2005 master plan update 1-2.pdf · volume i of ii: draft environmental impact report 2005 master...
TRANSCRIPT
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
California State University, Northridge 2 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
California State University, Northridge 3 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
California State University, Northridge 4 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
California State University, Northridge 5 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
California State University, Northridge 6 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
California State University, Northridge 7 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
California State University, Northridge 8 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
California State University, Northridge 9 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
California State University, Northridge 10 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
California State University, Northridge 1.0-2 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-3 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-4 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-5 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-6 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-7 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
• 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.
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-8 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-10 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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).
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-11 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-12 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary
California State University, Northridge 1.0-13 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
California State University, Northridge 2.0-1 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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 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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-2 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-4 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-5 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-6 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-7 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-10 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-11 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-12 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-13 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 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.
10 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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-14 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-15 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-16 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-17 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-20 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-21 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
Pedestrian Pathway System
FIGURE 2.0-7
750-001•10/05
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-24 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-25 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
Service and Emergency Vehicle Access
FIGURE 2.0-9
750-001•10/05
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-28 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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-
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-29 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-33 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-34 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
Instructional, Athletics, and Recreational Precinct
FIGURE 2.0-14
750-001•10/05
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
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
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – October 2005
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-39 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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) -
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-40 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
ExistingNew Academic/Administrative Facility (this phase)
New Academic/Administrative Facility (previous phase)
New Parking Structure (this phase)
Legend
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
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
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – November 2005
NOT TO SCALEn
ExistingNew Academic/Administrative Facility (this phase)
New Academic/Administrative Facility (previous phase)
New Parking Structure (this phase)
Legend
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
PS-G4
D
FACULTY/STAFF HOUSING
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
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – November 2005
NOT TO SCALEn
PS-B1
B
PS-B5N
FACULTY/STAFF HOUSING
H10
H9
H12
H11
C
T
K
L
Y
P
G
PF-E6H6
H5
H8
H7HD
FH5 and FH6
ExistingNew Academic/Administrative Facility (this phase)
New Academic/Administrative Facility (previous phase)
New Parking Structure (this phase)
Legend
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
Phase 4
FIGURE 2.0-20
750-001•11/05
SOURCE: AC Martin Partners – November 2005
NOT TO SCALEn
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-45 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-46 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-47 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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.
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-48 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-49 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
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;
2.0 Project Description
California State University, Northridge 2.0-50 2005 Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2005
• 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.