WIXLIB

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedLess thanSignificantImpactNoImpactPLEASE NOTE THAT EACH AND EVERY RESPONSE IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST IS SUMMARIZEDFROM AND BASED UPON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN ATTACHMENT B, EXPLANATION OF CHECKLISTDETERMINATIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE APPLICABLE RESPONSE IN ATTACHMENT B FOR A DETAILED DISCUSSION OFCHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS.3.1 AESTHETICSWould the project:a.Have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista?b.Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildingswithin a state scenic highway?c.Substantially degrade the existing visualcharacter or quality of the site and itssurroundings?d.Create a new source of substantial lightor glare which would adversely affectday or nighttime views in the area?3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCESWould the project:a.Convert Prime Farmland, UniqueFarmland, or Farmland of StatewideImportance (farmland), as shown on themaps prepared pursuant to theFarmland Mapping and MonitoringProgram of the California ResourcesAgency, to non-agricultural use?b.Conflict with existing zoning foragricultural use, or a Williamson Actcontract?c.Conflict with existing zoning for, orcause rezoning of, forest land (asdefined in Public Resources Code section1220(g)), timberland (as defined byPublic Resources Code section 4526), ortimberlandzonedTimberlandProduction (as defined by GovernmentCode section 51104(g))?Meridian Consultants087-001-151.0-2Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedd.Result in the loss of forest land orconversion of forest land to non-forestuse?e.Involve other changes in the existingenvironment which, due to theirlocation or nature, could result inconversion of farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.3 AIR QUALITYWould the project:a.Conflictwithorobstructimplementation of the applicable airquality plan?b.Violate any air quality standard orcontribute substantially to an existing orprojected air quality violation?c.Result in a cumulatively considerablenet increase of any criteria pollutant forwhich the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federalor state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions, whichexceed quantitative thresholds forozone precursors)?d.Expose sensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations?e.Create objectionable odors affecting asubstantial number of people?3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESWould the project:a.Have a substantial adverse effect, eitherdirectlyorthroughhabitatmodifications, on any species identifiedas a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by TheCalifornia Department of Fish and Gameor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-3Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedb.Have a substantial adverse effect on anyriparian habitat or other sensitivenatural community identified in local orregional plans, policies, regulations or bythe California Department of Fish andGame or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?c.Have a substantial adverse effect onfederally protected wetlands as definedby Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through directremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption, or other means?d.Interfere substantially with themovement of any native resident ormigratory fish or wildlife species or withestablished native resident or migratorywildlife corridors, or impede the use ofnative wildlife nursery sites?e.Conflict with any local policies orordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources, such as tree preservationpolicy or ordinance?f.Conflict with the provisions of anadopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, orstate habitat conservation plan?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCESWould the project:a.Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of a historical resourceas defined in State CEQA Section15064.5?b.Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of an archaeologicalresource pursuant to State CEQA Section15064.5?c.Directly or indirectly destroy a uniquepaleontological resource or site orunique geologic feature?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-4Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedd.Disturb any human remains, includingthose interred outside of formalcemeteries?e.Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of site, feature, place,cultural landscape, sacred place, orobject with cultural value to a CaliforniaNative American Tribe that is listed ordetermined eligible for listing on theCaliforniaregisterofhistoricalresources, listed on a local historicalregister, or otherwise determined by thelead agency to be a tribal culturalresource?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILSWould the project:a.Expose people or structures to potentialsubstantial adverse effects, includingthe risk of loss, injury or death involving:i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake FaultZoning Map issued by the stategeologist for the area or based onother substantial evidence of aknown fault? Refer to division ofminesandgeologyspecialpublication 42.ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?iii. Seismic-relatedgroundincluding liquefaction?failure,iv. Landslides?b.Result in substantial soil erosion or theloss of topsoil?c.Be located on a geologic unit or soil thatis unstable, or that would becomeunstable as a result of the project, andpotential result in on- or off-sitelandslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction, or collapse?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-5Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedd.Be located on expansive soil, as definedin table 18-1-b of the Uniform BuildingCode (1994), creating substantial risks tolife or property?e.Have soils incapable of adequatelysupporting the use of septic tanks oralternative waste water disposalsystems where sewers are not availablefor the disposal of waste water?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSWould the project:a.Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, that mayhave a significant impact on theenvironment?b.Conflict with an applicable plan, policyor regulation adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhousegases?3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALSWould the project:a.Create a significant hazard to the publicor the environment through the routinetransport, use, or disposal of hazardousmaterials?b.Create a significant hazard to the publicor the environment through reasonablyforeseeable upset and accidentconditions involving the release ofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment?c.Emit hazardous emissions or handlehazardous or acutely hazardousmaterials, substances, or waste withinone‐quarter mile of an existing orproposed school?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-6Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedd.Be located on a site which is included ona list of hazardous materials sitescompiled pursuant to Government CodeSection 65962.5 and, as a result, wouldit create a significant hazard to thepublic or the environment?e.For a project located within an airportland use plan or, where such a plan hasnot been adopted, within two miles of apublic airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working inthe project area?f.For a project within the vicinity of aprivate airstrip, would the project resultin a safety hazard for the people residingor working in the project area?g.Impair implementation of or physicallyinterfere with an adopted emergencyresponse plan or emergency evacuationplan?h.Expose people or structures to asignificant risk of loss, injury or deathinvolving wildland fires, including wherewildlands are adjacent to urbanizedareas or where residences areintermixed with wildlands?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYWould the project:a.Violate any water quality standards orwaste discharge requirements?b.Substantially deplete groundwatersupplies or interfere substantially withgroundwater recharge such that therewould be a net deficit in aquifer volumeor a lowering of the local groundwatertable level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop toa level which would not support existingland uses or planned land uses for whichpermits have been granted)?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-7Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith ally alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, includingthrough the alteration of the course of astream or river, in a manner whichwould result in substantial erosion orsiltation on or offsite?d.Substantially alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, includingthrough the alteration of the course of astream or river, or substantially increasethe rate or amount of surface runoff in amanner which would result in floodingon or offsite?e.Create or contribute runoff water whichwould exceed the capacity of existing orplanned stormwater drainage systemsor provide substantial additional sourcesof polluted runoff?f.Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality?g.Place housing within a 100-year floodhazard area as mapped on federal floodhazard boundary or flood insurance ratemap or other flood hazard delineationmap?h.Place within a 100‐year flood hazardarea structures which would impede orredirect flood flows?i.Expose people or structures to asignificant risk of loss, inquiry or deathinvolving flooding, including flooding asa result of the failure of a levee or dam?j.Inundation by seiche, tsunami, ormudflow?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNINGWould the project:a.Physicallydividecommunity?Meridian Consultants087-001-15anestablishedIS-8Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedb.Conflict with any applicable land useplan, policy or regulation of an agencywith jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the generalplan, specific plan, coastal program, orzoning ordinance) adopted for thepurpose of avoiding or mitigating anenvironmental effect?c.Conflict with any applicable habitatconservation plan or natural communityconservation plan?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.11 MINERAL RESOURCESWould the project:a.Result in the loss of availability of aknown mineral resource that would beof value to the region and the residentsof the State?b.Result in the loss of availability of alocally important mineral resourcerecovery site delineated on a localgeneral plan, specific plan, or other landuse plan?3.12 NOISEWould the project:a.Exposure of persons to or generation ofnoise levels in excess of standardsestablished in the local general plan ornoise ordinance, or applicable standardsof other agencies?b.Exposure of people to or generation ofexcessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels?c.A substantial permanent increase inambient noise levels in the projectvicinity above levels existing without theproject?d.A substantial temporary or periodicincrease in ambient noise levels in theproject vicinity above levels existingwithout the project?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-9Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatede.For a project located within an airportland use plan or, where such a plan hasnot been adopted, within two miles of apublic airport or public use airport,would the project expose peopleresiding or working in the project area toexcessive noise levels?f.For a project within the vicinity of aprivate airstrip, would the projectexpose people residing or working in theproject area to excessive noise levels?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSINGWould the project:a.Induce substantial population growth inan area either directly (for example, byproposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example, splace substantial numbers of existinghousing necessitating the constructionof replacement housing elsewhere?c.Displace substantial numbers of peoplenecessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere?3.14 PUBLIC SERVICESWould the project:a.Result in substantial adverse physicalimpacts associated with the provision ofnew or physically altered governmentalfacilities, need for new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, theconstruction of which could causesignificant environmental impacts, inorder to maintain acceptable serviceratios, response times or otherperformance objectives for any of thepublic services:i. Fire protection?ii. Police protection?iii. Schools?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-10Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedLess thanSignificantImpactNoImpactiv. Parks?v. Other public facilities?3.15 RECREATIONWould the project:a.Would the project increase the use ofexisting neighborhood and regionalparks or other recreational facilities suchthat substantial physical deterioration ofthe facility would occur or beaccelerated?b.Does the project include recreationalfacilities or require the construction orexpansion of recreational facilitieswhich might have an adverse physicaleffect on the environment?3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFICWould the project:a.Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishingmeasures of effectiveness for theperformance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes oftransportation including mass transitand non-motorized travel and relevantcomponents of the circulation system,includingbutnotlimitedtointersections, streets, highways andfreeways, pedestrian and bicycle pathsand mass transit?b.Conflict with an applicable congestionmanagement program, including butnot limited to level of service standardsand travel demand measures, or otherstandards established by the countycongestion management agency fordesignated roads or highways?c.Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in trafficlevels or a change in location thatresults in substantial safety risks?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-11Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith ally increase hazards due to adesign feature (e.g., sharp curves armequipment)?e.Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in trafficlevels or a change in location thatresults in substantial safety risks?f.Result in inadequate emergency access?g.Conflict with adopted policies, plans orprograms regarding public transit,bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, orotherwise decrease the performance orsafety of such facilities?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.17 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMSWould the project:a.Exceedwastewatertreatmentrequirements of the applicable regionalwater quality control board?b.Require or result in the construction ofnew water or wastewater treatmentfacilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of whichcould cause significant environmentaleffects?c.Require or result in the construction ofnew stormwater drainage facilities orexpansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could causesignificant environmental effects?d.Have sufficient water supplies availableto serve the project from existingentitlements and resources, or are newor expanded entitlements needed?e.Result in a determination by thewastewater treatment provider whichserves or may serve the project that ithas adequate capacity to serve theproject’s projected demand in additionto the provider’s existing commitments?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-12Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

1.0 Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedPotentially Less than Significantwith MitigationSignificantImpactIncorporatedf.Be served by a landfill with sufficientpermitted capacity to accommodate theproject’s solid waste disposal needs?g.Comply with federal, state, and localstatutes and regulations related to solidwaste?h.Other Utilities and Service Systems?Less thanSignificantImpactNoImpact3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCEa.Does the project have the potential todegrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of fishor wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlifepopulation to drop below self-‐‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate aplant or animal community, reduce thenumber or restrict the range of a rare orendangered plant or animal or eliminateimportant examples of the majorperiods of California history orprehistory?b.Does the project have impacts which areindividually limited, but ble”meansthattheincremental effects of a project areconsiderablewhenviewedinconnection with the effects of pastprojects, the effects of other currentprojects, and the effects of probablefuture projects)?c.Does the project have environmentaleffects which will cause substantialadverse effects on human beings, eitherdirectly or indirectly?Meridian Consultants087-001-15IS-13Fox Master Plan Initial StudyApril 2016

2.0 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONThe environmental analyses presented herein include the use of official City of Los Angeles and othergovernment source reference materials related to various environmental impact categories (e.g.,Hydrology, Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, etc.). Based on Applicant information provided in theMaster Land Use Application and Environmental Assessment Form, impact evaluations are based on thestated facts contained therein, including but not limited to the reference materials identified herein, fieldinvestigations of the Project Site, and other relevant reference materials. Both the Initial Study Checklistand Checklist Explanations, in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles’s Adopted Thresholds Guide andCEQA Guidelines, were used to reach reasonable conclusions on environmental impacts as mandatedunder the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Project as identified in the project description may cause potentially significant impacts on theenvironment. Therefore, this environmental analysis concludes that an Environmental Impact Report shallbe prepared to address all potentially significant adverse impacts on the envir

City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Environmental Analysis Section City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012 April 2016 . Proposed on-site development would include a mix of new (1) Creative Office Space; (2) Specialty Space; (3) Stage Space; (4) Facility Support Space; and (5) Utility Support Space. The