CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project

Transcription

1 CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by California State University, Northridge Nordhoff Street Northridge, California prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 250 East 1 st Street, Suite 301 Los Angeles, California April 2018

2 CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by California State University, Northridge Nordhoff Street Northridge, California prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 250 East 1 st Street, Suite 301 Los Angeles, California April 2018

3 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

4 Table of Contents Table of Contents Initial Study Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Sponsor s Name and Address Project Location Surrounding Land Uses and Setting CSUN Master Plan Designation Description of Project Required Approvals Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Determination Environmental Checklist Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use and Planning Hydrology and Water Quality Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance References Bibliography List of Preparers Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration i

5 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Tables Table 1 Project Summary...4 Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Criteria Pollutants Table 3 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Table 4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction Table 5 Construction Emissions Table 6 Operational Emissions Table 7 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions Table 8 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Table 9 Project Sound Level Monitoring Results Table 10 Land Use and Noise Compatibility Matrix (CNEL) Table 11 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration Table 12 Project Groundborne Vibration Table 13 Comparison of Measured and Modeled Traffic Noise Levels Table 14 Comparison of Existing (2017) and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Table 15 Comparison of Future (2020) and Future Plus Project Traffic Noise Table 16 Construction Noise Levels by Phase Table 17 Estimated Project Traffic Trip Generation Table 18 Existing Plus Project Intersection Impact Analysis Table 19 Future (Year 2020) Plus Project Intersection Impact Analysis Table 20 Multiple Dry Years Water Supply and Demand Table 21 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Figures Figure 1 Regional Location...2 Figure 2 Project Location and Surrounding Uses...3 Figure 3 Photographs of Project Site...5 Figure 4 Photos of Surrounding Uses...6 Figure 5 Photos of Surrounding Uses...7 Figure 6 Conceptual Site Plan...8 Figure 7 Typical Anticipated Elevations...9 Figure 8 Conceptual Landscape Plan Figure 9 Conceptual Rendering ii

6 Table of Contents Figure 10 Views along Nordhoff Street Figure 11 Sound Measurement Locations Appendices Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results Appendix B Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix C Cultural Resource Analysis Memorandum Appendix D Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Appendix E Limited Asbestos and Lead Survey Report Appendix F Noise Measurement and Analyses Data Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration iii

7 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project This page intentionally left blank. iv

8 Initial Study Initial Study 1. Project Title CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address Facilities Planning, Design & Construction California State University, Northridge Nordhoff Street Northridge, California Contact Person and Phone Number Mary Clare Smithson, P.E., Capital Programs Manager (818) Project Sponsor s Name and Address Facilities Planning, Design & Construction California State University, Northridge Nordhoff Street Northridge, California Project Location The project site is part of the California State University, Northridge (CSUN) campus, located at Nordhoff Street in the City of Los Angeles. The 2.75-acre project site is located in the southeastern portion of the campus in assessor s parcel number Currently, the project site is developed with the Orange Grove Bistro restaurant. The site is bounded by Matador Road to the east, Dearborn Street to the north, an orange grove and pond to the west, and London plane trees and Nordhoff Street to the south. Figure 1 shows the regional location and Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project site. 6. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The entire CSUN campus comprises 353 acres located between Darby Avenue to the west, Zelzah Avenue to the east, Nordhoff Street to the south and Devonshire Street to the north. The 2.75-acre project site is bounded by Dearborn Street to the north, Matador Road to the east, the Orange Grove and associated duck pond and observatory to the west, and Nordhoff Street to the south. The site is predominately surrounded by other CSUN campus buildings and parking lots to the north, west, and east, as well as single-family residential uses across Nordhoff Street to the south and Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 1

9 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Figure 1 Regional Location 2

10 Initial Study Figure 2 Project Location and Surrounding Uses Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 3

11 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project across Zelzah Avenue to the east. Figures 3, 4, and 5 provide photographs of project site and surrounding land uses. 7. CSUN Master Plan Designation University Club/Alumni Center 8. Description of Project The goal of the project is to replace the existing Orange Grove Bistro Restaurant with an on-campus hotel and new restaurant facility on the CSUN campus through a public private partnership. The proposed project would be located at the existing Orange Grove Bistro site and would include the demolition of the existing Orange Grove Bistro restaurant. The existing facility is 44 years old and beyond its useful life. It is expected that approximately 50 percent of the room nights of the hotel will be used by the University. Located at the southeastern quadrant of the campus, a new up to six-story hotel building, approximately 70 feet in height (exclusive of a mechanical penthouse), would consist of up to approximately 150 rooms. It would also include typical hotel amenities such as a conference room, a fitness center, and a pool. The restaurant would be a separate up to approximately 13,000-squarefoot (sf) building and would be up to approximately 30 feet in height (exclusive of mechanical penthouse). The restaurant would include a bar and private dining area. The combined footprint of the hotel and restaurant buildings would be up to approximately 35,000 sf, which would cover approximately 30 percent of the 2.75-acre project site. The project would also include a surface parking lot at the northern area of the site with a capacity of approximately 135 vehicles and utilize 82 spaces within the Monterey Hall parking lot for hotel guests, restaurant patrons, and conference attendees. Figure 6 shows the proposed conceptual site plan and Figure 7 illustrates the conceptual exterior elevations of the proposed project. Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed project. Table 1 Project Summary Address Nordhoff Street Assessor s Parcel Numbers (APN) Lot Area sf (2.75 acres) Combined Building Footprint 35,000 sf approx. Floor Area Hotel 1 110,000 sf (approximate) Restaurant 1 13,000 sf (approximate) Height Hotel: up to six stories (70 feet), not including mechanical penthouse Restaurant: up to two stories (30 feet), not including mechanical penthouse Total Rooms 150 rooms (approximate) Parking Surface parking lot: ±217 parking spaces including ADA-accessible spaces 1 Includes all associated hotel amenities 4

12 Initial Study Figure 3 Photographs of Project Site Photograph A. View of the existing Orange Grove Bistro restaurant on the project site Photograph B. View of existing dwarf orange trees at the project site, and four-story parking structure north of the site across Dearborn Street Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 5

13 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Figure 4 Photos of Surrounding Uses Photograph A. View of the three-story Monterey Hall east of the project site across Matador Road Photograph B: View of the one-story single-family residences south of the project site across Nordhoff Street 6

14 Initial Study Figure 5 Photos of Surrounding Uses Photograph A. View of the adjacent Orange Grove and duck pond west of the project site Photograph B. View of the Valley Performing Arts Center west of the project across East University Drive Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 7

15 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Figure 6 Conceptual Site Plan Monterey Hall Parking Lot Additional Hotel/Restaurant Parking 82 spaces 8

16 Initial Study Figure 7 Typical Anticipated Elevations Western Elevation Eastern Elevation Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 9

17 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Construction No date for construction is proposed at this point, but construction is expected to occur between 2018 and 2020 and would take approximately two years. Soil required for grading is anticipated to be balanced on-site. No soil import or export is anticipated to be required. Drainage The project site is relatively level with no pronounced slopes. Stormwater would be collected and transferred to the street stormwater system. The proposed hotel and restaurant buildings would also include roof drainage, such as downspouts and scuppers. Drainage would not be allowed to collect anywhere on the project site or flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. The project would include permeable paving throughout the center courtyard and quad area. Site Access and Parking The proposed project would connect to the Arts Walk, which is an on-campus pedestrian path adjacent to the western boundary of the site. The Arts Walk would provide the project site with direct access to the western Orange Grove, duck pond, observatory, Valley Center of Performing Arts, and larger part of the CSUN campus. Primary vehicle access is anticipated to be provided by two new ingress/egress driveways off Dearborn Street and Matador Road. A total of approximately 217 parking spaces would be provided on-site, including required ADA accessible spaces. Landscaping and Design The proposed hotel and restaurant buildings would likely be configured around a center courtyard area. See Figure 8 for conceptual landscape plan. Courtyard amenities could include movable picnic tables, patio furniture, umbrellas, shrubs, trees, and a center water feature. The University seeks to preserve and maintain the sycamore trees located along the southern boundary of the project site and the trees contained in the future courtyard of the project. The orange trees located to the west of the project limits (traditionally referred to as the campus Orange Grove) would not be impacted by the project. Miscellaneous random dwarf orange trees in the 2.75-acre site would likely be removed. The project frontage along Matador Road may include a hotel monument sign, accent trees, and shrub plantings. The hotel and restaurant is anticipated to be designed in a classic modern approach and follow a neutral color scheme for compatibility with the surrounding existing landscape (i.e., Orange Grove, London plane trees) and newer campus buildings. See Figure 9 for conceptual rendering. Potential Occupancy and Events The goal of the proposed project is to address a shortage of commercial lodging facilities near the CSUN campus while promoting educational, research, athletic, and community initiatives of the university. Potential occupancy of the proposed hotel throughout the year includes hosting families of students (e.g., during the campus move-in process, graduation), visiting athletic teams, Valley Performing Arts Center visitors, and other non-university related demand. 10

18 Initial Study Figure 8 Conceptual Landscape Plan Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 11

19 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Figure 9 Conceptual Rendering 12

20 Initial Study 9. Required Approvals The proposed project will require the following CSU review and approvals: Revision to the Campus Master Plan Capital outlay program amendment Schematic plans Final approval of real property public-private partnership Others, as may be necessary Other project approvals may include: Division of the State Architect (accessibility compliance) State Fire Marshal (fire/life safety) City of Los Angeles Fire Department (access) Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 13

21 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project This page intentionally left blank. 14

22 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Environmental Factors Potentially Affected This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is Potentially or Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Utilities and Service Systems Determination Based on this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 15

23

24 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics Environmental Checklist 1 Aesthetics Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The Santa Susana Mountains are visible from the CSUN campus at certain on-campus vantage points looking north. However, views of the mountains from the project site are obstructed by the existing four-story parking structure located north of the project site. Although the proposed project would include a new up to six-story building on the project site, it would not obstruct views of the Santa Susana Mountains from single-family residences south of the project site. The nearest residences are located approximately 150 feet south of the project site across Nordhoff Street. These one-story residences are located behind an approximately seven-foot retaining wall and most contain private trees on their property, which currently obstruct the direct line-of-sight of northern views (Figure 4). Nordhoff Street, an arterial roadway owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles, serves as the front door to the campus. Existing landscape along Nordhoff Street near the project site consists of London Plane trees at the southeastern end of the campus frontage, anchored by the signature CSUN logo sculpture at the corner of Nordhoff Street and Zelzah Avenue (CSUN 2005a). The project would not impact views of the existing London Plane trees along Nordhoff Street or the CSUN logo. In addition, the project would preserve and maintain the sycamore trees along the southern boundary of the project, which also currently block northern views from the residences. See Figure 10 for photos of London plane trees along Nordhoff Hall. Because the project would not obstruct any public views of natural features, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 17

25 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Figure 10 Views along Nordhoff Street Photograph A. View from Nordhoff Street looking north at the project site blocked by existing London plane trees Photograph B. View from Nordhoff Street looking north at Orange Grove blocked by existing London plane trees 18

26 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The project site is located in an urban area and does not contain any scenic resources such as natural habitats or rock outcroppings, nor is it in proximity to any such resources. The project site is not on or near any National Register of Historic Places, California State Historical Landmarks, or California Historical Resources or Points of Interest (California State Parks 2017). The nearest freeways to the project site are California State Route (SR) 118 and Interstate 405 (I-405) located approximately three miles north and east of the project site, respectively. However, the project site is not visible from either freeway. Moreover, according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), these are not officially designated or eligible state scenic highways (Caltrans 2017). Demolition activities required for construction of the hotel and restaurant would likely involve removal of random dwarf orange trees. However, these trees are not visible from a scenic highway. Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade views of mature trees, rock outcroppings, or any other scenic resources along or visible from a scenic highway. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The 2.75-acre acre project site is located on the CSUN campus and is currently developed with the one-story Orange Grove Bistro restaurant. The project seeks to preserve and maintain the sycamore trees located along the southern boundary of the project site and the trees contained in the future courtyard of the project. The orange trees located to the west of the project limits (traditionally referred to as the campus Orange Grove) will not be impacted as part of the project. Miscellaneous random dwarf orange trees contained in the 2.75-acre site would likely be removed. However, due to large number of trees surrounding the site, the visual effect of this tree-removal would be minimal. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing restaurant for construction of a new restaurant, up to 30 feet elevation and an up to six-story hotel facility on the project site. Figure 9 depicts a conceptual rendering of the proposed project, which would have a modern design. Surrounding uses adjacent to the project site include the four-story (approximately 45 feet) parking structure across Dearborn Street north of the site, the three-story (approximately 30 feet) Monterey Hall across Matador Road east of the site, and the approximately 92-foot Valley Performing Arts Center across East University Drive west of the site (Figures 2 through 5). In addition, the four-story approximately 75-foot Chaparral Hall is located 415 feet northwest of the project site. According to Principal III: Building Mass and Placement of the Master Planning Principals contained in the CSUN 2005 Master Plan Update, new buildings shall not exceed six stories in height above grade and the height of an individual building shall be appropriate to that of other structures in the contiguous open space (CSUN 2005a). Although the project would replace the existing restaurant with another restaurant similar in size, the up to six-story hotel would introduce a building with increased height and mass. The proposed hotel would be up to 70 feet tall. Because the hotel would be up to six stories and surrounded by other CSUN facilities with comparable height, it would be consistent with Principal III of the CSUN Master Planning Principals for new buildings. In addition, the hotel would replace an aging facility with a new hotel facility that is architecturally compatible with other new Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 19

27 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project buildings in the southern portion of the CSUN campus. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project would have indoor lighting in hotel rooms and indoor amenity areas, as well as exterior lighting for private balconies and the outdoor courtyard. Most of the lighting associated with the project would occur on the ground level floor near the restaurant, hotel entrance, and outdoor courtyard of the hotel. The proposed project would also utilize reflective materials, such as glass surfaces in its balcony doors and windows, which could create glare during daylight hours. In addition, the proposed project would generate new vehicle traffic to and from the project site that would contribute light from vehicle headlamps and glare from vehicle surfaces and windows. The nearest receptors that are sensitive to light and glare are single-family residences located approximately 150 feet south of the project site across Nordhoff Street. However, the project would preserve and maintain the sycamore trees along the southern boundary of the project, which currently obstructs views of the project site from Nordhoff Street (Figure 10). As shown in Figure 4, the adjacent single-family residences south of the project site are also located behind a retaining wall and existing residential trees along Nordhoff Hall. Since most of the project lighting would occur on the ground floor and the single-family residences are also only one story in height and shielded from lighting at this height, lighting and glare from the proposed project would not substantially illuminate southern residences. In addition, a majority of hotel room lights would be off at night during sleep hours, which would further minimize lighting and glare in the project area during nighttime hours. Because the project site is in a fully urbanized area, which already experiences high levels of nighttime lighting, and sensitive receptors would be shielded from project-generated light, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 20

28 Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forestry Resources 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Would the project: Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 21

29 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The project site is developed with the Orange Grove Bistro restaurant. In addition, London plane trees and dwarf orange trees occupy the site (Figure 2, Project Location and Surrounding Uses, and Figure 3, Site Photos). The project seeks to preserve and maintain the sycamore trees along the southern boundary of the project site. However, miscellaneous random dwarf orange trees in the 2.75-acre site would be removed for construction of the proposed project. The orange trees located to the west of the project limits (referred to as the campus Orange Grove) will not be impacted as part of the project site. According to the California Department of Conservation s (DOC) 2014 map of the State of California Williamson Act Contract Land shows that the neighborhood of Northridge, along with most of Los Angeles County is designated as urban and built-up land and not inside an area of prime farmland (DOC 2014). Therefore, the project would not involve any development that would result in the conversion of designated farmland to non-agricultural use. More specifically, the project site is designated University Club/Alumni Center by the CSUN 2035 Master Plan Update (CSUN 2005a). Neither the project site nor the surrounding parcels are zoned for forest land or timberland, and there is no timberland production at the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact on such resources. In addition, the project would have no impact with respect to agricultural zoning or other conversion of designated farmland to non-agricultural use. NO IMPACT 22

30 Environmental Checklist Air Quality 3 Air Quality Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, the SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not air quality standards are met or exceeded, the Basin is classified as being in attainment or nonattainment. The health effects associated with criteria pollutants are described in Table 2. Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 23

31 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Table 2 Pollutant Ozone Health Effects Associated with Criteria Pollutants Adverse Effects (1) Short-term exposures: pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage. Carbon monoxide (CO) (1) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (2) decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (3) impairment of central nervous system functions; and (4) possible increased risk to fetuses. Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Suspended particulate matter (PM 10 ) Suspended particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) (1) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (2) risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and (3) contribution to atmospheric discoloration. (1) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms that may include wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma. (1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma). a (1) Excess deaths from short- and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children, such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma. a a More detailed discussions on the health effects associated with exposure to suspended particulate matter can be found in the following documents: 1. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Particulate Matter Health Effects and Standard Recommendations (2016): 2. USEPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (2004): Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2017a According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the project site is located in a nonattainment area for both the federal and State standards for ozone and particulate matter with a diameter between 2.5 and 10 micrometers (PM 10 ), and the State standard for fine particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2.5 ). This nonattainment status is a result of several factors, the primary ones being the naturally adverse meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion and diffusion of pollutants, the limited capacity of the local airshed to eliminate pollutants from the air, and the number, type, and density of emission sources in the Basin. The regional climate in the SCAB is semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Air quality in the SCAB is primarily influenced by meteorology and a wide range of emissions sources, such as dense population centers, substantial vehicular traffic, and industry. Due to its nonattainment status, the Basin is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to recognized acceptable standards. 24

32 Environmental Checklist Air Quality Accordingly, the SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that provides a strategy for the attainment of State and federal air quality standards. The SCAQMD recommends the use of quantitative thresholds to determine the significance of temporary construction-related pollutant emissions and project operations. These thresholds are shown in Table 3. Table 3 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholds Pollutant Operation Thresholds (lbs/day) Construction Thresholds (lbs/day) NO X ROG PM PM SO X CO Lead Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. ROG are also referred to as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Source: SCAQMD. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds (2015): The SCAQMD has also developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) in response to concerns regarding the exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, and distance to the sensitive receptor. LSTs have been developed for nitrogen oxides (NO X ), carbon monoxide (CO), PM 10, and PM 2.5. However, LSTs only apply to emissions in a fixed stationary location, including idling emissions during both project construction and operation. As a result, LSTs are not applied to mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2008). LSTs have been developed for emissions in areas up to five acres in size, with air pollutant modeling recommended for activity in larger areas. The SCAQMD provides lookup tables for project sites that measure one, two, or five acres (SCAQMD 2009). Because the project site encompasses approximately 2.75 acres, LSTs for a two-acre site were used for a conservative analysis of the project s air quality emissions against more stringent thresholds. The project site is located in Source Receptor Area 7 (SRA-7, East San Fernando Valley), and the LSTs for construction on a two-acre site in SRA-7 are shown in Table 4. The nearest sensitive receptors are Monterey Hall (a campus facility with a children s playground located approximately 50 feet east of the project site), and singlefamily residences located approximately 150 feet south of the project site across Nordhoff Street. LSTs are provided for receptors at a distance of 82 to 1,640 feet from the project site boundary. Construction activity would occur approximately 50 feet from the closest sensitive receptor (the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 25

33 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project children s playground east of the construction site). According to the SCAQMD s publication Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology, projects with boundaries closer than 82 feet to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 82 feet. Therefore, allowable emissions for a 2-acre site in SRA-7 at a distance of 82 feet were used for the analysis, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Pollutant SCAQMD LSTs for Construction Allowable Emissions from a 2-acre Site in SRA- 7 for a Receptor 25 Meters Away (lbs/day) Gradual Conversion of NO X to NO CO 786 PM 10 7 PM Source: SCAMQD Thresholds for Construction and Operation with Gradual Conversion of NOx to NO2 (2009): a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? A significant air quality impact may occur if the proposed project is not consistent with the applicable AQMP or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the polices or obtaining the goals of that plan. According to SCAQMD, to be consistent with the AQMP, a project must conform to the local General Plan and must not result in or contribute to an exceedance of the City s projected population, housing, or employment growth forecast. The 2016 AQMP, adopted in March 2017, is a regional and multi-agency effort (SCAQMD, CARB, Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG], and USEPA). State and federal planning requirements include developing control strategies, attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress, and maintenance plans. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the latest applicable growth assumptions, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2016 AQMP was developed using SCAG s population forecasts. According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the city of Los Angeles has a current population of 4,041,707 with an average household size of 2.86 persons (DOF 2017). SCAG forecasts that the population of Los Angeles will grow to 4,609,400 by 2040, which is an increase of 578,496, or 14 percent (SCAG 2016). Development of the project would involve the demolition of a restaurant and construction of a hotel and new restaurant facility on the CSUN campus. As discussed in Section 13, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not directly generate population growth in the project vicinity. According to the SCAG 2012 Employment Density Study Summary Report, a 13,000 sf restaurant would generate approximately 18 employees (13,000 sf at 730 sf per employee) and the hotel would generate approximately 93 employees (110,000 sf at 1,179 sf per employee) for a total of 111 employees (SCAG 2012). However, it is anticipated that employees would mainly come from the local existing labor workforce and generally would not relocate to the neighborhood of Northridge. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial increase in population. Impacts would be less than significant. 26

34 Environmental Checklist Air Quality Therefore, implementation of the project would not exceed SCAG growth forecasts or generate emissions outside AQMP forecasts. The project would not conflict with the population forecasts contained in the 2016 AQMP and this impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Project construction would generate diesel emissions and dust. Construction equipment that would generate criteria air pollutants includes excavators, graders, dump trucks, and loaders. It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered. The project s construction emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version and model defaults for the types and number of pieces of equipment that would be used on-site during each of the construction phases. See Appendix A for CalEEMod output sheets and project emissions. The construction schedule was based on project information and the architectural coating phase was changed to overlap with building construction, representing more realistic construction practices. For the demolition phase, the amount of demolition material was estimated based on the existing square footage of the buildings on the project site. The project would involve demolition of the existing restaurant, site preparation, site grading, construction, and other construction-related activities. The restaurant that would be demolished during project construction is currently in use. Therefore, its operational emissions were also modeled and accounted for when determining the proposed project s net operational emissions analysis. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project were also estimated using CalEEMod. Operational emissions include mobile source emissions, energy emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with operation of on-site development. Proposed project traffic generation rates from the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers were used for the traffic analysis in order to provide an estimate of the potential traffic generation emissions (Appendix B). Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas consumption for space and water heating. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating. The project would comply with all applicable regulatory standards. In particular, the project would comply with 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). Further, the grading phase involves the greatest amount of heavy equipment and the greatest generation of fugitive dust. For the purposes of construction emissions modeling, it was assumed that the project would comply with the SCAQMD Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce fugitive dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located in the SCAB. The architectural coating phase involves the greatest release of ROG. The emissions modeling also includes the use of low- VOC paint (50 g/l for non-flat coatings) as required by SCAQMD Rule Rules 403 and 1113 were added as mitigation in CalEEMod, as discussed below. Cal Green standards include indoor water usage reduction, regulation of outdoor water usage, and construction waste reduction. Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 27

35 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Construction Emissions Table 5 summarizes the estimated maximum daily construction emissions. As shown, projectgenerated emissions would not exceed SCAQMD recommended thresholds for ROG, NO x, CO, PM 10, PM 2.5, or LSTs. Therefore, impacts associated with construction of the project would be less than significant. Table 5 Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Construction Phase ROG NO x CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions SCAQMD Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No Maximum On-Site Emissions Local Significance Thresholds (LST) 2 N/A Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No No No See Appendix A for CalEEMod model output. Winter emissions were used for a conservative estimate. Construction was assumed to commence in Fall If construction occurs at a later date, emissions would likely be lower. 1 LSTs only apply to on-site emissions and do not apply to mobile emissions (the majority of operational emissions). Therefore, only onsite construction emissions are compared to LSTs. 2. LSTs for a 2-acre site in SRA-7 (Table 4). Operational Emissions Table 6 shows estimated emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. The majority of project-related operational emissions would be due to area emissions and vehicle trips to and from the site. The emissions from the proposed project take into consideration operational emissions from the current existing land uses in operation on the project site. Net emissions from the proposed project are the emissions from the proposed project minus emissions from operation of the existing land uses. As shown in Table 6, emissions would be well below SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants. 28

36 Environmental Checklist Air Quality Table 6 Operational Emissions Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) Operational Phase ROG NO x CO SO X PM 10 PM 2.5 Proposed Project Area 2.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Energy < Mobile Total Existing Land Use Area <0.1 <0.1 < Energy < <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Mobile < Total < Net Emissions From Proposed Project < SCAQMD Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No See Appendix A for CalEEMod model output. 1 Net emissions = Proposed Project Existing Land Use According to the SCAQMD, a project s potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts (SCAQMD 2003). This means that a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase if an individual project exceeds the SCAQMD s recommended daily regional thresholds for projectspecific impacts, or if a project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. As discussed above in impact a., the project would not conflict with the AQMP and would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Per SCAQMD s cumulative air quality impact methodology, the project s air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the project s shortterm and long-term impacts to local and regional air quality would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Sensitive receptors are defined as land uses that are more likely to be used by these population groups and include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential areas. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are Monterey Hall (a campus facility with a children s playground located approximately 50 feet east of the project site), and single-family residences located approximately 150 feet south of the project site across Nordhoff Street. However, as indicated in Tables 5 and 6, construction and Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 29

37 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD regional thresholds, as well as LSTs. Furthermore, the project is a residential building and would not introduce new stationary sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) near sensitive receptors. Elevated CO levels can occur at or near intersections that experience severe traffic congestion. Given the low background CO levels in the area and the fact that project emissions are well under SCAQMD thresholds, it is not anticipated that project-related traffic would create or contribute to any exceedances of state or federal CO standards. Additionally, as discussed in Section 16, Transportation, the CSUN Hotel Project Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers found that the project would not result in significant impacts at study intersections in the project vicinity (this study is also included as Appendix B to this document, Fehr & Peers 2017). Thus, no quantitative CO analysis is warranted since the project would not result in CO hotspots. Therefore, the project would not generate substantial pollutant concentrations that would impact nearby sensitive receptors. The California Air Resources Board s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective recommends that local agencies avoid siting new, sensitive land uses within specific distances of potential sources of TACs, such as freeways, high-traffic roads, distribution centers, railroads, and ports (CARB 2005). In particular, CARB recommends that local agencies avoid siting new, sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway. The primary concern is the effect of diesel exhaust particulate, a TAC, on sensitive uses. The freeways nearest to the project site are SR 118 and I-405 located approximately three miles north and east of the project site, respectively. Therefore, the project would not expose proposed sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and this impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if construction or operation of the project would result in generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas. Substantial objectionable odors are typically associated with such uses as agriculture, wastewater treatment, industrial facilities, or landfills. The project would involve the demolition of a restaurant and construction of a hotel and new restaurant facility on the CSUN campus. Demolition and construction activities could create temporary odors associated with diesel fuel combustion. These odors could be considered to be objectionable. However, due to the short-term and temporary nature of construction activity, odor impacts would not be significant. Further, hotel and restaurant uses are not identified as land uses typically associated with odor complaints in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, the project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and there would be no impact NO IMPACT 30

38 4 Biological Resources Would the project: Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Environmental Checklist Biological Resources Less than Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 31

39 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Because the project site is in an urbanized area, it does not contain native biological habitats or habitats for special status species. However, trees on or bordering the project site could provide nesting habitat for a variety of bird species that are afforded protection under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA 16 United State Code Section ). The proposed project has the potential to impact migratory and other bird species if construction activities occur during the nesting season, which is typically February 15 through September 15. Construction-related disturbances could result in nest abandonment or premature fledging of the young. Therefore, the following mitigation measure would be required to reduce potential impacts to on-site nesting birds to a less than significant level by requiring the provision of buffers from any identified active bird nests during construction. BIO-1 Habitat Modification Nesting Birds To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, including raptor species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, project activities including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February 15 through September 15). If construction must begin during the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors). The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in northern California natural communities. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined by the qualified biologist and demarcated with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No grounddisturbing activities shall occur in this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 32

40 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources The project site is located in an urban setting and no habitat of quality to support native riparian plant/wildlife species or other sensitive natural community is present. A pond is located in the existing Orange Grove west of the project site, which is habitat to ducks and turtles. However, the pond is not listed on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper as a federally protected wetland or water as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). Other protected waters do not occur in the vicinity of the project site (USFWS 2017). In addition, the project site and surrounding area are not shown on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Biographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) databases for sensitive natural communities or connective migratory habitats. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The project seeks to preserve and maintain the sycamore trees located along the southern boundary of the project site and the trees contained in the future courtyard of the project. The orange trees located to the west of the project limits (traditionally referred to as the campus Orange Grove) will not be impacted as part of the project. Miscellaneous random dwarf orange trees contained in the 2.75-acre site would be removed. The Landscape Master Plan in the CSUN 2005 Master Plan Update recommends maintaining and revitalizing the Orange Grove adjacent to the project site as a tribute to the agricultural history of the San Fernando Valley. However, it does not mention protection for the trees adjacent to the grove, on the project site (CSUN 2005a). No impact would occur. NO IMPACT f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site is in an urbanized area that is not subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 33

41 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project This page intentionally left blank. 34

42 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources 5 Cultural Resources Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in ? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? A significant impact may occur if a project would disturb historic resources that presently exist in the project site. Pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is presumed significant if it is listed on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or has been determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC). A historical resource may also be considered significant if the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that the resource meets the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR. CEQA also contains the following additional guidelines for defining a historical resource: California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Section d.1) Those resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section (k) of the Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section (g) of the Public Resources Code Those resources that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (generally, if it meets criteria for listing on the CRHR), provided the determination is supported by substantial evidence Those resources a local agency believes are historical for more broadly defined reasons than identified in the preceding criteria The University seeks to preserve and maintain the sycamore trees located along the southern boundary of the project site and the trees contained in the future courtyard of the project. The orange trees located to the west of the project limits (traditionally referred to as the campus Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 35

43 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Orange Grove) will not be impacted as part of the project. Miscellaneous random dwarf orange trees contained in the 2.75-acre site would likely be removed. Development of the project would involve the demolition of an existing Orange Grove restaurant. However, according to ZIMAS, the project site is not listed on the City of Los Angeles HistoricPlacesLA, which is the City's official inventory of historic resources designated under local, State, and federal programs (ZIMAS n.d.). Therefore, the project would have no impact to historic resources. NO IMPACT b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in ? c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? On November 15, 2017, Rincon Associate Archaeologist Meagan Szromba performed a pedestrian field survey of the project site and conducted a search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. The search was conducted to identify any previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. The records search additionally included a review of available historic maps and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The SCCIC records search identified two previously recorded cultural resources and six previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site (See Appendix C). Ms. Szromba examined ground surfaces with no grass cover, including dirt areas towards the north of the project site and dirt patches throughout the project site. No cultural resources were identified during the field survey. The project site is flat, does not contain unique geologic features, and has been previously disturbed for the construction of the existing restaurant and the planting of trees. Therefore, the likelihood that intact archaeological or paleontological resources are present is low. Nevertheless, the proposed project would require excavation below the surficial soil layers for the construction of an underground parking level. This could potentially uncover previously undetected archaeological/paleontological resources or human remains. Therefore, the possibility for such resources exists and impacts would be potentially significant. Compliance with the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to unanticipated cultural resources and human remains to a less than significant level by providing a process for evaluating and, as necessary, avoiding impacts to any identified resources. CR-1 Cultural Resources (Archaeological) If potential cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional 36

44 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. In the event that archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during project construction, a qualified archaeologist will consult with appropriate Native American groups to determine an appropriate course of action. As part of this process, it may be determined that a Native American monitor must be present during any remaining ground disturbance. CR-2 Cultural Resources (Paleontological) In the event that a previously unknown fossil is uncovered during project construction, all work shall cease until a certified paleontologist can investigate the find and make appropriate recommendations. Any artifacts uncovered shall be recorded and removed for storage at a location to be determined by the monitor. CR-3 Cultural Resources (Human Remains) If any human remains are found as a result of construction activities, adherence to California Health and Safety Code Section would avoid significant impacts to such resources. Section requires that if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be notified to make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 37

45 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project This page intentionally left blank. 38

46 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils 6 Geology and Soils Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 39

47 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Geotechnologies, Inc. conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the project site on November 18, The report provides geotechnical recommendations for the development of the project site, including earthwork, seismic design, retaining walls, excavations, shoring, and foundation design. This analysis is based on the findings of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which is included as Appendix D. a.1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? a.2. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The project site is part of the CSUN campus and is relatively level, with no pronounced topographic highs or lows. However, similar to all of Southern California, the City of Los Angeles is underlain by local faults with detectable rupture areas, as well as blind thrust faults, which do not show signs at the earth s surface. According to the City of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element, there have been 60 damaging seismic events in the Los Angeles region since 1800 (Los Angeles 1996). The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation determined that the primary geologic hazard at the site is moderate to strong ground motion (acceleration) caused by an earthquake on any of the local or regional faults. The potential for other earthquake-induced hazards, including surface rupture and liquefactions, was also evaluated. Ground rupture is defined as surface displacement which occurs along the surface trace of faults during an earthquake. However, based on research of available literature and results of site reconnaissance, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation concluded that no known active or potentially active faults underlie the project site. In addition, the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on these considerations, the potential for surface ground rupture at the project site is low. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, silty-to-cohesionless soils below the groundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength induced by an earthquake. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures. Based on laboratory testing and the depth of the groundwater table of the project site, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation determined that the potential for liquefaction at the project site is remote. Notwithstanding the above, any strong seismic event at a nearby fault could produce considerable levels of ground shaking throughout the city. The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with California Building Code (CBC) standards for earthquake safety. Based on site reconnaissance, laboratory testing, and research, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation concluded that development of a hotel is feasible from a geotechnical engineering perspective provided compliance and implementation of recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for site development. Compliance with local and State building codes as well as the project-specific recommendations in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation would reduce potential risks due to seismic events to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 40

48 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils a.4. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Exhibit C of the City s Safety Element, Landslide Inventory & Hillside Areas, indicates that the project site lies in a relatively flat area of Los Angeles without hillside areas and without identified potential for landslide (Los Angeles 1996). Because there is no documented risk of landslides on the project site and the area is flat, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The proposed project would be constructed on a flat site that has been partially developed with an existing restaurant. There is potential for soil erosion to occur at the site during site preparation and grading activities associated with the project, which would involve soil disturbance and excavation for the construction of the underground parking lot. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, dust control measures would be implemented during construction as required by the SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions may include watering exposed surfaces and covering soil stockpiles. These measures are also effective for reducing soil erosion. In addition, as discussed in Section 9.0, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would be required to control pollutant discharge by implementing a combination of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMP) during general operation of the project to ensure that stormwater runoff meets the established water quality standards and waste discharge requirements per the California State University (CSU) Post-Construction BMPs. Structural BMPs functions include mechanisms or that store or detain runoff such that stormwater constituents settle out or are filtered and trapped by underlying soil or media. Non-structural BMPs are such measures as literature and signage that encourage facility users to eliminate nonstormwater discharges into the storm drain system and include maintenance programs, spill prevention plans, and street sweeping (CSU 2014). Compliance with SCAQMD and CSU regulations would result in less than significant impacts erosion and loss of topsoil. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As discussed in impact discussion a.1 to a.3, the project site is in a flat area that has not been identified as at risk to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, or collapse. In addition, according to the CSUN Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 2005 Master Plan Update, there are no significant geological hazards anticipated from on-campus development and construction activities have occurred on the campus for over 40 years without the incidence of expansive soils or subsidence (CSUN 2006). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The proposed project would replace existing development in an urbanized, flat landscape. No issues with expansive soils are known to be present and the area of the project site is underlain primarily Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 41

49 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project by unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel alluvium that does not display the clay-rich content typical of expansive soils. Because the project would not be located on expansive soil and would comply with CBC standards, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The neighborhood of Northridge is served by an existing sewer system. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or any other alternative waste water disposal systems. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT 42

50 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere naturally regulates Earth s temperature. However, emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) are the GHGs that are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO 2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH 4 results from offgassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the twenty-first century than were observed during the twentieth century. Some of the potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. While these potential impacts identify the possible effects of climate change at a global and potentially statewide level, in general, scientific modeling tools are currently unable to predict what impacts would occur locally. In response to an increase in man-made GHG concentrations over the past 150 years, California has implemented AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions (essentially a 25 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32, which requires CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by Based upon CARB s California Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2016 Edition, California produced about 442 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) in 2014 (CARB 2017). In 2014, CSUN completed and reported its first Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, covering the period from in preparation for the development of its Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CSUN CAP was released in 2016 with the goal of achieving 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2020 and net zero emissions (carbon neutrality) by This plan addresses greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions generated by energy use on the CSUN campus (Scope 1 and 2 emissions) and from Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 43

51 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project activities related, but not directly controlled by the campus, such as commuting and business travel (Scope 3 emissions). The CAP is based on a Strategic Energy Plan that establishes a clear path towards eliminating Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040 through a number of defined energy conservation and efficiency projects combined with increased use of renewable energy by both CSUN and the local utility company. Scope 3 emissions will be reduced through a number of strategies that alter the mode mix of transportation used by CSUN students and employees, combined with increased use of electric and hybrid vehicles, and improved vehicle fuel economy standards established by the USEPA (CSUN 2016). The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. The 2008 SCAQMD threshold considers emissions of over 10,000 MT of CO 2 e per year to be significant. However, the SCAQMD s threshold applies only to stationary sources and is expressly intended to apply only when the SCAQMD is the CEQA lead agency. In the latest guidance provided by the SCAQMD s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group in September 2010, SCAQMD considered a tiered approach to determine the significance of residential and commercial projects. The draft tiered approach is outlined in the meeting minutes, dated September 29, 2010 (SCAQMD 2010). Tier 1. If the project is exempt from further environmental analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. If not, then the Tier 2 threshold should be considered. Tier 2. Consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines section 15064(h)(3), 15125(d) or 15152(a). Under this Tier, if the proposed project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If there is not an adopted plan, then a Tier 3 approach would be appropriate. Tier 3. Establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 3,000 MT of CO 2 e per year for mixed use projects. Tier 4. Establishes a service population threshold to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 4.8 MT of CO 2 e per year for land use projects. Because CSUN does not have project-specific GHG thresholds, the proposed project is evaluated based on the SCAQMD s recommended Tier 3 significance threshold of 3,000 MT of CO 2 e per year. The SCAQMD threshold was designed to achieve regional GHG reductions consistent with the AB 32 statewide target of 1990 emission levels by It has not been updated to reflect the more stringent SB 32 statewide reduction target that went into effect in January However, the AEP white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, recommends that for projects with a horizon of 2020 or earlier, a threshold based on meeting AB 32 targets should continue to be used (AEP 2016). Because CARB has not yet adopted a Scoping Plan Update that would set new State guidelines to meet the SB 32 target, no quantitative threshold can be calculated to ensure land use projects contribute their fair share of emission reductions. In addition, the project is anticipated to be operational by 2020, within the scope of the current thresholds. Therefore, the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold remains the most applicable threshold for evaluating the proposed project s GHG impacts. 44

52 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Construction activities, energy use, daily operational activities, and mobile sources (traffic) due to the proposed project would generate GHG emissions. As discussed in Section 3.0, Air Quality, CalEEMod version was used to calculate emissions resulting from project construction and long-term operation. Emissions exceeding the 3,000 MT of CO 2 e threshold would be considered significant. Construction GHG Emissions Although construction activity is addressed in this analysis, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) does not discuss whether any of the suggested threshold approaches adequately address impacts from temporary construction activity. The CEQA and Climate Change white paper states that additional study is needed to make such an assessment or to develop separate thresholds for construction activity (CAPCOA 2008). Nevertheless, the SCAQMD has recommended amortizing construction-related emissions over a 30-year period in conjunction with the proposed project s operational emissions. Construction activity would occur over a period of approximately two years beginning in November 2018, with completion and opening of the project expected by October Based on CalEEMod results, construction of the project would generate an estimated 560 MT of CO 2 e, as shown in Table 7. Amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of the project), construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 19 MT of CO 2 e per year. Table 7 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions Year Project Emissions (MT of CO 2 e) Total 560 Total Amortized over 30 Years 19 MT per year See Appendix A for CalEEMod model output. Construction was assumed to commence in Fall If construction occurs at a later date, emissions would likely be lower. Operational GHG Emissions Operational emissions include area sources (consumer products, landscape maintenance equipment, and painting), energy use (electricity and natural gas), solid waste, and transportation emissions. Operational emissions were also estimated using CalEEMod. However, CalEEMod does not calculate nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions related to mobile sources. N 2 O emissions were estimated based on the proposed project s vehicle miles traveled using calculation methods provided by the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) 2009 General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009). Operational GHG emissions for the proposed project and the existing land use are shown in Table 8. Net emissions from the proposed project are the total emissions from the proposed project minus total emissions from operation of the existing restaurant on the project site, which the project would replace. Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 45

53 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Table 8 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO 2 e) Proposed Project Construction 19 Operational Area 1 Energy 1,030 Solid Waste 52 Water 72 Mobile CO 2 and CH 4 1,966 N 2 O 93 Total for Proposed Project 3,233 Existing Land Use Operational Area 1 Energy 243 Solid Waste 3 Water 18 Mobile CO 2 and CH N 2 O 17 Total for Existing Land Use 663 Net Emissions From Proposed Project 1 2,570 SCAQMD Thresholds 3,000 Threshold Exceeded? No See Appendix A for CalEEMod model output. 1 Net emissions = Proposed Project Existing Land Use As shown in Table 8, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold. However, when considering the GHG currently being generated by the existing restaurant, the net increase in GHG emissions would be approximately 2,570 MT of CO 2 e, which would not exceed the 3,000 MT of CO 2 e threshold. In addition, the proposed project would include sustainability features through its design and construction, such as permeable pavers, natural ventilation, daylighting, and energy efficient LED lighting.. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 46

54 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above in the background portion of this section, a number of plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the Southern California region, including AB 32 and SB 375. GHG reduction plans that address these regulations and apply to CSUN include the CSUN CAP and SCAG RTP/SCS. Therefore, the following is an analysis of how the project would be consistent with regional and local goals and policies to reduce GHG emissions. CSUN Climate Action Plan (CAP) The CSUN CAP was prepared in 2016 with the goal of achieving 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2020 and net zero emissions by This plan addresses greenhouse gas emissions generated by energy use on the CSUN campus (Scope 1 and 2 emissions) and from activities related, but not directly controlled by the campus, such as commuting and business travel (Scope 3 emissions). Because electricity is used in every building on campus, CSUN developed a Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) to identify energy conservation measures associated with the CAP. The SEP evaluated electricity on the main campus to determine current efficiencies, identify opportunities for improvement, and list energy efficiency measures for implementation. The SEP revealed that on average 47 percent of the electricity consumed in campus buildings was from lighting, with HVAC load consuming 32 percent, and plug loads making up the remaining 21 percent. Buildout of the proposed project would increase on-campus emissions when compared to current conditions. However, the project would include design sustainability features to reduce on-site electricity use and achieve compatibility with the CSUN CAP. Electricity for the proposed project would be used in a variety of applications to support the normal operations of the hotel and restaurant, including heating and cooling, lighting, kitchens, and refrigerators. The project would include energy-conservation strategies consistent with the CSUN CAP, such as energy-efficient cooling and heating systems, LED lighting, and daylighting.. In addition, CSUN has implemented numerous infrastructure improvements to curb the high dependency on automobile use, including increasing secure bicycle parking on campus. The proposed project would include short-term bicycle parking for hotel guests, restaurant patrons, and other site visitors. The project site is also located near public transportation (bus stops are located approximately 450 feet east and west of the project site along Nordhoff Avenue), which would encourage use of public transportation to and from the project site. In addition, as demonstrated above in Table 8, project emissions would fall below SCAQMD s recommended regional GHG threshold and, consequently, would not conflict with AB 32. SCAG RTP/SCS SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the State s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from vehicles for 2020 and In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In April 2016, SCAG adopted the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. SCAG s RTP/SCS includes a commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources by promoting compact and infill development to comply with SB 375. A goal of the RTP/SCS is to encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. The proposed hotel and restaurant project would be infill development and would Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 47

55 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project be walking distance from other CSUN campus facilities and commercial uses, as well as public transportation. The hotel would provide lodging for visitors of the campus and reduces vehicle trips associated with transit from surrounding hotels to the campus. The two hotels nearest to the project site are approximately two miles west of the campus and the next closest hotels are approximately three miles east of the campus on the west side of the I-405 freeway. Therefore, providing a hotel on campus would reduce trips from these hotels and the surrounding area. In addition, the project would provide short-term bicycle parking for hotel guests, restaurant patrons, and other site visitors. Access to facilities in close proximity would reduce the number and length of project-generated vehicle trips. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction policies, goals, or plans and would have a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 48

56 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 49

57 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The project site is currently developed with the Orange Grove Bistro restaurant. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing restaurant for construction of a hotel and new restaurant facility, which would not use, dispose of, or transport hazardous materials typically associated with industrial projects and operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine handling of hazardous materials. Potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents would be used by heavy machinery during construction of the project. However, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Because the project would involve demolition of the existing restaurant, a Limited Asbestos and Lead Survey Report was conducted by Citadel Environmental Services, Inc. on August 3, 2015 to determine the potential hazards associated with the restaurant. The Limited Asbestos and Lead Survey Report is included as Appendix E. The results of the Survey Report indicated the presence of Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM), Asbestos-Containing Construction Materials (ACCM), and Lead-Containing Materials (LCM) on the project site. To reduce the potential hazardous impacts associated with demolition of the existing restaurant, the following mitigation measures for handling ACM, ACCM, Presumed Asbestos Containing Materials (PACM), and LCM were adapted from the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Survey Report. Adherence to these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 50

58 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 Existing Toxic/Hazardous Materials Asbestos. All asbestos removal operations shall be performed by a Cal/OSHA-DOSHregistered and California-licensed asbestos contractor. All disturbance of ACMs, and/or abatement operations, shall be performed under the surveillance of a third-party Cal/OSHA Certified Asbestos Consultant. All disturbance of ACMs, and/or abatement operations, shall be performed in accordance with the Cal/OSHA requirements set forth in 8 CCR Given the location of the project site, all asbestos abatement must also be performed in accordance with SCAQMD requirements set forth in Rule 1403 as well as all other applicable State and federal rules and regulations. Lead. All construction work shall be subject to 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part Lead Exposure in Construction Interim Final Rule, which was adopted and incorporated into California s own standard Title 8 Code of California Regulations (CCR) Section LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The proposed project involves construction of a hotel and new restaurant facility on the CSUN campus. Given that the proposed project would be part of the CSUN campus, the project would be located within 0.25 of other CSUN facilities. The nearest off-campus school is Northridge Academy High School, located approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site. Because the proposed project would include a restaurant and hotel, operation of the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials typically associated with industrial operations. In addition, potentially hazardous materials utilized during construction, such as oil or fuel utilized by heavy-duty construction equipment, would be required to comply with local, State, and federal policies for handling such materials and equipment properly. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and LSTs, therefore, would not significantly impact the local community, including other CSUN campus facilities or off-campus schools. Given that construction activities would be temporary and operational emission would be below SCAQMD threshold levels, impacts associated with potential hazardous emissions would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The following databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section were checked (October 18, 2017) for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)/Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS)/Envirofacts database search State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker search for leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and other cleanup sites Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 51

59 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database for hazardous waste facilities or known contamination sites Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites The project site is not located on or directly adjacent to any known hazardous or contaminated sites. The USEPA is retiring the CERCLIS database and is replacing it with SEMS. The SEMS database search did not produce any results associated with the project site, indicating that the site is free of known hazards and contaminants (USEPA 2017b). A search on the Envirostor database did not identify any hazardous waste facilities or other cleanup sites within 1,000 feet of the project site. The Envirostor listing nearest to the site is approximately 0.5 mile north at Northridge Academy High School. This property had been identified as having soil contamination due to historic agricultural uses. However, a No Further Action was determined by the DTSC for the property as of January 18, 2002 (DTSC 2017). Therefore, potential impacts to the project site would not occur due to the distance of the cleanup site from the proposed project. According to Geotracker, the 76 gasoline station located approximately 450 feet southwest of the project site at the Nordhoff Street and Lindley Avenue intersection was under frequent monitoring due to a reported gasoline leak since However, the case was closed as of August 9, 2010 and was issued a No Further Action by the SWRCB. The 76 gasoline station currently has a LAFDpermitted underground storage tank (UST) (SWRCB 2015). However, there have not been any notices of violation since 2010, and no leaks have been reported for the UST at this facility. In addition, the USEPA s technical regulations for USTs require owners and operators to properly install tanks and report suspect releases, closures, leaks, and maintain records for operation and maintenance (USEPA 2017c). Based on the results of the database searches, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is located approximately 2.1 miles northwest of the Van Nuys Airport, which is the public airport nearest to the site. The site is not in a designated airport hazard area and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no impact from airport operations would occur. NO IMPACT 52

60 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No roads would be closed as a result of the construction or operation of the project, and the project would not involve the development of structures that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The design of any new access points would be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) to ensure that emergency access meets LAFD standards. Consequently, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The neighborhood of Northridge is an urbanized community and there are no wildlands in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed project is not located in a wildfire hazard area as identified in the City of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element, Exhibit D, Selected Wildfire Hazard Areas in the City of Los Angeles. The project site is not located in a fire buffer zone, a mountain fire district, or an area of known shallow methane accumulation (Los Angeles 1996). Construction of the proposed project would involve demolition of a restaurant for construction of a hotel and new restaurant. There would be no risk of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. As such, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 53

61 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project This page intentionally left blank. 54

62 Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning 9 Land Use and Planning Would the project: Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The site is predominately surrounded by other CSUN campus buildings and parking lots to the north, west, and east, as well as single-family residential uses across Nordhoff Street to the south and across Zelzah Avenue to the east. The proposed project would replace the existing restaurant with a new restaurant facility and a hotel on the CSUN campus. The proposed use would be compatible with surrounding university-related CSUN facilities and would not involve construction of any new infrastructure (such as a new road) that would divide the surrounding area. The project would include construction of two new ingress/egress driveways off Dearborn Street and Matador Road, and another extended driveway with exits off Matador Road (Figure 6, Site Plan). However, all proposed modifications would be confined to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any impacts related to physically dividing an established community. NO IMPACT b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project site s current land use is designated University Club/Alumni Center by the CSUN 2035 Master Plan Update (CSUN 2005a). According to the Master Plan Update Exhibit 41, Campus Land Use Plan, the project site is designated Auxiliary Campus Services and Natural Area for future development on the project site. According to the Master Plan Update, auxiliary facilities include amenities that are used by students, faculty, staff, and community members. In addition, food Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 55

63 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project services on the CSUN campus are an important factor in creating a dynamic campus community and most of the food venues include an associated outdoor area, and these food service spaces are important to the activation of open space areas (CSUN 2005a). Per the Master Plan Update, future development on the project site is intended to increase in size to incorporate expanded services. Although the proposed project would involve demolition of the existing restaurant, it includes a new restaurant and hotel, which would continue to accommodate students, faculty, community members, and visiting individuals with modern facilities. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable land use plans and policies. In addition, as discussed in the impact analyses for biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources, the project would include necessary mitigation measures and would not conflict with applicable policies aimed at mitigating environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Los Angeles. As previously discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project site does not support and habitats or natural communities and is not subject to any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any such plan and there would be no impact. NO IMPACT 56

64 10 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 57

65 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Impact No Impact g. Place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including that occurring as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the USEPA has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control both construction and operation (occupancy) stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing permitting requirements. The project would be required to comply with the NPDES permitting system. Under the conditions of the permit, the project applicant would be required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges, develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project construction activities, and perform inspections of the SWPPP measures and control practices to ensure conformance. In February 2013, the SWRCB adopted a renewed Phase II General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), since Phase II Small MS4s are not regulated under the municipal Phase I regulations. The permit designated most California State University (CSU) campuses, including CSUN, as Non-Traditional MS4s. Non-Traditional MS4s are operators of substantial storm drain systems that are owned by State or federal government entities. According to the CSU Post-Construction BMPs Guidance Document, requirements in the Phase II General Permit for Small MS4s are phased in by year over the term of the permit, which is five years. During year two of the Phase II General Permit, Non-Traditional MS4s are required to implement a Post-Construction Storm Water Management Program (SWMP), which includes a 58

66 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality combination of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMP) that control surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Structural BMP functions include mechanisms that store or detain runoff such that stormwater constituents settle out or are filtered and trapped by underlying soil or media. Non-structural BMPs are such measures as literature and signage that encourage facility users to eliminate non-stormwater discharges into the storm drain system and include maintenance programs, spill prevention plans, and street sweeping (CSU 2014). The CSU Post-Construction BMPs Guidance Document provides CSU campuses with system-wide guidance for design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of post-construction BMP elements in order to provide permit compliance with the SWRCB Phase II General Permit for Small MS4s (CSU 2014). The proposed project would be required to control pollutant discharge by implementing a combination of structural and non-structural BMPs during general operation of the project to ensure that stormwater runoff meets the established water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Conformance with the requirements in Section 402 of the CWA and Phase II General Permit for Small MS4s would ensure that the proposed project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially decrease groundwater, or interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) supplies Northridge with potable and recycled water. Due to limited local water resources, LADWP depends heavily on imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. However, local groundwater supplies are an important piece of LADWP s water portfolio, providing nearly 30 percent of total supply in drought years (LADWP 2013). Operation of the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site due to construction of a restaurant, hotel, and parking lot, which would occupy approximately 80 percent of the project site. However, the proposed center courtyard area and quad would include permeable paving, which would allow percolation of stormwater for groundwater recharge. In addition, construction of the project would not include substantial excavation for subterranean levels and, therefore, would not interfere with the local groundwater table. Impacts related to the depletion of groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 59

67 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project The project involves the demolition of an existing restaurant for construction of a new restaurant and a hotel on a predominantly pervious project site. Operation of the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site due to construction of a restaurant, hotel, and parking lot, which would occupy approximately 80 percent of the project site. However, the project would not cause an alteration of streams or rivers since there are no existing water resources located on the project site. Although a pond is located west of the project site, all project construction and ground disturbance would be limited to the project site and, therefore, would not affect the pond. Construction of the proposed project would be required to adhere to NPDES standards, which require the implementation of a SWPPP for the elimination or reduction of nonstormwater discharges during project construction activities. Compliance with the NPDES would ensure that impacts associated with on- or off-site erosion and flooding from project construction are less than significant. In addition, per the SWRCB Phase II General Permit for Small MS4s and CSU Post-Construction BMPs Guidance document, the proposed project would be required to control pollutant discharge by implementing a combination of structural and non-structural CMPs during general operation of the project to ensure that stormwater runoff meets established water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Compliance with NPDES and permit requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with erosion, siltation, or flooding on- and off-site to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT g. Would the project place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Would the project place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including that occurring as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located in Zone X, which is characterized as an area of minimal flood hazard and having a less than 0.2 percent annual chance for a flood (Map #06037C1285F, September 26, 2008) (FEMA 2008). In addition, Exhibit F, 100-Year & 500-Year Flood Plains, and Exhibit G, Inundation & Tsunami Hazard Areas, of the City of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element indicate that the project site is not within a 100- or 500-year flood plain area, inundation area, for flood control basin (Los Angeles 1996). Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to impede flood flows or place housing or structures in a 100-year flood hazard area and there would be no impact. NO IMPACT j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? As indicated in City of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element Exhibit G, Inundation & Tsunami Hazard Areas, the project site lies outside of potential tsunami and inundation hazard areas (Los Angeles 1996). In addition, the project site does not lie near a large body of water that could experience a seiche, nor is the project located in hillside area that would be vulnerable to mudflow. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. NO IMPACT 60

68 11 Mineral Resources Would the project: Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources Less than Impact No Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? According to the City of Los Angeles General Plan Conservation Element, potential mineral deposit sites in the city lie along the flood plain from the San Fernando Valley through Downtown Los Angeles. However, as shown in in Exhibit A, Mineral Resources, of the City s General Plan Conservation Element, the project site not located in a mineral deposit zone (Los Angeles 2001). In addition, the project site is located in an urbanized setting that is predominately developed with residential, commercial, and institutional uses with no mineral resource extraction activities occurring on-site or in adjacent areas. The California Geological Survey (CGS) Information Warehouse was also searched for mineral land classification of the project site (DOC 2016). According to the CGS mineral land classification maps, the project site is not in an MRZ-2 zone or other known or potential mineral resource area (DOC 1979). Because there are no known mineral resources or mineral resource extraction on or near the project site and the proposed project does not involve the use or mining of mineral resources, the project would have no impact on the availability or recovery of mineral resources. NO IMPACT Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 61

69 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project This page intentionally left blank. 62

70 12 Noise Would the project result in: Potentially Impact Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Environmental Checklist Noise Less than Impact No Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above those existing prior to implementation of the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (db) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dba). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dba level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dba, and a sound that is 10 dba less than the ambient sound level has no effect on Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 63

71 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dba greater than the ambient noise level to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dba change in the ambient noise level is noticeable, while 1-2 dba changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of dba, while areas adjacent to arterial streets are typically in the 50 to 60+ dba range. Normal conversational levels are usually in the 60 to 65 dba range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dba can interrupt conversations. Noise from point sources, such from individual pieces of machinery, typically attenuates (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dba per doubling of distance from the noise source. Noise levels from lightly traveled roads typically attenuate at a rate of about 4.5 dba per doubling of distance. Noise levels from heavily traveled roads typically attenuate at about 3 dba per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. Generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces noise levels by about 5 dba, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dba (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2006). The manner in which buildings in California are constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of approximately 20 to 25 dba with closed windows (FTA 2006). In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root mean squared) sound pressure level within the measurement period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measurement period. The time period in which noise occurs is also important since nighttime noise tends to disturb people more than daytime noise. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10-dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dba penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dba penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL typically do not differ by more than 1 dba. In practice, CNEL and Ldn are often used interchangeably. The relationship between peak hourly Leq values and associated Ldn values depends on the distribution of traffic over the entire day. There is no precise way to convert a peak hourly Leq to Ldn. However, in urban areas near heavy traffic, the peak hourly Leq is typically 2-4 dba lower than the daily Ldn. In less heavily developed areas, such as suburban areas, the peak hourly Leq is often roughly equal to the daily Ldn. For rural areas with little nighttime traffic, the peak hourly Leq will often be 3-4 dba greater than the daily Ldn value (California State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 1999). The project site is located in an urban area. Therefore, the peak hourly Leq at the project site would be 2-4 dba lower than the daily Ldn value. Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas noise is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by manmade 64

72 Environmental Checklist Noise activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB) in the U.S. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources in buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Project Site Noise Conditions The primary off-site noise sources in the project area are motor vehicles (e.g., automobiles, buses, and trucks) along Nordhoff Street and Matador Road at the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site, respectively. Motor vehicle noise is a concern because it is characterized by a high number of individual events that often create sustained noise levels. Ambient noise levels would be expected to be highest during the daytime and rush hour unless congestion slows speeds substantially. To determine ambient noise levels at the project site, four 15-minute sound measurements were taken using an Extech ANSI Type II sound level meter between 4:50 PM and 6:05 PM on September 27, 2017, (refer to Appendix F for sound measurement data). The measurements were taken on a weekday during the afternoon peak traffic hour time to represent maximum noise levels in the area. See Figure 11 for the locations of sound measurements. As shown in Table 9, noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project site range from 54.3 dba Leq and 74.7 dba Leq. Table 9 Project Sound Level Monitoring Results Measurement Number Measurement Location Sample Time Distance to Centerline of Roadway (in feet) Leq[15] (dba) 1 1 Nordhoff Street, south of the project site 4:50 PM 5:05 PM Zelzah Avenue, east of the project site 5:11 PM 5:26 PM Matador Road, eastern boundary of project site 5:30 PM 5:45 PM Orange Grove 5:49 PM 6:04 PM N/A See Appendix F for noise monitoring data. See Figure 11 for a map of the sound measurement locations. 1 The equivalent noise level (Leq) is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). For this measurement, the Leq was over a 15-minute period (Leq[15]). 2 This measurement was taken within the existing Orange Grove. Source: Rincon Consultants, field measurements on September 27, 2017 using ANSI Type II Integrating sound level meter Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 65

73 California State University, Northridge CSUN On-Campus Hotel Project Figure 11 Sound Measurement Locations 66