU. The Board of Trustees’ authority includes

the development of system-wide administrative policies, curriculum development, and the development

of facilities. In 1962, shortly after its establishment, the Board of Trustees mandated that all state college

campuses accommodate a student enrollment of 20,000 FTEs. The CSU system is required by the State

Board of Education to accept the top academic one-third of graduating high school students in California,

and each campus within the system is required by the state’s Education Code to accommodate its share of

present and anticipated future enrollment.5 More recently, in 2003, the Board of Trustees directed each

campus within the CSU to plan for a projected system-wide enrollment increase of 107,000 FTEs by 2011.

2.4.2 CSUN Master Plan History

In 1998, CSUN prepared a new comprehensive master plan for its campus, necessitated by the January 1994 Northridge earthquake. The CSUN campus suffered extensive damage as a result of the earthquake, with virtually every building requiring repairs and five facilities damaged beyond repair. The 1998 Master Plan was focused on campus reconstruction following the earthquake and a number of specific proposed projects within the campus.

The Environmental Impact report for the 1998 Master Plan analyzed 1.7 million square feet of proposed new development, approximately 700,000 square feet of academic/administrative facilities on the main campus, 700,000 square feet of biotechnology space on the north campus, and 300,000 of entertainment industry space on the north campus. A new 12,000–15,000-seat stadium on the main campus was also included. Four of the proposed main campus facilities analyzed in the 1998 EIR, totaling approximately 300,000 square feet, have been constructed. In addition, 500,000 square feet of biotechnology space has been constructed on the north campus.

The 2005 Master Plan represents the first comprehensive update of the campus master plan since 1998. Since CSUN is already nearing its enrollment cap of 25,000 FTEs and substantial enrollment increases are projected in the near term, the 2005 Master Plan’s horizon was set at 30 years to facilitate long-term planning. As a result of the projected enrollment increase to 35,000 FTEs, the final 2005 Master Plan differs substantially from the current Master Plan.

In order to accommodate a revised enrollment ceiling of 35,000 FTEs, the Master Plan proposes 1.9 million square feet of new academic, administrative and student service development on the main campus. In addition, 2,688 student-housing beds are proposed on the main campus, along with a net increase of approximately 4,500 parking spaces. The 2005 Master Plan does not include the main campus multi-purpose stadium proposed in the 1998 Master Plan.

5 California Education Code, §66201 through 66207. Website: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/ edc/66201-66207.html. Accessed: July 7, 2005.



The 2005 Master Plan proposes significant changes to the North Campus, including development of a faculty/staff housing community as the primary use. Instructional/athletic space is also proposed north of the housing community. In addition, biotechnology development on the northern portion of the North Campus is limited to the existing 500,000 square feet.

Several projects included in the existing campus master plan are currently under construction and will become operational during the expected implementation of the 2005 Master Plan. These projects include the Parking and Public Safety Building (Building M), currently under construction just south of Prairie Street and east of Darby Avenue and scheduled for completion in late 2006; the Exchange Food Service Building (Building N), north of Jacaranda Walk, currently in design and scheduled to start construction in summer 2006; and the Science 5 Building (Building V), currently in design and planned for the east side of University Drive between the Botanic Garden and Sierra Walk.

2.4.3 2005 CSUN Master Planning Process

To develop the final 2005 Master Plan, CSUN initiated a collaborative process involving the academic and

administrative campus communities and the local Northridge community, in order to ascertain campus

needs over the next 30 years. In January 2004, CSUN President Jolene Koester appointed a 25-member

Campus Physical Master Planning Committee comprising faculty, staff, student representatives, and

community representatives. The committee participated in a series of four public data-gathering forums

and exercises between October 2004 and May 2005; these meetings were structured for and intended to

solicit input from all interested parties. Announcements of and invitations to these meetings were sent to

a broad mailing list of 23,000 individuals, agencies, and local businesses surrounding the campus.

In 2004, a broad cross-section of the student groups on campus were given cameras and asked to

document their impressions of the physical campus, including open spaces, buildings, interiors,

playfields, roadways, and walkways. Thousands of photographs, together with written commentary,

were received and reviewed by the Master Planning Team.

Regular meetings of the Master Plan Committee were held to provide reports on Master Plan progress

and send feedback to the team responsible for preparing the Master Plan. In addition, regular newsletter

updates were posted on the University’s website for the public. The website provided a way for campus

and surrounding community members to convey comments and questions directly to the Master Plan

Committee.

2.4.4 Statewide and Regional Demographic Projections

In 2000, as part of its ongoing assessment of the demand for higher education in California and of the

state’s ability to meet that demand, the California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC or



Commission) published two comprehensive reports addressing long-range post-secondary education in

the state: Providing for Progress: California Higher Education Enrollment Demand and Resources into the 21st

Century (February 2000) and Policy for Progress: Reaffirming California Higher Education Accessibility,

Affordability, an Accountability into the 21st Century (April 2000).6

In the February 2000 report, the Commission compares the present and projected surge in enrollment to

that of the post-World War II era, when the matriculation of the baby boom generation produced an

enrollment “tidal wave.” The Commission noted that a good deal of planning was necessary to ensure

capacity for that wave, and states that a similar comprehensive statewide program of planning may be

necessary to accommodate enrollment through the end of the first decade of the 21st century, should the

enrollment increase be sudden rather than slow and steady. Findings of the report include the following:

• Some 714,753 more students will seek to enroll at a California college or University by 2010; and

• California public higher education has some current excess capacity but must have considerably more in order to accommodate all who would desire to enroll.

The Executive Summary for the two reports states that:

“Nowhere is the challenge greater, or the stakes higher in terms of sustaining the State’s future, than in higher education. Demographic changes, economic conditions, education reforms, progress in preparing students from all groups and locales for college, and other factors will converge to produce historic increases in demand for higher education enrollment.”7

In 1995, the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, projected that CSU would

have a total enrollment of 406,317 graduate and undergraduate students (headcount) by fall 2004. In

2000, the Department of Finance had revised its projections for fall 2004 upwards to 414,091 headcount

students. In 2003, projections for fall 2004 were once again revised upward to 418,002 headcount

students. The Department projected enrollment of 518,110 headcount students in the CSU by 2012.8

Enrollment at CSUN climbed from 18,052 FTEs (25,019 headcount students) in 1995 to 24,296 FTEs (32,406

headcount students) in 2005.9 As a result, enrollment at CSUN is nearly at its ceiling of 25,000 FTEs and

is expected to continue to climb.

6 California Postsecondary Education Commission. Website: http://www.cpec.ca.gov/Publications/ ReportSummary.ASP?968. Accessed: June 20, 2005.

7 California Postsecondary Education Commission. Moving California Ahead: An Executive Summary. Commission Report 00-5. June 2005.

8 California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. November 2003. Website: http://www.dof.ca.gov. Accessed: June 1, 2005.

9 Enrollment figures provided by the California State University, Northridge Office of Facilities Planning, Design & Construction, July 2005.



2.4.5 CSU Enrollment Projections

The CSU Board of Trustees’ May 2003 directive for campuses to accommodate projected enrollment

increases was taken in response to current system-wide enrollment projects as well as CSU’s mandate

concerning the provision of postsecondary education. The Trustees took into consideration a number of

demographic, economic, social, and educational trends expected to influence future demand for

postsecondary education. The Board of Trustee’s Resolution acknowledged that current enrollment

projections based on demographic projections, and implementation of state policy directions regarding

educational equity and access, required the CSU system to prepare to accept 107,000 additional FTEs by

2011.

Given appropriate state support, the Board of Trustees pledged to accommodate the additional students

through a variety of means. Those means included the expansion of summer term enrollments so as to

better utilize existing physical capacity and facilitate student progress toward their objectives; expansion

of existing, and development of new, off-campus learning centers for students unable to attend existing

campuses and to relieve schools nearing their enrollment caps; and expand use of academic technology to

relieve demand on limited physical space and increase access.

The Board of Trustees also directed campuses to review their campus master plans and consider

increasing enrollment ceilings. For those campuses, like CSUN, at or near the historic CSU system-wide

enrollment cap of 25,000, the Board of Trustees authorized consideration of exceedance of the enrollment

cap, and the preparation and presentation to the Board of master plans that would facilitate doing so.

Campuses were also directed to fully utilize existing campus capacity and accelerate new physical

capacity within the CSU Five-Year Capital Outlay program.10

The Board of Trustee’s actions were based, in part, on the findings of its Committee on Educational

Policy, reported in the minutes of the May 2003 meeting as follows:

“…[S]everal years ago, CPEC, using Department of Finance data, projected that the CSU would add 130,000 new students between 1998 and 2010. …[A]ctual enrollments this past fall are already 20,000 over where CPEC estimated enrollment. The Department of Finance now projects CSU 2011 enrollment to exceed 513,000. …CSU enrollments are beginning to exceed the physical capacity, and the projected gap between enrollment and capacity is increasing. …The resolution proposed for action in May restates the Board’s commitment to accommodate the projected enrollment, given appropriate state support, and adopts as policy the use of several options available to campuses to expand enrollment recognizing that the mix of options will vary from campus to campus.




For many years, projections of enrollments in higher education in California have warned of a vast increase during the first decade of the 21st [c]entury. However, not only are enrollments increasing, the projections themselves are increasing. For example, in 1995, the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, projected that the CSU would enroll 406,317 headcount students in the fall 2004. By 2000, the Department of Finance’s projection of CSU enrollment for fall 2004 had been revised upward to 414,091 headcount students. The most recent Department of Finance projections of CSU enrollment for fall 2004 have now reached 436,172 headcount students…

The current Department of Finance projections indicate that over the next eight years, by fall 2011, CSU enrollment will have grown to 513,550 headcount students, an increase of 26 percent over the 406,684 enrolled in fall 2002. This enrollment increase of nearly 107,000 students presents a significant challenge for the CSU in that many campuses are rapidly approaching their physical capacity as measured in lecture hall, classroom, and laboratory space. Indeed across the system, in AY [academic year] 2003–04, enrollments will exceed physical capacity space… However, the impact of enrollment upon physical capacity will be felt differentially across the state. It is clear that the state will not be able to address this projected enrollment increase as it did during the surge of the 1960’s by building new campuses.“11

Eight campuses within the CSU system, including CSUN, have enrollment caps set at the CSU historic

maximum of 25,000 FTEs. The May 2003 Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees authorizes

campuses to consider increasing enrollment beyond this limit. This will allow the CSU to comply with its

obligation, under the California Education Code, to “plan that adequate spaces are available to

accommodate all California resident students who are eligible and likely to apply to attend an

appropriate place within the system.12

2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

CEQA states that the statement of project objectives should be clearly written and define the underlying

purpose of the project, in order to permit the development of a reasonable range of alternatives and aid

the Lead Agency in making findings.

The objectives of the 2005 Master Plan project originate in the obligation CSUN has to meet its

educational mission as defined by the California Education Code. The University undertook a lengthy

Master Plan development process, led by a committee comprising the academic, administrative, and local

communities. The project objectives drawn from the Master Plan are as follows:

• Enable CSUN to accommodate an increased enrollment cap of 35,000 FTEs by 2035, as required by the CSU and California Education Code;

• Accommodate lower-division students in on-campus housing to support the University’s living-learning programs and other campus activities;

11 California State University, Committee on Educational Policy. Agenda minutes (revised), May 13–14, 2003. Website: http://www.calstate.edu/BOT/Agendas/May03/EdPol.pdf. Accessed: June 21, 2005.

12 California Education Code §66202.5. Website: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc/66201-66207.html. Accessed: June 21, 2005.



• Provide facilities for expansion of academic programs and administrative functions at a rate of 115,000 gross square feet per 1,000 FTEs;

• Provide appropriate facilities for instructional athletics, informal and organized recreation, and intercollegiate athletics;

• Reinforce the University’s active learning focus by providing opportunities for interactions and collaborations among students, faculty, and staff;

• Improve campus vehicular and pedestrian circulation;

• Accommodate parking demand at the rate of 0.39 space per commuter FTE; 0.63 space per student dormitory bed; 0.58 space per campus employee (faculty/staff); and 2 percent of the total FTE parking needs for visitors;

• Improve pedestrian safety;

• Provide on-campus housing for faculty and staff to aid in employment recruitment;

• Enhance the visual appearance of the campus core and perimeter through the implementation of aesthetic improvements;

• Develop more prominent and visually defined campus entries;

• Reinforce campus identity and increase public awareness of the campus’ location and presence through a program of off-site aesthetic enhancements;

• Adequately maintain and manage all campus facilities;

• Make efficient use of developable land and avoid developing existing open space;

• Maintain stewardship of campus landscape and natural resources;

• Serve as a regional center for intellectual, cultural, and lifelong learning.

These project objectives guided the Master Plan process and the identification of physical improvements

necessary and appropriate for the CSUN campus to fulfill its educational mission as well as implement its

campus mission, values, and vision statement.

2.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

2.6.1 2005 Master Plan

The 2005 Master Plan is a comprehensive series of programs intended to configure and guide the physical

development of the CSUN campus over the next 30 years. The Master Plan addresses land uses and

facilities required to accommodate projected enrollment increases up to 35,000 FTEs over the next 30

years, as well as accommodate the evolving pedagogical needs of the University’s academic,

administrative, student support, and campus support department and programs. The Final Master Plan



report is incorporated into this EIR by reference. The Master Plan addresses six major programs that

apply throughout the campus:

• Academic and Administrative Facilities;

• Student Support and Recreational Facilities;

• Housing and Campus Support Facilities;

• Landscaping, Open Space, and Pedestrian Circulation;

• Transportation Management, Campus Entry, Vehicular Circulation, and Parking Facilities; and

• Campus Utilities and Infrastructure

These major programs are described in Sections 2.6.1 through 2.6.6, below. Figure 2.0-4, Illustrative

Master Plan, shows both existing facilities and the proposed sites for academic, administrative and

student-support facilities.

2.6.2 Campus Precincts

The Master Plan also divides the campus into eight functional precincts, or defined geographic subareas

within which specific campus functions are located, in order to provide greater detail about proposed

facilities and features. The precincts are defined as follows:

• Precinct 1: South Campus Arts Precinct

• Precinct 2: Academic Core Precinct

• Precinct 3: West Gateway Precinct

• Precinct 4: East Gateway Precinct

• Precinct 5: Instructional/Athletics/Recreation Precinct

• Precinct 6: University Park Housing Precinct

• Precinct 7: Northwest Precinct

• Precinct 8: North Campus Faculty/Staff Housing Village

The precincts are described in detail in Section 2.6.7. Figure 2.0-5, Precinct Plans Keys Diagram, shows

the precinct locations.



2.6.3 Master Plan Phases

The 2005 Master Plan has been developed to accommodate projected enrollment growth over the next 30

years and will be implemented incrementally throughout that period. Master Plan implementation is

planned in four phases (three 5-year phases and a final 15-year phase), as follows:

• Phase 1: 2005–2009

• Phase 2: 2010–2014

• Phase 3: 2015–2019

• Phase 4: 2020–2035

Actual implementation will be influenced by student enrollment, availability of funding, and changes in

academic, administrative, recreational and student-support programs that necessitate new or modified

facilities. However, Phase 1 projects and selected Phase 2 projects are sufficiently well defined, with

development or implementation anticipated in the near term, to permit detailed evaluation in this Draft

EIR. These near-term projects are described in detail in Section 2.6.8.

2.6.4 Academic and Administrative Facilities

The 2005 Master Plan identifies possible and appropriate sites for new academic, administrative, and

student-support facilities throughout the campus. The new facilities are intended to provide expansion

space for all academic and administrative programs. The proposed building sites are concentrated in the

southern campus and evenly distributed throughout the central academic core and adjacent areas to the

east and west, in order to balance development density across campus, allow for efficient use of parking

facilities, and balance campus access through campus entries and roadways. Program needs and

building configurations at these sites will be subject to the expansion needs of academic and

administrative programs; it is conceivable that not all of the identified sites will be utilized within the 30-

year life of the Master Plan.

Proposed sites for the following facilities are identified in the Academic Core Precinct: two buildings (K

and L) to replace the existing Live Oak and Eucalyptus Halls; Oviatt Library expansion (I); a permanent

Exchange Food Service facility (N); a new academic/administrative building (F) to replace Sagebrush

Hall.

Proposed sites for the following facilities are identified in the South Campus Arts Precinct: a new

performing arts center proposed under the 1998 Master Plan (O); two new academic/administrative

buildings at the corner of Nordhoff and Zelzah Avenue (Y and Z); two academic/administrative

Illustrative Master Plan

FIGURE 2.0-4

750-001•10/05

SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005

Precinct Plans Keys Diagram

FIGURE 2.0-5

750-001•10/05




buildings on West University Drive (C and H1); an addition to the existing Nordhoff Hall (H2); and new

academic/administrative buildings west (J) and east (T) of Manzanita Hall; a new University

Club/Alumni Center (W); and expansion of the physical plant (X) to meet chilled and hot water needs of

the southeastern quadrant of the campus.

A new Student Recreation Center (R) is proposed for the East Gateway Precinct, northeast of the existing

University Student Union. Other facilities for which sites in this precinct are proposed include a new

classroom/lab building (V); a second new building to include a replacement for the existing greenhouse

(U); and a new faculty office/lecture hall building (S) on the present site of the temporary buildings

northwest of the University Student Union.

A new academic/administrative building (B) is proposed at the corner of Darby Avenue and Vincennes

Street in the West Gateway Precinct. A Transit Center (TH) is also proposed in this precinct, providing

roadway and parking space for up to buses.

Three new academic/administrative buildings are proposed for the Instructional/Athletics/Recreation Precinct on the east side of campus: an addition to Redwood Hall (P); a building at the northeast corner of Redwood Hall (G); and a building for Athletics program offices and support space (Q). A small building for restroom facilities, storage, and concession operation (A1) is sited near University athletic facilities. A second small building (A) in this precinct will provide offices and support space for the University housing program.

Finally, three new academic/administrative buildings (D, E1, and E2) are proposed in the Northwest Precinct between North University Drive and Halsted Street. One or more of these buildings may house expansion space for the visual arts program.

2.6.5 Student Recreational and Support Facilities

Student recreational and support facilities will continue to be located on the east side of campus near the existing Student Union and playing fields and game courts. New facilities proposed for this area include a Student Recreation Center and a health center to be incorporated into one of the academic/ administrative new buildings proposed in this area. A permanent Exchange Food Service Facility will be built and the bookstore will remain in its present location.

The Physical Plant Management and Central Plant Facilities will remain in their present locations; an extension of the Central Plant is proposed for the southeast campus.



2.6.6 Housing and Campus Support Facilities

Future student housing, dining and parking facilities are proposed as infill on three sites on campus. Four residential buildings (H1–H4) housing 896 students will be located in University Park near existing student housing. Two new student housing communities and a new faculty/staff housing community will be located in the Northwest Precinct. Each student housing community will encompass four residential buildings (H5–H8 and H9–H12) housing 896 students. Shared or separate dining facilities will be provided, depending on need at the time of development.

Faculty/staff housing is proposed on two sites: 50 units in the Northwest Precinct at the corner of Halsted Street and Darby Avenue, and a larger 550-unit complex or village, north of Lassen Street. This housing would be a mix of rental units and for-sale units with purchase conditions to ensure units remain affordable and available to University faculty and staff.

2.6.7 Landscaping, Open Space, and Pedestrian Circulation

Landscaping. A Landscape Master Plan has been prepared as part of the 2005 Master Plan for the campus. Intended as a guiding framework for specific landscape designs to be developed as campus development proceeds, the Landscape Master Plan identifies existing open space to be retained and future open space to be created, recommends improvements to the network of pedestrian pathways, and identifies appropriate hardscape and plant materials, outdoor furnishings, light fixtures, and irrigation systems to improve campus identity, ambiance, and safety. The Landscape Master Plan addresses the campus perimeter, campus entries, campus roadways, pedestrian circulation, and formal and informal open space in the campus interior.

Open Space. Figure 2.0-6, Open Space and Pedestrian Circulation, shows the location of major campus open space areas and existing pedestrian circulation between these areas. These include the Sierra Quad, Oviatt Lawn, West Lawn, Sundial Fountain, Matador Square, North Academic Quad, Manzanita Courtyard, the Orange Grove, and the Botanic Garden. New facilities are sited to leave major open space areas intact, including playing fields, and enclose secondary open space areas such as quadrangles, courtyards, and plazas.

Pedestrian Circulation. Figure 2.0-7, Pedestrian Pathway System, shows proposed Master Plan improvements to the pedestrian pathway system. The Master Plan extends the existing network of pedestrian pathways to the east side of campus where substantial new development will take place, and creates stronger pedestrian links between the campus periphery and academic core, as well as between the core and the north campus. Six major east-west pathways are identified: Orange Grove Arts Walk (near the Performing Arts Center), Sierra Walk, Matador Walk, Magnolia Walk, Jacaranda Way, and

Open Space and Pedestrian Circulation

FIGURE 2.0-6

750-001•10/05


Pedestrian Pathway System

FIGURE 2.0-7

750-001•10/05




North University Drive Promenade. Major north-south pedestrian walkways include Matador Drive Promenade; the East Promenade and West University Drive Promenade; and Campus Esplanade, which links existing walkways and bisects the academic core.

2.6.8 Transportation Management, Campus Entry, Parking Facilities, and Vehicular Circulation

The 2005 Master Plan addresses vehicle traffic on and around the CSUN campus. Master Plan recommendations for managing traffic and parking are based on a series of planning principles and objectives formulated during the master planning process. Those acknowledged the need for a reduction in traffic associated with the campus; increased on-campus parking supply; the appropriate siting of future campus parking facilities; improved public transit opportunities; improvements to the campus tram system; improved pedestrian safety; and more visually prominent campus points of entry.

The Master Plan also incorporates information contained in the Parking and Traffic Analysis conducted for this purpose.

Figure 2.0-8, Vehicular Circulation and Parking Plan, shows existing and proposed campus points of

entry, vehicular circulation, tram routes and stops, and parking facilities. Figure 2.0-9, Service and

Emergency Vehicle Access, shows service and emergency vehicle access points and circulation on

campus.

Transportation Management. To reduce the volume of campus-related traffic and the need for on-

campus parking, the Master Plan proposes an Alternative Transportation Plan to facilitate the use of

public transit. Master Plan features include a multimodal TH on the western edge of campus, close to

Reseda Boulevard bus routes and freeway access, and expansion of the existing campus tram system.

The TH would be sited at the existing campus entry on Darby Avenue at Prairie Street and would serve

as the centralized point of campus access for all modes of public transit. The TH would include parking

and a turnaround for six city buses, which would enter and exit the campus via Prairie Street. The TH

would also serve as a stop for the campus shuttle to the local Metrolink station.

A new “circulator” tram route is proposed to encircle the campus core and would connect to the existing

tram route that operates between the existing student housing and the east side of the campus core. The

new route would travel around the campus loop road and would stop near the TH.

Finally, a new MTA Rapid bus stop may be established by MTA on Nordhoff Street at East University

Drive. The new stop would provide general campus access and serve the new Valley Performing Arts

Center.



Campus Entry. The Master Plan proposes the establishment of two major campus entries: the East

Gateway, on Zelzah Avenue at Prairie Street, and the West Gateway, on Darby Avenue at Prairie Street.

A third point of entry is proposed on Nordhoff Street at Matador Drive. The Master Plan would close the

existing Halsted Street campus entry at Etiwanda Avenue to reduce campus-related traffic and associated

congestion on Halsted and Lindley. The existing campus entry at East University Drive and West

University Drive exit would remain unchanged.

The East Gateway entry would serve as the main point of access for cars approaching the campus from

Zelzah Avenue and would provide the most direct access to the University Student Union, student-

support facilities, and athletic facilities. Planned as an entry/exit, it would permit access to the existing

and proposed parking facilities on Matador Drive, and would terminate in a turn-around/drop-off area

just west of Matador. The East Gateway entry would be equipped with a visitor information booth.

The existing campus entry/exit on Prairie Street would become the new West Gateway entry. This is the

primary point of entry for cars approaching from the west and northwest and provides access to parking

facilities on the west side of campus. The West Gateway would also be the site of the proposed

multimodal TH and would continue to have a visitor information booth.

The Matador Drive entry from Nordhoff Street would be created by realigning Bertrand Street and

closing Dearborn and Prairie Streets. This entry is intended to provide direct access from the south to

three new proposed parking structures on the east side of campus, as well as the University Student

Union, athletic facilities, and nearby academic and administrative facilities.

Parking Facilities. The Master Plan is intended to provide sufficient parking to accommodate academic

use over the next 30 years, including the projected 10,000 FTE increase in commuter and resident students

as well as faculty, staff, visitors, and event attendees. The future campus parking demand was derived

from the Traffic and Parking Analysis prepared for this project, which determined that peak demand at

Master Plan build out would result in the need for 16,196 parking spaces, or 3,828 spaces more than the

2005 supply.

To meet this need, the Master Plan proposes the removal and replacement of a portion of the existing

parking supply as well as the construction of up to seven new parking structures and six surface parking

lots. The proposed sites for new parking facilities are shown in Figure 2.0-8, previously referenced;

facilities are distributed throughout the campus to promote improved vehicular access and circulation.

Separate parking would be provided for the faculty/staff housing components of the Master Plan.

Vehicular Circulation and Parking Plan

FIGURE 2.0-8

750-001•10/05


Service and Emergency Vehicle Access

FIGURE 2.0-9

750-001•10/05




The Master Plan also recommends a series of parking demand reduction measures intended to alleviate

peak parking demand, including expanded internal campus tram services, the on-campus TH, a Reseda

Metro Rapid Bus stop on Nordhoff Street at Lindley Avenue, transit subsidies and rideshare support, and

modification of class schedules.

Vehicular Circulation. The Master Plan proposes to improve on-campus circulation by reducing

through-traffic on internal campus roadways and reducing the potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

This would be accomplished through several related Master Plan proposals discussed above: the addition

of a “circulator” tram route on campus (see Transportation Management); the designation of formal

campus entries (and closure of other existing entries) to control the flow of traffic onto and off the campus

(see Campus Entry); and the balanced distribution of parking facilities throughout the campus and

implementation of a parking assignment program (see Parking Facilities). The on-campus portions of

Dearborn, Prairie, and Vincennes Streets and the easternmost portion of North University

Drive/Plummer Street would be designated minor service routes.

2.6.9 Campus Utilities and Infrastructure

The Master Plan characterizes the existing utility systems on campus, including electrical service and

distribution systems, mechanical systems, telecommunications, and civil engineering utilities (storm

drains, water supply, fire water supply, and sanitary sewers). The Master Plan describes service

providers, the age and condition of each system, and recent upgrades, and maps the distribution network

of systems where appropriate. The description of utilities is intended to support future implementation

of the Master Plan as individual development projects are undertaken.

2.6.10 2005 Master Plan Campus Precincts

Precinct 1: South Campus Arts Precinct. The South Campus Arts Precinct occupies the central-southern

portion of campus along Nordhoff Street. Proposed development in this precinct focuses on the Valley

Performing Arts Center, the existing Orange Grove, and other nearby academic/performance venues.

The Performing Arts Center will be located at Nordhoff Street and East University Drive and will be

flanked by a plaza to serve as gathering space for receptions and other campus events. Placement of

other new academic/administrative buildings in this precinct is intended to preserve and create outdoor

open spaces. One of the proposed development sites is intended for a facility to replace Santa Susana

Hall, which is near the end of its useful life.

Vehicular access to this precinct is provided via existing East University Drive and Matador Drive, a new

campus entry roadway off Nordhoff west of Zelzah. Two new parking structures (PS–B1 and PS–G3) are

sited in this precinct. The existing access road (L–D1) will serve as a visitor drop-off area and handicap-



accessible parking zone in front of the Performing Arts Center; the service/loading area for the Center

will be located off East University Drive.

With respect to pedestrian circulation, the South Campus Arts Precinct will serve as the terminus for the

north-south-oriented East Promenade, West Promenade, and Campus Esplanade. The new Orange

Grove Arts Walk is proposed to extend east from the Performing Arts Center through the Orange Grove

to the University Club/Alumni Center and parking structure PS–G3. The Master Plan would also

revitalize the Orange Grove and relocate the observatory and pond from their present locations to an area

just north of the Orange Grove.

Figure 2.0-10, South Campus Arts Precinct, shows the South Campus Arts Precinct in detail.

Precinct 2: Academic Core Precinct. The Academic Precinct is the core of campus and supports a dense

concentration of academic facilities. The Master Plan proposes seven new academic/administrative

facilities to be developed in this precinct. One site is intended for the expansion of Oviatt Library and

will face the new Exchange Food Service facility. Three other development sites are meant for facilities to

replace existing buildings (Live Oak, Eucalyptus, and Sagebrush Halls) that will reach the end of their

useful lives during the life of the Master Plan. The Academic Core will be bordered to the north by the

pedestrian pathway along North University Drive.

Figure 2.0-11, Academic Core Precinct, shows the Academic Core Precinct in detail.

Precinct 3: West Gateway Precinct. The West Gateway Precinct is considered an important campus

entry point. It is centered around the Prairie Street entry, which provides access for pedestrians, private

vehicles, those using public transit, and visitors to the University’s administrative offices. The 2,063-stall

B3 parking structure was recently completed, and the adjacent Parking and Public Safety facility at Darby

Avenue and Prairie Street is currently under construction. Two new facilities are proposed in this

precinct: an academic/administrative building south of Vincennes Street and the TH north of Prairie

Street.

Prairie Street will be landscaped approaching the campus with the signature campus-wide plant palette

defined in the Landscape Master Plan, and monument signage will also be installed to identify the

campus entry.

Figure 2.0-12, West Gateway Precinct, shows the West Gateway Precinct in detail.

Sout

h C

ampu

s Ar

ts P

reci

nct

FIG

UR

E 2.0-10

75

0-0

01

•10

/05

SOURCE:

AC

Mar

tin P

artn

ers

– O

ctob

er 2

005

Acad

emic

Cor

e Pr

ecin

ct

FIG

UR

E 2.0-11

75

0-0

01

•10

/05

SOURCE:

AC

Mar

tin P

artn

ers

– O

ctob

er 2

005

West Gateway Precinct

FIGURE 2.0-12

750-001•10/05




Precinct 4: East Gateway Precinct. The East Gateway is intended to become a major new point of

campus entry for those approaching from the east. It is also intended to serve as the center of University

Student Union facilities, student-support facilities and activities, and the University’s athletic venues.

The new entry will be located at Prairie Street and Zelzah Avenue and will terminate on campus with a

turnaround/drop-off area west of the new Matador Drive. As in the West Gateway Precinct, this entry

will be equipped with a visitor information booth and landscaped using the signature campus-wide plant

palette, and monument signage will be installed. Proposed playfields flanking the Prairie Street entry

drive would provide a view window into the campus from the east.

The proposed site of the new Student Recreation Center is northeast of the existing University Student

Union. Several sites for new facilities are located in this precinct, including academic/administrative

facilities; a new classroom/lab building; a greenhouse; and a faculty office/lecture hall building. Several

of these buildings, together with proposed Parking Structure G-3, would enclose a new quadrangle. The

existing observatory and pond would be relocated just south of their present locations to accommodate

the new Science 5 building, currently in design, along East University Drive.

Figure 2.0-13, East Gateway Precinct, shows the East Gateway Precinct in detail.

Precinct 5: Instructional/Athletics/Recreation Precinct. This precinct encompasses most of the athletic

instruction and recreation facilities on the campus, centered on Redwood Hall. A single large playfield

used by the Kinesiology and Athletics departments and campus recreational programs exists in this

precinct (PF–F6); the Master Plan would slightly modify this playfield and add a new playfield (PF–G6).

The existing pool just south of the Matadome would be enlarged. The Master Plan maintains the current

locations of the existing track, baseball, softball, and soccer fields in this area.

Five sites for new facilities have been proposed in this precinct, including a building housing restrooms,

storage and concession operations to support outdoor programs and events; a building housing office

space for the University housing program; and three new academic/administrative buildings. Two

parking structures are also proposed.

Figure 2.0-14, Instructional, Athletics, and Recreational Precinct, shows the Instructional, Athletics, and

Recreation Precinct in detail.

Precinct 6: University Park Housing Precinct. This precinct would primarily provide housing for lower-

division students in buildings intended to support the University’s living-learning programs and increase

the 24-hour student population on campus. Within this precinct, four buildings housing 896 students

would be built as infill in the central University Park area. Housing would include outdoor open space



and a five-story residential parking structure with 487 spaces. The parking structure would be built on

the site of an existing surface lot accessible from Lassen Street. The Master Plan would maintain the other

parking facilities in this precinct.

Figure 2.0-15, University Park Housing Precinct, shows the University Park Housing Precinct in detail.

Precinct 7: Northwest Precinct. Two student-housing communities are proposed in the Northwest

Precinct, on the site of the existing E5 and E6 parking lots. The buildings will accommodate 896 students,

Resident Advisors and support facilities, and a dining facility.

Another student housing community is planned in this precinct along West University Drive. This

community will also accommodate 896 students, resident advisors, and support facilities.

Three academic/administrative buildings are proposed for this precinct, all sited to face the residential

neighborhood across Halsted Street.

A proposed surface parking lot adjacent to the housing community will provide some student parking

and a loading area for the dining facility. Two new parking structures are proposed in this precinct: PS–

G6 and PS–B5; existing parking structure B5 would also accommodate student parking.

Figure 2.0-16, Northwest Precinct, shows the Northwest Precinct in detail.

Precinct 8: North Campus Faculty/Staff Housing Village

The area north of Lassen Street is proposed as the site of the University faculty/staff housing community.

Although the precise number and configuration of housing units would be determined by the University

prior to each phase of development, this area is expected to include dedicated open space and a small

retail complex to serve residents.

A large playfield (PF–G12) for academic/intercollegiate athletic use and a small building housing

restrooms, showers, and/or storage is proposed is proposed north of the housing village.

East Gateway Precinct

FIGURE 2.0-13

750-001•10/05


Instructional, Athletics, and Recreational Precinct

FIGURE 2.0-14

750-001•10/05


Uni

vers

ity P

ark

Hou

sing

Pre

cinc

t

FIG

UR

E 2.0-15

75

0-0

01

•10

/05

SOURCE:

AC

Mar

tin P

artn

ers

– O

ctob

er 2

005

.evA

yb r

aD

Halsted St.

N. University Dr. (Plummer)

PL-B6

H10

H9

H11

H12PS-B5-N

PL-B5

D E1 E2

H6

H5

H7

HDH8

L-E6 PF-E6

)yel

dniL( . r

D yt isr ev i

nU .E

B5

Faculty/StaffHousing

Physical PlantManagement

Child Care

Northwest Precinct

FIGURE 2.0-16

750-001•10/05




2.6.11 Phasing of Master Plan Implementation

Master Plan implementation is planned in four phases (three 5-year phases and a final 15-year phase), as

follows:

• Phase 1: 2005–2009

• Phase 2: 2010–2014

• Phase 3: 2015–2019

• Phase 4: 2020–2035

Individual project phases are determined by the planned construction completion date.

The four Master Plan phases and associated facilities are listed in Table 2.0-1 and shown in Figures 2.0-17

through 2.0-20.

13 near-term projects proposed under Master Plan Phases 1 and 2 are evaluated at the project level in this

EIR and are described below. The proposed sites for these facilities are shown in Figure 2.0-2, Master

Plan, as well as in Figures 2.0-10 through 2.10-16, previously referenced, which show precinct details.

Phase 1: 2005–2009

Six projects proposed for implementation during the first phase of the Master Plan are evaluated at the

project level in this EIR. Additionally, the Valley Performing Arts Center, originally evaluated at the

program level in the 1998 Master Plan EIR, is currently in development and will be completed during

Phase 1 implementation of the 2005 Master Plan. The University has developed sufficient site detail for

these projects to enable evaluation of their potential environmental impacts at the project level in this EIR.

These projects are described below.

Phase 1 also includes construction of the southern portion of the proposed new Matador Drive, east of

East University Drive, which is evaluated at the program level in this EIR.

Table 2.0-1

Master Plan Phases

Project Code Facility Type Total Gsf Phase 1 Development Plan

M Administration: Parking/Public Safety 28,000 N Exchange Expansion: Food Service 4,000,000 O Performing Arts Center 163,000 V Academic/Administrative 90,000

PS-G3 Parking Structure 648,000 Matador Drive (South) Roadway (Nordhoff to Prairie) -



Project Code Facility Type Total Gsf E. Prairie St. Entry Roadway (Zelzah to Bertrand) -

TH Transit Center - A Housing Administration 15,000

H-1 Student Housing 48,600 FH-1 Faculty/Staff Housing 290,500

Phase 2 Development Plan A1 Athletics/Rec. Support - A2 Athletics/Rec. Support - J Academic/Administrative 140,000 Q Academic/Administrative 37,000 R Student Recreation Center 120,000 S Academic/Administrative 49,500 U Academic/Administrative 150,000 W Dining/Meeting 24,000 Z Academic/Administrative 86,400

PS-F9 Parking Structure 198,000 PS-G6 Parking Structure 900,000 L-G2 Parking Lot - SH-2 Student Housing 48,600 SH-3 Student Housing 48,600 FH-2 Faculty/Staff Housing 116,200 FH-3 Faculty/Staff Housing 58,100 PF-F4 Playfield 0.8 acre PF-F7 Tennis 2.4 acres

PF-G12 Playfield 6.5 acres Phase 3 Development Plan

D Academic/Administrative 15,000 E1 Academic/Administrative 10,500 E2 Academic/Administrative 10,500 F Academic/Administrative 75,000

H1 Academic/Administrative 72,000 H2 Academic/Administrative 5,300

I Library 109,050 X South Campus Central Plant Expansion 10,000

PS-G4 Parking Structure 900,000 Matador Dr. (N.) Roadway (Prairie to PS-G6) -

SH4 Student Housing 27,000 FH4 Faculty/Staff Housing 58,100

PF-G3 Playfield 2.6 acres PF-G4 Playfield 4.5 acres PF-G5 Playfield 3.7 acres

Phase 4 Development Plan B Academic/Administrative 105,000 C Academic/Administrative 108,000 G Academic/Administrative 55,000 K Academic/Administrative 120,000 L Academic/Administrative 120,000 P Academic/Administrative 67,600 T Academic/Administrative 66,780 Y Academic/Administrative 86,400

PS-B1 Parking Structure 720,000 B5-N Parking Structure 262,800 SH5 Student Housing 43,200 SH6 Student Housing 43,200 SH7 Student Housing 43,200 SH8 Student Housing 43,200 SH9 Student Housing 43,200 SH10 Student Housing 43,200 SH11 Student Housing 43,200 SH12 Student Housing 43,200 HD Dining 25,000 FH5 Faculty/Staff Housing [a] FH6 Faculty/Staff Housing [a]

A

ExistingNew Academic/Administrative Facility (this phase)

New Academic/Administrative Facility (previous phase)

New Parking Structure (this phase)

Legend

FACULTY/STAFF HOUSING

SH1

New Parking Structure (previous phase)

New Housing Facility (this phase)New Housing Facility (previous phase)New Playfield (this phase)New Playfield (previous phase)New Roadway

Info Booth

Matador Drive South

O

V PS-G3

TH

M

N

E. Prairie Street Entry

FH1

Phase 1

FIGURE 2.0-17

750-001•11/05

SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – November 2005

NOT TO SCALEn




Legend



Info Booth

PF-F12

SH3

J

A2

PS-F9

SH2

PF-F7

PS-G6

U

Z

W

SR

Q

PF-F4

A1

FACULTY/STAFF HOUSINGFH2, FH3

Matador Drive North

Phase 2

FIGURE 2.0-18

750-001•11/05


NOT TO SCALEn




Legend



Info Booth

PS-G4

D


E1 E2

X

H1

H2

PF-G5

PF-G4

PF-G3

FH4

SH4

F

I

Phase 3

FIGURE 2.0-19

750-001•11/05


NOT TO SCALEn

PS-B1

B

PS-B5N


H10

H9

H12

H11

C

T

K

L

Y

P

G

PF-E6H6

H5

H8

H7HD

FH5 and FH6




Legend



Info Booth

Phase 4

FIGURE 2.0-20

750-001•11/05


NOT TO SCALEn



Transit Center (TH)

The TH would serve as a centrally located mass transit hub for students, faculty, staff, and community

members traveling to CSUN. To be located north of Prairie Street and just east of Darby, the TH would

include bus and shuttle bays to accommodate MTA local bus services, Metrolink shuttles, and other mass

transit shuttle services. Amenities would include sheltered waiting areas and seating for commuters.

Other improvements would include site lighting, landscaping enhancements, and provision for bicycle

storage.

Parking Structure (PS-G3)

The PS-G3 parking structure would be located on the existing G3 surface parking lot, north of Dearborn

St., east of the existing Chisholm Hall, and west of the proposed Matador Drive. The 648,000-square-foot

building would encompass six levels of approximately 108,000 square feet each and would accommodate

1,994 vehicles. The parking structure would be 60 feet high (above grade) and constructed of reinforced

concrete. Vehicle access would be located on the south, east and west sides of the structure.

Science 5 Facility (Building V)

The Science 5 facility, which is currently in design, would provide 90,000 square feet of new academic

and administrative space for the College of Science and Mathematics. The four-story building would

include general lecture space, teaching labs, computer labs, research labs, laboratory support space,

faculty offices, and departmental offices. The building would primarily support instruction in biological

sciences and mathematics. The functions of the building would be similar to those of the adjacent Science

Buildings 1 through 4 on the west side of East University Drive. The proposed Science 5 building would

be located on the east side of East University Drive, between the Botanic Garden and Sierra Walk. The

primary building entrances would be oriented toward East University Drive and Sierra Walk. The

proximity of this building to the Botanic Garden may require removal of some trees in the southern

portion of the garden. Since the Botanic Garden is an instructional space maintained by the College’s

Biology Department, removal of existing trees will be reviewed with the College during the design

process.

University Park Student Housing Expansion (SH1)

The first phase of the University Park Housing Expansion would be located on the site of existing surface

parking and open space at the center of the University Park complex. The building would house

approximately 252 students in a 48,000-square-foot, four-story building designed to complement the

existing housing in this area.



Housing Administration Facility (Building A)

A 15,000-square-foot, one-story Student Housing Administration building is proposed on the east side of

Lindley Ave., near the north end of the track facility.

Faculty/Staff Housing (FH1)

Faculty/Staff Housing proposed for construction during Phase 1 would occupy approximately 15 acres at

the southern end of the North Campus Faculty/Staff Village precinct, in the area bordered by Lindley

Avenue on the west and Lassen Street on the south. Phase 1 housing is anticipated to include

approximately 250 units. Approximately 150 of the units are planned as “for sale” housing and would

include a mix of town homes and duplexes. The remaining 100 units are proposed as condominium

rentals. The perimeter of the housing community along Lindley Avenue and Lassen Street would be

landscaped as part of this project.

Valley Performing Arts Center (Building O)

A performing arts center housing a 1,600-seat multipurpose Main Hall, 250-seat flexible theater, ancillary

facilities, and classrooms is proposed to accommodate professional and campus performances and

instruction. The building would provide technical and performer-support facilities to accommodate

academic and professional programs and related administrative functions. The center would be located

on the same site originally evaluated in the 1998 Master Plan EIR, a relatively flat 4.4-acre site bounded by

a pedestrian walkway on the north (the future “Orange Grove Arts Walk”); the on-campus Nordhoff

Street frontage road on the south; East University Drive on the east; and the existing Music Building on

the west. The building would total 163,00 square feet. The Nordhoff Street façade would be

approximately 70 feet above grade and the remainder of the building would be approximately 40 feet

above grade, with the exception of the stage-house fly-tower, which would be approximately 100 feet

above grade.

Phase 2: 2010–2014

Six projects proposed for Phase 2 of the Master Plan, for which sufficient site-level detail has been

developed, are evaluated at the project level in this EIR. The six projects are described below.

Phase 2 also includes the construction of the northern section of the proposed new Matador Drive, which

is analyzed at the program level in this EIR.



Parking Structure (PS-G6)

Parking Structure would be located on the west side of Zelzah Avenue, just south of the existing LAUSD

Northridge Academy high school, on the site of existing tennis courts. The tennis courts would be

relocated to allow construction of the parking structure. The 900,000-square-foot structure would

encompass six levels of approximately 150,000 square feet each and would accommodate 2,769 vehicles.

The parking structure would be 60 feet high (above grade) and constructed of reinforced concrete.

Vehicle access would be located on the south, east and west sides of the structure.

Student Recreation Center (Building R)

The Student Recreation Building is located just west of the existing University Student Union, and south

of Redwood Hall. The two-story, 120,000-square-foot building would include a gymnasium with

multiple indoor courts for basketball and other court sports; indoor jogging track; fitness center with

weight training and cardiovascular training equipment; multipurpose rooms for group exercise and other

activities; a wellness center; a nutritional food service area; locker rooms; and administrative space.

Lecture/Laboratory Facility (Building J)

This 140,000-square-foot, four-story building would be located east of West University Drive, directly

west of Manzanita Hall. The building would include lecture rooms, teaching and research laboratories,

faculty and department offices, and support spaces. The building will also include large lecture halls

supporting the Campus’s general lecture needs. The building’s functions would be similar to that of

existing Sierra Hall to the north, which houses the Colleges of Humanities and Social/Behavioral

Sciences.

Lecture/Laboratory Facility (Building U)

This 150,000-square-foot, four-story building would be located directly south of the University Student

Union and east of the Botanic Garden. The building would include lecture rooms, teaching and research

laboratories, faculty and department offices, and support spaces. The functions of the building would be

similar to those of the existing science buildings on the west side of East University Drive.

University Park Student Housing Expansion (SH2 and SH3)

The second phase of University Park Housing Expansion, like the first phase, would be located on the site

of existing surface parking and open space at the center of the University Park complex. This building

would similarly house approximately 252 students in a 48,000-square-foot, four-story building designed

to complement the existing housing in this area.



Faculty/Staff Housing (FH2 and FH3)

Faculty/Staff Housing proposed for construction during Phase 2 would be built adjacent to the first

phase of housing at the southern end of the North Campus Faculty/Staff Village precinct, in the area

bordered by Zelzah Avenue on the east and Lassen Street on the south. Housing is anticipated to include

approximately 150 units and would be a mix of for-sale town homes and condominiums. Approximately

15,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space would be included in this phase of faculty/staff housing.

Possible uses include a coffeehouse, dry cleaner (with off-site plant), delicatessen, or similar uses. The

perimeter of the housing community along Zelzah Avenue and Lassen Street would be landscaped as

part of this project.

Phase 3: 2015–2019

Six academic/administrative buildings are planned for construction under Phase 3, as well as an addition

to Oviatt Library and an expansion of the Central Plant in the southeast portion of the campus. Parking

Structure PS–G4 would be completed on the east side of campus during this Phase. Open green space

and playfields would be constructed on the east side of campus in areas currently occupied by surface

parking lots (PF–3, PF–4, and PF–5). The final infill student housing community at University Park

would be developed, together with another component of faculty/staff housing, on the north campus.

Phase 4: 2020–2035

During Phase 4, the final phase of Master Plan implementation, eight new academic/administrative

buildings are planned. Student housing and associated residential parking in the Northwest Precinct

would be completed during this phase. An additional parking structure (PS–B1) would be built for

general use in the southwest portion of campus.

2.7 EIR INTENDED USES/PROJECT ACTIONS AND APPROVALS

2.7.1 Intended Uses

The CSU Board of Trustees is vested with plenary power regarding the development of the CSU

campuses. Title to the CSUN campus land is held by the State of California. The Trustees are vested with

the administration of the CSU, and the powers of the Trustees incorporate both the powers previously

granted to the State Board of Education and the powers of the Director of Education (see Education Code

§66600 et seq.). The scope of the meaning of education is larger than the concept of traditional education

in classrooms, and includes programs of practical training and experience as well. The Trustees of the



CSU have full power and responsibility for the construction of all facilities connected with the CSU

(California Education Code §66606).

Section 89080 of the Education Code gives broad discretion to the Trustees. In this section, the

Legislature states its specific intention for growth, expansion, and long-range planning. This section

states that:

“…it is the intent of the Legislature, while maintaining the maximum utilization of the funds provided for the support of public higher education for all residents of this state, to permit maximum use of existing facilities and academic resources of the California State University campuses, to provide for the orderly growth and expansion of the state’s system of higher education, and to allow for effective long-range planning to meet the needs of institutions of higher education while maintaining the quality of that education.”

Accordingly, the 2005 Master Plan for the CSUN campus and any amendments must be approved by the

CSU Board of Trustees.

Additionally, the California Education Code (§89064) provides the opportunity for the CSU Trustees to

consider any project that furthers the goals and functions of the University. This section provides that the

Trustees of CSU may lease any property of a state University for any purpose that they determine is not

inconsistent with the functions of a University. The language is purposefully broad to afford the Trustees

the discretion to determine what purposes are “not inconsistent” with University functions.

Section 89036 of the California Education Code states that:

“...the Trustees may enter into agreements with any public or private agency, office, person, or institution, corporation, association, or foundation for the performance of acts or for the furnishing of services, facilities, materials, or equipment by of for the Trustees or for the joint furnishing of services and equipment by of for the Trustees or for the joint furnishing of services and facilities by the Trustees and any other party to the agreement.”

This EIR will be used by the CSU Board of Trustees to evaluate the potential impacts associated with

adoption of the proposed CSUN 2005 Master Plan. Once certified, this EIR will also be used to tier

subsequent environmental analysis for future CSUN 2005 Master Plan development projects. The EIR

could also be relied upon by responsible agencies with permitting or approval authority over project-

specific actions to be implemented in the future.

2.7.2 Requested Project Approvals

The following CSU Board of Trustees approvals are anticipated to be required for implementation of the

CSUN 2005 Master Plan:

• Adoption of the 2005 Master Plan;



• Approval of project-specific schematic design drawings for project components; and

• Approval of financing plans for project components.

In addition, implementation of certain aspects of the 2005 Master Plan may require a permit or approval

from a public agency other than the CSU Board of Trustees:

• Division of the State Architect: Handicap facilities compliance;

• State Fire Marshall: Approval of facility fire and life safety compliance;

• Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits;

• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality certification;

• Southern California Air Quality Management District: Authority to construct and/or permits to operate;

• City of Los Angeles permits for construction within City rights-of-way, if any; and

• Water, wastewater, and sanitation special district approval, if any.

2.7.3 Responsible Agency

Under CEQA, state and local agencies (other than the lead agency) that have discretionary approval over

some portion of the proposed project are considered responsible agencies (CEQA Guidelines §15381). In

the case of this project, no public agencies other than the CSU Board of Trustees have discretionary

approval over the CSUN 2005 Master Plan.

Trustee agencies are those state agencies with jurisdiction by law over natural resources held in trust for

the people of the state of California and which may be affected by the proposed project. There are no

state agencies with jurisdiction by law over natural resources potentially affected by the proposed project

at this time.

2005 Master Plan Update 1-2.pdf · Volume I of II: Draft Environmental Impact Report 2005 Master...

Documents

Transcript of 2005 Master Plan Update 1-2.pdf · Volume I of II: Draft Environmental Impact Report 2005 Master...